Supporting veterans

As noted in the post below, the Cramer flyer touts his support for veterans.

Cramer supports giving back to our veterans by allowing Idahoans to donate their money for veteran support services through a volunteer check-box on Idaho tax returns.

Boy, that's some support. He's willing to allow another box to be added to the Idaho tax forms. Huge. Way to give back to vets.

Update: Cramer left a comment on the previous post that shed a bit of light on this issue. So, instead of criticising Cramer for lukewarm support, I'll redirect that criticism at Veritas Advisers. I guess they think that touting the check box will impress voters. Perhaps as you can tell from the above paragraph, I think it does the opposite.

Based on Cramer's comment, I can't tell if he really supports veterans, or if his agreement with the checkoff box was more in the lines of, "Why not allow the check off, it ain't hurting anything."

Hit job on Sen Corder?

It’s a bit late now, and I guess the “appropriate” outcome happened, but it’s still interesting to look at some of the tactics used in the campaign.

A friend of mine (Geoff; look up gadfly in the dictionary and you'll see his picture) received this mailer supporting, as opposed to “from”, Clayton Cramer. As you see, it prominently features a soldier. If the voter was not familiar with Cramer, the voter might think that Cramer is a soldier (rather than a fighting keyboardist). Also, I think it pretty shamelessly appropriates a soldier’s image for political purposes. “Let’s exploit the troops for political gain!”



Geoff, a recently retired soldier and Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran, emailed Cramer and objected to the flyer. Cramer replied that he didn’t send it; IACI did. I think Cramer might have blogged about it, so you might be able to read more there. His point was, he had an independent campaign and had no control over or coordination with IACI for the flyer. IACI was just mad at Corder and wanted him out, for failure to obey IACI direction, I guess.

So, Geoff contacted IACI, who just blamed it on the flyer “contractor” and shrugged it off.

We would thank him for his feedback as we are thanking you. We have discussed the matter with our contractor and appreciate the input.

That’s pretty much it. They appreciate the feedback. No apology or admission it was wrong. Between May 16 and May 23, 2008, IACI spent $11,045.56 with said contractor on behalf of Cramer on these flyers and other ads. As my friend described it, “a last minute hit job.”



Who is this contractor, this Veritas Advisors, whose name I was happily ignorant of just yesterday? Have a look. (Click any image to enlarge.)



Yes, that is J. Kirk Sullivan, Chair of the Idaho Republican Party. Does it seem odd to you that the party chair would participate in an IACI scheme to knock off a sitting Republican senator? How about that they’d use a misleading flyer implying that the candidate was a soldier?

On their website, Veritas Advisors lists “Truth” and “Integrity” as a firm values. If so, they ought to at least apologize for the misleading flyer.

Update: Changed Rep to Senator.

Crossing over

I'm going to vote today, and I'm going to vote a Republican ballot. I'm not doing it to make mischief, but rather to have a say in who represents me. In my district, the only Democratic candidate is Sharon Fisher, which means that the other representative seat and the senate seat will be selected in the primary. My only hope to have any influence on those races is to cross dress and vote Republican. Also, I like to vote against Bill Sali at every opportunity.

So, here ya go Mr. Beck; more proof of Democrats crossing over.

Faux independents

The Statesman isn't going to endorse a Republican candidate for the 1st congressional district, saying that the choice is between an erratic freshman or a passive challenger. The Statesman makes a good case for Sali being erratic. Wingnuttiness combined with being a freshman and being in the minority party means that Sali won't be able to actually accomplish much, so to generate headlines he tries stunts, i.e., he's erratic.

I don't know Matt Salisbury, but he sure hasn't done much to impress so far, so I can't dispute the passive label.

My point is that this match up reveals the truth behind a canard I hear every election. Someone will be noting how reflexively Republican Idaho voters are, and the reply is "If Democrats would put up good candidates they 'd get more people elected." Well, yeah, it does take good candidates. Larry Grant was a good candidate and a moderate Democrat, and Sali beat him. Walt Minnick has been and still is a good candidate, another moderate Democrat, and yet he's certainly not a shoo in.

If the reds respond to this by saying, "These guys are too liberal," then I say that statement is just code for saying "Any Democrat is too liberal, therefore we must always vote red." A third of Idaho's electorate claims to be independent. I've said before that these folks may think they're independent, but they don't vote that way. Anyone who claims to be independent but votes for Sali over Grant or Minnick ought to reassess and admit that they're Republican to the core.

They're entitled

Mike Moyle is angry because he's being challenged in the upcoming primary. DFO notes, with links ,that Jim Risch, Bill Sali and Mike Simpson are all ducking debates.

The Statesman notes

The general public and some members of the press were barred from the taping of Wednesday's Republican debate among candidates for the U.S. Senate by debate organizer KTVB-Channel 7.

Won't attend debates, won't let the public come to the debate, mad because of a primary challenge; what do all three of these have in common?

Pure disdain for voters, that's what. These guys think they're just entitled to the office and the damn election is getting in their way. Where does the sense of entitlement come from? From the non-thinking Idaho voter* who reflexively votes R. As I've argued before, conservatives ought to vote D this year, just this once, and end up taking back their party. Scaring the R leaders who think they aren't accountable would be well worth electing a few Dems for a term.

So, conservatives, go ahead. The Dems aren't going to run amok in one term. Next election you can go back to voting a strict party line R. You supposed independents who never vote D, you also should vote D this election. Let the politicians know that they ignore you at their peril.

*I'm not saying if you vote R you aren't thinking. I'm saying that many voters never consider not voting R.

Enlightenment

Cramer has asked to be enlightened. I'll be happy to school him.

In looking at the Fiscal Year 2009 budget, I see that the state liquor stores are forecast to provide $11,574,000 in revenue from sales. But the State Liquor Dispensary's FY2009 budget recommendation from the governor is $19,205,100. Unless I'm missing something--or the state liquor stores are returning almost as much profit from non-liquor as they do from liquor--Idaho would appear to be subsidizing liquor sales.

If you can enlighten me on this subject, I would be obliged.

Okay. This might be the only time you ever listen to me.

Your $11,574,000 is liquor revenue into the general fund. And yes, the Gov requested $19,205,000 for an operating budget. It appears you got your numbers from the 2009 Legislative Budget Book. You have to understand state gov't a bit, and you have to look at more than one source.

The state budget has general fund and dedicated fund agencies. The dedicated fund agencies run off their own revenue source, i.e., not taxpayer money. ISLD is a dedicated fund agency. We drinkers fund it.

If you refer to the 2007 Annual Report of the ISLD (the 2009 year ain't over yet), you'll see that sales were $121.6 mil, profit was $42.4 mil. The $19 mil number is the appropriation, i.e., the legislature authorizing the ISLD to spend that dough.

The ISLD distributed $39,152,572 in 2007 (held back $3 mil). $9,577,666 to the General Fund, $9,566,600 to counties, $14,334,900 to cities, $1.2 mil to public schools, and a few other small distributions. So no, no subsidy of the ISLD. Quite the opposite. Drinkers are subsidizing the General Fund nearly $10 mil a year.

GI Bill

Chris links to a Huffington Post article about Larry Craig throwing up road blocks to updating the GI Bill. Julie has the link as well.

Soldiers have, at least since the 80s when I became an officer, tended to be conservative and Republican. Part of that is just a function of Idaho demographics; Idahoans are in the Guard, Idahons lean conservative, the Guard Idaho is populated by conservatives. I've rubbed shoulders plenty with soldiers from elsewhere, and can confidently say that, yep, a pretty conservative crowd. They're not going to flip and become Democrats, but they might just not vote for a someone like Craig (he'll be gone) who works against such a personal interest.

I'm going to ask around of my Guard buddies what they think of Craig opposing the update to the GI Bill.

Dream ticket

Given the Barack Obama is apparently going to be the Democratic nominee, which thrills me, I can see a dream ticket. And that is, President Obama, and Attorney General John Edwards.

I would love to see an AG who is committed to enforcing the law, and to using the office to go after corporate abusers. Elliott Spitzer, before his fall from grace, embodied a prosecutorial style and held prosecutorial priorities that I think were good for working people of America. I think that John Edwards would do the same on the higher level.

Corruption in office, war crimes, rigged and corrupt contracting, cronyism, kleptocracy, lying under oath, violating disclosure and good government laws, all are burning issues that need to be addressed. I want back an America I can be proud of, one that sets the highest ethical standards, one that helps build the middle class, one that protects the rights of citizens and minorities, and that one has a trustworthy and neutral Department of Justice. I think Edwards can really help bring this back.

Activist Judges

Republicans, especially the religious right, love to complain about activist judges. The right has somehow conflated abortion and activism, and various other issues, and have created a bogeyman that they use to motivate their voters and to beat up the Democrats. Ask anyone "Which party appoints liberal (or activist) judges" and of course you'll hear that it's the Democrats.

This isn't borne out in reality. This chart on Wikipedia takes some studying to figure out, but once you do it's pretty revealing. Here are the facts.

Of the current 9 Justices on the Supreme Court, 7 have been appointed by Republicans. Bill Clinton appointed 2, Jimmy Carter 0. In 1968 4 were appointed by Republicans, 5 by Dems. By 1972 however, 6 were appointed by GOPers and 3 by Dems, and since 1976, 7 or 8 of the justices sitting were appointed by Republicans.

For over 30 years Dems have appointed only 1 or 2 of the sitting justices. The hew and cry about Democrats appointing liberal judges is just a smokescreen, a way to scare uninformed conservatives into voting Republican.

Kuna's farmers market

I stopped by Kuna's farmers market today, held under the huge flag.



Not a big crowd, but pretty good for Kuna. Also available at Sandstone, asparagus picked this morning.



VogtVogel farms selling beef and pork, and also selling food. Note the guy on the right in the apron.



Here's the $2.50 breakfast sandwich. Took them 20 minutes to serve it up, but it was extremely tasty once I got it. It's a take off on an egg mcmuffin, but instead of sausage they gilled up a thick and deliciously spiced hamburgerhomemade sausage patty, using their own raised beef pork. Toasted the English muffin on the grill.



A Statesman photog was there. That's her press ID hanging around her neck. but I didn't catch her name. She was packing some serious photo hardware. We might get to see a pic in the Sunday edition.



Last night I went to the F-Bar Arena in Kuna (I call it the Fubar Arena) just as the rodeo ended at about 9:15 PM. A surprising number of young folks attended, which might explain the 3 Army recruiters and their table next to the beer booth ($3 Coronas).



Out front this guy was allowing kids to sit on his longhorn cattle. I guess you can get away with wearing a pink shirt as a cowboy if you've got a longhorn.



Nice nose ring. Must be a married longhorn.



Update: Fixed a few errors.

On patrol

I was dreaming something along these lines last night, so I decided to post this. A brief video I shot from the back seat of a HMMWV in Kirkuk, Iraq. Kinda choppy, but gives you an idea. Just imagine that it's about 110 degrees while you're watching it. If you really want the experience, turn your speakers way up and hold one next to each ear. Things to look for: note the rubble and trash in the streets; the lack of curbs, stripes and signs (in a city of 800,000); the odd clunking noise is something going wrong with the suspension.

McCain on economics