Press "Enter" to skip to content
It could change the direction

It could change the direction

May 13, 2024

During these last few years, the Republican Party has strayed far from its traditional roots as a political party dedicated to bipartisanship, equal rights, pragmatism, civility and respect for the rights of others. The official party is now ruled over by Dorothy Moon, her cronies in the ill-named Idaho Freedom Foundation and a collection of regional bosses–Brent Regan in the North and Doyle Beck in the East. Dysfunction and conflict is the name of their game.

Traditional Republicans, like Butch Otter, Bruce Newcomb, Jerry Evans, Lydia Justice Edwards and Ben Ysursa, no longer influence the official party’s direction since the GOP closed its primary election contest in 2011. The closed primary has given Moon and the other bosses inordinate control of the type of Republican who gets elected. Culture warriors who foment chaos and have nothing positive to offer now predominate in the Legislature. That all could change in the May 21 primary.

I have spoken to hundreds of past and present Republicans over the last several years about the official party’s sharp departure from its traditional roots. These good people are despondent about the politics of fear, outrage and intimidation being practiced by the Moon faction of the GOP that now holds control of the party machinery. Most have had their fill and are ready to rise up and cast off the troublemaking chaos crowd.

The key is for everyone who is tired of the intimidation of librarians, teachers, doctors and other decent folk to turn out in force to vote the scoundrels out–to replace them with traditional problem-solving Republicans who will listen to voters and make government work for them. That means every conscientious Republican who can make it to the polls must make it a point of doing so. If they are not registered, they can register in-person at polling places during early voting or on Election Day, May 21.

Idaho’s 274,301 unaffiliated voters (independents) also need to register in the Republican primary because it is the only way they can have a say in the election. Again, they can register as a Republican at their polling place when they go to vote. Voters registered with another party cannot register for the GOP primary.

Dorothy Moon and her minions hit the ceiling when anyone suggests that independent voters exercise their legal right to vote in the Republican primary election. Moon contends that the GOP is a “private club” where only the faithful can participate and vote. She is dead wrong because Idaho law allows independents to register and vote in the Republican primary. Moon’s extremist branch of the Republican Party has tried to change that law a number of times and has always failed. After all, every taxpayer, regardless of party affiliation, pays for the election and nobody should be barred from voting in the GOP primary where most races are decided. Moon and her minions claim to be the law and order party, but they seem to place themselves above the law when it comes to voting.

Voters often fail to vote for those running for Precinct Committee offices, either because they don’t know what the office does or don’t know who the candidates are. These are important offices because the branch of the GOP that holds the majority of them in a county controls the county party and so on up the ladder. The Moon extremists gained control of the state party by overpowering traditional Republicans in these lower offices. Voters should find out who the reasonable candidates are and vote for them. The rule of thumb is to vote against Precinct Committeemen supported by the official party.

Unbiased voter guides are available for voters who are looking for reasonable candidates to support. The Idaho Education News has an excellent voter guide that focuses on important education issues, which can tell voters who is generally reasonable on a range of other issues and who is not. The League of Women Voters has a reliable voter guide. A comprehensive voter guide will soon be available in a link from the Take Back Idaho website. It will give a balanced portrait of candidates in both parties. A rule of thumb is to disregard voting recommendations of current GOP committees at all levels, since most are currently controlled by the Moon branch.

There is a real chance of wresting control of the Republican Party from the extremists who have used it as a culture war weapon. It is up to traditional Republicans and Independents to fix the damage on May 21. Don’t miss this golden opportunity!

 

What is a state treasurer?

What is a state treasurer?

May 12, 2024

The central campaign issue in Oregon’s Democratic primary contest for state treasurer turns out to be the nature of the job itself.

Maybe that shouldn’t be rare. Probably few voters consider the actual work a president, senator or school board member does when casting their ballots, though we should. In the case of the current Democratic treasurer primary in Oregon, quite a few voters likely will.

That’s partly because of the contrasting backgrounds of the two candidates on the ballot: state Sen. Elizabeth Steiner, a 13-year legislator from Portland, and Jeff Gudman, whose filing describes him as a “financial analyst, controller, treasurer, investor.” You can make an argument that both have parts of the background needed for the job.

The winner will face Republican Brian Boquist, a state senator who cannot serve another term because he participated in a six-week Republican Senate walkout. He’s running unopposed for his party’s nomination.

Treasurer may be the most technical of Oregon’s statewide elected posts, with core tasks that involve investment and bookkeeping. The treasurer oversees $100 billion in state investment, including in the Public Employee Retirement System, PERS.  The job also includes smaller responsibilities, including serving on the state Land Board, managing unclaimed property and some estates. But the essence is in managing that bankroll and  investing it. The more the investment yields, the less needed from taxpayers.

That technical side to the job is candidate Gudman’s calling card. He was a city councilor for Lake Oswego for eight years. But his emphasis on qualification concerns his education and professional background, a finance and management MBA from the Wharton School of Business, and work as a financial analyst for Hyster Company, which makes forklifts and lift trucks, and treasurer for divisions of Northwest Natural Gas. He has also helped run several nonprofits and been an investor for about 30 years.

He has a highly detailed platform relating to how the state invests money, calling for finding ways to invest to help local economic development and shift the entities where the state places money. The link between Gudman’s background and the treasurer’s work is clear.

At the same time, the treasurer’s office is not just money management: It also is political, and legally it is a partisan office. It is second in line of succession to the governor, after the secretary of state, a reasonable factor for voters to bear in mind. And questions of political philosophy do come into play even in finances. Gudman, for example, has said he would scale back the state’s policy of disinvesting in fossil fuel businesses, a shift from the current practice.

Politics is a problem for Gudman. His run for treasurer this year is his third. He lost twice to Democrat Tobias Read, who’s retiring as treasurer, while running as a Republican. He has said that he left the Republican Party, or that it left him, because of philosophical differences. His political background still may make a difference with Democratic primary voters, and it might matter as well in dealings with other Democratic elected officials.

The other candidate and apparent frontrunner, Elizabeth Steiner, doesn’t have that problem. She is well-established within the state’s Democratic Party, and her endorsement list offers an ample demonstration, with backing from many of the leading Democratic state officials, all the Democrats in the congressional delegation and Read, plus many of the usual Democratic support groups.

She is not a finance professional: By occupation, Steiner is a physician. She does have experience as a legislative budget writer and co-chairs the legislative audits committee, but her statements on state money management and investment have been thinner — aside from a general view on smart investing — than Gudman’s.

The counter would be that the treasurer’s office is extensively, and some would argue expensively as well, staffed, with officers who are professionals in finance and investment. The treasurer’s job is more in the area of policy direction and relations with outside organizations, including the Legislature.

In its editorial endorsing Gudman, The Oregonian/OregonLive argued, “We disagree on the importance of political experience for this position. In fact, deep political alliances can be problematic for a treasurer who has a legally binding responsibility to make decisions in the best financial interest of the beneficiaries whose funds are under management.”

Neither perspective should be absolute. Read is actually a mix of the two roles. He has an MBA from the University of Washington and worked as an assistant to the federal Department of the Treasury from 1999 to 2001, though his main private sector experience was mid-level corporate. He also served in the Oregon Legislature for years, developing close political relationships on the way. He’s now a candidate for secretary of state.

Voters in this primary will be faced with an unusually straight-ahead choice: What set of qualifications is most important? That direct consideration of personal backgrounds makes this possibly the most unusual election on the ballot in Oregon this season.

The column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

The week that was

The week that was

May 11, 2024

This is the week that was.

The governor of South Dakota, Kristi Noem, boasts in a book about herself that two decades ago she took the family dog, reportedly a rambunctious 14-month-old wirehaired pointer named Cricket, to a gravel pit on the family farm and shot the pup. For good measure, Noem also shot and killed a goat she didn’t like. Both animals had clearly annoyed her.

Noem, angling to play second fiddle as vice president to her political idol, Donald J. Trump, drew a few headlines for these confessions.

“Politicians and dog experts vilify South Dakota governor after she writes about killing her dog,” said The Associated Press.

“South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem stands by decision to kill dog, shared it in new book,” said CBS.

And my personal favorite in USA Today: “‘That was rough:’ Steve Bannon, Donald Trump Jr. criticize Kristi Noem for killing her dog.”

The two MAGA A-listers amplified:

“Kristi Noem, I think, is maybe a little too based,” Bannon added. “Shooting the puppy in the gravel.”

“Too based,” I’m informed, is slang for someone who maybe, just maybe, is a little too willing to speak their truth.

“That was not ideal,” Donald Trump Jr. responded. And both men laughed.

“Not ideal,” Trump Jr. said. “I read that and I’m like: ‘Who put that in the book?’ I was like ‘Your ghost writer must really not like you if they’re gonna include that one. That was rough.’ ”

But, if you are a puppy-shooting, right-wing governor, you never, ever admit a mistake. Blame the “fake news” Right?

No, really, right?

For Noem, the week that was continued into a second week. The headlines tumbled out. Including a new round of “what the hell was she thinking” when there were reports that she claimed she once met with the North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un. She didn’t. She lied.

Noem’s vice presidential chances seem as dead as a dog in a, well, you can finish the sentence.

Fun fact: Noem’s book has its official release May 8, but Amazon has already discounted the $30 cover price 37%. If you are interested in a copy of the book I would advise waiting, it will get cheaper, rather like the story it tells.

This was the week that was.

For the first time in American history, which, if my math is correct, is quite a long time, a former president continued to stand trial involving felony charges that he allegedly falsified business records in order to distribute hush money to make sure his affair with a porn star didn’t interfere with his 2016 presidential campaign. Just months before the alleged affair occurred, Trump’s wife, Melania, had given birth to their son, Barron. But don’t get bogged down in details.

The best comment on that trial so far — this will be famous — came from Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who clearly is having trouble with the position of the defendant in this case.

“You don’t pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you,” said Romney, a former LDS bishop.

Oh, the humanity.

Oh, the absurdity.

And since the defendant simply can’t keep his Big Mac hole shut, the judge in the so-called “hush money case” fined the former president $9,000 for violating an order that prohibits attacks on people involved in the case, you know, people like witnesses, for example.

So, taking stock: The first former president to be indicted — I forget how many counts there are in four separate cases — becomes the first former president to be fined for trying to threaten and intimidate witnesses in his porn star payoff case. Got it? And you thought “The Godfather” movies were really great.

Meanwhile the defendant attacked the judge — again.

This was the week that was, or perhaps the week after the week that was.

For the second time involving a case featuring the former president of the United States, the Supreme Court, to which the former guy appointed three of nine members, struggled mightily to avoid confronting the actual Trump case they were asked to consider.

You’ll recall a while back that the six Trumpy justices on the nation’s highest tribunal backflipped their way to a decision that a single state, in this case Colorado, even in the face of the clear language of the Constitution, simply could not prevent an insurrection-inciting former president from running and potentially winning the White House again. It was deemed essentially too messy by the justices to confront the real issue, the 14th Amendment language prohibiting an insurrectionist from holding high office. We had a Civil War around some of these issues, but the Supreme Court is meh.

That case, if you love historical footnotes, featured many references to Salmon P. – the “P” stands for Portland – Chase, a former senator, Treasury Secretary and Supreme Court chief justice. Chase, like all who make it to the highest tribunal, was a supremely ambitious man. He wanted to be president so badly he campaigned for the Free Soil ticket and sought the presidential nomination of the Republican Party and finally the Democratic Party. He never made it. A salmon swimming upstream.

Chase’s name came up in the Trump disqualification case because of a case he decided while sitting as a circuit judge. Chase’s ruling in 1869, as legal analyst James D. Zirin noted, “refused to vacate a criminal conviction because the trial judge had fought for the Confederacy.” Zirin pointed out that the ruling was hardly a grand precedent, particularly for a Supreme Court presented with a former president who actually instigated an real insurrection on January 6, 2021.

But dealing with the clear facts of January 6 was just too on point for our Supreme Court, so the justices invented an approach to effectively ignore a key provision to the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

Oh, and there is this: The wife of one of the justices actively participated in the planning of that January 6 coup, but that justice — Clarence Thomas — opined on the case nevertheless, upholding the rights of the insurrectionist. You don’t have to be right, apparently, but you do have to have power.

These politicians in robes are fixing to do the same thing with a second Trump case on the question of whether a former president has immunity from prosecution for crimes allegedly committed while president. The smart money is on a ruling of no absolute immunity, but a ruling containing just enough delay so as to remove the prospect of any legal consideration of an insurrectionist running for president before the November election.

No man is above the law, but if you know the right people …

Remember when conservative politicians used to rage against “activist” judges who made things up to arrive at a desired political outcome? Yup. I remember that, too.

This was the week that was.

Let’s end on high note. Time magazine is out with a big story about the former president’s plans once he’s back in the White House. The author of the piece, Eric Cortellessa, who did two lengthy interviews with the former president, said Trump would, among other things, “gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

There is more, lots more: concentration camps for migrants, a prosecution of Joe Biden, a federal takeover of education (so much for local control), an abandonment of NATO, and tariffs to make your inflation worries seem like so much background noise.

You really should read the whole article if only to see in one place how deranged and deluded the Grand Old Party of Lincoln has become under its indicted leader-king.

“Time included the full transcripts and a piece fact-checking Trump’s assertions,” historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote. “The transcripts reflect the former president’s scattershot language that makes little logical sense but conveys impressions by repeating key phrases and advancing a narrative of grievance. The fact-checking reveals that narrative is based largely on fantasy.”

That was our week.

More attention, generally speaking, was paid to a poor 14-month-old puppy shot dead in a South Dakota gravel pit by a once rising star of the MAGA world than to a mad would-be king in a New York courtroom. But somehow it all fits together.

Shooting a dog apparently is the “red line” no right-wing politician should cross. Flaying the Constitution, on the other hand, is the party platform.

 

At the last

At the last

May 10, 2024

Here’s a rule voters generally should stick with when it comes to making ballot decisions:

If a new attack appears in the period when voters are casting ballots, especially when it comes from anyone other than a candidate who has to stand up and take responsibility for it: Ignore it. Turn off the video, throw the mailer in the trash. With hardly any exceptions, absent a very strong reason, it should be dismissed as garbage.

I can think in this season of an exception to the rule, in a nonpartisan county office race outside of Idaho where relevant and important information - names and dates and official documents and so forth, in other words the receipts - about one of the candidates recently surfaced, and her opponent put his name on the online information sheet. He took responsibility for it. That one may have some validity.

But something like that is the exception to the rule.

In the last few days I’ve heard from several Idaho political people stunned by a wave of trash-talking messages - social media, mailers and more - from unclear sources, about Idaho candidates, many legislative (though it’s now reaching down to the precinct level). One email correspondent reported his area “has been hit with a voice mail blast, 2 text message blasts, and 7 mailers. Happening all over the state. Most with lies,” and much of it at least without identifiable sources.

The headlines have gone to maybe the most prominent one of these, attacking the highest-ranking Republican in the Idaho Senate, President pro tem Chuck Winder of Eagle. Winder has gotten crosswise with several members of his caucus who made a practice of attacking, in public, other caucus members, a practice he (like Senate leaders before him) considered unacceptable. He has enough support among the state Senate Republicans, however, to be repeatedly elected to serve as one of their leaders, something that would not happen if his colleagues considered him a disloyal Republican.

That’s the background for reviewing this message that showed up on many, many, many cell phones in the Eagle area in recent days:.

“Swamp King Chuck Winderr has done everything in his power to kill conservative legislation. … Stacking powerful committees with Democrats and RINOs. Keeping committee chairmanships in the hands of Never Trump liberals. Making sure conservative legislation doesn’t ever get a vote.”

No details, of course: No receipts; that would get in the way of the pure attack and the effort to drive up the recipient’s blood pressure. (This is all heat, no light.) It is wrong and it makes no sense, but then its origins lie a thousand miles from Idaho, among people who know little or nothing about Idaho or its Senate. And it may nonetheless work, at least to a point.

There is of course little or no chance for Winder to respond, which naturally must be by design. Winder has responded, "They're counting on trying to deceive voters, particularly the new voters that have come here for conservative reasons. Basically, lying about members of the Idaho Senate and what we stand for and what we voted for."

The message has an attribution to Make Liberty Win who is an arm of the Texas-based Young Americans For Liberty group. Right: A national organization is spending truly massive (in an Idaho context) amounts of money to influence Idaho legislature primary contests. At the very last moment before people cast their ballots.

You have to ask why. And people will be asking, but they’re not likely to get clear or substantive answers before election day.

So my strong recommendation to voters when it comes to attacks arising shortly before election day:

Insist on what the appellate courts would call “heightened scrutiny.” Insist on detailed receipts - specific times, places, names, texts, amounts and so on - along with full responses from the attacked party, before accepting even a single word of it.

That’s not just for the good of the attacked candidate. It’s for your own.

 

Wrongness

Wrongness

May 9, 2024

I have made a few mistakes in my life. God willing, I will live a few years to make more. When we make a mistake, it means we did something wrong. Admitting the mistake, accepting our wrong behavior, choice, maybe even thought, allows for us to learn to not make that mistake again. There will be so many others we can learn from.

Isn’t this life wonderful?

Idaho was and is becoming again a bastion for wrongness. We are a place where people can live free in their wrongness. We have the space; we have the tolerance to accept our neighbors’ crazy ideas.

I am OK with that. I love space, I love tolerance.

Except when it crosses a line.

This week a prosecutor in North Idaho decided it wasn’t crossing a line to yell racial slurs and profanities in a threatening way at guests in our fair state.

I’m not saying he was wrong to make that decision. Our legislators write laws carefully, thoughtfully to draw these lines that we can go right up to and not cross. The prosecutor must read these laws carefully and act on them.

I am saying the behavior in that beloved North Idaho city was wrong. But with no criminal charges, I guess those folks are left to figuring out their wrongness on their own.

The Idaho Senate responded quickly to this story. Within a week of this hitting the national press a resolution was introduced that: “denounces acts of racism and commits to eradicating the conditions that allow racial animus and undue prejudice to persist in Idaho.”

One Idaho Senator voted “NO” on this resolution. Senator Phil Hart, who represents Coeur d'Alene, voted against the resolution, both in his debate, and on the floor of the Idaho Senate. But only when he was forced to.

He tried to skate out of the vote by leaving the chambers before the roll call. The Senate Pro Tem, Chuck Winder did a “call of the Senate” which requires all Senator to return to their seats.

How you vote should be of note to your constituents. Phil came back and voted “no”. He’ll probably get reelected up there in that North Idaho district where it doesn’t cross a legal line to shout racial slurs and sexual threats to visitors of dark skin.

My Senator, Dan Foreman (Viola) voted for the resolution. I must give him that credit. You need to know; he did beat me in a remote election. Then he got beat, and then he won again. It’s fun to be in an Idaho legislative district where a Democrat has more than a snowball’s chance.

His debate on the floor argued against the Senate passing the resolution. He argued that the state, the Senate should not apologize. The perpetrator, the person who committed the act should.

Boy, can I agree with that. More people need to apologize. This world would be a lot better if there were more apologies and less growling.

Wag more, bark less.

Senator Herndon (Way North Idaho) did cast doubt on the veracity of the claims. “We don’t know if this really happened.”

Well, we now do.

We know it happened. We know there were multiple vehicles, and one perpetrator admitted to his behavior.

But, according to the laws of the state of Idaho, he didn’t cross a line.

So, in the realm of the laws that our legislators write, maybe it didn’t happen.

No line our legislature has seen fit to craft was crossed.

I respect this freedom they have given us.

But if my fellow citizens think such freedom is any sort of sanction for their wrong behavior, then our representatives need to be looking at the lines drawn, not toothless resolutions.

 

Doing the thinking for you

Doing the thinking for you

May 8, 2024

It’s easy to see why some Republicans don’t fit the mold of Dorothy Moon’s stale old party.

Generally, they vote for education budgets and think that programs – such as Launch – are creative approaches to keep young people in the Gem State. They oppose having taxpayer dollars to private schools and resist the notion that public libraries are glorified porn shops.

These legislators are independent thinkers, not guided by a “integrity in affiliation” doctrine, and they don’t consult with the Idaho Freedom Foundation before casting their votes.

So, the likes of Reps. Stephanie Mickelsen of Idaho Falls (first term) and Lori McCann of Lewiston (second term) are not going to get backing from their Republican central committees. Mickelsen was told she was not welcome to run as a Republican and McCann was publicly censured by party leaders in her area.

Mickelsen and McCann are not alone. A number of legislators throughout the state have been rejected in some form by central committees. Some wayward legislators have been invited to seek “guidance” from party leaders in the effort for them to mend their ways.

Kool-Aid, anyone?

Don’t expect Mickelsen and McCann to show up for those “guidance” sessions. But they view themselves as proud Republicans, and they are not going to let anyone deter them from running as such.

The stakes in this election go beyond a few legislative seats. Moon’s future as chair will be on the line, with spirited challenges in party precinct races. McCann and Mickelsen are seeing in their areas folks who are fed up with what Moon and her followers have brought to the party. Precinct races helped put Moon in power, and they also could boot her out if the turnover rate is heavy enough

As for her House position, McCann says she’s proud to run on her record. “Let’s fix the problems in the state that should be fixed, like education, public safety and agriculture. Why do we bring up a bill on cannibalism?”

In the end, she said, “It is the people who elect me – not the central committee and not the party. If I’m not doing a good job for the people, the ballot box will take care of that. The party should not be doing that – picking winners and losers in the primary.”

Mickelsen thinks that efforts by the Bonneville central committee will backfire, and that jilted legislators will prevail.

“People are beginning to realize that the central committee does not reflect the values of our community,” she said. “They (the central committees) basically are trying to take away the right of the voters – saying their voices count more than the voters. The voters have a way of taking care of those who are not Republican enough, or conservative enough, at the ballot box.”

Mickelsen says her record reflects that she is both Republican and conservative enough for her district – at least on the issues that matter, such as property tax relief and lowering the income-tax rate.

The two lawmakers are not going to end efforts from the right.

“Right now, candidates for legislative offices are likely inundating you with campaign literature,” said Ron Nate of Rexburg, president of the Idaho Freedom Foundation. “They are probably telling you how conservative they are, and how they spend your hard-earned tax dollars wisely. For some lawmakers, those statements are true. For others, those things couldn’t be further from the truth.”

The proof, he said, can be found in the IFF’s “Freedom Index,” which grades legislators on a variety of issues. This year, the IFF has added a “Rubber Stamp Club,” those legislators who support almost all spending bills.

“The government’s growth has outpaced inflation and population gains,” Nate says. “That means lawmakers are spending more than ever, while telling you they aren’t.”

Moon says the party’s “integrity in affiliation” is not an attempt to “purify” the party, but to inform voters about the platform and what candidates are supporting it.

“The platform represents the political positions of the Republican grassroots,” she said. “Every two years, delegates gather in a beautiful Idaho city to debate new planks for the platform. Changes or additions are first debated in the Platform Committee and then ratified by the convention as a whole.”

We’ll see how the platform committee looks after the primary elections, or if Moon holds onto her job as the state party chair.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Bucket listing

Bucket listing

May 7, 2024

You gotta "bucket list?"

I do.  Many friends do.  I'd guess millions of us in this world have a "bucket list."  Either written down or carried in our consciousness.

Written down is best.  That way you can't forget the items.  Don't worry if you want to change the order of things.  Bucket lists should be flexible.  Fluid.  Just because it's written doesn't mean you can't change your mind - or priorities - as new experiences come along.

Barb and I recently checked off a BIG one!  We went cruising.

We talked about it for years.  We knew we wanted to go.  But, where?  Europe.  South America.  Africa.  The Far East.

Having a travel agent for a neighbor helped us narrow down the list.

We decided to go down the West coast of Mexico.  Three opportunities to get off the ship during the week: Cabo San Lucas, Mazatlan and Puerto Vallerta.  Since we have friends in Mazatlan, the choice was made for us.  Mazatlan it would be.

Cruising is considered expensive by many.  While the up-front cost was a big consideration, you've got to remember three meals a day, a cabin the size of a hotel room for seven days and the free activities available which cruising.  Many activities.  And, for those of us who like to sip something smooth while we cruise, there's no charge.

You figure on a driving vacation, you're going to spend dollars for gas, motel-hotel rooms, meals and incidentals.  Not to mention wear and tear on our car.  So, from a budgeting standpoint, the totals are pretty similar.

Our ship had 20 decks.  20!  The crew numbered about 1,700.  Other guests totaled some 4,500.

Sounds like quite a crowd, right?

Well, as I said, there were 20 decks.  The ship was nearly 1,200 feet long.  With multiple swimming pools on multiple decks, more than a dozen bars, three main dining rooms and many quiet places where you could "sit-and-sip," those other 4,500 cruisers really didn't get in the way.  Nothing seemed crowded and there were very few lines at dining rooms or the theater.

There were some very talented young people performing in that theater.  Accompanied by a sizeable orchestra.  The show was excellent.

As Barb and I have talked about the cruising experience in the last week, we've decided we might like to do another one.  Most likely, North to Alaska and the inland waterway off the coast of Canada.  We'll see.

Cruising can be an expensive experience.  People can spend thousands for all sorts of things.  You can really run up a sizeable tab if that's your style.

But, as we found, it doesn't have to be costly.  You can be very comfortable - have many new experiences - meet people from everywhere - enjoy excellent dining and be entertained.  On a budget.  We've done it and we'll likely do it again.

Another benefit of our outing was to really review our "bucket list."  Some things that seemed important when we were younger don't seem as necessary now.  And, with this cruising experience as a foundation for further adventure, we've got some new topics for consideration.

Reflecting on the whole experience, the only negative we've come up with is - we wish we'd gone several years ago.

The "bucket list" has been updated.

 

What’s a conservative?

What’s a conservative?

May 6, 2024

I recently heard from a long-time Republican friend who was “troubled by how people just look for the word ‘conservative’ when they decide to vote. They are not looking outside the box to find out who candidates are, who they associate with, and deeper information on how long they have lived in Idaho.  There are so many small groups, like ConservativesOf:PAC, that are financing events for their ‘conservative’ candidates.”

My friend is absolutely correct. The “conservative” label is used by almost everyone running in the Republican Party’s closed primary election.  What does it mean and how do you tell if a candidate is really a conservative? There are probably a variety of tests that one could use, but I think the most accurate test would be which candidate most-closely follows the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions. After all, as John Adams once said, “we are a nation of laws, not of men.” Our Constitutions are the bedrock upon which all of our laws are based.

Candidates who support legislation that would deprive some Idahoans of the “equal protection” of the laws guaranteed by both Constitutions are not conservative. It is neither conservative nor humane to deny pregnant women emergency medical care when they experience life-threatening complications. Nor is it conservative to interfere with medically-approved care for transgender children. Criminalizing doctors for rendering the accepted standard of care is dangerous nonsense, not conservatism.

Constitutional conservatives would strongly oppose engrafting religious doctrine into state laws. Banning books from public libraries because some of the content does not conform with the spiritual beliefs of a few is contrary to our traditional separation of church and state. Requiring taxpayers to foot the bill for religious educational expenses is a clear violation of the Idaho Constitution and would offend real conservatives.

Candidates who support the limitation of voting rights of any of our citizens would infringe on one of the most sacred rights of this sovereign state. Those who continually try to make it harder to qualify an initiative or referendum for the ballot are by no means conservative. A true conservative supports expansion, not restriction, of citizen participation in our government. After all, ours is a government of, for and by the people.

Where do we go to find out which candidates take conservative positions? There are any number of groups who promote their recommended candidates as the most conservative. My friend referred to the ConservativeOf: groups that have recently sprung up in cities around the state. Checking out their media sites, you see that they feature extremists like State GOP Chair Dorothy Moon, which has got to be an eye-opener. Some are supported by California political refugees who have swarmed to Idaho to “wake up” us Idaho political dumb bunnies. They have a heavy religious representation, which warns of a mingling of religion into governmental policies.

Other unsavory groups–the Idaho Freedom Foundation, Stop Idaho RINOs and the Christian nationalist Idaho Family Policy Center–will be more than happy to guide voters to their favored candidates. And, of course, the official Republican Party state website and most county committee websites, which are currently controlled by the extremist branch of the GOP, will be glad to recommend the most extreme candidates.

My rule of thumb is to check out those websites to see who they are supporting and then vote against all of their recommended candidates. It is likely that the candidates who oppose their recommended candidates are the true conservatives–the ones who will stand up for the Idaho and U.S. Constitutions.

Unfortunately, the Idaho House defeated the Secretary of State’s legislation to prepare a comprehensive nonpartisan voter guide for this year’s elections. The League of Women Voters will have a voter guide on their website and a Take Back Idaho affiliate will be releasing a comprehensive unbiased voter guide comparing the candidates in contested elections. Voters should keep their eyes open for these guides because they will provide the best roadmap to finding which candidates strongly support constitutional government–the true conservatives.

 

An official first spouse?

An official first spouse?

May 5, 2024

For her own sake as well as the state’s, Gov.Tina Kotek ought to propose the Legislature write into state law rules governing what a governor’s spouse can and must not do.

She could even write the policy as a temporary executive order until the Legislature acts –and pledge to abide by its terms.

She seemed to indicate the need for some structure when on April 3 she asked for guidance from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. That may yield some useful advice, but it’s likely to be thin since Oregon law and rule barely touch the subject.

Headlines in the last couple of months of turmoil in Kotek’s office, including on Friday, are enough of a warning that guard rails are needed on the role of the first spouse. The experience of her predecessor once removed, John Kitzhaber, different though in key ways, also made that plain.

We give governors leeway in deciding who their advisors will be, and spouses sometimes have a role. It can often be unofficial, but spousal involvement can become uncomfortable, disconcerting and disruptive for staff at times, even when the top executive makes a serious effort to avoid problems. A spouse active in policymaking often can easily outmaneuver even experienced and highly capable staff, including people who may have more valuable expertise.

The same often goes for political campaigns. Political campaign managers who have uneasy relationships with candidate spouses can throw campaigns off balance.

These situations tend to be more the exception than the rule, however. Many spouses, even in the families of many presidents, have little interest in government or elective office and stay clear of them. In a recent collection of Oregon officials’ comments on the subject assembled by Willamette Week, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden noted that his wife operates her own business and spends much of her time working on it. The other senator, Jeff Merkley, indicated that while he and his wife often  talk about Senate business, she keeps her involvement away from the office.

The spouse story isn’t always negative. State Sen. James Manning of Eugene, now a candidate for secretary of state, recalled that, “When my wife was here – she passed away almost three years ago – she served as my chief of staff in the Senate. I conferred with her all the time. People would stop by to see her and not me.”

In the case of two other recent governors, Kate Brown and Ted Kulongoski, first spouses were active in limited areas – a few environmental and cultural projects, respectively – but not as central actors in the office.

But personnel and budget considerations, among other things, make the meshing of family roles and executive office management a complex subject. The case of Kitzhaber and his fiancée make for a standing red flag and a marker of how those relationships can destroy a governorship that in many other respects would have been considered sound.

That case involved Kitzhaber’s partner, Cylvia Hayes, who, many news reports said, used not only her position as first lady but also state resources and personnel to build her consulting business while maintaining an occasional role in the governor’s office.The combination of those factors, and Kitzhaber’s defense of her, eventually led to both federal and state investigations (though no criminal charges) and the governor’s resignation.

That offers a clear rule: Do not mix state activity with outside interests, especially any of a financial or personally beneficial nature.

The Kotek case differs in that, to this point, no outside involvement or personal enrichment is alleged. At the same time, Aimee Kotek Wilson is clearly more involved in the office. She isn’t paid and doesn’t hold an official state title. But the departure of three senior staffers in the governor’s office has been linked in news reports to Kotek Wilson’s role in the office. And news surfaced last week that her communications director is also leaving.

Is there a way to structure first spouse involvement to minimize those issues while taking advantage of the assets that can bring?

Other states offer limited guidance. Most have no official or formal role at all for the first spouse, even when, as in Florida, North Dakota and elsewhere, they are independently active on issues.

A few provide formal organizational structures.

The California governor’s office publishes an office organization chart, and one side of it falls under the “first partner.” The organization under her includes six state staffers. At least two other states, Pennsylvania and Georgia, list chiefs of staff for first spouses on their websites. Washington state may have something generally similar, on a smaller scale, with one state employee detailed to help with the first lady’s schedule.

Those states all are larger than Oregon, and if Kotek tries to launch a full-scale office for the first spouse, there’ll be blowback – and it could be fierce. A small amount of support from a staffer or two might be more supportable.

What’s more clearly needed is a set of rules around the authority and role a first spouse might assume without becoming a state employee. Given the recent rush of headlines, Kotek might be wise to address that soon.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.