The Out of State Money Argument

If Bill Sali loses this election, it’ll be because people bought into the “out of state money argument.” So many have gotten thoroughly outraged over Bill Sali receiving a large amount of money from out of state contributors through the Club for Growth.

At the debate, Sali calmly explained the Club for Growth was a group of citizens concerned with less taxes and less government. Of course this wasn’t listened to. Its evil out of staters who are trying to influence our Congressional elections. By gosh, this election should be only determined by rich well-connected Idahoans who support the Status Quo, not by rich out of staters who happen to share the same values as Idaho voters. If out of staters have to come in, let them spend Independent Expenditure Money that’s not tied to the Candidate and doesn’t make them look bad.

The hypocrisy of the charge is if you look at each candidate, you find they’ve all taken out of state dollars. According to Eye on Boise 35% of Keith Johnson’s money has come from out of state. Does that mean as Robert Vasquez alleged Mr. Johnson has been bought by out of state interests? What about Mr. Vasquez himself who has received 91% of his contributions from out of state?

What percentage is an evil wicked percentage to come flowing in from outside of Idaho. What percentage makes you someone who lacks integrity. I’d like to know.

The fact is all the campaigns have been more than happy to shovel in out of state campaign funds. Bill Sali’s being attacked only because he was more successful than the rest.

The final irony in this is that this year’s Congressional race will be a hot one. Democrats will smell an opportunity to retake this seat, so there’ll be money spent here. Whoever the Republican nominee is will need a lot of money and its going to come through PACs and outside of state contributions from Big Republican Donors. It’ll be interesting to see whether if Keith Johnson and Shelia Sorensen get the nomination whether they’ll refuse even the appearance of being controlled by out of staters by refusing every dime sent in from a zip code outside of Idaho. I seriously doubt it. They’ll take money from the NRA. They’ll take money from rich Republicans who want to help a Congressman live and forget all about their absurd attacks on Bill Sali.

Sorensen and Johnson Caught in Embarrasing Situations

Bill Sali has a couple pieces up on his opponents. One of the big fighting between Sali and Shelia Sorensen was a post card that was sent out by the Sorensen that had a strong resemblance to the NRA endorsement post card. Sorensen up and down there was nothing deceptive about the post card. The NRA begged to differ:

The National Rifle Association told its Idaho members Friday that a campaign postcard distributed by 1st District Republican candidate Sheila Sorensen falsely implies the gun lobby has endorsed her in the hotly contested six-way GOP primary next week…
Sorensen’s campaign sent the peach-colored postcard to 1st District voters with the message that from 1992 through 2002, she received an “A+” rating from the NRA while serving in the Idaho Legislature.

While that statement is accurate, NRA officials echoed Sali’s complaint that the design of the card and the wording give a false impression that Sorensen has been endorsed as the NRA’s preferred candidate in the congressional race.

George Dovel, the NRA’s election volunteer coordinator in Idaho’s 1st District, said Sorensen’s postcard is the same color as the official NRA endorsement notifications sent to members and even includes a logo of a rifle-toting Revolutionary War minuteman, similar to an image used on some NRA paraphernalia.

“The NRA did do some mailings at approximately the same time to endorse state legislative candidates and the inference

was that this was also an endorsement,” Dovel, of Horse-shoe Bend, said. “There has been no endorsement in the primary by the NRA.”

Busted! It got worse when today the Statesman which has loved Sorensen in the past endorsed Keith Johnson, writing:

On some issues, Sorensen had no answers. The nurse practitioner by training, who is making health care a centerpiece of her campaign, said inexplicably that she was unsure how she would have voted on the Medicare bill. She offered a tortured answer about her controversial attendance at an event featuring liberal celebrity Al Franken. She said Republicans and Democrats were herded into separate rooms, and she said the event simply wasn’t a big deal. But she also said, if she had it to do all over again, she would have declined the invitation.

She’s clearly losing momentum in the race. Johnson may be the surprise in this race with the Statesman’s endorsement to go along with the Idaho Post-Tribune. A lot of people have looked at this race as “five conservatives v. one liberal” but missed a key point.

Johnson has split the endorsement of the establishment figures in the state. Sorensen has picked up people like Steve Symms, Mike Simpson and Bruce Newcomb. Johnson has picked up people like Former Governor Phil Batt and the endorsement JR Simplot’s PAC, Secretary of State Ben Ysura, and Treasurer Ron Crane. The State’s establishment, both moderate and Conservative sides are going to break between them. Johnson will also pick up a portion of the Conservative vote. Will he win this thing? I still don’t think so, but I expect third or a strong second.

The Sali campaign caught a mistake by Johnson who published a list of endorsements for his campaign. The problem is that some of the people listed contacted the Sali campaign or we’re called by them and said they hadn’t endorsed Johnson.

I don’t think it was dishonesty. It was four people out of a huge list on the Sali website, but at this point of the campaign, every mis-step costs and this one will come may come back to bite him.

Shocker: Gerry Sweet Wants Leaders Who Agree With Him

Hat tip to Red State Rebels for finding this hysterical piece by Dan Popkey.

Headline: Popkey: Sen. Sweet tries to purge moderates in his district

The subtle reference to Stalin. Is he going to round them up and bus them all to District 19? To send them to our liberal preserve in North Boise. Well, we read and its not quite a purge. He’s merely trying to replace precinct captains who disagree with him with those who support his viewpoint.

According to Dan Popkey, this is a dirty rotten trick:

Yost also backed Borton in 2004. “Gerry Sweet wants to take over the whole district,” said Yost, a GOP activist since the 1968 George Hansen-Frank Church U.S. Senate race.

Pipal has been a precinct committeewoman for a decade. She’s troubled that Sweet never spoke to her and said she opposes litmus tests. “We don’t go around rating people on their Republicanism. We have a big tent.”

Let me assure you, Sweet isn’t interested in leafleting neighborhoods. Idaho’s most-absent lawmaker, he missed 32 percent of the votes in the budget committee this year and was late or absent from 27 percent of full Senate sessions. His power play is aimed at punishing opponents and picking a successor to Rep. McKague, whether that’s sooner or later.

Popkey’s confusing mix of Journalism and Opinion puts him in the place of not just reporter but psychic. He not only telling us what Senator Sweet is doing but exactly why he’s doing it despite the fact that Sweet says he’s doing this to make sure GOP leaders are complying with the platform. He wants Conservatives leading our party and not to have people in charge of the district GOP organization that aren’t on his team.

Good for him. I wish that someone would give all of our districts with a courageous Conservative majority. And this isn’t really anything new in the recent history of the party. When the party establishment was backing Joe Borton in 2004 Dan Popkey didn’t clear it an attempt by the establishment to purge Conservatives. Its intraparty politics and it happens every election year. Regardless of the results, people will pull together to do what we have to do in November. In the meanwhile, way to go Gerry. I’ve met Senator Sweet and if we’d be truly blessed if we had a party full of men like him.

The Graham Conspiracy

When I referred to Julie Fanselow as a “Larry Grant Apologist” I was making light of her labeling me a Bill Sali apologist. She writes:

The definition of apologist is someone who offers an argument on behalf of something or someone who is controversial. Bill Sali requires many, many apologies. Larry Grant does not.

Now dictionary.com defines apologist as:

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution

So, she’s an apologist for Larry Grant. A poster identify him/herself as Eastern Idaho Democrat wrote:

Apologetics is the systematic defense of a position. The position need not be controversial, nor is there any perjorative connotation to it, as there is with the tangentially related word “apology”.

There’s nothing wrong with being an apologist – *especially* if you’re right!

Ms. Fanselow insisted I, not she was an apologist, writing:

EID, thanks for the comment. But two dictionaries I consulted define apologetics first as the defense of Christianity and secondarily as the formal defense of a theory.

Thus I stand by my original description of fundamentalist blogger Adam Graham as a Bill Sali apologist. For both men, their politics is motivated heavily if not exclusively by their desire to impose fundamentalist Christian doctrine and its patriarchal demands on Idahoans… I have no doubt they seek to remake our nation into a theocracy.

Now, I’ve written about the impossibility of theocracy before but the argument comes down to this. Christian Conservatives are incapable of starting a theocracy such as what exists in Iran because of theological differences that make such an event impossible. Theocracy happens when one sect comes to power, be it Shia Islam or Roman Catholicism. Rather, Religious Conservatives are a conglomeration of various groups with deep disagreements on many issues but who are united on some issues that they push together. You can’t have a theocracy by Pentecostals, Mormons, Baptists, Orthodox Jews, and Catholics running a theocracy. Its simply not possible, doesn’t compute.

As proof of this, she cites Gerry Sweet trying to take over the 20th legislative district Republican organization. Ooh. Scary stuff, Theocracy on the March. Next thing you know, they’ll be putting a Christian Flag on Capitol Hill.

I’m going to address this issue in another post, but what Sweet’s doing is getting people who can work him into his legislative district. Its not a theocracy, its politics.

Vasquez, Sorensen Stink It Up

I just finished reviewing the 1st District Congressional race debate and I think the best thing for the Sali Campaign is if everyone saw this debate. It would make up the mind of every person who was stuck between Sali and Vasquez who had any common sense, as well as show Shelia Sorensen in a negative light. There was a lot of mud-slinging back in forth, but these two were the worst of the worst.

Robert Vasquez

When I first heard of Vasquez running for Congress, my thought was to give him support. Today, I was thankful that I didn’t make that utterly embarassing decision. Vasquez railed tonight on the Club for Growth. He attacked them as pro-illegal immigration. Hey, Vasquez do a search of their website and you only find only one mention and its not a policy paper but someone’s bio.

Many of the candidates were guilty of attacking Sali on the Club for Growth, but Vasquez was the most nasty negative of the lot. When Sali declared his support for the idea of turning closed military bases into oil refiners, Vasquez fired back alleging that Sali supported so that the Club for Growth could bring in Illegal Immigrants to work at the refinery.

Vasquez, alleged Sali was “bought and paid for” by the Club for Growth and dismissed his support by 100+ Congressmen by alleging that they backed Sali because he would do their bidding.

Vasquez spent the evening arguing that he only made a little tax increase in Canyon County, which showed that he failed to understand that to many Conservative folks any tax increase is bad. In response to one of his rants on this, Bill Sali brought out comprehensive proof of some unconservative positions by Vasquez, whose basic response added up to, “You’re a liar and the Club for Growth is evil.”

Vasquez also came out for “reconsidering our mission in Iraq” and suggested a solution to gas prices would be to get rid of tax breaks for oil companies and cut subsidies for them because as we all know, increasing a company’s cost always reduces the price of their product.

Vasquez delivered the most disgraceful, negative, and distasteful performance I’ve seen in any debate. He even managed to attack Norm Semanko for not fighting illegal immigration in the early 1990s as a Staffer for Senator Larry Craig. I got an e-mail from reader Jim Newberry challenging my statement that the Sali organization would deliver victory. I got an e-mail last night that basically argued that what mattered for winning an election was a timely message and that Vasquez would pull this out because immigration is such a hot issue right now.

I think history argues against the idea that organization doesn’t matter. But one thing for sure, presentation does matter and when your presentation makes you look like paranoid and desperate, you’re going to fail and if everyone in Idaho saw this performance, I doubt Vasquez would break single digits.

Shelia Sorensen

Anyone who knew the true state of abortion laws in the nation caught Sorensen in an outright lie when she said that abortion was illegal in Idaho except in the cases of rape, incest, or for the health of the mother. In Idaho and America, current law is abortion on demand throughout and shame on Ms. Sorensen for preying on a gullible public.

Overall, she was uncomfortable and ineffective the whole night through. Her low point came when she asked Mr. Semanko what his greatest accomplishment as a Legislative Assistant was. Semanko gave a great response talking about a bill he’d helped get through that made it possible for federal employees to get their paychecks garnered. Her rebuttal was to ask him “How many votes did you cast?”

It was a true moment of snotty arrogance from Ms. Sorensen and elitism on display. It was a senseless cut at a non-player whose supporters were very unlikely to support her. For no good reason, she made a cutting remark about Semanko after he talked about doing something good for the public and families.

Skip Brandt

Brandt had no highlights, but fewer lowlights than Sorensen. His unsuccessful confrontation of Bill Sali over an informed consent bill that Sali opposed in 2004 was sad. The bill split the pro-life community with Idaho Chooses Life opposing for various weaknesses in the bill. Sali explained he opposed the bill because Brandt hadn’t done his homework and the bill would have been overturned. Sali pointed out a bill had been passed this session that should prove constitutional. Brandt came back with an awful response saying that it was easy for Sali to say things about the 2004 informed consent law after the fact. Senator Brandt, where were you? Bill Sali was saying these things in 2004.

Norm Semanko

Norm Semanko deserves credit for not spending the evening attacking Bill Sali. He sounded knowledgable on the issues and he had a firm grasp of what was going on and needed to be done in Washington. His case that we needed someone who’d worked in Washington was weak. I don’t think he convinced anyone. His question challenging Keith Johnson was odd. He pointed out that Johnson had raised the 2nd least amount of money in this race and Skip Brandt had raised the least. He also questioned whether based on numbers from 2002 State Controller primary, if Johnson could win the election. Johnson gave a fairly good response pointing out that he was a first time candidate in ’02. You have to wonder what Semanko was thinking with attacks on 2 candidates who are bringing up the rear in fundraising. Is he competing to finish 4th in this race?

Keith Johnson

Keith Johnson is someone I hope considers running again in the future. This just isn’t his race. He came off as very strong when he stuck to the issues. He gave great answers. I think when he confronted Shelia Sorensen on the liberal fundraiser deal, he really let her off the hook when she said that the fundraiser was with a “woman’s group”. It was with a pro-abortion advocacy group. He should have brought that home, but he did demolish other parts of Sorensen’s record.

He did fairly well in attacking Bill Sali for having the support of Club for Growth, but Keith would do well to cut down on the demogoguery. It may have played well with some folks who thought the Club for Growth would help Keith grow back hair, but those who actually know what it does and what it stands for, saw the idea that we should be “suspicious” of the Club for Growth for a cheap attack.

Bill Sali

I think he won the debate. The debate itself adds up to a job interview and he came in there prepared. He fought the hapless Vasquez on the issue of taxes and turned and fended off attacks from Senator Skip Brandt and Shelia Sorensen. In both cases, he had the research to back up his statements. He knew everyone was gunning for him, and he handled himself exceptionally well.

His cut at Robert Vasquez as “a liberal” may have been a bit much, but given the positions Vasquez took on Gas Prices and Iraq, it wasn’t totally out of line. He was knowledgable on the issues. He also explained what the Club for Growth was for anyone who was willing to listen: people who were concerned about less taxes and smaller government.

His closing was somewhat of a concern. Rather than providing a positive reason to vote for him, he laid it on the line by saying the election was between Sali, the Conservative and Sorensen, the liberal and a vote for any other candidates would help Sorensen.

I think it was a poor closing, but Sali’s right. Really, these other guys have some good qualities but none of them are going to be your next Congressman. Someone should have been willing to stand down. In three out of the four cases, we have politicians whose current jobs end in January. Still, someone needed to stand up and decide to put the best interests of Idaho first and stop Sorensen. If Sali loses, it’ll be because of a divided conservative movement and an egotistical lot of candidates who unlike Kenny Rogers can’t figure out when to “fold ’em”.

Liberal Idaho Endorses Keith Johnson

Keith Johnson mis-spoke in saying a liberal blogger had endorsed Shelia Sorensen. Now, he’s paying the price as Liberal Idaho has “endorsed” Keith Johnson, thus voiding his claim of not being endorsed by liberal bloggers. Kinda.

Bottom line moral of the story, don’t mischarecterize bloggers or they’ll call you on it and you’ll get your head handed to you.