Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: May 18, 2006”

A dance of the long knives

It wasn't boring. If you're in the mood for some offbeat TV drama, and you haven't seen it already, consider this a recommendation to check out the Idaho 1st congressional district Republican debate on streaming video from Idaho Public Television.

For sheer slash and burn, you won't find much better reality TV. Republican politics does not get blunter - in public - than it did here.

It may have been the single most attack-packed major debates in the Northwest in years; not until its last quarter or so did the action let up. There was little subtle here, and few punches withheld, even from unlikely sources. A prospective voter planning to vote Republican but knowing nothing about the race save the content of the debate must be left with a deeply uneasy feeling. Did the debate produce a winner, or a single loser? It's hard to imagine. No one stayed entirely above it all; everyone got burned, to some extent or another. (more…)

Tom Luna: The Missing Years

Four years have passed since Tom Luna became the only statewide Republican candidate in Idaho to lose in November. His chances for the same office, superintendent of public instruction, look good this time: He has the odds to win the Republican nomination (he was unopposed for it last time), and probably throws the Democratic nominee into presumptive underdog status. All this owes something to early planning, good organization and solid campaign skills, which were not bad in 2002. It seems to owe little to the four years in between, during most of which Luna was a high-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Education.

Tom LunaThat piece of his track record isn't ignored, exactly. It's appropriately referenced on his resume, and mentioned in passing. But it's hardly the focus and highlight you might expect. In running for the top education job in Idaho, his years on the Nampa School Board really aren't an especially great recommendation, or his work on some state advisory committees.

Luna was a Bush Administration official from early in 2003 into 2005, and one online resume lists him as senior advisor to Secretary of Education Rod Paige, director of the White House Initiative on Tribal Colleges and Universities (2003-04) but primarily, apparently, he was executive director of the U.S. Rural Education Task Force. One might expect Luna to speak at length about these experiences; instead, they tend to get perfunctory mentions. Why?

Could it be because there's not much to tell? Or because the telling might make for some uncomfortable juxtapositions? (more…)

A blog endorses

No, not this one - we haven't and won't, in any political race. (At least that's our past and current policy; like all things blog, it could change in future.) But what does it mean to say that a blog has endorsed a candidate?

The question is a little trickier than it might appear at first.

Some blogs, like this one, are relatively controlled-access and have some control of viewpoint. You can comment about our posts, and we encourage that, but anyone who says this space has endorsed someone or something because a commenter has, is simply wrong. On the other hand are blogs like Blue Oregon or Red State Northwest which are joint efforts by a number of bloggers; if one of those bloggers urges the election of a specific candidate - as occasionally happens - you still can't easily say that the blog has done that.

And there's a secondary question: What does it mean to endorse? Is writing favorably about the idea of someone's election enough? Newspaper endorsements are typically clear-cut; they say that "we endorse X for election," or something clearly similar. On the web, the situation is a little less certain.

All that preface to a response by the campaign of Keith Johnson, a candidate for the U.S. House in Idaho's 1st district, to a question posed here about one of its messages. The message said that "2 out of 3 left wing, Idaho bloggers endorsed Robert Vasquez in the Republican primary for Congress. Because he would ensure the Democrats a win in November. The third endorsed Sheila Sorensen. Enough said.”

So, we asked, who were the bloggers? The campaign responded today, and here are the links: (more…)

Giving due notice

How far does a government's responsiblity to warn people extend? Consider the just-decided case of John Osborn, et al., v. Washington before you answer - but first, here are the underlying facts.

Neither party disputes the tragic facts of this case. Rosenow was a registered sex offender. In 1993, he pleaded guilty to third degree rape of a woman at knifepoint, and in 1999 he pleaded guilty to second degree assault for choking unconscious a former sexual partner. When Rosenow was released from prison in June 2000 he moved to Hoodsport, Mason County.
The prison preliminarily classified Rosenow a level II sex offender, but Mason
County reclassified him a level III sex offender.1 Detective Jason Dracobly handled sex offender registration and community notification for the Mason County Sheriff's Department. Before Rosenow's release Shannyn Wiseman, a resident of Mason County, contacted Dracobly who said he would post fliers and otherwise notify the community of Rosenow's presence. Dracobly registered Rosenow and posted a notice identifying him as a sex offender on Mason County's website, but did not distribute fliers. Wiseman contacted Dracobly again, informing him that Rosenow had followed two minor children, reporting Rosenow's change of address, and asking whether Dracobly still intended to distribute fliers. Dracobly told her he was too busy to distribute fliers and discouraged her from doing so herself. In December 2000 Rosenow moved from Hoodsport to Shelton. But on February 24, 2001, he returned to Hoodsport where he raped and murdered Osborn.
Osborn's parents sued Mason County for failing to warn them of Rosenow's
presence. Mason County moved for summary judgment, arguing that the sex
offender statute then in effect, former RCW 4.24.550 (1998), imposed no
duty to warn and conferred immunity from liability for failure to warn and
moreover no duty to warn existed under the public duty doctrine.