Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Day: October 17, 2006”

Pop, fizzle

Those like us thinking this evening's gubernatorial debate - apparently the final, and aired on KGW of Portland - between Democratic incumbent Ted Kulongoski and Republican challenger Ron Saxton might turn really explosive, watching a faceoff a good deal less startling than that.

As before, neither did badly, and neither overwhelmed. We heard no really inspiring rhetorical flourishes.

Of the two, Saxton's presentation was smoother; he seemed the more comfortable. Kulongoski's was less so (he got rid of the crutch word "suggest" but replaced it with "actually"), but he did make coherent arguments for both sides of the case: The merit of his re-election, and case for Saxton as an improvement. Saxton built a clear enough case against Kulongoski, but when asked - at one point bluntly - what vision he has for the state, he flubbed, and seemed to have little to say beyond improved efficiencies and a lid on taxes.

They disagreed on where they're at as the campaign winds to a conclusion: Kulongoski maintained he's comfortably ahead, and Saxton that the race is very close and he's about to cross the line. On this issue, at least, we'll get a definitive answer soon.

From uncertain foundation

Not much else to say for now beyond what's already there - on the airwaves, blogs and soon to be media - on the Larry Craig outing story. Briefly, a gay activist and blogger named Michael Rogers, who has written about gay members of Congress and congressional staffers in recent years, posted a blog entry and went on nationwide radio this afternoon to say that Craig participated in a number of gay sexual incidents. (Some reports notwithstanding, Rogers did not describe Craig as gay.)

Larry Craig
Larry Craig

Craig has denied, to at least the Spokane Spokesman-Review and possibly other media as well, the substance of the allegation. (Note in the link the Spokesman's take on dealing with the story.) Rogers does not offer any independent proof, other than his own assurances that he is certain; he does note that he has made earlier comparable allegations which proved accurate. Nor is there any suggestion of abuse of office or abuse of minors.

The tough question here at the moment is: Does this story have legs - will it grow? - or, absent evidence, will it die away? For that, no immediate answer. Nor for now to the question of whether it might impact the hottest race in the state, the contest for the 1st congressional district.

For a range of views, we'll refer you to the Spokesman's Huckleberries Online, where the comment section has been buzzing. Writer Dave Oliveria remarked in one response: "... this aired on a national radio program this afternoon. I'm not saying it's legit. I'm telling you what's out there. I'd be asleep at the switch if I didn't post items of interest to North Idahoans. Do you want that? Do you want me only to post comfortable things? If this isn't true, Mike Rogers is in a heap of trouble. If it isn't true, it's still a story that a top gay activist has targeted Larry Craig."

OF NOTE Dennis Mansfield has posted thoughts on all this on his website.

Post-Jon & Chris

Aquick note for those following the Boise radio situation after Jon Duane and Chris Kelly, who had been morning anchors at KIDO-AM for many years and probably the key morning radio figures in the area much of that time, departed early this year.

Idaho Radio News has an update:

KIDO picked Kimberly James and Brian Norton this summer to replace Duane & Kelly. The station parted ways with James just a few weeks ago - leaving the program in further flux. As I’ve hinted at before - CC Boise went after a number of well-know local folks to fill the morning slot - and clearly wasn’t able to come up with that big marquee name it hoped to land.

KIDO lost ground in all major demos (and overall) in the morning day part. Since Jon & Chris left midway through the book, it leaves you to wonder: what will fall look like?


Next legislative cycle, proposals will be offered almost certainly to ban mass robo-calling, and there's good cause both out of precedent and out of public service.

telephone The precedent for such a ban is in the current bans on unsolicited faxes and e-mails and telemarketing calls to land and cell phone lines. The rationales are simple: While these are inexpensive ways for people to spread a message, they place a cost - in time at least and in money as well - on the recipient, in a way that, say, direct paper mail does not. If these things can be banned, surely political robo-calls can be as well.

You see the complaints growing. In Idaho, the Larry Grant campaign last Friday posted a note saying, "A torrent of complaints is pouring into the Grant for Congress campaign about harassing, annoying, computer-generated telephone calls. It’s not us! We, too, have been getting them and find them just as annoying as everyone else. The computer-generated calls (robocalls, in political parlance) began Thursday, Oct. 12, and are continuing, apparently, across the First District. We believe two versions are being used, one that begins 'When you go to the polls on Nov. 7 you’ll see the name ‘Larry Grant’ on the ballot. Let me tell you a little about Larry Grant….' The other opens with 'Larry Grant needs a lesson in Economics 101…'”

These efforts are simply a try at tossing in a bit of slime in a fast and unanswerable way. More seem to be coming in that race.

So too in Washington state's premier legislative race, between incumbent Republican Senator Luke Esser and his challenger, Democrat (former Republican) state Representative Rodney Tom. The recording, among other things, alleges that an ethics investigation of Tom is underway; in fact, that's not true. But the attempt to slip the idea into the subconscious of a telephone listener could be marginally effective.

Until legislative emerges banning them, these robocalls need to be recorded and dragged out into the sunshine, where they can be properly addressed. In the case of the Tom message, Horse's Ass blogger David Goldstein has done just that. Now you can click and hear the little slice of slime - with the difference that you are forewarned as to its contents.

Likely not forgotten

Atough poser for all the political junkies out there: What will be the political effect of Paul Evans' call-up?

Paul Evans
Paul Evans

Evans, a former mayor of Monmouth, is a veteran of the Air Force and also the Oregon Air National Guard. A few days ago, he got the word: He's been called back to the Middle East - he is a veteran of repeat tours in Iraq and Kuwait - this time to Afghanistan. He is scheduled to leave on November 5.

This is of specific note here because Evans is also a candidate in one of the two or three hottest state Senate races in Oregon, a Democrat running against respected incumbent Jackie Winters. The race is commonly considered to be close.

This is an unusual case. The Salem Statesman Journal noted, "He likely is the nation's only candidate who will be on active duty in the Middle East on Election Day." There is a near-comparison: "State Rep. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, has taken leaves from his second-term campaign for military service. Boquist is a veteran Army special-operations officer, also with Iraq war service, who remains an Army reservist." But Boquist's re-election to the House (in the same area) is not in doubt.

Evans' election prospects, on the other hand, are unclear. Does this callup at the tail end of campaigning season throw too big a kink into things to overcome? Does it create a wave of public sympathy for him? Does it create concern about whether he can properly serve as a legislator? (The new callup is scheduled to last just 60 days, so he would be - according to schedule - back by the time time legislature convenes.) Thoughts, please.