Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in “Uncategorized”

Year ending, year beginning

Year ending, year beginning

December 27, 2024

Some stories that ought to have an ending never seem to go away. The Moscow murder case which continued to generate so many Idaho headlines in 2024  began with four deaths in 2022, has gone through various changes of venue and personnel and squabbles over legal issues, but it won’t be tied up until at least well into 2025. And maybe later. It will reliably generate more headlines in the coming year.

And there are stories everyone would like to go away but prove hard to quash. One example would be the invasion of the Snake River system by quagga mussels, which the state has fought since they were spotted in 2023 and hoped were eradicated. Such eliminations are hard to accomplish, and they returned this last year. Will they be back in 2025? We can hope not, but they could be.

Then there are other stories with larger implications which have no clear beginning or end point. They morph into new phases, and Idaho will have to deal with new versions of them in 2025.

One example is the state’s massive suburban growth, mainly in the Boise metro area but to some degree elsewhere too, such as in Kootenai County. There’s more than the usual pressure on for more development , as housing supply in Idaho’s big population centers has remained limited and prices have stayed high, even if they’re not growing quite the way they did a few years ago.

Ada County is poised for another massive explosion in the next couple of years, with new developments recently approved by the city of Meridian and the projected pass expansion of Avimor in the hills above what has been the city of Eagle … among other examples. Those approvals are not the end of the story, but only the beginning. We’ll see more of what comes of it in the next year.

Politically, Idaho voters in 2024 made decisions - which largely aligned - which may put the state’s recent ideological developments on a high speed rail. The election of an even less centrist legislature, coupled with the clear voter rejection of the open primary/ranked choice voter initiative, gives the most hard-core factions in the Idaho Legislature full motivation (and even some surface justification) for plowing ahead as far as they can see.

One of the questions looming over the state ever since election day, then, has been: How far is that?

The ground apparently ripe for seizure seems likely to include passage of school vouchers - another way of saying money transfers from public to private schools - which has been frustrated for years. This next session starting in a matter of days is likely to be a different story, with changes in overall membership and committee leadership.

Probably there will be much more. While the colleges and universities, and their governing boards, have submitted in advance to demolition of their social equity programs, the legislature is likely to see that as an opening bid begging for a raise. The culture war at the Statehouse is more likely to accelerate than to slow down this session; the point, after all, is not to solve a problem so much as it is to keep stirring the pot, and we can expect plenty of that.

2026 will be a relatively high-end political year in Idaho elections, or at least it may be. All the statewide state offices, including governor, will be up, and so will a U.S. Senate seat (now held by Jim Risch) and two U.S. House seats. Will Risch seek a fourth term, or Representative Mike Simpson his 15th? There’s some potential for a shakeup. And the governor’s office will be the object of a lot of speculation and war gaming. The pieces of all that should be in place by this time a year from now.

And, of course, there will be fallout from the Trump Administration Redux … though I’m offering no predictions at the moment about exactly what form that will take.

Happy New Year, and let’s make the best of it we can.

 

Senate is there for a reason

December 14, 2024

The United States Senate is arguably the least democratic (small “d”) institution in any democracy in the world, with the possible exception of the British House of Lords.

The Senate exists without proportional representation. Every state has two senators without regard to population. Wyoming’s two senators represent 586,000 citizens, while California’s 39 million citizens are represented by two senators.

The Senate has quirky rules: unlimited debate (the filibuster); much happens by unanimous consent (or doesn’t happen when one senator objects); seniority rules, meaning a cranky old senator like Chuck Grassley of Iowa, age 91, will soon chair the powerful Judiciary Committee. Grassley has been a senator since 1981, meaning the youngest senator, Jon Ossoff of Georgia, wasn’t alive when Grassley took office.

The Senate has extraordinary powers, again thanks to the original thinkers who came up with the idea of an institution to balance the rambunctious House of Representatives. Senators have the Constitutional duty to “advise and consent” – or not consent – on presidential appointments to the Cabinet and judiciary. The Senate, by super majority vote, can ratify treaties. The Senate judges, when it cares to, the impeachment of high governmental officials. The Senate traditionally has had a major voice in foreign policy. And the Senate, when it cares to, has the power to investigate. Google Watergate, the CIA, Teapot Dome or even the sinking of the Titanic to see what the Senate has historically done to expose and inform.

Now, as the Founders would certainly have appreciated, the Senate faces an enormous historical test – a power-hungry president committed to vastly enlarging executive power at the expense of the legislative branch. Donald Trump has signaled that he expects a GOP Congress will do his bidding no questions asked.

Questions must be asked.

The widely floated idea that the Senate should allow “recess” appointments to critical executive branch jobs should be dead on arrival, but incoming majority leader John Thune of South Dakota hasn’t ruled out the Senate rolling over for Trump.

“I think that all options are on the table, including recess appointments,” Thune said recently while disingenuously suggesting that Republicans might need to forego advising and consenting because Democrats might not “play ball.” But caving on the Constitutional demand for Senate concurrence in major appointments isn’t about Democrats. It’s about Trump.

Still, there are modestly hopeful signs that Republicans won’t diminish their own and the Senate’s power by simply giving a grasping president who he wants in his Cabinet – a sex abuser, vaccine denier or Russian stooge just to flag three of the worst of the nominees.

Guardian columnist Kate Maltby, reviewing the latest release of the hit TV series “Wolf Hall,” compares Trump’s picks to Henry VIII’s loyal hatchet man, a collection of “Thomas Cromwells: the yes men and enablers who will frame US law to fulfil his wishes.”

The incoming chair of the Senate Finance Committee is one of these modern-day Cromwell’s.

“No, I’ll let that be a decision that President Trump makes,” Idaho Senator Mike Crapo told CNN when asked if he would insist on FBI background checks of cranks like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “My position is what President Trump decides to do is what I will support.”

Idaho’s James Risch, easily one of the most partisan Republicans in the Senate who spent the first Trump term defending the administration’s feckless foreign policy, has – so far at least – refused to commit to supporting some of Trump’s craziest nominees, a group properly termed by commentator Charlie Sykes as a “cabinet of zealots, toadies, and cretins.”

“Ask me this question again after the hearings,” Risch said regarding support for the inconceivable nominations of a Fox New host, Pete Hegseth, to be Secretary of Defense and a Putin apologist, Tulsi Gabbard, to head the national intelligence agencies. “These appointments by the president are constrained by the advice and consent of the Senate,” Risch said.

And demonstrating that he recalls his oath of office, Risch added. “The Senate takes that seriously, and we vet these.”

 

Confirmation time

December 4, 2024

In the world of politics, it’s out with the old and in with the new – particularly in the White House, where President-elect Trump moves in, and the Senate, where Republicans will take over the committee chairs.

Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden will be reversing roles in January, with Crapo moving over as chair of the Senate Finance Committee and Wyden becoming the ranking member. This will be one of the key committees to watch, with Trump’s and the Republican Party’s tax and economic policies open for debate, and there should be more than a few ideological battles between the two senators.

The differences will be on full display when the committee takes up the controversial nominations of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of Health and Human Services and Dr. Mehmet Oz as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medical Services (CMS). It’s no surprise that Crapo favors both, since they are Trump’s selections. My thought is that Crapo would vigorously oppose both if they were the choices of Vice President Kamala Harris, but that’s not the case. Trump wants Kennedy and Oz, and that’s what he’ll likely get from Crapo and his committee. And with Republicans in the majority, confirmation by the Senate is practically a foregone conclusion.

But that doesn’t stop Wyden and his fellow Democrats from grilling Kennedy and Oz in the committee’s confirmation hearings. And the inevitability of their confirmation doesn’t cause Wyden to hold back with his thoughts about Trump’s nominees.

“Mr. Kennedy’s outlandish views on basic scientific facts are disturbing and should worry all parents who expect schools and other public spaces be safe for their children,” Wyden said in a news release. “When Mr. Kennedy comes before the finance committee, it’s going to be very clear what Americans stand to lose under Trump and Republicans in Congress.”

What Americans will lose, according to Crapo, is a lot of old bureaucratic ways of doing business.

“RFK Jr. has prioritized addressing chronic diseases through consumer choice and healthy lifestyle,” Crapo said in a news release. “American patients, providers and taxpayers deserve a health-care system that is efficient, effective and affordable.”

And what everyone will get, counters Wyden, is a first-class mess. It will lead to “higher premiums, weakened protections for pre-existing conditions, criminalizing reproductive health care, and attacks on essential health coverage like Medicaid.”

Trump’s health agenda, Wyden says, means “worse health care at a high cost for American families.”

Which brings us to Dr. Oz, the famous TV doctor-turned politician. Crapo welcomes the thought pattern that Oz brings to the table.

“Far too often, patients relying on federal government health care programs are forced to accept bureaucratic one-size-fits-all coverage,” Crapo says. “Dr. Oz has been an advocate for providing consumers with the information necessary to make their own health care decisions.”

That’s not how Wyden sees it.

“Trump’s health care agenda is all about empowering fraudsters and big businesses while everyday Americans are stuck with the bill,” Wyden says. “Dr. Oz is no stranger to peddling nonsense to innocent Americans without facing consequences. This is one of the most consequential positions in American government, touching millions of seniors and families who count on Medicare and Medicaid for affordable health care. I’m not sure a talk show host is up for the fight.”

It’s clear that Crapo and Wyden are up for the fight in the committee, and that battle will be at least as entertaining as that recent Mike Tyson-Jake Paul debacle on Netflix. So, get your popcorn ready when the committee schedules its confirmation hearings.

Or, maybe it would be better with a potent energy drink.

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

 

William

December 1, 2024

Among  the labels you could attach to William, the new novel by Mason Coile, one you can't properly use is "science fiction." It's tech-based and on the cutting edge and involves research (often a sci-fi giveaway), and it qualifies as a thriller, probably horror and maybe a ghost story, and a character-driven psychological study as well. But it fails the sci-fi test because all or nearly all of it sits squarely within today's reach of tech capacity.

Whatever it is, it's the most striking, provocative and haunting new slice of fiction I've read this year.

Coile (actually the pseudonym of veteran novelist Andrew Pyper) wrote this one short and compact, just a couple of hundred pages - one blurb said it was a single-sitting read. And that's about what I did with it, not only because of the efficient length but because, as a good thriller will do, you're compelled to find out what happens next; not only with the characters and in the story, but also to find out what the story is actually about. There I won't be too specific, because there's a large twisty stinger at the end that shouldn't be spoiled.

William centers on artificial intelligence, or AI, and a researcher named Henry who is breaking through several barriers in his home laboratory. The whole of the story takes place at that house, roughly over the course of one day, and it gallops in what feels like real time. The driver is the increasing activity of an AI creation- named William - in that attic of that house, and what happens when William starts to understand his (or its) creator a little too well, and displays a highly active id.

You might say that Isaac Asimov's idealistic three rules for robots do not figure into this story.

Things get a little juicer when William starts to gain control of the house, accomplished because the house is a smart house - a very smart house. One of the book's chills is in the recognition that nothing here (excepting maybe some of the AI elements relating to consciousness) is beyond our current ability, and in nearly all cases is in use, in some fashion somewhere.

The fact that the reach from our everyday existence to what Coile presents here is so slight, makes the novel hard to shake.

It does get me to think again, and a little harder, about how much and what kind of tech advances I want in my living space.

There are larger questions here too, including a good basis for considering what it makes to think and to be alive.

Start your read relatively early in the day. There's no point to losing a night's sleep over it, which could happen even though the reading process isn't all that long.

But if this description sounds at all appealing, do read it.

 

Endorsement: Kamala Harris

October 23, 2024

My favorite presidential endorsement editorial this year is also the shortest, just a single sentence. In Portland, Oregon, the Willamette Week endorsement of Democrat Kamala Harris said (in total): "On the whole, we’d rather this not be America’s last election."

The point was valid, and surely one of the better reasons, but it highlights the sad aspect of this year's presidential campaign: One of the candidates, Republican Donald Trump, is so astoundingly awful in so many ways, ways that would take a library of books to compile, that the reasons to vote for Harris - and there are good reasons - tend to migrate to the back burner. And that's unfair to us as well as to Harris.

But it can hardly be helped, because Trump really is that bad.

Eight years ago I easily compiled a list of 100 reasons not to vote for Trump; overwhelmingly, those reasons still hold up, and the four years of his presidency and the years of his post-presidency have only reinforced most of them and caused the number of additional reasons to explode. And that's even counting as a single reason things like the more than 30,000 lies he told just during his time in office.

He cannot be trusted to put the nation above himself (or his personal enrichment), nor can he be trusted with the nation's security, or the security of the people within our country. He has no respect for our military or anyone else in our government or even, for that matter, his own supporters. (Try searching his recent comments about "fat pig" in one of his recent speeches.) His mind, such as it ever was, is cratering, to the point that we seem to be watching a daily slow-motion collapse. Anyone concerned earlier this year about the age of President Joe Biden ought to remember that Trump would be the oldest person ever elected president.

He appears to have more loyalty to the nations and dictators who would do us harm, than he does to us. When he talks about "us," he talks about building mass concentration camps ("detention centers" - and not just for people here illegally, since the forces he would employ are unlikely to be very precise) and using the nation's military against our people, meaning against anyone critical of him. All of this would demolish our free speech, and press, and right to association, personal security and privacy. Many of his most vigorous supporters are eagerly working on imposing a state religion, with the effective result of an end to true freedom of religion as well. If he is elected and does half of what he says he plans to do (not to mention what's in Project 2025, which was compiled by the people who would lead and develop policy for his new administration), your freedoms are gone. None of us will be safe.

He is an active, imminent and crisis-level threat to the United States of America - to you.  Al Qaeda was never such a threat as he is.

The final evidence of that - which ought to be irrefutable to anyone with a fair mind - should come from all those people who worked with him while he was in office, and now either disown him or outright endorse Harris. The number of people involved in security and foreign policy concerns is disproportionately high among that group. The list of hundreds of prominent Republicans, a list far longer than any comparable collection of party rebels from the past, is far too long for this column; but it can be found easily enough online. No president has ever been so disowned by the people who worked in his administration.

Just one example: John F. Kelly, who served as Trump's chief of staff, remarked of Trump (among other things) "He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.”

(Memo to J.D. Vance: Maybe you should have checked, before accepting Trump's Veep offer, into what almost happened to the last guy, who was almost hanged by a mob, which outcome Trump remarked would be perfectly fine.)

Or you could ask any of the many Republicans who have turned against their own party because of him, many saying that Trump must be defeated for the Republican Party to regain a sense of decency. Charlie Sykes was a long-time Republican radio talk show host in Wisconsin, but he could not stomach what he sees from Trump. From one of his recent comments:

Leave aside for a moment Trump’s serial lying, fraud, grifts, alleged sexual assaults, criminal indictments and one very public attempt to overthrow an election. Set aside his abandonment of free trade and fiscal restraint. This is a man who has called for terminating “all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”; who promises a presidency built around retribution; whose campaign has become a bullhorn for bigotry; who is increasingly leaning into fascist rhetoric, and who leads his rally crowds in cheering for Russian President Vladimir Putin and booing Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelensky. And who now threatens to use the military against political protesters and the so-called “enemy within.”

There's a big and growing crowd of thoughtful Republicans who in no way are thrilled by the idea of voting for Democrat Harris but find they must do what they can to block Trump - to protect the country.

Bret Stephens in the New York Times, a staunchly conservative columnist, said on Monday that though he was "dragged kicking and screaming," he would vote for Harris because "I’d rather take my chances with a president whose competence I doubt and whose policies I dislike than one whose character I detest."

Or, to balance that a bit with Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, "Trump is a Russian-backed wrecking ball fighting to end: The global economy that has made us prosperous; the Western alliance that has kept us safe; American democracy that has keep us free. We cannot let this deranged, traitorous old man win."

Well. What is there left to say about Harris?

She is, for one thing, a safe choice. Put aside for the moment anything else about her, but just imagine a candidate whose career has been that of a prosecutor, a state attorney general, a U.S. senator and vice president, gaining the approval of her constituency (in the most recent case, her party's nomination) to move steadily up through the ranks. That's not the portrait of a radical or of an incompetent.

Her ability in this campaign to build, rapidly, a strong organization, unite a vast array of interests and make regular necessary and sometimes difficult decisions on the fly speaks well of the capability she would bring as president.

She has the strong potential to be a very good president, and no major red flags to the contrary are apparent.

None of the negatives - the legitimate, as opposed to the phony - I have seen about her come close to the downsides of Trump. These are two different universes.

She is clearly strong and intelligent, could represent the United States well on the world stage and at home.

Would she be the perfect solution to all our problems? No. But no president ever is.

I expect she is honest enough, even in the heat of campaign season, to acknowledge that. Her opponent obviously never would.

Eight years ago, I quoted Trump as saying at the 2016 Republican convention, "I alone can fix it." That, I said, is the statement of a man who never should be entrusted with the presidency.

But in this year, if he said "I alone can break it" - break America, shatter our nation into pieces and into a shadow of what it has always been - he might be right. There are people among us, some of whom insist they are patriots, who are fine with that.

It's on the rest of us, now in these days leading up to the election, to make sure that does not happen.

 

Regretting Motherhood: A Study

October 17, 2024

The subject is not new. Way back in 1970 the advice columnist Ann Landers made big waves with her open question to her readers: Parents (or, mainly mothers) if you had it to do all over again, would you choose to have a child (or children)? The waves came when about 70% of the respondents said no. But really, the fact that the question was asked openly was shocking enough.

This is where the Israeli researcher Orna Donath digs in with Regretting Motherhood: A Study. The book is not brand new (it was published in 2017, though I just ran across it in a library search) and focuses on research and subjects in Israel not America or worldwide. But the core points remain. The whole subject of regrets about becoming a parent - she writes about mothers and fathers both in another book but focuses on mothers here - remains taboo, and has become much more of a flash point in the political climate of 2024.

This isn't really a sociological or far less a statistical study; it is closer in approach to a Studs Terkel book, excerpts from interviews with some extensive commentary. Here she interviews mothers (all are or were from Israel) who said that, as Ann Landers posited, they wouldn't do it again, and regretted having become a mother.

Why then did they become mothers? The reasons were all over the place, but often relate to going with the flows: "These accounts indicate that it is not necessarily motherhood that is perceived as natural, but rather moving forward along life’s course."

It's an almost forbidden thing to say, and many of the women say as much. The subject of sharing their misgivings with their children is raised, and almost all said they hadn't and never would; a few said they did discuss it cautiously with them after their children were adults. Nearly all made a distinction, though: While they didn't want (at least retrospectively) motherhood, that doesn't mean they don't love their children. A few questioned whether they had been good mothers; most thought they were, their underlying attitudes notwithstanding.

But the sensitive question of a discussion with the kids was far from the only concern about discussing the topic openly. (All of the women here had pseudonyms). They often described the negative blowback that came from any reference to being less than a full-throated enthusiastic parent, and some examples of comments - as when someone wrote about the topic online - showed just how fierce that could be. Honesty in this area comes with a price.

That's not to say it shouldn't be discussed. Donath (who sometimes though not usually veers into the programmatic ideological) does not overreach in her argument to suggest what percentage of mothers may feel this way. Certainly many do not. And the voices of those who do, heard here, are widely varying, differing in their experiences in all sorts of ways. Their differences are variety of human experiences.

It's in hearing the stories that normally are never told, because of such powerful forces against, that create the value here. Especially, perhaps, in 2024.

 

 

 

The Idaho water giveaway candidate

The Idaho water giveaway candidate

September 27, 2024

Idaho has a limited water supply, and hanging onto - and carefully using - what it has is among the most pertinent topics for Idaho’s leading public officials, both as a matter of politics and policy. But the details, and breadth, of the threat to Idaho water users are worth bearing in mind.

Governor Brad Little spoke on September 23 about a report developed by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is seeking more information about how the states use their groundwater.

The Council said “in many parts of the country, the quality of groundwater has become so poor that it seriously impacts the health of communities that rely on it. This is especially true for farming and Tribal communities with no other access to potable water. Groundwater is managed locally, with best practices that vary from state to state,  but there is an opportunity to develop and scale approaches to restore clean water in every community.” Which is true, and also a fact that groundwater sources sometimes cross state boundaries (as the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer does in Idaho).

The Council was speaking only about gathering technical data; no specific changes or expansion of federal activities were proposed.

Little and Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke said in response that, “Management of water is a state issue. We do not invite or welcome the involvement of the federal government in making decisions about this precious resource."

The point that states should maintain general control over water, which in some ways even is written into federal law, is valid. But while the Council report was described on the governor’s website as a “groundwater grab,” it isn’t. Wariness about federal involvement is appropriate, but specifics matter. Without federal reclamation projects, for example, there would be no Magic Valley.

If control of water is a major concern for Little and Bedke, as it should be, they should have been rocked by comments by not just an advisory council but by the Republican nominee for president.

At a press conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on September 13, Donald Trump said: “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down. And they have, essentially, a very large faucet, and you turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn, and it’s massive … and you turn that, and all of that water goes aimlessly into the Pacific. And if you turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles.”

Translating from Trumpspeak: He is proposing to take the Northwest’s water and send it to California. Okay, this is a fantasy. There is no “faucet” and no water diversion system now exists that would even allow this to happen, and if one were built the project might take decades. Tricia Stadnyk of the University of Calgary, said of Trump’s remarks that, “It’s somebody that doesn’t fully understand how water works and doesn’t understand the intricacies of allocating water not only between two countries but also for the environment.” To say the least.

Still, Trump said that if he is elected, he would do it. It would be Trump Administration policy.

For generations, Idahoans have been concerned about the idea of California reaching up to the Columbia River system and piping its water down to the big-population centers of the southwest, drying large parts of Idaho (and Washington and Oregon too, for that matter). Now a major-party nominee for president is proposing, explicitly, to do exactly that.

This is not just gathering information. This is not a study. This is an actual literal proposed water grab.

And what has been the reaction to that devastating water proposal from Idaho’s public officials?

Crickets.

It’s quite a contrast from the state’s reaction to the Biden Administration study. Wonder why that is?

 

Idaho women for Harris

September 18, 2024

Idaho is as red as it gets on the electoral map, but you’d never know that from the turnout at the iconic Egyptian Theater in downtown Boise on the August night that Vice President Kamala Harris accepted her party’s nomination.

The enthusiastic convention crowd in Chicago had nothing over the group gathered in Boise. No doubt there were more than a few wearing Chucks (shoe style) and pearls, which are part of Harris’ fashion attire.

“It was the next best thing to being at the convention,” said Betty Richardson, a former U.S. attorney and Democratic congressional candidate who along with Louise Seeley is heading a group called Idaho Women for Harris-Walz.

As Richardson tells it, enthusiasm for the Harris-Walz ticket is through the roof. It’s especially high after President Biden bowed out of the race. Richardson was among the Democrats who knew that a change at the top of the ticket was needed after Biden’s stumbling debate performance in June. What she didn’t know was how much the interest would grow in the aftermath. This quiet little group of about 10,000 attracted more than 3,000 more members since Biden dropped out. And there’s even more interest in the wake of Harris’ debate performance.

Richardson says members are encouraged to engage in discussions, and they are not shy about doing so. The presidential race is the dominant topic, with postings exploding with support for Harris and Walz. There also are discussions ranging from the serious, such as capital gains taxes, to the more silly side – such as “debate Bingo,” which was quite popular during the historic Harris-Trump encounter.

This is one group that is having plenty of fun, judging by the variety of postings. As Richardson tells it, “Not all of the members are Democrats. Republicans and independents are involved. Some are life-long Republicans who are fed up with the direction of the Republican Party.”

The lion’s share of members are from Boise and Meridian, with fair in the larger cities such as Nampa, Idaho Falls, Coeur d’Alene and Pocatello. Richardson estimates that 4,000 live in rural areas – the heart of “Trump country” in Idaho. Since the group is “private,” there’s no danger of Trump-supporting husbands or fellow church-goers finding out. Yes, there still is sensitivity to those things in Idaho.

I know a little something about that game. The first race I followed was 1960, with John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. My father was a strong-minded Republican, and Nixon was the only candidate worth talking about in our Osburn household. I found out many years later that my mother, who pretended to back Nixon, ended up voting for Kennedy. Today, women in Idaho who can’t stand Trump have an outlet through Richardson’s and Seeley’s group.

The issues are clearcut, according to Seely. “It’s about women’s health care and we are watching our rights dissolve, whether pregnant or not. I don’t understand why a woman would be voting for this kind of control. We are losing so much and will continue to lose if we don’t get out and vote for the right people. And that’s not just voting for Democrats. It’s (supporting) Republicans who have not drunk the Kool-Aid from the MAGA and IFF (Idaho Freedom Foundation) here in Idaho.”

Richardson says Idaho’s group is the second-largest group in the country on a per-capita basis (with North Carolina being No. 1. “We’ve created a community where people have meaningful conversations. We have a wide range of political experience, with some who have been involved all their lives. For others, this is the first time.”

The group, which has “sister” organizations throughout the country, has adopted Nevada, one of the battleground states that will decide the election. And there are forces in the Gem State who are available to send text messages, make phone calls, write postcards and knock on doors. Richardson and Seeley say the group is available to help in other states as well.

Richardson, a veteran of political campaigns, doesn’t expect the Harris-Walz ticket to carry Idaho. But the final tally might end up closer than expected, and the group’s influence could carry over to some legislative races.

We’ll see what happens on Nov. 5.

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

 

Close and closer

September 10, 2024

If things keep going the way they are now, we're going to have the closest Presidential election in decades.

This month's well-respected national Pew poll showed 46% favoring Kamala Harris and 45% DJT.  A single percentage point difference with a margin of error of 3-4-percent.

Backers in both camps talk of a "breakout moment" but no one has been able to define such.  Or do such.  We just keep waiting.

As if that weren't enough to keep worriers worrying, Trump has already begun beating the "election integrity" drums,  threatening to challenge November results in each state.

Used to be - before things went all electronic - you voted, then went home to watch the results.  Now, you vote, go home and wait for the challenges to come in.

Elections are meant to pick winners.  And, they do.  Most of the time. But, the challenge process has been more active of late.  Challenges, in some places, have dragged the process out for weeks.

Most election rules allow for challenges to this-and-that.  And, for the most part, that's been a good thing.  Making sure results are accurate.  Keeping the voting process on the right track.

But, we've seen - all too many times - challenges that were "off the wall."  Just meant to stir things up rather than assure results were accurate and that the rules were followed.   That could be what we see nationally in November.  Challenges here and there just for the sake of challenging.  Casting doubt.  Just for the hell of it.

Some of Trump's followers have already promised doing just that.  If they do, we'll be waiting for the final count long after November 5th.

Trump's ever-present, dour countenance continues.  His disruptive presence will hang around, no matter the outcome in November.

While Republicans have long produced a plethora of candidates in nearly all elections, Democrats have struggled to keep up.  Their bench of candidates-in-waiting has been noticeably thin in some places.  Typically, in Idaho, for example, as in nearly half the 2020 races for the Idaho Legislature, Republicans ran unopposed.

Oregon does somewhat better, even attracting a goodly number of third Party names on the ballot.  While Idaho is stridently Republican, Oregon leans more to a true two-party presence with a generally good mix to pick from.  There are more contested races, top to bottom.

Oregon, which has been considered "purple" for a long time, has been shifting slightly leftward and can reasonably be called a "Robin's egg" shade of blue.  Idaho, at the same time, has been consistently a deeper shade of "red."

How much faith one puts in polling differs considerably.  But, it really doesn't mean much this far out when candidates are still running neck-and-neck.  You'll see more meaningful results a couple of weeks before November five.

But, it's going to be really tight this time.  Which means you'll need more popcorn.  Better lay in a stock.  And, another log for the fire.