Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in August 2024

A new right darling

Steve Symms was a politician ahead of his time. And that is no compliment.

Symms, an Idaho Republican who served in the House of Representatives and the Senate for 20 years, died August 8 at age 86. The former Canyon County fruit farmer was remembered by current Senator James Risch as a “staunch defender of conservative values in Washington, D.C., for the people of Idaho.” Idaho Governor Brad Little, who announced Symms’ death, called him “a true patriot … God bless this fighter for Idaho values.”

There is no question that Symms was a political figure of consequence, and not because of any list of legislative accomplishments — there are none — but because Symms was one of the earliest and most effective practitioners of the so-called “New Right’s” politics of grievance and resentment.

As effective a retail politician as almost anyone in the state’s history, a back-slapper who was quick with a quip, Symms knew how to work a room and charm voters, while often peddling genuine nonsense — or worse.

Beneath his sunny personality beat the heart of a cultural warrior ready at any moment to flay the liberal enemy. Symms’ defeat of four-term Democratic Senator Frank Church in 1980 marked a decisive turning point in Idaho’s political trajectory as well that of the national Republican Party. In many ways, we are living with the politics that Symms and others on the 1970s New Right ushered in.

Symms was a charter member of a group of young, far-right conservatives who came to Congress in the messy years when Richard Nixon was forced to resign the presidency. In the view of many of these sharp-elbowed conservatives, moderate Gerald Ford, who replaced Nixon, was little more than a RINO (Republican in name only).

When Ford nominated former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller as vice president in 1974, Symms opposed the appointment. Rockefeller, Symms said, was evidence “of the rapid movement to the left by the Ford administration.” The choice of Rockefeller was “abrogation of liberty,” Symms said, “what we can expect from the mish-mash of unphilosophical ooze that the two-party system has degenerated into.”

You might think the incessant Republican attacks on the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS or the media are a 21st century phenomenon, but Symms was regularly attacking the same “enemies” 50 years ago.

In 1980, for example, Symms supporters sported bumper stickers reading: “I’m voting for Steve Symms, the Statesman made me do it,” a reference to Idaho’s largest newspaper that had reported extensively – and fairly – on the support Symms received from New Right groups.

It was little noted in Idaho before 1980, but Symms was deeply involved with the founding fathers of the ideological, grievance-obsessed movement that engineered the GOP transformation in the mid-1970s.

“The late Paul Weyrich was the foremost political strategist of the movement,” columnist Stuart Rothenberg has written. “He was joined by people such as Ed Feulner of the Heritage Foundation, Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus, televangelist Jerry Falwell and direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, all of whom … wanted to steer the country dramatically to the right.”

Symms, along with North Carolina’s Jesse Helms, Indiana’s Dan Quayle and the only member of this group still in the Senate, Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, were darlings of the New Right. Symms attended their trainings, utilized their talking points, sat on their advisory committees and, of course, vacuumed up their campaign money.

You hear echoes of these original New Right warriors in the current assaults on higher education, libraries, climate science and reproductive and voting rights. And that list doesn’t really get to the main feature of the modern GOP – total disdain for basic character and decency.

GOP vice presidential candidate JD Vance was born during Symms’s first Senate term, but the generational difference doesn’t mean they aren’t members of the same ideological family.

The political brilliance of people like Weyrich and Viguerie — and the racist Helms — resided in their understanding of how to appeal to “low information voters,” who are, not incidentally, the largest group of Donald Trump followers. These folks display only passing interest in politics and governing, but are mad as hell about immigrants, the “deep state” and “communists.” The New Right’s originalist strategy was to rile up these infrequent voters with dystopian visions of a country going down the toilet because of guys like Frank Church, who, after 24 years of distinguished service, was accused of being “too liberal for Idaho.”

The National Conservative Political Action CommitteeRoger Stone was a founder — saw in Symms a vehicle to remake the national party. NCPAC’s landmark — and grossly unfair — attacks on Democratic incumbents in 1980 seem almost quaint by today’s smashmouth political standards. Yet, the histrionic direct mail, distorted television and big lies worked. And they still work.

The issue mix in Symms’ 1980 race against Church included, of course, opposition to abortion, challenging whether “liberal” New York City deserved financial help from Washington, D.C., undermining the treaty that returned control of the Panama Canal to Panama and promoting the wholly invented Sagebrush Rebellion, an issue that worked particularly well in Idaho with Symms talking constantly about federal government overreach allegedly destroying the state’s economy.

There is, of course, some irony in Idaho’s governor praising Symms’ support of “conservative values,” not including apparently Symms peddling the entirely fabricated but widely disseminated story that Kitty Dukakis, the wife of the 1988 Democratic presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis, had once burned an American flag.

And missing from most Symms obituaries was any reference to why he left the Senate in 1993 after two terms at age 54.

“He duped her, then he dumped her,” editorialized the Twin Falls Times-News after it broke the story in 1991 about Symms campaigning with his wife, Fran, to get reelected in 1986 and then, after being romantically linked to a staff member, filing for divorce.

That interview with the Times-News in June 1991 was the only one Fran Symms gave regarding the divorce and the rumors of her husband’s affair.

“Steve Symms is under fire, not for the divorce, but for being two-faced,” wrote Bill Hall of the Lewiston Tribune. “He has cynically used, not only his wife, but the people of Idaho to whom he has also been legally linked for two decades. They should copy their remedy from him: Divorce him.”

The senator announced his retirement two months later.

This much of Governor Little’s tribute was correct: The Symms who trafficked in smears, was concerned about Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s appointment because of her views on abortion and said that when all else fails, American justice should come from “the cartridge box,” exemplified what surely have become Idaho’s political values.

Steve Symms was a man before his time.

 

50 years ago today

Pardon the reminiscing, but this week marks a significant personal anniversary: Exactly a half century ago, I came to live in Idaho.

I had packed up my belongings in Virginia and my dad and I drove cross country to Moscow, Idaho, where I would start school at the University of Idaho. The late summer weather was warm but temperate. Eric Clapton’s “I Shot the Sheriff” and Rufus’ “Tell Me Something Good” were on the radio. The Watergate era was just over; we had a brand new president in Gerald Ford.

The University of Idaho campus bore a general resemblance to today’s. Some of the buildings have changed, and new developments have appeared here and there. But it had the attractive leafy, collegiate feel you can still see.

The college newspaper where I went to work and first got to experience journalism, the Idaho Argonaut, still is publishing online at least, which puts it ahead of any number of big-league newspapers out in the “real world.”

After a few weeks, I began putting in some time as well on the campus radio station, KUOI-FM, as an announcer. The paper and the radio station were the two forms of mass media in the area, other than the small educational television station on campus (it wasn’t much like public television as we know it now). Mass media in the area otherwise included the newspapers at Moscow (now no longer daily and no longer printed there) and Lewiston; occasionally we might see one from Spokane. Signals from radio or television stations beyond Moscow were patchy at best. And that was it.

Idaho’s population then was about 750,000, today smaller than one congressional district though then the state had two (which it still does). Ada County's population was about 150,000. Idaho’s population was relatively much less urban, and there were new regional and sub-regional centers. There was much more commerce in the smaller communities, and more of it was locally owned.

News was happening, as it always does. A week or two after my arrival at Moscow, attention statewide was focused four hundred road miles away at Twin Falls, where the daredevil Evel Knievel was trying to jump across the Snake River canyon. (He didn’t make it, as you may have heard.)

I was arriving in Idaho at a time of national political transition, and Idaho, like the rest of the country, was paying close attention to the political landscape.

The governor then was Cecil Andrus, a Democrat, still in his first term but just about to be re-elected to a second in one of the largest landslides in state history.

The lieutenant governor, Jack Murphy, an experienced and successful Republican, was the candidate who lost to him. The lieutenant governor’s job was taken over by Democrat John Evans, who a few years later would become governor himself.

At the top of the ballot was the race for U.S. Senate. The winner in that contest, by a strong margin, was Democrat Frank Church, who won his fourth term. The margin might have been larger except that, as some of his backers acknowledged afterward, they underestimated the opposition. The junior senator was Republican James McClure.

As now, the state Senate in 1974 had 35 members. Five decades ago, its members consisted of 23 Republicans and 12 Democrats. (The margin is 28 Republicans and seven Democrats today.) None of those dozen Democrats came from either Ada County or the Wood River Valley. Here are the communities where they did live: Pocatello, St. Maries, Tetonia, Malad, Lewiston, Mullan, Burley, Moscow, Sandpoint, Cottonwood and Orofino. The situation was similar in the Idaho House. It’s a stunning contrast to today.

The 1974 election did not greatly change any of that, though Democrats did pick up two Senate seats and in the House went from 19 seats to 27 out of 70. (The number of House Democrats today is 11.)

I do have a point to make in reciting all this:

At the time, the overall condition of Idaho seemed, simply, the way it was and probably long would be.

It wasn’t. Not everything changed, but a whole lot has, vastly.

Don’t ever say that nothing changes. Because it does.

(image)

 

Crapo on Harris economics

Vice President Kamala Harris’ ambitious economic agenda would have two chances of making it through the next Congress. Slim and none, unless she’d happen to have a Democratic majority in the House and at least 60 Democrats in the Senate.

It could happen, in theory, but not in reality. And the prospects of Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo voting for her economic proposals are absolutely zero. If he has his way, former President Donald Trump will be back in the White House next January and Crapo will be chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. All that, of course, depends on the outcome of the elections, and Crapo is among the Republicans who is slicing and dicing through Harris’ economic agenda and overall philosophy.

Here’s how Crapo thinks it will go if Harris wins: “It would be like the Biden administration’s policies on steroids. It would be tax and spend and regulate while pursuing a left-wing agenda. The last four years have been an economic disaster.”

Crapo points to the ever-rising national debt and high inflation as a couple of the lowlights of Biden’s three and a half years in office. And he thinks things will only get worse under Harris.

“Regulations would explode even further and she wants to increase taxes by more than he does – which is saying a lot. He wants to increase taxes by a trillion dollars,” Crapo said. The “Biden experience” is a good indicator of what Harris would do as president, “but she would do more.”

The senator might have a point. Even Biden has not talked about price controls, as Harris did in her vision for the economy. Price fixing has not proven to work in countries outside of communist or socialist regimes.

Crapo predicts that, under Harris, regulations would skyrocket, trade negotiations would slow to a crawl, and the premature push for electric cars would continue.

The senator acknowledges that the national debt went up during Trump’s four years in the White House, but a big part of the reason was the COVID pandemic. “And Congress, with Republican support, kept the country alive with deficit spending. Yes, it happened under his watch, but it happened under a pandemic.”

The best hope for trimming the deficit, he said, would be with Trump as president and a Republican Congress.

“Our deficit is in such a bad situation that it will go up regardless of who is president,” he says. “There is a way to solve it, but it requires Congress to stop the spending spree and get some control of the phenomenal growth of mandatory spending. But you can’t do that without 60 votes in the Senate, support from the House and a willing president.”

Crapo says the president could start the recovery process by rolling back regulations, which Trump did during his term, and changing the tax code. If Crapo ends up as the finance committee chairman, he could play a role in extending the tax policies that were implemented during the Trump years.

“The committee will need to work with him to extend, review and improve on what’s there,” Crapo says. “If we don’t get that done, it will result in a $6 trillion tax increase on Americans and it will hit those who make less than $400,000 a year. If it’s not extended, a large amount will be on those making less than $150,000 a year, or even $100,000.”

The Trump presidency, Crapo says, produced “the strongest economy in our lifetimes. That one-two punch of tax reform and regulatory reform did it.”

Crapo, as with other Republicans, is hoping that Trump will focus his campaign more on the nuts-and-bolts economic issues – opposed to leveling personal attacks or re-living the 2020 election.

“We need to get refocused on the economy,” Crapo said. “The border also is a problem for our economy, and it’s something that President Trump can – and will – fix. The No. 1 issue, I think, is the border, but I think that the next issue is the economy.”

He says that the charge of a new administration, regardless of who wins, is “to protect, strengthen and build on our economic security.”

Crapo doesn’t see any of that happening with Vice President Kamala Harris in charge.

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

 

Good winning

Well, the Democrats have had their party, sobered up and gone home.

Chicago has survived another political convention.  Nothing like the one in '68.  That one was a doozy with thousands of demonstrators in the streets and Chicago cops maxed out trying to keep the peace.

No, Sir.  This one was much tamer with nearly all the excitement inside the arena.  Excitement aplenty despite everyone there - and we folks at home - knowing exactly how it would end.

Demonstrators, this time, were far fewer in number while trying as hard as they could to get some media attention.  Attention that amounted to next-to-nothing,

What we folks at home got was a ringside seat to a true convention.  It was slickly produced and run more like a political "production" than a functioning political event.  The purpose was to show everyone having a great time while officially naming a Presidential ticket.  And, it appeared, a good time was had by all.

In my long life, I've never seen two more divergent people nominated by our major political parties.  Never.  The choice has never been clearer.  Never.  When we mark our ballots on November 5th, we'll do so with very clear pictures of the contestants.

Most of the political prognosticators are forecasting a "close" race. Some are saying we may not have a clear winner even when the counting's done.  Trump is already making promises to launch challenges in various states.

If the vote totals end up close, you can bet there'll be counts and recounts for weeks thereafter.  And likely some legal proceedings.  If Trump's on the short end, you can bet there'll be kicking and screaming involved.

A key part of what's ahead will be the oft-repeated urging for people to get out and vote.  The Trump voters are already lining up to get to their polling places.  You know they're going to be there.  It's the one's who don't make the effort to show up that's worrisome.

My first Presidential election was in 1956.  Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson II were the choices.  It was the first election to be televised coast-to-coast.  The outcome was not close.  Ike was a campaigner.  Adlai was an intellectual.  Ike won by a large margin.

But, the 1960 contest marked the beginning of a whole new phase of campaigning.  Television.  Voters could see - as well as hear - the candidates in real time.  Neither man was a "made-for-TV" guy like John Kennedy and some others who would follow.   Coverage of the candidates - and the close proximity TV could provide - was new.  It was truly a "watershed" moment for politicians and voters alike.

What happened in Chicago last week was also one of those special moments.  No candidate - and no political convention - has been covered like what we witnessed.

Some of the most touching and memorable moments were the pictures of families of the candidates.  Especially those of the Tim Walz clan.  And, more especially, the tears of overwhelming joy exhibited by his son.  Absolutely heart-warming.

The top candidates for both national Parties will be on the road for the next nine weeks.  Stump speeches separated by extensive travel.  It's literally a contest that will be awfully wearing on all concerned.  Whether Trump will participate to that level is an open question.

Conventions are where you can do a little business while having a good time.  Campaigning, on the other hand, is where the work is.  And, good campaigning is where the winning is.

(image/By Cornell University Library - originally posted to Flickr as Missouri - The Democratic National Convention, CC BY 2.0)

 

Not gun control, warts or balding

Political fearmonger Greg Pruett has been trying to scare voters away from the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI) with the preposterous claim that it will bring gun control to Idaho. Pruett makes a living by frightening voters with fake threats to gun rights for the purpose of electing extremists to public office. It is also his personal meal ticket.

Pruett, who operates a variety of propaganda outlets (all of which have “donate” buttons), admits that the OPI is not a direct threat to gun rights. He claims it’s an indirect threat because it will “make Idaho more like California.” What Pruett is really concerned about is the fact that the OPI will break the stranglehold that his extremist allies have over who gets elected to public office. He is an integral part of an unsavory alliance–the extremist branch of the Republican Party, currently ruled by Dorothy Moon, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which is funded with out-of-state dark money--that has turned Idaho into a culture war battlefield.

The alliance supports extremist candidates and uses scorched-earth campaigns to defeat traditional, reasonable Republicans in the low-turnout closed GOP primary. Pruett’s job is to frighten voters into supporting extremist candidates by making false gun control claims against their opponents.

Gun owners should take Pruett’s outlandish claims with a large grain of salt. The Idaho Constitution contains a strong prohibition against gun controls. Article 1, Section 11, proclaims: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged.” That cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment, which would require a two-thirds vote of each House and then a majority of Idaho voters. That will never happen.  Numerous gun protections are contained in our statute books, including a 2014 law that prohibited a wide range of gun restrictions. The vote was unanimous.

With every possible gun protection on the law books, it would be impossible to chip away at the gun rights of Idahoans. But that has not stopped Pruett from claiming the gun sky is falling and that he must have lots of money to stop it. He has been reduced to pushing for gun laws that most Idahoans don’t want–guns in schools, the right of gun-toting private militias to march around town and preventing local governments from keeping guns out of certain sensitive venues. Now, he is making the easily-debunked claim that the OPI will cause gun control.

The fact is that Pruett has no use for initiatives. He has called for “abolishing the ballot initiatives in Idaho.” He opposed the 2018 Medicaid expansion initiative and the 2022 initiative to increase education spending. Pruett and his allies desperately want to kill the right of the people to enact their own laws. The closed GOP primary has produced non-responsive Legislatures that dwell on culture war distractions, while ignoring issues important to the people–schools, roads, property tax reform, water and the everyday nuts and bolts of running a government. The Pruett bunch thrives on discord.

Pruett contends that Idahoans must be armed to the teeth to fight off the many evils he sees in our state.  He warns, among other alarming dangers, that the “forces of Satan have mobilized against the forces of God” and that “God-hating liberal activists now believe they can normalize pedophilia.” His answer is for people to arm themselves to the teeth and “defend liberty or die trying.” If you go to the gregpruett.com website, you can easily find his “donate” button, which will keep you alive in the apocalyptic battle.

Voters will likely see several Pruett front organizations during the fight over the OPI leading up to the November election. His Second Amendment Alliance, which has partnered with Ammon Bundy, has a “donate” button. So do his Keep Idaho Free site, which is concerned about Satan and guns; his extremist Idaho Dispatch publication; and his Freedom Bros podcast with his old IFF pal, Dustin Hurst. Lots of opportunities for the gullible to financially support Pruett’s pocketbook.

But voters can rest easy. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that the OPI will cause gun control. Neither will it cause warts or male pattern baldness. It will only cause good government in the Gem State.

 

Short coattails

Political prognosticators for months have talked about the nation’s battleground states, and Oregon has not been included in the mix.

That’s because Oregonians almost certainly will vote in November for Democrat Kamala Harris for president, judging from recent election history.

Oregon was once a Republican bastion in presidential elections, but no Republican presidential candidate has taken the state since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most of Oregon’s presidential elections have not been especially close since then, either. Donald Trump only pulled in 39% of the vote in 2016 and 40% in 2020, giving a landslide to Democrats. Other Republican presidential candidates in the last three decades haven’t done much better.

Presidential victories often help lower-ballot candidates from the same party, which could matter in Oregon where several key races are competitive.

The highest-profile race is in the 5th Congressional District between incumbent Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Democrat Janelle Bynum. The 6th District rematch contest, between incumbent Democrat Andrea Salinas and Republican challenger Mike Erickson, could feel the ripple effects, too, and so might a few legislative races.

But the local record of top candidates helping lower-ballot contenders win by riding on their coattails is mixed, and even nationally, research has been inconclusive.

The statistics-oriented 538 website cited studies finding an advantage from a fifth to half of a percentage point for a down-ballot candidates if their party’s candidate for president is ahead by 1 point, with the advantage growing as the lead increases. Those amounts might not be large enough to matter in most cases, but if the local race is close – as it was in the Oregon 5th and 6th districts in 2022 – it can be decisive.

After evaluating numbers from 1992 to 2016, the 538 site reported, “We found a strong correlation (0.655) between the national margins for presidential and House races.” Earlier studies have found that popular presidential candidates tend to add to the number of U.S. House seats their party wins, though results can vary depending on the local conditions.

Not all voters respond the same way. Columbia University Professor Robert Erikson has noted the impact of “balancing” when voters choose candidates across party lines – such as a president from one party and a member of Congress from another – to keep each party in check.

And, of course, different states and regions have different records. In Oregon, there’s very limited evidence of a coattail effect in congressional races. For example, in the last four general elections, Republicans continued to win by landslides in the heavily Republican 2nd Congressional District in eastern Oregon in both the 2016 presidential year and in the 2022 midyear election. Democratic wins in other congressional races also showed no coattail effect in presidential years compared with midterm elections.

And presidential races have not appeared to have much of an impact on the Legislature. From the election of 2006 to present, each general election has yielded between 22 and 30 Republican House members. The Republican high spot came with the midterm elections of 2010 and 2006, which would indicate a little advantage for the party in nonpresidential years. The Republican low spots fell in the midterm of 2018 and the presidential of 2020. Overall, the shifts have been minor and subtle over the last dozen years.

In a looser sense, if one of the parties has significantly more energy and enthusiasm – which may derive in part from national politics – that can filter down to local candidates and party organizations. Oregon Democrats may be feeling some of that with Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential candidacy in recent weeks.

But a true presidential coattail effect is likely to be short, if anything, in Oregon.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Public defense

Idaho’s system of public defense, which means taxpayers paying lawyers to defend criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay one themselves, is going through a major change, for the better.

That means, at least, the state has taken an essential step toward getting to something that works better. But there are potential pitfalls. Oregon, which made a similar change a few years ago, already has encountered many of them, and it has fallen into several, and Idaho would be well served to take a look at where those trouble spots materialized, and how Oregon is trying to solve them.

Traditionally, the counties have paid for public defenders in a patchwork of systems for cases within their borders. The system is a recipe for failure, especially in smaller counties which can ill-afford the costs of prosecution alone, let alone the defense as well.

After action by the Idaho Legislature - count this one as a surprise - a restructuring in the badly-functioning public defender system got underway last year.

The new system sets up a single State Public Defender office, which already is running and staffed; it moves into full operation on October 1. Attorneys for indigent clients will be arranged through that office rather than through local courts. It’s funded to $49 million, and that amount could be increased with supplemental money by the next legislative session, if needed.

It’s a much better system than Idaho has had up to now.

But there are no guarantees it will work as intended. Sometimes, for all the good intentions, public defender systems in a number of states have gone awry. To get a sense of this, take a look west across the border to Oregon.

The Oregon Public Defense Commission, which oversees and assigns public attorneys for at-need defendants in that state, was started about seven years ago, emerging from a system much like Idaho has had. Its intent was much like Idaho’s now.

Within its first few years, the Oregon system was running seriously behind in both funding and the number of attorneys assigned. Searching for answers, the American Bar Association developed The Oregon Project: An Analysis of the Oregon Public Defense System and Attorney Workloads Standards, in 2022, to evaluate the depth and cause of the problem. It said Oregon had fewer than a third as many attorneys (more precisely work-hours) that it needed. These numbers were large: The attorney shortfall, it said, was about 1,300 lawyers. That estimate was later scaled down, but still is considered large.

The Oregon Legislature increased funding for attorneys, but that didn’t turn out to solve the problem. The lack of attorneys was still being felt even as crime - and therefore criminal cases - in Oregon trended downward.

So what gives?

A lot of the problem turns out to be structural, the way attorneys are able to bill and the limits places on how many hours a specific attorney is allowed to bill within a certain period of time. (Some drastically exceed their limits, which raises questions about the job they may be doing for clients.) On top of that, the agency has had serious problems with paying attorneys and otherwise managing its finances. The details - which sometimes involved pushing for perfection at the expense of carrying out the core mission - got in the way.

The structural, process issues involved have tangled into knots a system that ought to be working much better. Oregon isn’t the only state experiencing some of these difficulties, either.

Oregon is in the process of trying to solve those issues, and making some progress. Idaho would be well advised, as it gets its generally similar system underway, to pay close attention to what is and isn’t working for its neighbor. It may be able to avoid some of the headaches in the process.

(image)

 

Remembering Steve Symms

Steve Symms’ mark on Idaho politics was undeniable and his 1980 stunning victory over Sen. Frank Church was historic. Church was the last Idaho Democrat to hold a U.S. Senate seat.

Accolades came pouring in after his recent death.

“Steve Symms routinely pushed back on government overreach, stood up for the working people of Idaho and defended freedoms we hold dear,” said Gov. Brad Little.

“He was a staunch defender of conservative values in Washington, D.C., for the people of Idaho. His commitment to Idaho and conservative principles has stood as an inspiration for our state leaders,” said Idaho Sen. Jim Risch.

“Steve was an exceptional public servant whose dedicated years of service and unwavering commitment to Idaho have left a lasting legacy on our state,” said Idaho Congressman Mike Simpson.

Those viewpoints were appropriate, and well stated. I remember Steve in a different way, as one of the most personable political people I’ve encountered in more than 45 years. I’ve heard stories about Steve being a favorite traveling partner of the late Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers. I had some exposure to Bumpers during my days in Arkansas and they were two of a kind – gregarious and funny. I can only imagine the entertainment they provided to one another during long plane flights.

Many years ago, Steve told me a story about him filling in for Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virgina during a speaking engagement. Keep in mind that the two were polar opposites politically. But Byrd, as I was told, had a scheduling conflict for a particular event and asked Steve to substitute. That arrangement probably wouldn’t happen in today’s crash-and-burn political environment.

The first time I met Steve was early in my career (very early) when I was writing sports for the Daily Idahonian in Moscow (now the Moscow-Pullman Daily News). Steve dropped into the office one Saturday and, as usual, was the model of charm. I still remember a comment from a colleague after Symms left the office: “He just loves being a congressman.”

Indeed, he did.

I went to different places a few years later and was not in Idaho during his run for the Senate 1980. But I I had many occasions to converse with Steve when I returned to the state in late 1984 and became a political writer for the Post Register of Idaho Falls. I wasn’t always kind to Steve with my writings, but Steve never complained (perhaps much to my disappointment). If congeniality were his main weapon, then Steve took me to the woodshed at least a few times.

Access to Steve was not a problem, since he didn’t hold grudges. He always was willing – if not eager – to explain his positions on issues.

I had occasion to talk with Steve some time ago, and a “few minutes” turned into a lengthy conversation about politics (past and present) and life in general.

I was fascinated about his perspective of his campaign against Church. I’ve heard so many stories about how “bitter” and “nasty” that campaign was. As old-timers tell it, surrogates on both sides were quite active during that campaign. But for Steve, who typically was an upbeat campaigner, there was nothing dirty on his end. He had plenty of talking points during that campaign, including the need for “conservative leadership.” But as Steve told me, he had respect and admiration for Church, personally and politically. And no one was more surprised than Steve when he won that election.

One quality about Steve that I especially admire was that he knew when to quit. He was re-elected to the Senate in 1986, in a hard-fought battle with then-Gov. John Evans, but he knew that a second term would be his last. Maybe that explains why he paid little attention what I, or anyone else, wrote about him.

Steve was just 54 when he left the Senate, which is the prime age for many political careers. But Steve thought there was more to life than politics, and he didn’t want to spend his golden years in the Senate. He also thought that, after two terms, it was time to give someone else a chance to serve.

There was something that remained consistent about Steve, as a member of Congress and during my conversation with him. In both settings, he seemed to be quite comfortable with himself.

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

 

Close and closer

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

Last week'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 come up 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.  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.

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

Your scribe, long ago, hoped that Trump would wander off into the swamp - never to be heard from again.  Alas, that has not been the case.  His 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.  Typically, in Idaho for example, nearly half the 2024 races for the Idaho Legislature have no Democrat opposition filed.

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 soft shade of "blue."  Idaho, at the same time, has been consistently "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.