Good evening again Douglas!
Douglas Friedman wrote in response to Robert Goodman...
Robert Goodman wrote:
Maybe the difference has to do with the sort of thing it means for a
leader
to state a position, versus a follower. I think among the rank & file
there are plenty who'll go along with drug reforms, in that they'll agree
with that side in a survey or when you ask them. But I think it's a lot
harder for a leader to take a public position like that.
To which, you replied:
Back in the 1970s, all politicians who were pro-choice on abortion felt
obligated to make the statement "I am personally opposed to abortion but
..." That has certainly changed. At this point, no one cares about a
candidate's "personal" views on abortion, but only about the public
policy stance that person takes. Perhaps the same will happen with the
drug issue.
I am not so sure I would rapidly sign on to this assessment. It
appears at least, even casual remarks, or even early briefs
written by Supreme Court nominees are regarded very HEAVILY in
terms of how a person might personally feel about such a hot
button issues just to qualify to Senate approval. We haven't
seen the last of this latest one, of course, but the outcome
could very well suggest that what someone's 'personal beliefs
might be' could very well suggest the outcome. Other factors
enter into this to be sure, such as Bush's current approval ratings.
It is also interesting to note how the 'drug war' has changed the
landscape in terms of even dealing with this matter entirely.
Note that Oregon way back in the late 1960s was one of the
leading States that seemed to regard Marijuana usage as a
misdemeanor at best. Now with the Medical Marijuana debate
coming to the forefront, it appears that the trump card is now
that even such States as Oregon, California and a host of others
might be on a collision course of sorts, with Federal power to
use the badge and the gun to enforce Federal laws, thereby
overriding State law.
You continued in response to Robert Goodman...
In the last congressional election, the GOP candidate was Scott Paterno,
son of Penn State coach Joe Paterno, but otherwise with no particular
qualifications, though I met him and he seemed OK. In college (not that
long ago, since he's in his 30s), he had written in support of drug
legalization. He felt obligated to renounce that view and most people
accepted it. When I met him and told him he should have stuck with his
position, I got the sense that he still held his original view. He got
thumped in the election by a 9-or-so term incumbent, though the GOP has
a significant registration edge. It would have been interesting to see
what would have happened had he come out for drug legalization. I can't
imagine he would have done any worse than he did. BTW, he did about as
well as the pre- and post-primary polls said he would.
The situation you just described can be viewed from various
standpoints. In Idaho, as I have observed, local and even State
office votes usually are formed in a vortex surrounding what the
'good 'ol boy' Network seems to approve of. Let me try and
simplify this somewhat.
Idaho is obviously a pro-GOP State. North Idaho, which once used
to have a very strong Democrat presence, now finds a situation
that in order to get elected, even when you are really a Democrat
sympathizer, you simply run as a Republican! It's happened at
least twice that I can remember in this County in the last ten
years. One County Commission ran for State Senate as a Democrat,
LOST, and then re-ran for the Country Commission, this time as a
Republican and one. The other instance was the County Sheriff
who originally was placed in office as a Democrat. He lost. He
came back after a tour with the Federal government in Bosnia, and
ran as a Republican, and magically he was overwhelmingly re-elected!
The leaning in Idaho, even north Idaho today, is largely a solid
GOP strong hold, although that might be changing, and it is still
too early to tell.
If you compound what I just wrote, throughout an entire block of
north Idaho you come around to what I am suggesting here is that
Party labels themselves can be taken over by the opposite Party,
or at least insofar as Candidates might be concerned. This isn't
of course a Democrat plot to bring Democrats into office, per se.
It's simply political expediency, and in that sense at least it
seems to work rather nicely. I would venture to say that all
three of Idaho's Region I legislative candidates are entirely
Democrats wearing a disguise of the GOP, two State
Representatives and a three-term State Senator. It was even
rumored that Idaho State Senator Shawn Keogue was in fact a
Democrat activist when she first moved here, but realized that to
get elected she had to find a way to cozy out with the various
local GOP Central Committees at the local level to get elected.
I am not so sure that the rumor is entirely true, but the
credibility is certainty assuring that it most likely and
probably is!
Here's my main source for this information, although I have heard
the same story from other sources:
My Democrat opponent in 2004 when I was running for State
Representative (under the Libertarian Party banner), confided in
me, being himself a Democrat activist at the time, that Shawn
Keogue showed up at all of the meetings, but decided for
expediency's sake to bolt to the GOP. That's the story. You
wonder just how widespread this may be in terms of Idaho politics
these days, don't you?
Think about it. We are talking about just one small Region in
north Idaho. When you examine the legislative track record of
our State Legislature these days, it could have obviously been
entirely written by liberal Democrats!
Is there any wonder why there is such divisiveness and division
within the GOP in Idaho these day? At least half of the GOP in
Idaho is made up of expedient Democrats!
Kindest regards,
Frank
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
