Democrats cave again

Sixteen Senate Democrats voted with the Republicans to give Bush/Cheney even more power to spy on us, thus confirming again they are the most lily-livered, spineless, cowardly, disgusting bunch of hopeless morons that ever pretended to be Senators. One Republican Senator reported that he was really pleased because now he could go to bed and sleep without worrying about terrorists. Do you believe that any of these dismal bastards really worry at lot about being attacked by terrorists? If they worry or think about it at all, they probably worry more about being struck by lightning.

Here at home in Idaho I find myself facing a true dilemna (for me, anyway). Larry LaRocco is running for Craig's Senate seat (whether Craig decides to run again or not). I view Craig as utterly useless as a Senator (probably for anything else as well). He always votes with Bush/Cheney, or at least 99.9% of the time. He is an anti-environmentalist who believes it is more important to ship a few more potatoes than to save the salmon, thinks ranchers should be able to graze their stock any damn place they choose, regardless of the consequences, would never even consider breeching the dams no matter what, and so on. So I should be enthusiastic about LaRocco, but I'm not. I seldom worry about single issues but in LaRocco's case it has to do with something of absolutely fundamental importance - nuclear energy. He's for it. I'm positively opposed to it. I believe that anyone who promotes nuclear energy has nothing but contempt for life on our planet. Sure, the planet itself will survive, but what of all forms of life, human and otherwise? Nuclear waste has a shelf life of thousands upon thousands of years. We don't know what to do with it and so far it doesn't look like there are any viable options. Sending it to Russia, as the French are doing, is not a solution. Burying it in Nevada is not a solution. So, until someone comes up with a solution I am adamantly opposed to nuclear energy. I do not see how, in good conscience, I could vote for Larry LaRocco. But of course I could never vote for Craig. It looks like I just may not vote for either of them.

Larry Grant, on the other hand, is a fine candidate with his head screwed on properly. He's opposed to nuclear energy. Running against Bill Sali, who has proven himself even more useless than Craig (if that's possible) apparently just votes against most everything, usually along with a very small minority of cranks and nuts. He has to do the bidding of the Club for Growth which gave him most all of the money he used to get elected. The Club for Growth doesn't want any government. I guess their motto is, fix your own bridge, educate your own child (we need more cannonball makers and farriers and brain tanners), and so on. There was a letter supporting Sali in our local paper last week. The writer claimed he was an "Oklahoma." In all fairness to the writer that mistake was probably our local paper's. Their editing standards are somewhat below those of Junior High. In any case, why is someone from Oklahoma writing on behalf of Bill Sali? I haven't seen any local letters of support. Sali received very little money or support from people in Idaho. How did he get elected? Because he's a Republican, or at least pretends to be. Here in North Idaho if you're a Republican you can be otherwise completely brain dead and still get elected. Sali is a perfect case in point. Craig is not far behind. Larry Grant is as fine a candidate for Congress as you could ever expect to find. Level-headed, willing to listen, having the public interest at heart, personable, a successful lawyer, the works. Will Sali win again? Hey, this is North Idaho. Anything can happen. There are people here who (gasp) still think Bush is doing a good job.

LKBIQ:
"The Republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it."
Elmer Davis