Just returned from the annual Pizza and Politics meeting in Sandpoint. If you subtract the people from Boundary County (Bonners Ferry, that is) it wasn’t much of a turnout. I don’t know what’s with the Bonner County Democrats, I guess they just don’t like meetings. Wendy Jaquet and George Sayler from the Idaho Congress were there and filled us in on some of the issues and problems that result from having too few Democrats in Congress. Republicans have been in the vast majority for years, which explains why Idaho has no power, bad schools, medieval laws and beliefs, and etc.
I was very pleased, however, to learn at the last minute that Larry Grant would be there. He was, and he presented himself very well as always. He’s really an outstanding candidate for the House of Representatives which now features, for Idaho, the one and only Bill Sali, who has proven himself unable to fathom even the simplest of ideas about how government works and what his role in it should be. His motto seems to be whenever in doubt vote no. As he seems to be constantly in doubt his voting record has been almost totally negative. He seems to operate by a rule that tells him, if it’s good for Idaho vote no. If it’s bad, vote yes. At least he’s consistent. I am still waiting for some explanation as to why the Boys of Boise decided to run Walt Minnick when Larry Grant is virtually a dream candidate. It would be most interesting to know all the background of this but Boise is so far away from Bonners Ferry it might as well be on another planet (sometimes I believe it is). There was a High School student in attendance tonight (very unusual) who was exceptionally bright and wanted to know why our schools were so bad, didn’t have enough money, and so on. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that if our Republican Congress had there way there wouldn’t be any money at all for schools. The mothers would be required to stay home and teach their children how to make bread and cheese, along with harnesses and cannon balls. Their motto has long been, “if it was good enough for Pappy, it’s good enough for you.” Vote for Grant! Vote for LaRocco!
It is truly inspirational to know that our candidates who are running for the most powerful position on earth have decided to engage in trash talk rather than discuss the issues. Issues, what issues? Hillary, it turns out, is a monster. Obama is worse than Kenneth Starr (I bet you thought no one could be worse than Ken Starr). Obama is not as well qualified to answer the phone at 3:oo a.m. as is either Hillary or John McBush. He may also be a Muslim, Hillary is not certain on this point. Before she died, that dreadful Olson woman was always crabbing about Hillary being ambitious. I used to support Hillary by arguing that ambition was a national value and there was nothing wrong with being ambitious if you were an American. However, I didn’t realize that Hillary was so ambitious she would say and do anything in order to get her way. She has demonstrated, as Gary Hart pointed out, that she has clearly put her ambition ahead of her love for country and is violating the unspoken rules of politics. Alas, he is quite right on this point. Hillary’s mad ambition is going to bring her down as she sinks lower now day by day. It is obvious she can’t catch up in delegates no matter what but she’s apparently willing to destroy the party to get her way (through some kind of miracle, like, maybe bribing enough of the independent delegates or some such thing). Get out Hillary before you are truly past all dishonor.
LKBIQ:
“Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.”
Ambrose Bierce The Devil’s Dictionary
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Pizza & Politics: It is nice to see such comprehensive descriptions of state politics. I am relatively new to Idaho and was told, before I got here, that I would find a very limited democratic base. But I went to the Caucus and realized something far different. There actually is a democratic party here! Anyway, I was pleased to discover not only that there was a party here but, unlike where I came from, that party was not the kind of party that dictated to everyone who should run for what office, was not the kind of party that a candidate had to get permission from to run and where, most importantly, no one had an entitlement to run for any office based on what they had done before. So, when I read your note, particularly after seeing Larry Grant speak at a Meridian Coffeehouse event, I was concerned that maybe I got that one wrong. When I heard Larry speak, he basically said that he deserved to be the democratic party's candidate to run against Bill Sali (what a true ass!) because he had chosen to run before in 2006, that he had good name recognition as a result and that he had a good grassroots organization out there from tht prior race. That sounds like entitlement to me. And then you say that "the boys in Boise" CHOSE Walt Minnick to run against Larry Grant when Larry was a perfectly good candidate. It seems to me like each of these comments suffer from entitlement. Heck, based on that same logic, Barack Obama should not be running. After all, that argument would go, Hillary Clinton deserves to be the candidate solely because she has been prepping for this for a while, has taken the heat for the longest period, had the best name recognition, had built up an organization, etc, etc. And that Barack should never have put his hat in the ring, but should have waited his turn. Instead, because and solely because Barack Obama chose to not listen the same type of entitlement spokespeople, those same people that right now are saying that Grant is somehow entitled to be the sole candidate, we have a rejuvenated party throughout America and, I dare say, we will have the benefit of a rejuvenated party here in Idaho because of people like Walt Minnick who chose to put themselves out there and to offer up alternatives for all of us to consider in this state. Don't we all, as Democrats, deserve to not only have a candidate but better yet two candidates and to be able to decide which one is actually better for us in Washington. And not only which one would be better in Washington, but which one would be better able to defeat Sali. And here, in Idaho, we are lucky to have two candidates, each of whom has had the courage to stand up once before, Minnick facing Craig in 1996, running against a then powerhouse senator with an as yet unknown wide stance, and Grant running against a weasal called Bill Sali. Both tried, both lost, but I have yet to figure out which one worked really hard then and will work hard now. We have a wonderful situtation here and I am proud to tell those people that told me there were no Democrats Idaho that there definitely are, and one of those, the one that deserves it and not the one that is entitled to it, will be in Washington next year to prove that we have Democrats in Idaho. Happy to be here!
Post a Comment