The political divisions in Idaho are very different from those on the Left Coast. We get to vote for two representatives in the Idaho House.
For those in Elk Grove or other parts of Gavin’s domain, image that each Senate district had two Assembly members living within those same boundaries. Every two years you get to vote for two Assembly members. Such is the case in Idaho.
In my case I live in Senate District one. Thus, we have two House members on the ballot, House 1A and House 1B. House 1B has no incumbent running but House 1A has a Liberal RINO type incumbent guy versus two conservatives. In addition, the incumbent and one of his conservative challengers both have the same last name. A website that I could swear sounds a lot like the work of Aaron F Park, is claiming that the candidates with the same last name used to be man and wife—which seems to be a false accusation.
Last week I attended the 1B debate and this week I attended the 1A debate.
Here’s my comments.
1B is Chuck Lowman vs Cornel Rasor. Prior to the debate, I knew nothing about either guy other than Cornel runs the Army Surplus store in Sandpoint Idaho.
Cornel was clearly the more conservative guy on the platform. Lowman used several talking points put out by the North Idaho Republicans (NIR) group. In fact, he said very little that can’t be found on the webpages of NIR.
Lowman used three talking points from NIR as the basis of his campaign. First, he wants to loosen restrictions on abortions in Idaho. Secondly, NIR is pushing the corollary to their abortion narrative that Idaho has a doctor shortage that is the direct result of abortion restrictions. Somehow doctors like killing babies and doctor shortages are the result of medical professional fleeing pro-life states.
By-the-way, this is B.S. It has more to do with rural areas having less patients in a doctor’s service area, thus less services to bill. When most doctors are carrying close to a million dollars in student loans when they completed their training, it doesn’t pencil-out unless they live in a larger population area where they can bill more services. They need a larger population base to get out from under their burdensome student loans. It’s simple economics not abortion restrictions.
Thirdly, Lowman is pushing for more governments spending; especially, for government schools. Lowman just wants more money thrown at the schools not targeted spending or results-based metrics for the spending.
Lowman used NIR talking points but without enthusiasm or conviction. I felt like he was not forthright in what he believed but saying what he thought he was supposed to say.
Cornel Rasor was more focused on the Constitution and emphasized limited government. What he said came from a firm conviction on what is the right and proper role of government. He came across as less likely to be subject to outside influence than Lowman. Lowman lacked core values.
I left the event convinced that Cornel Rasor was the better candidate.
Since the debate, I’ve often seen Lowman signs in the yards of Democrats and Left leaning people. I view this as confirmation that my impression of the debate was correct.
The second debate was for House seat 1A. As expected, incumbent Mark Sauter did not appear. Mark doesn’t know the difference between a boy and a girl so expecting him to campaign and defend his record, or lack of one, is not surprising.
This left the event to challengers Spencer Hutchings and Jane Sauter. I was told that both were conservative and that seems to be the case. Spencer owns a gun store and is pro-life. Jane is a mom of seven (if I got the biography correct) and homeschooled her children. Jane is clearly an evangelical Christian and began her opening remarks with a biblical explanation of the Old Testament’s Deborah. (See the book of Judges.) Spencer said that he had formerly been a Mormon but that was his only mention of anything religious during the entire evening.
In her opening, Jane also took a few shots at Spencer Hitchings concerning the Bonner County Central Committee and his time as their Treasurer. Jane is endorsed by the group and not Spencer. Clearly some history that has not been well publicized is lurking in the past.
A question that has been used in each debate concerns polygamy. Polygamy is outlawed by the Idaho Constitution, but the legislature has never enacted any laws to prohibit the practice. It has been claimed that some folks in my county have multiple wives. Part of the complaint is that said women are collecting benefits from the welfare system so that the dad doesn’t have to support his brood. This allows him to impregnate even more women without responsibility.
Men impregnating women and then letting the government foot the bill is really nothing new. It’s been a fixture of the Great Society since 1964 but I guess when Mormon sects do it then it’s a problem.
Oh, on that subject, Jane Sauter said that one of her kids had met a girl that had over 149 siblings (brothers and sisters for those readers in Rio Linda).
After the debate, my wife and I still can’t make up our minds who to support. However, I did think it interesting that prior to the debate my wife had collected one of each item from Jane Sauter’s information table but after the conclusion of the debate, she returned them all to the information table.
Two conservative challengers versus an incumbent Liberal means that the 1A vote will likely be split and the incumbent wins. Thus, maybe it doesn’t matter who we support except in our own conscience.
The one question that I have that nobody seems interested in researching is what was the voter registration of Chuck Lowman and Mark Sauter prior to them moving to Idaho? I’d bet a meal at your local In-and-Out Burger that they were probably not Republicans.
Anyway, the election is a week from today. We will see how things turn out.