The Center for Biological Diversity, WildWest Institute and more than 50 other local and national conservation organizations released a report today (pdf) detailing the Bush administration's plan to open the door to development in Idaho's roadless backcountry forests - wildlands currently protected under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
Larry Craig is calling a do-over. Since he's retracting the guilty plea, no doubt conservatives will come back to his defense, since he's no longer admitting his guilt of a crime.
It still leaves a giant gaping question as to why it was worse to solicit sex in a bathroom than it was for Rep. Scott Boggio to drive drunk with Rep. Elsie Arntzen in the vehicle. But I'm sure there's a sound reason in there somewhere.
Is Larry Craig going to un-resign? He is if he's cleared, he says. Yes, that's right, he's going to fight to reverse his "guilty" plea, and, if successful, he's going to run for re-election.
Where do I begin with this?
His own party hates him. The rank-and-file hates him. Not for the gay sex thing, mind you, but for being icky about it. Democrats want him to stay so Larry LaRocco has yet another advantage in the 2008 election. Kossak mcjoan: "Because what could be more fun than the prospect of Republican Larry Craig staying in the Senate race in Idaho?"
Indeed.
If Craig does manage to shuck off his guilty plea - and with the legal team he's assembled, it's very possible - do all the conservative nay-sayers back track, for political reasons? Do they buy Craig's story that he has a "wide stance"? (Still no word on why he peeks through the cracks into other men's stalls.)
The best thing about it, perhaps, is to watch a prominent figure struggle with his own sexuality. It's classic closeted behavior, isn't it? He'd rather put himself and his familythrough an intense sh*tstorm, a very public trial and an election where his sexual peccadilloes will be the main story, instead of 'fessing up. He'd rather destroy everything he has rather than acknowledge his sexual tendencies.
Maybe more folks will understand how difficult it is to come out, and that maybe - just maybe -- they're part of the reason why...
Politically speaking, this is a disaster for the GOP. Does rumored anointed successor, former Lt. Gov. Jim Ritsch, primary Craig? Don't count out Bill Sali, either. It'd be just like him to step in and make homosexuality the issue of the Senate race. In any case, while the right devours itself, Larry LaRocco is working his *ss off to take the seat.
Well, Senator Larry Craig is out. New West's coverage is very solid.
No big news here. But I do think it's worth revisiting Dave Lewis's comments, not because I think that the guy ought to be hung for what he admits was a stupid over-the-top statement (one of the things that will eventually hopefully come with this whole Internet thing is an ability for press, people, and political parties to accept that we all sometimes talk before thinking), but because I think his more recent comments reflect a continuing grasping to justify his anger toward Senator Craig in a non-homophobic way.
Check out his back-and-forth with Jay where he says his problem with Sen. Craig is that "embarrassing and stupid behavior is unacceptable" and that he doesn't "care if he [Craig] is gay."
Well, sure, but when Jay asks about David Vitter, a man who has admitted to hiring a prostitute -- even though it is a crime unlikely to ever be charged. Lewis's response is that he'd feel the same way if Vitter is "found guilty of a crime." But isn't public admission basically the same as being found guilty?
And maybe Vitter isn't the best example. So let's look closer to home Rep. Scott Boggio faced precisely 0 calls from within his own party (as far as I can recall) to resign when he was arrested for driving drunk with a BAC of .14%.
That wasn't just stupid and embarassing -- it was extremely dangerous. A man with a similar BAC in Billings had recently struck and killed a pedestrian. Even worse, both Boggio and his passenger Rep. Elsie Arntzen either knowingly lied or made clear that they are too stupid to legislate when they said either that it was a "few drinks" with dinner (one wry commenter noted that 'quite a few' is still 'a few') and that they didn't know he was impaired.
Now, my point in all this isn't to make it sound like only Republicans do bad things. It's really any attempt to gain some clarity from people demanding Sen. Craig's head as to what, exactly, made his offense so much worse than sex with a prostitute or a drunk driving incident?
I'm asking because I don't understand how the outrage meter on the right really works. A President getting a blowjob from an intern? Impeachable. A Senator allegedly attempting to solicit gay sex in a bathroom? Kill him and/or make him resign. A Senator hiring a prostitute? Crickets chirp. A Representative driving while wasted? Crickets chirp.
Is it that it occurred in a public restroom? Because I agree that's distasteful, especially for a U.S. Senator. But after seeing everything else the Republican Party seems willing to tolerate within its ranks, I have a tough time seeing what's such a big deal about this.
And since I'll inevitably be called a hypocrite, let me just say this: Yes, Rep. William Jefferson should resign. He should have resigned a long time ago. And Congressional leaders should pressure him to step down.
Update -- Patrick Ruffini, a young GOP web consultant, is taking issue with those of us on the left who think that the outrage aimed at Craig is an indication of homophobia on the right. He has one fair point -- I think it is possible to believe in a religious definition of marriage that excludes same-sex marriage without being anti-gay. But I don't see where Ruffini gets off claiming that opposing LGBT folks in the military isn't an anti-gay stance. He claims it is a public policy issue, not a personal judgment. Well, sorry, buddy, but it's both.
See -- Jim Crow was public policy. It was also horrendously racist public policy. Now, you can make either that "I hate gay people and don't want to serve with them" argument or the more paternalistic "I don't hate gay people, but I know some people in the military would be uncomfortable around gay people, so I support discrimination to protect the feelings of bigots." Both arguments are fundamentally embracing of discrimination. For Ruffini to claim that such a stance doesn't make him anti-gay is a load of crap. And Marc Ambinder is wrong to acknowledge his point. He didn't really have one.
Update 2: It's worth noting that Senator Lewis did the proper thing here. I'm raising these questions publicly not to beat up on a public official who admitted a pretty minor screw-up, but because Dave has shown himself to be thoughtful enough to grapple with criticism. And I'm one of those folks who is arrogant enough to think my criticism worthwhile. He deserves respect for taking time to respond to his critics, for owning up to his mistake, and for not blaming anyone but himself for his poor thinking. We could all use him as an example on this stuff.
Update 2: Craig to make an announcement tomorrow from Boise, ID. AP reported that Risch is the one. Otter's people are denying that a decision has been made.
Update: What I'm hearing is that Craig is departing today -- and that Otter is appointing former Lt. Gov. Risch. GOP is saying Risch has money in the bank. That may be true, he's also got hundreds of thousands in debts from his last state race, so there's that. I was also told that he's literally the guy who pushed through a hike in the sales tax, so that might explain his 26% approval rating in Idaho. Anyways, CNN is reporting that Craig is likely to leave soon. My source (and it's a single source right now) says Risch is the guy who'll replace him. We'll see if this stuff bears out.
So, some folks want Sen. Larry Craig to resign in a flurry of outrage not heard from the right since Sen. Vitter 'fessed up to hiring prostitutes (wait, there wasn't similar outrage for a sex scandal involving illegal acts with women; color me confused).
And who knows -- it may actually reach that point. Obviously, I'd prefer otherwise. Larry Craig looks pretty vulnerable right now and heaven knows it'd be sweet to score a U.S. Senate seat in that reddest of all states. But the GOP leadership is pushing hard and Craig might give in.
Would that be the end of our hopes for the seat? Here's a hint: not necessarily.
Gov. Butch Otter would get to appoint Craig's replacement and the natural choices aren't so hot. Their short list comes from a surprisingly shallow bench.
U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson -- Simpson's a natural choice but his favorability is below 50%, he hasn't had a tough race in years, and he's only got $75k in the bank. Add to that the fact that the Club for Growth is basically pledging to primary him (probably with his colleague U.S. Rep. Bill Sali, quite possibly the stupidest man in Washington, D.C., and that's saying something) and you've got a stage set for GOP trouble.
Former Lt. Gov. Jim Risch -- Sure, it's possible, but his approval statewide is 26% and he doesn't have any dough.
Former Gov. Dirk Kempthorne -- How does a former Governor slip to a 46% approval rating? Probably by joining Mr. 25%'s administration. So even Kempthorne is far from a sure thing if he gives up his cushy job to give it a go in a Senate race.
Any of these folks, in other words, are still solid targets for a hard run by Larry LaRocco, who is out kicking ass right now.
Honestly, Idaho's going to be exciting whether Senator Wide Stance stays or goes.
How many Republicans are going to rush themselves out of the closet in awkward ways before the GOP finally stops trying to divide the country on these issues? Clearly, there are some deep-seeded problems.
Speaking of issues, check out this transcript of Larry Craig calling Bill Clinton "a nasty, bad, naughty boy." Too much.
Kossak greenfire - a wildland firefighter and restoration ecologist - has an excellent post up on the Idaho fires and the neo-Sagebrushies, "wise-use" clamor against environmentalists and new fire policies for the region's forest fires.
Greenfire's basic point is it's not regulations or roadless areas preventing logging and grazing that's creating these massive fires across the country, it's unprecedented temperatures, extended droughts, and the historical practice of suppressing fires quickly that are the culprits:
Many of the tools to predict fire behavior depend on climatological statistics, which are meaningless in an era of unprecedented climate. It will grow increasingly obvious in the next few years that climate change is having a huge impact on wildfire extent and severity. Those fire behavior events, once thought to be "rare" are happening with an increasing frequency, often requiring a major recalibration of probabilities and fire behavior prognostication. All of the best models break down in the case of extreme, plume-dominated fire behavior. Firewhirls, mass area ignitions, and other disturbing anecdotal tales from the fireline give veteran firefighters chills. There will simply not be enough money, nor enough equipment to combat all fires in all places. Those who choose to live in fire prone areas will adapt or be burned out. This will be a slap in the face to those delusional few, who still buy into the human dominion over nature rap, but Mother Nature always bats last.
Timeout on the blame game. Time for tough reality.
-- We're in the heart of another long, unrelenting and frightening fire season. This summer could match 2000, Idaho's worst fire season in recent history. The fall's first snowstorm is weeks away.
-- The long term offers little relief as well. Global warming threatens to bring the West more of what we're seeing this year: More drought, more parched range and forest, more searing summer weather.
-- Climate change corresponds with a long-overdue attitudinal change to firefighting. The feds are abandoning their decades-old practice of trying to suppress all fires as quickly as possible. This approach strains limited resources, puts firefighters at unneeded risk - and has left public lands choked with trees and underbrush and vulnerable to catastrophic fire, such as the Murphy Complex Fire. The feds need to change their ways, but in the meantime, millions of acres remain at risk.
Severe fire seasons? Get used to it.
And remember, fire season unfolds under Nature's rules - rules that are especially harsh in 2007, and perhaps for years to come.
On a related note, check out Sarpy Sam's first-hand account of battling a Montana grass fire:
The fire was really going so I had to come up with a plan. I started by trying to get the west side of the fire out up to the alfalfa fields. There was a couple miles on the east side before the fire found any timber but we were all ready only about 100 yards away from timber on the west side so I wanted to keep it out of the timbered hills. That's really hard to fight once its in the timber.
I don't want to drag Sam into my argument - I'm sure he has his own opinion on the matter - but it's a great post that puts a little drama into the topic, shows the kind of cr*p our state's ranchers have to put up with on a daily basis, and elegantly displays the virtues of neighborliness so readily present in our state.
From the Rocky Mountain West's Department of Shifting Politics comes dispatches out of Boise and Ft. Collins that show, once again, how fractured the old Republican coalition has become, and how many opportunities there are for Democrats - if they can shake off their Wall Street wing and embrace their populist roots.
Just got back East from a trip to Yellowstone & Grand Teton and was shocked at how quickly the towns on the west side of the Tetons are growing. I have visited this area many times, but much has changed since my last visit in 1999.
For those unfamiliar with the area, the towns of Driggs, Victor, and Tetonia, Idaho sit on the western face of the Teton Range. Across the Targhee Pass is Wilson, WY and the expansive valley more commonly known as Jackson Hole.
Steve Fenberg, of Forward Montana's sister organization New Era Colorado, and I (wearing my Forward Montana hat) have an op-ed in the Denver Post today highlighting how young Westerners are repainting the Rockies blue.
Call it blowback from the Sagebrush Rebellion. The same region that took a turn for the hard right a generation ago is now trending blue. The secret in the story is said to be a lot of things - different, authentically Western Democrats, and maybe an influx of people from California - but it may be simpler than all that.
The descendants of the rebels themselves - today's Western youth - are leading the charge for a more Democratic West. If the trends continue, the Republican Party may find itself in a world of hurt.
Now, I don't think the Republicans have lost the Millenial Generation. Nor do I believe they need to. But in order to have a chance with Millenials, who are the largest generation in American history, they need to change a bit. They can't mix unilateral foreign policy with anti-government, anti-science, and anti-diversity views and expect to get much support from a generation whose views are distinctly multilateral, communitarian, environmentalist, and tolerant.
If you want to support Forward Montana, consider becoming a member. Alternatively, click on the lovely ad in the upper left to buy some sweet t-shirts.
In 2005, I wrote a national op-ed for Knight Ridder newspapers that showed how when right-wing congressional politicians return home as governors from the fantasy land known as Washington, D.C., they often drop their conservative economic elitism in the face of reality. Last week, I wrote that the conservative movement in the Rocky Mountain West is seeing this same economic elitism decline as an effective political cudgel, and not surprisingly, many Rocky Mountain states are watching their Republican parties descend into disrepair (here in Colorado, for instance, the GOP has resorted to hiring as party chairman the same supposed "guru" who most recently helped commandeer his boss George Allen from leading presidential candidate to historical cautionary tale). Now, up in Idaho, we see the convergence of both of these phenomena, as Gov. Butch Otter (R) has become yet another conservative Washington-insider-turned-home-state-economic-realist and yet another Rocky Mountain Republican fleeing his own party's elite consensus.
Update: Larry's finished up the chat, and you can see the discussion here. I definitely recommend checking his comments out. For one, he advocated using nuclear plants as an alternative to coal -- you'll not get a huge shout out from me on that issue, but it shows that Larry's willing to discuss some difficult choices regarding energy development, the kind of independent-minded grittiness we expect from our Western Dems. (Plus, it's a step up from coal, eh?)
Larry's got a real shot at this seat, believe it or not. Especially if he gets enough widespread support to generate a buzz. And you can help, naturally, by dropping a coin into his cup.
...
Julie Fanselow reminded us that Democratic Senate candidate, Larry LaRocco, is live blogging at the Daily Kos today. (Here's the link.)
Larry's a strong candidate for Idaho's 2008 Senate race, and has live-blogged at Kos before, in which he laid out his ideas for alternative energy, Internet connectivity for the state, and protection of wilderness areas.
So head on over at noon and pitch Larry some of your questions. Even if you're not from Idaho, now's a good time to start measuring up candidates that need our support heading into 2008.
This came from something else I'm working on, and I thought it deserved a post of its own.
my math was wrong on Montana, these are the corrected numbers.
Per capita deaths of Montanans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 58,125
Per capita deaths of Montanans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 54,706
Compare that with this:
Per capita deaths of Pennsylvanians in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 83,581
Per capita deaths of Pennsylvanians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 77,312
Per capita deaths of Californians in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 109,816
Per capita deaths of Californians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 101,130
Per capita deaths of Texans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 84,229
Per capita deaths of Texans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 77,814
Per capita deaths of Coloradians in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 129,167
Per capita deaths of Coloradians in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 113,414
Per capita deaths of Idahoans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 81,765
Per capita deaths of Idahoans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 81,765
Per capita deaths of Utahans in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 165,000
Per capita deaths of Utahans in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 145,58
Per capita deaths of Wyomingites in the Iraqi war theatre: 1 per 56,111
Per capita deaths of Wyominites in both the Iraqi war theatre and in Afghanistan: 1 per 45,909
I used figures from the U.S. Census Bureau's Annual Population Estimates 2000 to 2006, and ballparked the above states average estimated population for the period between 2000 and 2006 (I used 930,000 for Montana; 12,370,000 for Pennsylvania; 35,800,000 for California; and 23,500,000 for Texas. 4,650,000 for Colorado; 1,390,000 for Idaho; 2,475,000 for Utah; and 505,000 for Wyoming)
I took military death information from the Department of Defense, but I did use other more up-to-date death figures for Montana. I used 16 for the number of Montanans killed in Iraq, and 1 for the number of Montanans killed in Afghanistan.
You can nosh that around any way you'd like - but a consistent approach will show one thing that I started thinking about back at the beginning of the year when I wrote the original post linked to above - that Montanans are paying a pretty high price for an illegal war in Iraq.
Gov. Butch Otter has a message for President Bush: Don't send the Idaho National Guard to Iraq again.
[...]
"Idaho families already have made tremendous personal sacrifices for this war. I would certainly make a personal and persuasive argument to the president that our men and women have gone above and beyond," Otter said in a prepared statement.
Statesman reporters noted that Idaho guardsmen and women have already served quite a few months of active duty recently, enough that under Pentagon rules they would be unlikely to be called up.
Unreal, in Idaho, Democrats picked up six House seats, enough to justify adding an additional Democrat to House committees, but Republicans refused to grant a single additional appointee to a key committee (Julie Fanselow of Red State Rebels has more).
Here in Montana, something similar has occured. Even considering Rick Jore to be a Republican (an affiliation that Scott Sales appears to be entirely too eager to make), Republicans outnumber Democrats by only two members -- a mere 2% of the body. Yet Republicans are indicating that they plan to appoint committees with 11 Republicans and 8 Democrats. The reason for the Republicans to do this, of course, is to craft a false insurance policy. If you've got a 3-seat margin you can lose one member and still hold a majority.
But is there any reason why a party should have a larger margin on a committee than they do in a chamber as a whole? Literally, that's just backwards.
Senate Minority Leader Corey Stapleton might want to call his House colleagues. Mike Cooney is a nice guy, but he could easily pull a similar move in the Senate. And after Montanans get a taste of Sales' style Republicanism and put Dems firmly in control next time, I don't think their party will appreciate similar treatment.
Say what you want about Dems being in control last time, by virtually all indications they were respectful in their appointments and hardly vindictive, especially considering some of the treatment they received from Republicans over the years. You'd think that Republicans would realize the pendulum could easily swing.
They haven't. This is pure spite and vindictiveness -- another indication that Sideshow Scott Sales and his buddy Madman Mike Lange are less-than-ready for prime time.
Honestly, what happened to the voices of sanity in the Republican Party? The Mark Noennigs, the Bernie Olsons, the Sam Kitzenbergs, and the John Bohlingers? Oh right, they either got primaried out or got scared away.
