We Know Who Brady is, Who is Otter?

Sure, that picture of Butch Otter looks good, but he's missing a beak and some feathers. That's right, I'm calling Butch Otter a chicken.

Before the Idaho Republican primary, Otter had the chance for a televised debate with his Republican opponent, Dan Adamson. This was a planned event that Otter had agreed to show up to. Days before the event, Otter backed out. What a chicken.

Here's what the Brady campaign had to say about it:

"With a choice between debating the issues important to Idahoans or hosting a cocktail party for special interests, we now know where Butch Otter stands. When Butch Otter backed out of his previously scheduled Thursday Idaho Public Television debate with Dan Adamson, he was given three alternative dates: Saturday, Sunday, and today. He claimed he had important votes and Mother’s Day to keep him from debating. The reality is that at 5:30 p.m. today, he is hosting a cocktail party for special interests on top of the Hoff Building in downtown Boise, no more than three miles from the proposed site of the debate."

Here is what I think about Otter and his recent attitude about running for governor:

1. The majority of Otter's money has come from out of state? What investment do out of state interests have in Otter?

2. Otter knows he couldn't hold his own in a debate against Adamson or Brady. He's playing the politics of ignorance. He knows as long as he doesn't have to say anything of real substance than he'll still have his Republican home court advantage. What a chicken.

3. Go to Otter's website. It obviously has not been updated in a while. This is the age of information! Otter! Update your website and tell us what you think! Voters deserve to know who you are!

What's on his website right now? It's a thank-you letter. That's nice right? Well guess what? Otter raised 10 times more than his primary opponents and yet he only got 70 percent of the vote! And then, instead of being in Idaho to accept his nomination HE CALLS IT IN! If that's not a kick in the pants, it's at least a kick in the shins.

On the other hand, go to Brady's website. You can tell that Brady cares about keeping voters informed. He wants voters to know what you get when you vote for him.

Obviously, this is because Brady's going to have to work harder to get votes in a state that traditionally votes Republican. Citizens of Idaho, please, look past the "R". Is Otter a Republican? Yes. But, he wants to sell out Idaho to special interest groups!

Who is Jerry Brady? Brady's family has been in Idaho almost nearly as long as the Mormon Pioneers.

Brady loves Idaho. There's no question about it.

To find out more about Brady, visit his website. Even though it's still under construction, it's still gives you a better idea of who Brady is. Otter's website on the other hand is just the same old Republican mantra that we've heard before. Butch Otter, who are you? Are you just a drone from the Republican party, or are you actually a person?

For a look a fair look at how Otter dropped out of the debate, visit this link.

Death of the Repeal

This week Republicans tried to repeal the Estate Tax. Thank goodness it completely failed. If you don't know what the estate tax is visit these two links for a good run-down:

Fair Economy
Factcheck

The timing for a repeal of the estate tax is uncanny. It's no coincidence that it's being brought up during an election cycle. According to a recent Gallup Poll, Gallup polled Americans on what should be the top priorities for government. The results showed 42 percent said the war in Iraq should be the top priority. This is followed by fuel or oil prices at 29 percent and immigration at 23 percent.

So, if Americans feel that the top three priorities for government are Iraq, fuel prices and immigration, why are we spending time on repealing a tax that only effects two percent of the wealthiest Americans in the nation?

We're spending time on it because it's a political ploy by Republicans to appease their conservative base.

Read the Washtingon Post's coverage for a fair look at the subject.

Brady Declares “Idaho is Not for Sale!” in Primary Victory Speech

The following is a press release from Brady for Idaho
------------
Brady Declares “Idaho is Not for Sale!” in Primary Victory Speech - 5/23/2006

Boise, ID—After winning by an impressive margin in today’s primary, Democratic candidate for governor Jerry Brady declared to a rally in Boise, “Idaho is not for sale!” Brady’s general election opponent Butch Otter won a narrower victory over his primary opponent Dan Adamson. With the primary election at an end, Jerry Brady voiced excitement at the clear choice Idahoans face this November.

When Congressman Otter went to Washington to try to sell off 5 million acres of Idaho hunting and fishing grounds, Jerry Brady stood up with Idaho sportsmen and women and declared that Idaho is not for sale.

While Otter hosts cocktail parties for special interests like Sempra Energy, which tried to pollute Idaho air and water and sell its energy to the West Coast, Brady stood up for the people of Magic Valley and Idaho.

Brady’s campaign has energized the Democratic Party with his willingness to stand up for middle class, working Idahoans. A partial text of his speech follows:

“Here in this place tonight, I tell you we can win! Here in this place tonight, I tell you we WILL win! Idaho is waiting for us to say in a clear voice, ‘Idaho is not for sale!’

I ask you, will we allow the Idaho we knew and loved as children, or adopted as our own, to be sold off bit by bit or will today be the day we draw the line?

Is this the day when we stand up to the special interests in D.C. and Boise and declare to the world that…our land is not for sale? Our clean air is not for sale…our clear water is not for sale…our wildlife is not for sale…our children’s future is not for sale…our seniors’ security is not for sale…our jobs are not for sale to the lowest bidder…our government is not for sale to the highest bidder…Idaho is not for sale! I’m Jerry Brady, and I’m not for sale either!”

Ravings of an Elephant #3

As I pondered today about my views on Canada, I realized that I haven’t posted anything in some time. Rather then let the belief circulate that I had dogmatized even further to my conservative leanings, I thought I should give an update post haste.

While driving today, I perused the AM stations for an interesting listen, and came across the Sean Hannity show. I am normally a fan of his, so I stopped to listen, and became especially excited when I found that they were about to have a discussion with Oliver North about the recent allegations concerning a possible civilian massacre by Marines in Iraq. The other guest was a spokes man for a human rights group and former Pentagon information specialist, whose name eludes me.

Mr. North and Hannity were of the opinion that since we don’t have all the facts yet, the media should not discuss the incident, as it would just give the terrorists more anger and incentive, and divide the people (while possible tainting our view of Marines who may very well be innocent, and are so until proven guilty). Of course, the conversation was more in dept, and their reasons more fleshed out, but time prevents me from going into further detail.

I consider myself conservative. If asked, I believe the other members of the society (that know me) would agree. But, to this comment by a conservative icon I could not give my support.

Certainly, journalistic restraint should be used in order to provide a moral, moderate, objective coverage of information. But, it is or societies ability to look our problems in the eye that gives us strength. The result of this openness will either

A) Show the world that our solders are doing what’s right, and that we have such faith in them that we will allow their actions to be examined. Or:

B) Show that we are willing to speak out before mistakes become atrocities.

As a people and nation, we should be seekers of truth. If we don’t discuss things, then the truth can be all too easily substituted for that which is easier to watch, happier to put into history books. While I personally do not feel that the Marines did anything wrong, we have a duty to talk about it for the sake of those who died. If we don’t who will? We also have a duty to talk about it for the Marines sake, if they are innocent; we owe it to them who fight for us to show the world that they are honorable.

Attention merits attention. Our attention to it brings the attention of those who can determine what happened. Then can the truth be known and healing begun.