Arrow-right Camera

Eye On Boise Recent comments


ShoshoneConservative Oct. 19, 2017, 11:12 a.m.

Under Title IX, the university has a civil duty to put in place, and enforce, policies to prevent sexual harassment, sexual assault, etc., or it can be found liable for sex discrimination. Even if the incident doesn't rise to the level of a criminal offense, or can only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence (as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt).


DionicioN Oct. 19, 2017, 11:01 a.m.


Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 19, 2017, 9:57 a.m.

Rush, the University has a separate legal obligation to investigate the sexual harassment complaint and address it, if the facts warrant action, in the school setting. Two separate sets of laws are involved, state and national anti-discrimination laws on one hand and state criminal laws on the other hand.


statesman_username Oct. 19, 2017, 8:16 a.m.

Of all the crimes listed, former insurance agent is probably the worst.


IDProud Oct. 19, 2017, 7:53 a.m.

Is he paying for his own legal counsel?



erico49 Oct. 19, 2017, 5:21 a.m.

How about a blind trust. Anyone can give just as much as they want, but the candidate will only get a balance for the account--no information on where it came from. People (pols of both parties) say that the money doesn't effect their votes. If that's true, a blind trust wouldn't bother them at all. Although the donors who think they are buying votes might think otherwise.

Steve Rinehart

Steve Rinehart Oct. 18, 2017, 7:51 p.m.

So, whose idea, exactly, was this? Attributed amorphously to legislative staffers compiling “various ideas that had been tossed around,” which does not get anywhere near close enough. Ideas pushed by whom? Supported by what group? What interest?



MJhartid Oct. 18, 2017, 3:37 p.m.

I can't believe you guys still let this moron bait you. He is like most nasty little creatures, leave him alone and he will go away.


slfisher Oct. 18, 2017, 1:58 p.m.

Nonono, he was never found guilty of rape. Only assault with an intent to rape, and it was a withheld judgment. Be sure to get this right.


DionicioN Oct. 18, 2017, 1:28 p.m.

You and the Supreme Court are assuming voters pay attention to where the money comes from. And that if they do pay attention, do they understand what is being bought. Only a handful. Conversely Trump proved agenda can overcome money.

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 18, 2017, 1:23 p.m.

"Comments from Trump versus actual assaults and rapes by [Bill] Clinton and Weinstein." So you are saying that Trump was merely bragging about sexually assaulting various women, but that you know he did not do it despite evidence to the contrary. I guess in your world it is okay to have a man as president who falsely brags about his power to sexually assault women based on his celebrity status.

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 18, 2017, 1:07 p.m.

The Republican party was for full disclosure before the Citizens United case was decided.

In Citizens United the majority opinion pointed to disclosure requirements as the alternative to controlling the amount of money corporations may use to advance political goals. "... [P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are "in the pocket" of so-called moneyed interests... This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages." Justice Kennedy, majority opinion.

After the opinion, after large campaign donors, including corporations, objected, causing the Republicans changed their position. They now held that the large donors or corporations would be exposed to unfair publicity due to disclosure of their contributions to PACs and the like, which would chill their exercise of free-speech rights.

Dataxman, are you going to call Risch, Crapo, Labrador, and Simpson and demand that they change their position and require donor disclosure as promoted by Justice Kennedy?


Sken52 Oct. 18, 2017, 12:18 p.m.

Much as I hate to, I have to agree. In the Citizens United decision that further opened the floodgates of cash into elections, the justices went out of their way to make clear that nothing in the decision prevented Congress (or state legislatures) from requiring full disclosure of contributions. If we can't limit contributions as a legal matter, at least we can require disclosure that lets us know not only who the group is (group names like "Americans and Apple Pie" mean nothing) but who the organizers are behind it, as well as how much cash they're laying on candidates or issues.

Maria Olsen Nate

Maria Olsen Nate Oct. 18, 2017, 11:35 a.m.

Rita Skeeter and her fan girls...unbelievable. I expect nothing less from you and your yellow/tabloid journalism. Equating Bryan Zollinger with a rapist? Really?


IDProud Oct. 18, 2017, 10:18 a.m.

Idaho Freedom Foundation testifying against detailed public disclosure of campaign financing. Shocking.


IDProud Oct. 18, 2017, 9:57 a.m.

If we want things to get really ugly, make it possible to sink endless money into campaign contributions.


IDProud Oct. 18, 2017, 9:56 a.m.

Betsy, can you link to a copy of the draft? Are they requiring more reporting of independent expenditures?


IDProud Oct. 18, 2017, 8:51 a.m.

Not the same at all. When Trump's disgusting comments about grabbing women's ______ (apparently, my comment won't be posted if I use that type of crude language), Crapo actually stood up, and took a strong position. I appreciated his integrity. Then, he quickly folded and supported the party over people.
The Weinstein situation has nothing in common with Trump other than their disgusting behavior and I don't see anyone standing up to defend Weinstein based on party. Who is supporting him?
There might be a few similarities with Clinton but still plenty of differences. Do you have some example of a Senator who was a legislative champion for efforts to support women who were victims of violence who condemned Clinton and then endorsed him?


david Oct. 18, 2017, 7:37 a.m.

Butch would know from whence he's speaking about "relicts" or carryovers from the past. Our state is run by such relicts from the 19th century.


slamdunk Oct. 18, 2017, 7:29 a.m.

OMG are you SERIOUS? Trump's behavior is reprehensible and you know it. Your reading comprehension skills are sadly lacking once again if this is what you took from the above statement!!! Try something new and think!

Iam Reading

Iam Reading Oct. 17, 2017, 3:02 p.m.

Give it a rest Marley. The Idaho Democratic Party, just like the DNC, is worse than useless. Look at all the races you allow to go uncontested. Or you simply throw up a ridiculous candidate that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected.

The simple fact is this is a one-party state. If you want your vote to count you have to vote in the only election that matters, the Republican primary


IDProud Oct. 17, 2017, 2:58 p.m.

Doyle Beck involved in campaign finance reporting issues? I'm shocked!


idaholc Oct. 17, 2017, 2:01 p.m.

It is not "ridiculous" to want to have a voice in who becomes Governor or Congressman in Idaho.

Voting in the primary has nothing to do with voting in the general election. If the Democratic party can come up with viable candidates they will continue to get the support they deserve in the General election. So far, I haven't seen any Democratic candidates for Congress or the Governor's race.

So are we expected to sit back and watch the Republicans nominate Raul Labrador for Governor or Russ Fulcher for Congress? Not a chance! Any practical minded voter in Idaho will chose to invade the closed Republican primary and influence the outcome, not sit on the sidelines and watch the whackos prevail!


DionicioN Oct. 17, 2017, 12:28 p.m.

In addition to this statement regarding resources he needs to discourage bad behavior. His back peddling on Trump's behavior does nothing in this area, just the opposite.


IDProud Oct. 17, 2017, 12:25 p.m.

I think a lot of women did feel Sen. Crapo supported them...until he turned his back on them to support Trump. How can he do so much work in this area only to put it aside to support the party?


slfisher Oct. 17, 2017, 9:15 a.m.

We were talking last night about legislators' criminal records and we were reminded of this guy:

Interestingly, he said almost the same thing that Rep. Zollinger says.

Just curious, should assault with intent to rape also be considered a youthful indiscretion because it happened so long ago?

Big Jim Swade

Big Jim Swade Oct. 17, 2017, 9:02 a.m.

I wish they would put the money into Highway 55 instead.


powderfarmer Oct. 17, 2017, 8:33 a.m.

what are you talking about? Betsy never said he was ineligible for office. It reads straight down the line of the facts in the record that everyone can see on the Idaho Repository. She gave Zollinger a chance for input and she printed that as well. That is good journalism. It isn't a hit piece. If you want to see what propaganda looks like, not journalism, go read a screed from IFF.


IDProud Oct. 17, 2017, 8:26 a.m.

There is a reason nobody trusts politicians, especially the "holier than thou", "personal responsibility" types who rarely take responsibility for anything and are so quick to judge others.


IDProud Oct. 17, 2017, 8:24 a.m.

I'll be watching to see if Mr. Zollinger and his supporters believe in that same redemption for others.


slfisher Oct. 16, 2017, 6:28 p.m.

The newspapers that I read ask all the candidates about their criminal records, not just the conservative ones. Does it disqualify him from office? Of course not. But shouldn't people be allowed to make their own decisions based on complete information?


slfisher Oct. 16, 2017, 6:26 p.m.

I saw the Boise one. It's beautiful.

Hingle McCringleberry

Hingle McCringleberry Oct. 16, 2017, 4:06 p.m.

Anyone who has lost a loved one or been hurt by a drunk driver should have been given the opportunity to know this before he was elected. I know plenty of people who now regret their support for him for this reason alone. Getting arrested for a DUI means you just got caught once. Who knows how many times he actually drove drunk and endangered lives. The Idaho Freedom Foundation, BCCC and everyone else who backed him should consider disavowing him. We should have zero tolerance for drunk drivers.

Maria Olsen Nate

Maria Olsen Nate Oct. 16, 2017, 3:59 p.m.

Does his record from 20 years ago disqualify him from office? The media is so predictable in their feeding frenzy when it comes to conservative candidates, no wonder no one trusts you.

Maria Olsen Nate

Maria Olsen Nate Oct. 16, 2017, 3:50 p.m.

What a disgusting piece of "journalism." How ridiculous that his experiences from 20 years ago, make him ineligible for office. Betsy, you truly are the Rita Skeeter of journalism.


NotReally Oct. 16, 2017, 2:50 p.m.

Easy answer......he is now immortal in the eyes of his constituents.


fortboise Oct. 16, 2017, 11:52 a.m.

"The sheriff has since demanded removal of the reporter who broke the story."

How Trumpian of him. Of course, if a crime had been committed, the sheriff could arrest somebody, right? Took the jump to the Bee, and I see a story still in progress.

"The Daily Bee’s publication of the call information enraged sheriff’s officials. A sheriff’s detective upbraided a reporter in a crowded Bonner County Courthouse hallway, cursed and said he was too close to retirement to abide unflattering news reports.

"Wheeler has since called for the reporter’s removal and taken to social media to level personal attacks against the reporter."

Sounds to me like it's said short-timer detective and Sheriff Wheeler who need to be removed.


slfisher Oct. 16, 2017, 11:21 a.m.

What I don't understand is why Rep. Zollinger's criminal record didn't come up before. Don't the newspapers in Idaho Falls check that sort of thing?

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 16, 2017, 10:33 a.m.

"Premium subsidies were not eliminated" except that Trump ordered HHS to stop payments.

Please compare cost of comparable coverage on the open market before the ACA went into effect. I'll even waive the waiting period for preexisting conditions.

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 16, 2017, 7:55 a.m.

"People are paying $20,000 a year in premiums and deductibles before they get the first dollar of actual coverage." I assume you mean with a policy under the ACA in the state of ? for a family of ? and receiving/not receiving ? premium subsidies (now eliminated by executive fiat). If you want to compare this situation for families without employer provided health care insurance before and after the ACA, you must to compare apples to apples, factor in the ACA's required coverage, which is more comprehensive than the low-cost catastrophic coverage pre-ACA plans that some insurance companies provided. The present ACA premium cost is higher than it need be because insurance companies must account for the potential sabotage and chaos created by the current administration and majority party in Congress. This is, in other words, a well-planned disaster


slamdunk Oct. 16, 2017, 6:52 a.m.

You oughta know about, the biggest recipient ever. Go back and read Breitbart.



clearwater1950 Oct. 15, 2017, 4:47 p.m.

",,,,,Cameron, a former longtime GOP state senator, has long opposed the ACA, but he says three changes that fall short of fully repealing the law could dramatically lower rates for Idahoans: Funding the CSRs, giving states increased flexibility to find savings with or without reducing benefits, and funding reinsurance for what’s known as “invisible high-risk pools,” which are invisible to the insurance buyers but provide additional funding to insurers to help cover the health care costs of the most costly patients, such as those with cancer......"

Well, duh, Cameron. If insurance companies are allowed to pool all the healthy, young folks into a pool and offer 5 or 10,000$ deductibles with very constricted coverage (low out-of-pocket expense ceiling, low max,"catastrophic" benefit ceiling, etc.) then, rates will drop for that pool....but rates will go ballistic for the old, the sick and those with preexisting conditions. And it is disingenuous of you to whine about the ACA on the one hand then ask for CSRs and "invisible high-risk pool" payments to lower the cost of insurance for those who are healthy, young and invincible.

I was young once...and invincible....until my mother rolled our car down an embankment with me in the passenger seat. Our family learned the hard way about the limits of insurance...and virtually all of the shortcomings were a big, big surprise to our family. Convinced the insurers were just lying to him, my father went to a lawyer who patiently explained that the terms in our auto insurance and the family's health insurance that seemed to say one thing about coverage...actually were explicitly defined in the blizzard of fine print....and were a classic bait and switch. "Your covered for out-of-pocket expenses" it read in the big print. In the fine print it limited that to a mere fraction of the medical bills. Needless to say....our American government was set up expressly so that Government should, could and would exercise an essential government function of watching out for the masses by imposing fair, equitable and just requirements/restrictions on industry to ensure that private industry doesn't do to others what our auto and health insurance did to our family. Industry of course, would want you to think that our Constitution and form of Government is there just to build infrastructure and fight wars and not to protect our citizens from the power that comes from privilege and wealth....but, sorry private industry...that is in fact what our forefathers explicitly had in mind when they crafted our founding documents for how our government is to function.


clearwater1950 Oct. 15, 2017, 4:20 p.m.

Single-payer is a complete government-run health insurance system under which everyone is covered, e.g., Canada’s system. The "public option" is a single federal insurance plan that would compete with private insurance companies.

Obama pushed for a Government we all know....the insurance industry wielded it's power over Dems...and it was removed from the draft legislation. The GOP members of Congress were non-players in this because they refused to even sit down and discuss the original Healthcare bill...which started with the GOP's own blueprint. The truth is Dataxman...the GOP did not want the Dems to have resounding legislative success (which would have very likely cemented a Dem Legislature and Pres for years to come) so played hardball politics, labeled the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" then spent 6+years assaulting it as bad for the country. Now the GOP is paying the price for their strategy to convince their base that "Obamacare" was bad for they now face a future of rising costs, poor healthcare access and a mad base.

As for the industry...and the Dems...who decried a Public Option and succeeded in drumming it out of the ACA bill.....all I will posit is that for industry that ALWAYS claims that private industry can do something cheaper and better than Government...what is the rationale behind being afraid to compete with the government? Private industry...if they are correct in their braggadocio they can out compete Government for any and all service...should have been able to blow the doors off a government run healthcare process. Hey health insurance passed up the big chance to shine and show America just how fair your rates are and how good your coverage for what you are charging us!


Pendleton Oct. 15, 2017, 1:19 p.m.

The 70,000 Idahoans who now have insurance thanks to Obamacare don't agree with you.


idaholc Oct. 14, 2017, 3:12 p.m.

Sorry Jonathan, too late to close the barn door. Eeveryone I know has already registered republican.

Iam Reading

Iam Reading Oct. 14, 2017, 10:37 a.m.

GOP snowflake is mad and has a sad. T. S., Parker. Actions have consequences


IDProud Oct. 14, 2017, 8:02 a.m.

Im still waiting for the great healthcare plan that Trump promised. Instead, he has done nothing except destabilize the market. He has demonstrated his only plan is to react to rubbish that Congress tries to pass and then blame them if nothing happens.
Where is this great healthcare he promised? Will those who voted for him ever hold Trump accountable for anything he promised? (Rhetorical-At this point, it's clear they won't.)
Just as important...will voters ever hold Congress accountable for their dysfunction and inability to govern effectively?


whats_up Oct. 14, 2017, 5:18 a.m.

Thanks for proving my point, from YOUR article, the very first paragraph

"The federal government will still pay higher premiums for millions of lower-income people after President Trump's decision late Thursday to stop paying subsidies to insurance companies..."


whats_up Oct. 13, 2017, 3:36 p.m.

What? Yes only those that qualify are able to get subsidies. What are you talking about?


whats_up Oct. 13, 2017, 3:27 p.m.

If the govt has to spend more, that means the taxpayer will spend more. What part of that is confusing you?


NotReally Oct. 13, 2017, 3:27 p.m.

The POTUS said today: “I met with the president of the Virgin Islands.” The problem with that is that Donald Trump is the President of the Virgin Islands. So unless he was talking about a very strange conversation he had with a mirror, it seems likely that Donald Trump had no idea that he is in charge of the Virgin Islands…and while it’s not surprising… it sure is a ‘moron’ affirmation.


whats_up Oct. 13, 2017, 3:26 p.m.

So the government (the taxpayer) will be spending more, how is this a good thing?


jmrusche Oct. 13, 2017, 1:59 p.m.

Demographics and arithmetic always win in the end. This pushes us 5-10 years closer to a German system or even single payer. I think that this decision will start to show in voting in 2018 (during the 2019 open enrollment) and may well mean the demise of GOP tax reform (who, if anyone, is willing to work with POTUS now?)


whats_up Oct. 13, 2017, 1:55 p.m.

So all those with subsidies wont be getting more money from the taxpayer? You seriously are going to state that? With a straight face?


whats_up Oct. 13, 2017, 1:54 p.m.

Which means the federal govt spends MORE on subsidy payments, meaning that MORE is added to the debt. Remind me again how Conservatives are for cutting the debt?

Also the one to insurance companies is in the ACA, however it is funded on a year to year basis. Seriously try reading the actual law for a change.



whats_up Oct. 13, 2017, 12:55 p.m.

The subsidy is actually in the ACA, however the funding is not, it is required on a year to year basis and only Congress can do that.



DionicioN Oct. 13, 2017, 9:19 a.m.

?? Laws or pieces of paper prohibit you from buying DDT, hand grenades, LAWS, etc.

Chas Holman

Chas Holman Oct. 13, 2017, 8:39 a.m.

It is going to cause rates to go up 20 percent on a national level.. Or so are the projections.

The health markets HATE indecision and everything up in the air, and this will only grow that instability exponentially.

Be careful what you asked for, your state is projected overall premium increases as much as 35%


erico49 Oct. 13, 2017, 7:45 a.m.

Maybe Charlene should go to work in the Treasurer's Office. Crane could use the prof. advice.

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 13, 2017, 6:23 a.m.

Think of this movement as citizens taking back their access to a state sponsored and state funded election process that the Republican party hijacked in the name of right-wing ideological purity.

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 13, 2017, 6:15 a.m.

There is nothing illegal about registering as a Republican and voting in Republican primary elections without supporting the official platform. No loyalty oath is required, and how would they know if you fudged on it anyway if there was one. I like to think of myself as a Theodore Roosevelt, Robert Smylie, or Kitty Gurnsey Republican when I vote in the Republican primary for the least offensive candidates I can find.


PalouseDave Oct. 12, 2017, 7:24 p.m.

Paper does not stop criminals or terrorists. It never has and never will.


PalouseDave Oct. 12, 2017, 7:23 p.m.

Dionicion you should read the Aussie and UK news of the murders and mutuliations by the most heinous methods in those countries. Also in Australia, the gun laws haven't prevented their use by criminals at all.

Please move to Chicago for a few years and drive around all the neighborhoods during the night and then let us know if more laws will help.

liz codoni

liz codoni Oct. 12, 2017, 5:52 p.m.

We had one at the county level last primary . . . but I do see your point. If the rolls had more Dems., though, maybe some folks might see the light to run??


DionicioN Oct. 12, 2017, 5:02 p.m.

The 2nd amendment can be as many pages as the tax code to prohibit aggressive and violent military style weapons.


ShoshoneConservative Oct. 12, 2017, 4:54 p.m.

The closed primary hasn't made much of a difference. For example, Thayn beat Skippen in an open primary, not a closed primary. People are crossing over just as much as they were before. We just know who they are now.


ShoshoneConservative Oct. 12, 2017, 3:38 p.m.

And the Central Committee has no authority to vet candidates, either. There was a rule proposed to do that a few years ago, but it failed. Anyone can file as a Republican. The Central Committees might offer their opinions on the Primary candidates, but that's as much as they can do, and they don't even do that all that often. Whoever wins the Primary goes on to the General as the nominee, whether the Central Committee likes them or not.


DionicioN Oct. 12, 2017, 3:18 p.m.

England and Australia have envious weapon laws. The issue is the mass murder of innocent children and adults with the use of military style weapons that anyone can buy by the dozens.


Charliehorse Oct. 12, 2017, 3:17 p.m.

‘Open and inclusive’ just like the Idaho Legislature’s majority caucus meetings where all the decisions and debate regarding Idaho laws occur.


Ericn1300 Oct. 12, 2017, 3:07 p.m.

R vs R would be better than what we have now, too many fine republican candidates have been "primaried" by a self selecting few from the far-right.


Ericn1300 Oct. 12, 2017, 3 p.m.

Open and inclusive but only " individuals to affiliate with the Republican Party who share our common-held beliefs". what a hypocrite.

Thomas A. Hennigan

Thomas A. Hennigan Oct. 12, 2017, 2:51 p.m.

If the conservative shift has been "even more the case" with the closed primary then might not that indicate that the GOP claim about Democrats was, at least to some degree, true?


PalouseDave Oct. 12, 2017, 1:41 p.m.

Fred, the revisionist portion is what Heller, Scalia, and a host of others have tried pushing in the past two decades. Dionicion appears to want the 2nd Amendment deleted entirely and he should move to Chicago just to give that thought a try in a area where it has effectively been implemented. I am sure he would appreciate his ability to move freely throughout that city at all hours of the day and night.

Over 40 years ago, in Constitutional law classes, that sentence was treated as two parts. Now everyone wants to cram the two together. By the same token, well regulated militias are now frowned upon as everyone on this blog knows because many have typed sordid comments concerning militias. The Idaho Constitution Article XIV clearly shows who is in the militia and it does not include the Idaho National Guard. Most of the Western states have similar constitutions which are regularly disregarded by those who wish to remove the 2nd Amendment or to treat militia as terrorists in training or to claim militias means the National Guard. The National Guard may be federalized; however, militias may not be federalized. There are differences between the two.


IDProud Oct. 12, 2017, 1:30 p.m.

"open and inclusive"? That's hysterical. In previous times, I might have agreed about efforts to register non-Republicans. Then again, in previous times we didn't need closed primaries for the GOP to be successful in Idaho. Those were the good old days when the Idaho GOP was open and inclusive.
Until the GOP takes their party back and shakes the control by the ultra-right, anything is on the table. Action needs to be taken before they run this state into the ground.


PalouseDave Oct. 12, 2017, 1:29 p.m.

You are correct. We are living in a time when the Constitution has been trampled on by slick lawyers and judges putting the rest of us in a hazardous position.

Perhaps you should move to Chicago where the gun laws are among the toughest in the nation. They don't have any gun violence there do they?


BobEly Oct. 12, 2017, 1:25 p.m.

What did the guy expect? The GOP has been overrun by the alt-right. If the adults want to regain control of the party, they need the independents and Democrats to vote in the primary for moderate candidates. Sounds like a sound strategy to me.


powderfarmer Oct. 12, 2017, 12:45 p.m.

So? I think where D's currently get elected they would most likely still get elected.


slfisher Oct. 12, 2017, 12:27 p.m.

The GOP used the open primary to claim that Democrats were voting for more moderate candidates. However, more conservative candidates were winning, and that's been even more the case since the primary was closed.


slfisher Oct. 12, 2017, 12:25 p.m.

I am fairly sure that Charliehorse is referring to candidates being vetted, not registered citizens.


slfisher Oct. 12, 2017, 12:25 p.m.

It's true that the committees are 3 Ds and 3 Rs, but the committee made a number of choices that reduced the chance that Democrats could win offices. It was either go along with the least objectionable of those decisions, or deadlock and have the courts decide.

As an obvious example, Boise is cut in half by the 2 CDs so that Idaho doesn't end up with one Democratic Congressional representative.


slfisher Oct. 12, 2017, 12:22 p.m.

The thing is, moderate Republicans and Independents can already vote in Democratic primaries. If there were any.


slfisher Oct. 12, 2017, 12:21 p.m.



slfisher Oct. 12, 2017, 12:18 p.m.

LOL. I had no idea he was so afraid of Democratic influence.


Dennis Oct. 12, 2017, 11:30 a.m.

You would.

Btw,,,, that’s a statement...... Not a question.

liz codoni

liz codoni Oct. 12, 2017, 11:27 a.m.

Well, I'd call Buell a "Cantamessa Democrat" (actually, vice versa . . .). I still remember the "Democrats for Steve Symms" bumper stickers Buell passed out in the 80s. If you can name a Democrat Buell's campaigned for since, I'd love to hear about it (not counting folks in his own courthouse . . .)

liz codoni

liz codoni Oct. 12, 2017, 11:24 a.m.

I agree with you there - so Cantamessa and Rinaldi claim to be Republicans now? You can have them, and good riddance, but watch your back . . .


ShoshoneConservative Oct. 12, 2017, 11:01 a.m.

I wouldn't mind that, but it would be the final nail in the coffin the Democratic Party in Idaho. A large majority of Districts and Counties would end up with R v. R races in November.


ShoshoneConservative Oct. 12, 2017, 10:58 a.m.

I'd consider voting for someone like Jack Buell.


ShoshoneConservative Oct. 12, 2017, 10:56 a.m.

I'm responding to where Charliehorse says "republicans 'closed' the primary to 'registered' Republicans only and who are vetted by the republican county committees."

We have about 2,200 registered Republican in this County, and I can assure you that they weren't "vetted by the Republican County Committee." Believe me, if we were "vetting" everyone who wanted to register as a Republican, Dick and Laurel Vester, Jon Cantamessa, and Vince Rinaldi, among others, wouldn't be on the list as registered Republicans. And I very much doubt, over in Kootenai County, Mike Kennedy and Dan English would have made the cut either.


DionicioN Oct. 12, 2017, 10:49 a.m.

The top 2 should meet in the general election. Eliminate the party R and D monopoly.

liz codoni

liz codoni Oct. 12, 2017, 10:38 a.m.

Personally, I'd urge all the Independents and moderate Republicans to register as Democrats, then maybe my party will quit with the sniveling and round up some good, viable candidates. They're out there, but why would they go through the process when we have Democrats in politics these days that are shy of even putting their party on their campaign literature . . .

liz codoni

liz codoni Oct. 12, 2017, 10:30 a.m.

Not happening in your part of the state????? Shoshone County (which you should admit was a Democrat stronghold) is now hooked to Clearwater and Idaho Counties, and our chances of putting a Democrat in the statehouse are now zilch.

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 12, 2017, 10:17 a.m.

P-Dave, the Second Amendment is ONE sentence in which the first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is not a sentence, provides meaning to or modifies the second clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." which is a sentence. If grammar rules and legal rules of interpretation, in the late 18th century, and now, the Amendment should make sense as one thought, not two. Your interpretation would leave the first clause hanging loose as some disconnected and incomplete thought. I would argue that your interpretation is the revisionist one. Even if one was to concede that the right to "keep and bear arms" is a right held by individuals, none of our individual constitutional rights is limitless. Even Justice Scalia recognized that: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). Keep in mind that Heller was about limiting the ability of individuals to possess handguns for defense of one's home, not to possess an arsenal of military type weapons with large magazines and rapid fire capability ("any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.").

Fred Frahm

Fred Frahm Oct. 12, 2017, 9:37 a.m.

You are right on that point. I carelessly went past the questions and straight to the responses. Regarding the responses, I stand by what I said about Crapo wanting to limit the investigation to everything but the Elephant in the room. That is, how the killer was able to kill and wound a large number of innocent human beings: the type of weapons used, the large magazines and bump stocks used, and the large number of weapons used. In addition, it appears that cost is the only limitation on accumulating such a large and deadly arsenal that was far beyond the needs of any individual for self defense.


ShoshoneConservative Oct. 12, 2017, 9:32 a.m. When you scroll down to District 8, what's that "D" next to the name "Kathy Skippen" represent, again?

Eye On Boise

News, happenings and more from the Idaho Legislature and the state capital.