Richert: Will Minnick Be Least Powerful?

11 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  scootermom on September 03 at 12:20 p.m.

  I would rather have a weak Minnick than a strong Labrador.

• 

  BlueIdahos on September 03 at 12:25 p.m.

  In his two years in Congress, what has Democrat Walt Minnick done for Idaho other than voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?

• 

  Bubblehead on September 03 at 12:26 p.m.

  That’s a good question. Since Minnick doesn’t take earmarks anyway, that’s not an issue. And he’d still have an “in” with the executive branch for constituent service that a Rep. Labrador wouldn’t have. I still think that the Republicans won’t take the House, so it’s a moot point. No real data to back up my prediction, just a hunch.

• 

  Sisyphus on September 03 at 12:46 p.m.

  Agreed Bubbles but things are worse than a month ago.

  “In his two years in Congress, what has Democrat Walt Minnick done for Idaho other than voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?”—I guarantee he’s at least looked at his opponents record which is more than I can say for you. Do you really think most Idaho voters are that ignorant? Or are you just judging by your own standards?

  Knock yourself out.

  http://minnick.house.gov/

• 

  kamm on September 03 at 1:00 p.m.

  Like all questions that rely on future facts to answer, we’ll just have to wait and see.

• 

  BlueIdahos on September 03 at 1:08 p.m.

  Sis is correct, I’ve researched Walt Minnick’s record in Congress and here is some of what the Democratic Congressmen has accomplished in addition to voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker:

  1) Voted to make the Estate Tax permament
  2) Voted to increase gay rights
  3) Voted for tax payer funded abortions
  4) Voted for the massive, 26 Billion Dollar bailout of unions

• 

  Sisyphus on September 03 at 1:19 p.m.

  Hmmm. Somehow you and “research” don’t really mesh. Maybe we could unspin your nomenclature there and we get:

  1) voted to balance the budget
  2) voted with the constitution to end governmental discrimination against gays
  3) voted not to exclude health care for a woman’s reproductive system
  4) voted to assure Idaho’s children receive an adequate education.

• 

  hhuseland on September 03 at 1:27 p.m.

  I suspect that his conservative credentials will, after the election retoric is over, will stand him in good stead as he votes often with the republicans anyway.

• 

  hhuseland on September 03 at 1:27 p.m.

  I suspect that his conservative credentials will, after the election retoric is over, will stand him in good stead as he votes often with the republicans anyway.

• 

  ShoshoneConservative on September 03 at 2:19 p.m.

  While I agree with Labrador on many issues, I disagree with Hardy’s statement: “He would be one of the few Republican Hispanics in Congress outside of Florida, in a party desperately seeking to attract Hispanic voters. His occupation and ethnicity makes him an ideal spokesman for the party on one of the hottest issues in America — immigration”

  Although he is Hispanic, Labrador: (1) has rejected the Catholicism which forms a HUGE part of Hispanic culture in favor of Mormonism; (2) is Puerto Rican, not Mexican, so he would not, really, be all that relevant to the Immigration debate any more than would an immigration lawyer with a name like Patrick McGillicuddy; and (3) is, by all accounts, 110% fiscally conservative, unlike many Latin Americans whose political outlook is tinged with “Christian Democracy” (which is, basically, social conservatism + fiscally/economically moderate).

  So, I don’t think Labrador would be a huge magnet for Hispanic voters - he is, more or less, a typical western Republican who just happens to have a Spanish name and a touch of an accent.

• 

  Bubblehead on September 03 at 2:30 p.m.

  @BlueIdahos said: 1) Voted to make the Estate Tax permament

  I’m assuming you’re talking about Rep. Minnick’s vote in favor of HR 4154, a bill that would reduce significantly the estate tax in 2011 and beyond (which will be 55% without Congressional action). I’m further assuming you live in a universe where a bill that would permanently eliminate the estate tax would have a chance of becoming law over a Senate filibuster and, if it gets through that, President Obama’s veto, as opposed to the one in which the rest of us live. Armed with this new information that Minnick’s vote would have reduced the estate tax significantly and that the Republican’s votes against it ensured that the death tax next year will be significantly higher than it would have been had the bill passed, do you still think it’s a negative that Rep. Minnick voted for it? Are you one of those “If I can’t get everything I want, I’ll make sure everyone else gets nothing” types like Rep. Labrador seems to be?

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic