Finally, Brian, you write about a true conservative victory. You just leave out the fact that it passed with the 100% support of Republicans who you regularly demonize and slander. And you also forget that the opposition in the Senate came from a Democrat elected with the support of your club - The “Republicans for Taylor” who followed Dorothy Moon‘s advice and refused to cast their vote for Rep. Laurie Lickley, costing Republicans the best shot at a Senate seat from Sun Valley in half a century. There is no question Lickley would have supported this bill, but your guy Taylor did not. Example number 792 of why your highly divisive and corrosive approach to Republicanism is not succeeding, but only empowering Idaho Democrats.
We must move in the direction of more free-market, limited government. To do that we need principled, conservative Republicans in the state legislature. Not all current Republicans can be counted on. We have to replace some of the ones who don’t vote in our direction consistently with ones who will. That’s not demonizing them. That’s making our representative system work correctly.
And I would agree only as long as we let the actual source of political power in America, the voters, decide who is the true conservative. As the vote on this bill shows, Taylor was no conservative Democrat. He was supported by individuals seeking power, not freedom. I support letting voters pick their most persuasive, conservative voice, and not empowering small, easily co-opted groups of party operatives to decide “who is conservative” without the permission of the voters whose power they are abusing.
First, I don't demonize or slander people. I explain how they voted, and whether or not those votes exemplify actual conservative principles, or are instead in support of big government, corporate subsidies, and a refusal to protect children and families.
Second, do you have evidence that Dorothy Moon told voters to support Taylor over Lickley? I would love to see it if so.
Thank you, Brian, for keeping a cool head. I find your analysis logical, forthright, and factual. You always back up your statements and avoid making unfounded accusations.
Brian . . . how many times have you "declared" things that turn out untrue. When you don't double-check your facts but say them anyway, that is slander. Cambridge Dictionary defines "demonize" as "to try to make someone or a group of people seem as if they are evil: The Nazis used racist propaganda in an attempt to demonize the Jews." You co-opt the term "conservative" in a highly questionable manner (NOT adhering to the principles of the American Revolution, but some "new" populist dogma you've never really defined - remember your disparaging of Lockean philosophy and Goldwater). You then pronounce, in Idaho, where "conservative" is revered, who is and is not "conservative." That would be "demonization" on a par with declaring Jews "radicals and arsonists."
The founders of "Republicans for Taylor" cited Dorothy Moon's criticism of Lickley as their raison d'etre.
You're kidding, right? Remember you declaring me to be a "Rockefeller" Republican . . . even though the truth is Rockefeller Republican the one version of "Republican" I've NEVER been. Do you even know Jim Woodward. Your descriptions of him leave everyone who knows the man wondering "who is Almon talking about?" Outside your columns examining faith, which I find valuable, your political commentary is chuck full of ad hominem name-calling, and short on actual persuasive argument why a reader should desire more personal responsibility and less government. Sen. Steve Thayne is unquestionably the most "conservative" legislator I've ever met, and your column responding to Lickley even "demonized" (as in, cast in an "evil light") him. In the field of politics, without the weapon of slander you'd have no armament whatsoever.
See, this is where I think you're just sloppy. You imagine people saying things, or you yourself say them (Pepperidge Farm remembers you comparing Dorothy Moon and the Idaho GOP to the Stasi, the Cheka, and the Gestapo!) and then you assign those things to others.
Jim Woodward's voting record is not conservative. That's not slanderous, that's just the facts. He might be a nice man, a good father, a veteran, a churchgoer, that's fine. But his voting record is what counts when evaluating his performance as a legislator.
I consider Steve Thayn a friend, I've worked with him for two years in our roles as officers of LD14. The article responding to Lickley quoted a previous article from 2022 in which Thayn was already criticizing Dorothy Moon and the other officers who won election in Twin Falls, proving my point about how unity is only a one-way street for some people.
Honestly, I find your columns far more demonizing than anything I've ever written.
Thank you, you just provided your own answer. Steve Thayne is a center right unifier and you cast him as a divider. My columns are fact-checked independently and I stand by every word. Also, my editor’s policy is to issue immediate corrections should a falsehood be established. Number of corrections in three years: zero. When you find the truth “slander“ maybe re-examine your worldview.
I greatly hope the Chevron Deference dies a quick death at the hands of the Supreme Court. This would be most welcome indeed.
Despite the passage of this good bill -- which I laud as strongly as possible -- Idaho legislators seemed fine with deepening the deep state, for example by passing S1380 - Health, social services ombudsman and other expansions of government. Fortunately for all of us, legislators did manage to push back against the pesticide industry's attempt to use Chevron Deference to skirt labeling requirements when they defeated H653 Pesticides, warning labels.
For two more (of many) takes on how Chevron deference mandates misery, see:
This change mandating the judiciary handle administrative rules interpretation de novo is extraordinarily valuable, but more must be done in the legislature.
Idaho passed section 29 of article 3 into its constitution, but the legislature has neglected to give itself the tools to actually do the review of the whole administrative rule corpus of 722 sets of executive branch rules. I wrote a statute giving the legislature Legal counsel offices and gave it to Chuck Winder a year and a half ago, but nothing has happened because of 67- 451A, the free bucket of money. Legislative legal offices could actually review the entire corpus of administrative branch rules, and give their reviews to the legislators at the beginning of each session, instead of the legislature only reviewing the newest rules.
Finally, Brian, you write about a true conservative victory. You just leave out the fact that it passed with the 100% support of Republicans who you regularly demonize and slander. And you also forget that the opposition in the Senate came from a Democrat elected with the support of your club - The “Republicans for Taylor” who followed Dorothy Moon‘s advice and refused to cast their vote for Rep. Laurie Lickley, costing Republicans the best shot at a Senate seat from Sun Valley in half a century. There is no question Lickley would have supported this bill, but your guy Taylor did not. Example number 792 of why your highly divisive and corrosive approach to Republicanism is not succeeding, but only empowering Idaho Democrats.
We must move in the direction of more free-market, limited government. To do that we need principled, conservative Republicans in the state legislature. Not all current Republicans can be counted on. We have to replace some of the ones who don’t vote in our direction consistently with ones who will. That’s not demonizing them. That’s making our representative system work correctly.
And I would agree only as long as we let the actual source of political power in America, the voters, decide who is the true conservative. As the vote on this bill shows, Taylor was no conservative Democrat. He was supported by individuals seeking power, not freedom. I support letting voters pick their most persuasive, conservative voice, and not empowering small, easily co-opted groups of party operatives to decide “who is conservative” without the permission of the voters whose power they are abusing.
First, I don't demonize or slander people. I explain how they voted, and whether or not those votes exemplify actual conservative principles, or are instead in support of big government, corporate subsidies, and a refusal to protect children and families.
Second, do you have evidence that Dorothy Moon told voters to support Taylor over Lickley? I would love to see it if so.
Thank you, Brian, for keeping a cool head. I find your analysis logical, forthright, and factual. You always back up your statements and avoid making unfounded accusations.
Laurie Lickley or Democrat? What's the difference?
Brian . . . how many times have you "declared" things that turn out untrue. When you don't double-check your facts but say them anyway, that is slander. Cambridge Dictionary defines "demonize" as "to try to make someone or a group of people seem as if they are evil: The Nazis used racist propaganda in an attempt to demonize the Jews." You co-opt the term "conservative" in a highly questionable manner (NOT adhering to the principles of the American Revolution, but some "new" populist dogma you've never really defined - remember your disparaging of Lockean philosophy and Goldwater). You then pronounce, in Idaho, where "conservative" is revered, who is and is not "conservative." That would be "demonization" on a par with declaring Jews "radicals and arsonists."
The founders of "Republicans for Taylor" cited Dorothy Moon's criticism of Lickley as their raison d'etre.
Who have I slandered? You're making accusations with no basis. Maybe it's projection?
You're kidding, right? Remember you declaring me to be a "Rockefeller" Republican . . . even though the truth is Rockefeller Republican the one version of "Republican" I've NEVER been. Do you even know Jim Woodward. Your descriptions of him leave everyone who knows the man wondering "who is Almon talking about?" Outside your columns examining faith, which I find valuable, your political commentary is chuck full of ad hominem name-calling, and short on actual persuasive argument why a reader should desire more personal responsibility and less government. Sen. Steve Thayne is unquestionably the most "conservative" legislator I've ever met, and your column responding to Lickley even "demonized" (as in, cast in an "evil light") him. In the field of politics, without the weapon of slander you'd have no armament whatsoever.
See, this is where I think you're just sloppy. You imagine people saying things, or you yourself say them (Pepperidge Farm remembers you comparing Dorothy Moon and the Idaho GOP to the Stasi, the Cheka, and the Gestapo!) and then you assign those things to others.
Jim Woodward's voting record is not conservative. That's not slanderous, that's just the facts. He might be a nice man, a good father, a veteran, a churchgoer, that's fine. But his voting record is what counts when evaluating his performance as a legislator.
I consider Steve Thayn a friend, I've worked with him for two years in our roles as officers of LD14. The article responding to Lickley quoted a previous article from 2022 in which Thayn was already criticizing Dorothy Moon and the other officers who won election in Twin Falls, proving my point about how unity is only a one-way street for some people.
Honestly, I find your columns far more demonizing than anything I've ever written.
Thank you, you just provided your own answer. Steve Thayne is a center right unifier and you cast him as a divider. My columns are fact-checked independently and I stand by every word. Also, my editor’s policy is to issue immediate corrections should a falsehood be established. Number of corrections in three years: zero. When you find the truth “slander“ maybe re-examine your worldview.
I greatly hope the Chevron Deference dies a quick death at the hands of the Supreme Court. This would be most welcome indeed.
Despite the passage of this good bill -- which I laud as strongly as possible -- Idaho legislators seemed fine with deepening the deep state, for example by passing S1380 - Health, social services ombudsman and other expansions of government. Fortunately for all of us, legislators did manage to push back against the pesticide industry's attempt to use Chevron Deference to skirt labeling requirements when they defeated H653 Pesticides, warning labels.
For two more (of many) takes on how Chevron deference mandates misery, see:
* Chevron Deference and the Administrative State. Why do US Courts always seem to give the three letter agencies the benefit of the doubt? By ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS (10/24/23): https://open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonemd/p/chevron-deference-and-the-administrative
* 4 Supreme Court Cases That Could Curb the Administrative State. The Supreme Court is reviewing the administrative state's power with several cases this term that could make major changes to the way agencies regulate (11/2023): https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/4-supreme-court-cases-that-could-curb-the-administrative-state-5529547
This change mandating the judiciary handle administrative rules interpretation de novo is extraordinarily valuable, but more must be done in the legislature.
Idaho passed section 29 of article 3 into its constitution, but the legislature has neglected to give itself the tools to actually do the review of the whole administrative rule corpus of 722 sets of executive branch rules. I wrote a statute giving the legislature Legal counsel offices and gave it to Chuck Winder a year and a half ago, but nothing has happened because of 67- 451A, the free bucket of money. Legislative legal offices could actually review the entire corpus of administrative branch rules, and give their reviews to the legislators at the beginning of each session, instead of the legislature only reviewing the newest rules.
These are interesting ideas that I'd like to dig deeper into before the next session.
Well? For one she would have voted for the bill this article is about, whereas the Democrat Brian‘s friends elected voted against it.