Diary Of A Mad Voter: Nathaniel Hoffman
Even Political Spinmeisters are Shooting Blanks in Idaho
By Nathaniel Hoffman, 4-07-08
 |
|
 | |
|
While the presidential race swirls on as close by as Montana, Idaho has been pretty much devoid of presidential race news since the Democratic caucuses in February.
So what do we write about?
If it were up to the Idaho Democratic Party, we’d write about how John McCain may have been a great soldier once but he has no plan for Idahoans whose homes have been foreclosed.
Idaho Republicans write better headlines (think Wayne’s World), but offer even more tired news hooks in their press releases.
From the Idaho Republican Party, dated March 27: OBAMA VOWS CHANGE – FOR YOUR TAXES.
Neither of these press releases from the state parties generated any news that we can find.
And here’s why. Neither Republicans nor Democrats in Idaho are clever enough to come up with their own spins. They just take the daily emails from their national spin doctors at the Republican and Democratic national committees and try to trick Idaho reporters into writing them up.
The Idaho Democratic Party asked in a press release: “Does Senator McCain realize that 10,170 families in Idaho were delinquent on their mortgages in the fourth quarter of 2007? Does Senator McCain have a plan to address those delinquencies?”
The question is not attributed to any particular member of the party and is left without an answer.
Idaho Democratic Party spokesman Chuck Oxley told me he gets daily talking points from the DNC and occasionally he tries to localize them for Idaho.
Idaho voters on the verge of losing their homes are not looking to November for relief. They are probably looking for a job.
Idaho Republicans cite an Obama vote on a tax increase and then quote Idaho GOP Chairman J. Kirk Sullivan: “It looks to me like he’s changing the definition of ‘tax break’ to mean ‘tax hike,’ and the definition of ‘middle class’ to mean ‘rich.’ That’s something every voter ought to ponder as the economy struggles and tax day [April 15] approaches.”
And it looks like Sullivan is changing the definition of ‘ponder’ to mean ‘file an extension’.
A little Google searching turns up a piece from the Republican National Committee citing the same themes against Obama.
Sid Smith, executive director of the Idaho GOP, said that he sent out the release because Idaho voters already know Sen. Clinton, but still need to be “educated” about Sen. Obama.
“There’s a lot of voters in Idaho that really don’t know anything about Sen. Obama,” Smith said.
Idaho reporters are guilty of their own form of laziness. At least none were lazy enough to copycat this spoon-fed news.
But having settled the Clinton-Obama debate fairly decisively on Feb. 5 and with Romney calling it quits, there’s not much to cover here.
It’s a damn shame, but perhaps the presidential race in Idaho is already over. Except Ron Paul is still on the ballot.
And then, we’ve got 13 people running for Sen. Larry Craig’s seat, so there should be plenty to write about.
Editor’s note: Nathaniel Hoffman’s weekly blogs are part of NewWest.Net/Politics’ “Diary of a Mad Voter” feature, a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. For more columns check in with www.newwest.net/madvoter. And for more information on each of the bloggers, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.
Comments
What actions can the government take that won't with some high probability trigger a larger crisis? Should the US government, through agencies like Freddie Mac, buy all home loans and eat the bad ones? That would require tax hikes which may trigger more defaults of people who can't afford the new tax rates. Further, for Democrats, a tax hike here means putting off plans for healthcare reforms which would require tax hikes and this is placed higher on the objective list among Democratic Party intelligencia. Beyond that, should we be bailing out people who bought on speculation as investors? Florida is inundated with these types of distressed owners. How do we sort them efficiently?
Do we force banks to refinance or extend loans to 40, 50, 60 years? First, again we are subsidizing investors who made poor decisions unless we can effectively sort out buyers. Second, arewe really simply postponing the inevitable which is cheap financing and poor oversight allowed buyers to purchase homes they couldn't really afford in the first place? Third, we are already experiencing a credit crisis which is prohibiting eligible buyers from getting loans as banks have shied away from home loans. How will changing the rules for banks and other financiers open credit up further? This, in turn, will harm those we tried to bail out in the shortrun as they try to sell their houses into a market with extraordinarily tight credit standards.
Saying we need to do something is great. Finding the correct action to take is difficult.
Where's the sandbox?
Let the subprime losers lose their homes; they gambled and lost. Those of us who played it smart should reap the benefits: how about a government check (tax-free) to compensate for the lost equity their lack of oversight caused?
Let the subprime lenders go under also; more will pop up like the weeds they are. Business doesn't need anymore taxpayer-funded subsidies, bailouts, or prop-ups; the taxpayers need them instead since we're the ones they keep milking for the money.