There’s a story out this morning (Post Register) about the two conservative US Senate candidates in Idaho. Apparently Rex Rammell owes some money to former Congressman George Hansen, about $100K. This info, unflattering to Rammell, was leaked to the media. Rammell says it was Risch supporter Bart Davis who accessed the info without permission from the parties involved.
So, is this dirty tricks, or just politics?
Some would say that Rammell’s own financial situation is a good indicator of how well he could manage taxpayer money. Others would say it’s nobody’s business…
Popularity: 12%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
Loading ...
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
I did not like Rammell’s stance regarding the elk hunt, but I respected that he was found not guilty for his actions by a jury of his peers.
I fell for the Post Register’s hit piece at first, agreeing Rammell could not be counted on to manage our public money if he cannot manage his own. However, given that the plaintiff in the case against Rammell has explained the problem as being squarely with Rammell’s former partner not Rammell AND supported Rammell for senator,
Now Bart Davis has been exposed dipping his hand into dirty politics. It is proven he sought and got the information about the Rammell lawsuit (for which he had no legitimate involvement or need to know), and the allegations are that he fed it to the Post Register directly or indirectly. The Tolsen attorney has been fired for sharing the information with Bart Davis, and both Tolsen and Davis may face state bar association disciplinary hearings over this. In any other state but Idaho, Bart Davis would also lose his legislative leadership post.
I cannot believe myself that I was so squarely deadset against Rammell at first, now I respect him more and more that he has stood up to these political thugs and his version of events tend to come out true in the end. If you think about the values you want in a politician, forget about your personal ethics about elk hunts and debt and think about Rex’s actions and words the last few years.
I believe in Rex Rammell’s integrity and backbone much more than Jim “Tax Swapper” Risch and Bart Davis. Rammell is revealing some deep fears among the Idaho Republican good old boy club, and we need to take notice and take action. This may be the year the golden child does not get anointed by the party establishment in Idaho. It is time to end the royalty treatment and vote in some true Conservatives.
I’m no fan of Bart Davis. I think he operates as most of the local Republicans do, in that he has a sense of entitlement and superiority and thinks he’s above the law.
That being said, I’m no fan of Rex Rammell either. That elk operation was a sloppily conceived and managed affair, and he handled the escapes poorly.
The fact that he owes money to the Hansens and has not paid, IS HIS FAULT. Maybe he can pretend that he could have done better if his partner would accept his share of the debt…but that does not excuse that Rex himself owes his own portion of the debt. (If there is something else in the story today that says otherwise I’ll have to retract this statement but for now, it’s what I’m assuming.)
So did he already pay back his half of the debt that was owed? Not to my knowledge. So until he does that I’ll continue to NOT be a fan of Rex Rammell.
On top of all that…saying that his failure to pay his debt is not indicative of his ability to be a good leader….WRONG. It is directly indicative of his character, and I won’t be voting for him.
I’m not a fan of Jim Risch, either. He dumped on Idahoans pretty good while he was Governor.
So, the fact that this turns out to be dirty tricks is no surprise, but it doesn’t make it untrue. I do hope that if laws were broken all the guilty parties end up paying for it, but as was stated, it’s Idaho and they’re Republicans and that’s not likely to happen in my lifetime.
Like you, Nemesis, I don’t like either one of them at all.
Risch very calcuclatedly positioned himself for the Senate run, and his campaign stinks of backrooms, insider deals and the Boise power players. There has been a lot of talk about his anointment, and everything I’ve seen- or not, because he refuses to debate his competition- shows he believes that Idaho Republicans are a bunch of sheep who will vote enmasse for the anointed One. So far, I have heard nothing at all from Risch about what he plans to do if elected. The last thing Idaho needs is another do-nothing bench warmer only shows up and votes No. We need an active advocate in the Senate.
He’s nothing but another party hack in an empty suit, and we’ve had enough of those in Washington for far too long.
Rammel made a mess out of everything about that elk ranch long before the elk escaped; he refused to follow the state laws written for such operations, and didn’t tag his elk, didn’t keep records on required vaccinations, left gut piles just outside his fence that attracted bears, and didn’t pay the fines the state leveed on him for breaking the laws. He’s always full of excuses and always wants to fight anyone or any agency who questions his operations.
I distrust any candidate who wants me to take his word as to why he wants to make the rules but doesn’t abide by them.
And, as a hunter, I find shooter bull operations sleazy and offensive. All the hunters I’ve ever known accept the idea of a fair chase as part of the experience… if the game gets away, that’s part of the deal. Shooting an elk inside a fenced compound is nothing but cheap immoral slaughter.
Given the choice of Rammel, Risch, and the wack job who changed his name to Pro-Life, the only reasonable choice this election is Larry LaRocco. The guy knows how Washington works, has been all over the state working and talking to people, and is willing to debate all the other candidates. I don’t know if he will win, but at least I won’t feel like I’m following the sheep herd over the cliff.
I’m going to vote for Mike Simpson again, too. I think he’s the only guy we have who really works for us.
I’m having an increasingly hard time agreeing with the Idaho Republican party. As a moderate conservative, I can’t help but wonder what happened to the Big Tent that used to accept and support Republicans of all degrees, not just the ones who will sign party leadership loyalty oaths.
Idaho is always going to be a conservative state, but I’m beginning to feel that the one-party dominance has become a bad deal for us… it looks like a lot of things in Idaho government are going rotten at the stump these days. Maybe it’s time for inside operators to lose some of their arrogance and realize that it’s the people, not them, who make the big decisions.
If a debt is between individuals and the one owed money says it is not a problem, what business is it of ours?
Guest #4…The one owed money (Mr Hansen)…didn’t he go to court to try to force the loan to be repaid? Isn’t that how it went to light anyway?
I seem to remember this being litigated, but I could be wrong. And if I don’t care if the deadbeat pays me back, why would I go to court to get a judgment for payment?
Hi, Guest #4…
All we have is Rammel’s word that Mr. Hansen is OK with the debt being still owed. It may indeed be true, but I’d like to read an acknowledgement that came directly from Mr. Hansen to be sure that it’s all fine and dandy; given Rex’s past record, I’m dubious about any of his claims.
I almost forgot about LaRocco cheating on his wife in 1994. He got caught in the same type of circumstance as John Edwards. Is it any wonder why this guy hasn’t been returned to any office (local, state, or federal) since that time?
http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8816719
Read it and weep Democrats!
Bundy, how thoughtful of you to contribute something of substance to the debate, something that you feel the opposition may not understand really well, and you’re hoping your statement might shed some light.
Or, contributing something to show what your opinion is, and why you have that opinion.
I’m happy knowing you’d never just throw out old bad news and then be a snot and say something as tacky as “read it and weep, Democrats!” which would only say that instead of contributing to the debate, you’re taking sides in a war and you’re REALLY happy to think you may have found something to make your opponents cry!
Oh, wait…oops. My bad.
I think that all in all (so far) I’m still voting for Mr. LaRocco. Unless Mr. Perfect Human Being with no skeletons in his closet (Bundy) wants to run, then I might reconsider…
Bundy, are you stating that republicans never cheat on their wives?
Let’s name a few republicans:
Republican Larry Craig caught in a gay scandal.
Congressman Mark Foley, another gay scandal.
Senator John McCain who is now married to his mistress. He cheated on his paralyzed wife. The same woman who waited for him while he was a POW.
President George Bush had a long term affair with Jennifer Fitzgerald.
The republicans not only preach moral values but practically shove it down your throat, all the while keeping skeletons in their own closets. Maybe they’re just a little better at hiding from the public. Maybe not…
Let’s take a list at Republicans pedophiles:
Matthew Elliot was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child.
John David Atchison – arrested for soliciting sex from a 5-year old girl. Incidentally, he later committed suicide.
Donald Fleischman was charged with child enticement and contributing to the delinquency of a child as well as exposing himself to a child.
Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under 16.
Larry Dale Floyd pleaded guilty to soliciting sex from an 8-year old girl.
This one is a pretty lengthy list, longer than even I expected. Do you want to hear more? A lot of men cheat on their wives. It is naive to think this is limited to democrats.
My sympathies to Mrs. Edwards. I am sure this isn’t easy for her knowing that the entire U.S. is aware of her husband’s infidelity. But please don’t imply that this is a democratic issue.
hmm, I saw that list on the other website. It was incredible how many sex scandals involve Republicans.
I’m betting lots and lots of scandals involve Democrats, too (didn’t google it but I’m sure it’s out there).
Truth be told, sex scandals are a dime a dozen, and the only reason they’re very public is that the man is a public figure such as a politician or minister or some other icon who is supposed to be a ‘role model’, and often made very public pronouncements agains the very activity he was engaging in. I say “man” because that one’s pretty constant, I’d bet more than 80% of the pedophiles and at least half of the adulterers are men.
(The percentage of adults who cheat on their spouses is probably more even than we know about, but as most of the public figures are men anyway, it seems disproportionate.)
Instead, we find that the pubic man is indeed a human being. And as long as the ’scandal’ involves another consenting adult, I consider that it’s none of my business. Once it involves animals or children or unwilling adults, now I’m fighting mad.
So, is there anyone else out there who is pure enough to have no skeletons of any type in their closets? No bad choices in their past? No exercises in poor judgment? I can cast no stones myself, and I truly believe there are few reading this who can (or should).
Amen to that Nem.
Hmmm… What’s that I smell? Why, I believe it’s the distinctive stink of flop sweat emanating from the RCC in Boise. It’s no wonder- they’re stuck with a candidate who has all the charisma of a mud ball, and is too chicken to appear with the other candidates and debate without a TelePrompTer in front of his face. I guess the anointing isn’t going as smoothly as assumed.
It’s just the same old dirty tricks the Republicans are known for. The only reason this all kicked up again is because LaRocco just got a 10 point bounce in the only poll that’s been taken in Idaho recently.
Risch has a lot more money, but LaRocco has a lot more small individual dontations. Ricsh’s bucks mostly come from PAC’s. For those who don’t know, individual donations are an element that most clearly shows the direction a campaign is going, especially the ones under $100.
C’mon… if the LaRocco’s marriage is still sound, 10 (that’s ten) years later, that’s not news, no matter how you spin it. It’s ancient history.
It’s easy to pick on the moral state of the Republican party nationally; let’s keep it close to home. If the Republicans want to put ancient history into the game, they had best be very careful.
Our ex-Senator Steve Simms scampered out of politics faster than a fox on the run, two steps ahead of his being outed for his legendary womanizing problems in 1993.
And let’s not forget our former sweetie, Helen Chenoweth, who made a political career by making the most of her affairs. When she was outed, she claimed political immunity, because her 6-year affair with Vern Ravenscroft happened while she was a private citizen. I guess Helen is different from LaRocco in some way; his affair happened when he was a private citizen, too.
I always got a kick out of Helen, although she was largely responsible of Idaho’s Nut-Bag reputation… I’m sure Larry Craig took hubris lessons from her.
She prayed, and God forgave her, so everything was hunky-dory, and Idahoans just needed to get over it. I’m not God, so I didn’t. I guess God’s forgiveness only went so far- she was the only fatality in a one car roll-over because she forgot to listen when God told her to fasten her seat belt.
Like Steve, the guy who got her into politics, she slunk out of Idaho for good asap as soon as she was outed. I expect ol’ Wide Stance to do the same.
It’s been just a year now since we all saw the disgusting spectacle our present senior Senator displayed. Going back to his past 10 years ago, it was well known that he was gay. He caused the Republican power brokers ceaseless headaches from the very first. Heck, it was no secret 30 years ago when he first entered politics, according to those who knew him at the U of Idaho. (I got this firsthand from one of his frat brothers years back.)
We’ve been discussing personal responsibility here a lot lately. It’s apparent that the power brokers in Boise haven’t been keeping up with our posting. The fact is humans are human, and we all have failures.
The Republican party doesn’t have any claims to righteousness, and they had best look to themselves. It’s funny what the whiff of flop sweat brings out, isn’t it?
Post 13 –”Risch has a lot more money, but LaRocco has a lot more small individual dontations.”
That is actually in part why I am on the dems side. This has happened a lot in recent history, the reps contributing more by far, but far fewer contributing. That has to tell you something.
Please, if you really think that I don’t believe that Republicans are guilty of the same indiscretions you are out to lunch. I have noted that Larry Craig is a low life and a liar. My comment was directed at some Democrats who were saying John Edwards affair was no big deal…..it is a big deal, even though he lost, it once again exposes the b.s. pols try to pull on the public.
The fact that the Democrats can’t come up with a better politician that LaRocco speaks volumes about how strong they claim they are this year. This would be like the Republicans allowing Larry Craig to run again in 10 years. It would imply weakness. That’s all…..no big conspiracy as you all would like to make it. Enjoy!
Bundy, I am glad you cleared that up. Your comment didn’t sound like you believed it at all. I was starting to think you were out to lunch!
I disagree that it’s a big deal if someone has an affair. I don’t need to know about it and I don’t care who they have sex with, as long as it was another consenting adult.
I’m more interested in whether they are in the deep pockets of vested interests, big businesses, or other heavily lobbying groups. I want a politician who tries hard to represent all people and is as honest as possible with us about the problems facing our country. I want someone who cares enough to fight for the rights of the everyday John Q Public, and for our Constitution.
I’m already expecting they will be humans and have personal life foibles the same as most of the rest of us have. That’s why it’s no big deal to me if they have marital problems (although I’ll feel sorry for them because those are tough things to go through) as much as it apparently is to others.
You’ve got a good point Nemesis. But in a situation like Larry Craigs, I do believe it’s our business simply because it goes against what he preached. Didn’t he oppose gay rights?
Where are your comments about Craig, Bundy?
And who are those ’some Democrats’ that said Edward’s cheating was no big deal? You mentioned neither in your first post.
There is no conspiracy in Ricsh’s nomination, just a bottomless hubris at work. The guys in Boise are counting on your sheep-like behavior to follow them over the cliff. If there were conspiracies at work, we would see things like an Interstate stop light directing traffic to the Coer D’Alene Cabela store.
That 10 point bounce I mentioned is the biggest one in the Intermountain West.
Maybe he’s not so hot in your eyes, but sheep have never been noted for their keen vision. LaRocco seems to be swinging a lot of voters. Name a Republican anywhere in this country who has accomplished the same swing in 60 days.
Face it. As long as Risch hides in his Boise bunker, more of the same is on the way. In that same poll, Rammel picked up 5 points. Even Pro-Life picked up a point and half. Even the wack jobs are deserting Risch.
Maybe what I’m smelling isn’t flop sweat… it has that strong bad odor, like deep rot.
I know I am going to get really blasted for this comment, but here goes. IMO, the reason everyone is so upset about Craig is because he is gay — no other reason. One way to look at him voting against gay rights, is that he was representing the people of Idaho. He’s suppose to vote the way his constituency wants him to — not according to his own agenda. The majority of the people in Idaho are against gay rights. Do you think he would ever been re-elected if he had “come out publicly” or voted in favor of gay rights? To the naive person, Craig was voting the way his party wanted him to. How often do we blast a politician because they aren’t voting the way we want them to?
I apologize, Bundy, for calling you a sheep. Since I don’t know you face to face, that was unfair.
As to conspiracy… this one isn’t too hard to figure out:
Kempthorne knows he’s going to be nominated for Sec. of Interior.
Butch wants the Governorship. He’s bored in Washington.
Risch also wants the Governorship. He stands a better chance than Butch, because he’s already in the office.
Craig takes a wide stance and goes to toe tapping, and all of a sudden, Risch gets to be the Senator.
And Kempthorne gets to be V.P. under Mitt.
Part of the deal is still holding together, because Butch and Risch got what they wanted. Dirk drew bad cards. No Mitt, so no V.P this time.
No big deal, just Party wheelin’ and dealin’. Louisiana has been governed this way for nearly a century. That’s what you get with a one-party state. The power and the money goes where it will, but never into the hands of the working guy.
There are conservatives, then there are stupid conservatives. Same goes for liberals. I would hope you are in the first group, not the second, and think for yourself.
Just wondering, that comment just blows me away. Maybe I’m confused but if a politician opposes gay rights, then we find him in the stall soliciting sex from another man, you are going to make us out to be that this is a gay issue? I think that’s an excuse to portray gays as victims.
Maybe he wouldn’t have been re-elected. Maybe he would have. Who knows now? But I don’t think it’s right to excuse his behavior and make him out to the victim. He’s married w/children. The victims here are his wife and children. If he is gay, he shouldn’t be married to a woman and he shouldn’t be opposing gay rights.
IMO, gays are very often victims. Many times gays are married with children. And, the gay people that I have known that are married, their wife knows it. But for their own reasons and agenda, they choose to stay married. I just can’t believe that a wife would not know that her husband was gay. Not that it makes any difference, but I believe that Craigs children are adopted. Do you honestly think that if Craig had openly admitted that he was gay that he would have been elected in Idaho? I really don’t think so. In more liberal states than Idaho, once a politician admits he is gay, his political life seems to be over.
I just have never thought that what Craig did was any worse than what a lot of the politicians have done. The only difference is that we are talking a homosexual relationship instead of a heterosexual relationship.
Craig lied. Tell me any politician that hasn’t lied either about their affairs or maybe about a reason to go to war.
Idaho is homophobic, but not nearly as much now as in the early 80’s, when Craig first went to Washington.
It’s well known that the State Republican leaders told him he’d better be married before he tried for the Senate; he married one of his staff, and adopted her kids.
I believe he became addicted to the risky behavoir he indulged in as much as the sex. And I’m over being angry with him; he’s delusional and needs some real mental help.
I honestly don’t think Idahoans are nearly as upset at his orientation as his hyprocisy and his anti-gay support for any and all bills that came up on the issue. The National party despises him for going back on his promise to resign from the Senate. He rubbed their noses in it for a year now, and still has 4 more months in office. He’s going to try to get a lobbying job, but doesn’t realize how much of a pariah he is now… even Spiro Agnew had the sense to get out fast and quiet, and he did quite well as a lobbyist afterwards.
I never liked his politics, but one thing has to be said about Larry Craig- he always responded to his constituancy when he was asked for help. I know of several things he cleared up for friends of mine, and was the only Congressional delegate in one instance that even responded to a pal’s passport problem. Kempthorne was Sr. Senator at the time, and no one from his office responded to repeated requests, but Craig did, on the first try.
Boomer’s 3rd paragraph sums it up well. I think it rates right up there with heterosexuals and hookers. It’s no different. The thing I don’t get is that Just Wondering keeps turning this into a poor Larry Craig, he’s gay issue and we need to sympathize with him. I don’t agree with that. What he’s done is wrong. Boomer is right, he should have bowed out gracefully long ago. Instead he’s made a mockery of gays, his family and anyone who had any faith in him. I hardly consider him the victim here.
Just wondering, I’ll add one more thing. I find it hard to believe that Larry Craig’s wife married him with the knowledge that he was gay. Why would you marry a man knowing that you can’t compete with his sexual preference and the only reason for the marriage would be to assist him with his career? I would be more inclined to believe that he perhaps dispelled any rumors floating around and she bought into it. However, if she now has that knowledge and chooses to play the martyr, then we don’t owe here any sympathy either, it’s a choice she has made.
And now I’ll shut up since this thread isn’t about Larry Craig.
Hi, hmmm…
People get married for lots of reasons other than love. In fact, the notion of getting married for love is relatively new; until the 19th century, marraige was conducted mostly for financial reasons, for reasons of family association, and as a way to climb the social ladder. This is why Romeo and Juliet still touches audiences to this day.
All this stuff still applies, but it isn’t talked about now. There are many single women raising children by themselves, and it’s taking everything they can earn just to hold together from month to month. I’m sure there are some of them who would be very happy to have a man who could pay the bills, afford a home, and treat the kids well without love entering into the picture… liking the guy would be good enough.
In this situation, a blind eye is easy to turn as long as trouble isn’t brought to the family doorstep.
That’s true Boomer and maybe I just can’t conceive doing something like that but it does happen. I would wonder about this particular case simply due to the age they were when the relationship first started. Also, she still insists he’s not gay. But maybe she is covering up for him. Who knows?
Well, that thread got shot to hell!
I agree, Bundy, commenter #7 (wonder who that was?) was wielding the rocket launcher that roared!
Don’t know if you’re proud or embarrassed, but either way, we recognize that it happens, so we just deal with it.
Wanna take us in a different direction now? These threads can have a life of their own…
You know, come to think of it, we could use some actual posts written by “Bundy”…
How about you writing up a few, and we can see how long the thread holds true? They don’t always wander…
Plus, I’m interested knowing in what you have to say.