The first “Dialogue on Idaho Public Television” show

The first “Dialogue on Idaho Public Television” show


MARCIA FRANKLIN: COMING UP ON DIALOGUE: WE TALK WITH IDAHO’S POLITICAL PARTY LEADERS ABOUT THE RECENT REPUBLICAN SWEEP AT THE POLLS AND WE TAKE YOUR CALLS…SO STAY TUNED. FUNDING FOR DIALOGUE IS PROVIDED BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION AND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING. (MUSIC) FRANKLIN: GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO DIALOGUE, I’M MARCIA FRANKLIN. THIS IS THE FIRST EDITION OF WHAT WE HOPE WILL BE A PROGRAM YOU’LL MAKE PART OF YOUR REGULAR VIEWING SCHEDULE. EVERY WEEK WE’LL BE DISCUSSING CURRENT ISSUES WITH PEOPLE IN THE KNOW AND WE’LL BE TAKING YOUR PHONE CALLS ON A SPECIAL TOLL-FREE NUMBER. WE’LL JUMP RIGHT IN WITH TONIGHT’S TOPIC, THE REPUBLICAN ROUT OF THE STATEHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICES. WHY DID IT HAPPEN AND WHAT DOES IT SIGNAL FOR IDAHO? MY GUESTS TONIGHT ARE MIKE REYNOLDSON, WHO’S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE IDAHO REPUBLICAN PARTY. AND BILL MAUK, WHO’S THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IDAHO DEMOCRATIC PARTY. AND THESE TWO GENTLEMEN ARE HERE ALSO TO TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS ON OUR TOLL-FREE NUMBER, WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN: 1-800-973-9800. LET’S START FIRST WITH YOU MR. MAUK, IS THERE A DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEFT IN IDAHO? BILL MAUK: OH SURE, SURE THERE’S A STRONG DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN IDAHO. DEMOCRATIC PARTY RAN A BUNCH OF VERY, VERY CREDIBLE CANDIDATES. CANDIDATES WHO IF ELECTED COULD’VE SERVED WITH DISTINCTION AND I THINK THE ELECTORATE KNOWS THAT WE HAD A GOOD GROUP OF CANDIDATES AND 187,000 PEOPLE IN THIS STATE VOTED DEMOCRAT. SO THERE’S STILL ADEMOCRATIC PARTY. FRANKLIN: SO WHAT HAPPENED? LOOKING BACK, WOULD YOU HAVE DONE ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? MAUK: I DON’T THINK THERE’S A THING THAT WE WOULD’VE DONE DIFFERENTLY. YOU KNOW THERE ARE REALLY THREE THINGS THAT WE FOCUSED ON FROM THE BEGINNING. ONE WAS MONEY, ONE WAS MECHANICS AND ONE WAS MESSAGE. THE REPUBLICANS OUT SPENT US ON THE MONEY CATEGORY, THEY ALWAYS DO, BUT WE RAISED THE KIND OF MONEY THAT WAS NECESSARY TO BE COMPETITIVE AND I THINK WE WERE PLEASED WITH THAT. THE MECHANICS, I THINK LOOKING BACK, WERE REALLY VERY GOOD. WE THINK WE RAN THE BEST ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE RUN IN AT LEAST A DECADE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO AND SO I DON’T HAVE ANY REGRETS ABOUT THAT. CERTAINLY WITH THE MONEY WE HAD THE MECHANICS WERE GOOD. THE MESSAGE, I THINK THE MESSAGE WAS RIGHT FOR IDAHO, BUT OUR IDAHO MESSAGE REALLY GOT DOMINATED BY A NATIONAL MESSAGE. WHAT HAPPENED IN IDAHO REALLY WAS PART OF AN AVALANCHE THAT WE COULDN’T HAVE STOPPED WITH ANYTHING ELSE. FRANKLIN: REALLY? DO YOU SEE IT THAT WAY? DO YOU SEE THE, THE VICTORY HERE AS JUST ON THE COATTAILS OF THE NATIONAL SCENE? MIKE REYNOLDSON: WELL I, I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF, A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN IDAHO THAT WERE IDAHO CANDIDATES, IDAHO ISSUES. I THINK THE NATIONAL DID HELP OUT A LITTLE BIT. THERE WAS DEFINITELY A FEELING NATIONALLY, I THINK, TO, TO VOTE REPUBLICAN. BUT I, I MEAN OUR IDAHO CAMPAIGNS RAN GOOD IDAHO CAMPAIGNS, THEY TALKED ABOUT IDAHO ISSUES AND I THINK THEY HAD A GOOD MESSAGE FOR THE VOTERS. FRANKLIN: WHAT ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF, YOU KNOW SO MANY OF THE RACES, THE LOCAL RACES WERE UNCONTESTED, REPUBLICANS RUNNING AGAINST NO DEMOCRATS. IS IT DIFFICULT TO EVEN FIND DEMOCRATS IN THIS STATE WHO WILL WANT TO RUN FOR OFFICE? MAUK: IT’S DIFFICULT TO FIND PEOPLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE WHETHER THEY’RE DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS. IT’S A TERRIBLE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN WHICH TO RUN. PEOPLE GET BEAT UP, THEIR LIVES GET INVADED, LIVES GET DESTROYED IN THE PROCESS. WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE NOW WHO ARE OUT OF JOBS, WHO LEFT JOBS TO RUN. AND THE SAME THING COULD’VE HAPPENED TO REPUBLICANS, I MEAN IT’S NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE, IT’S A DIFFICULT CLIMATE WITHIN WHICH TO RECRUIT CANDIDATES. IT’S MORE DIFFICULT FOR DEMOCRATS IN IDAHO BECAUSE THEY’RE A MINORITY PARTY. AND IT WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT IN THE FUTURE. REPUBLICANS DID WELL, THEY, THEY DID A BETTER JOB OF RECRUITING AND FRANKLY, GIVEN THE TIDE THAT SWEPT IDAHO AND SWEPT THIS NATION, DAFFY DUCK COULD’VE WON IF HE WAS A REPUBLICAN. REYNOLDSON: WELL, I DON’T QUITE AGREE WITH THAT, BUT WE DID WORK HARD ON RECRUITING CANDIDATES AND I MEAN TO GIVE THE DEMOCRATS CREDIT, I THINK THE TOP OF THEIR TICKET THEY DID, THEY HAD A GOOD TOP OF THE TICKET–LARRY ECHO HAWK, JOHN PEAVEY, MIKE BURKETT–THEY’RE ALL GOOD CANDIDATES. WE WORKED HARD ON RECRUITING THOSE LEGISLATIVE RACES, WE GOT SOME PEOPLE RECRUITED, IT IS DIFFICULT. WE WERE VERY HAPPY WITH OUR TOP OF THE TICKET AND THINGS WORKED OUT OUR WAY. FRANKLIN: VERY BRIEFLY BEFORE WE GET TO THE PHONE CALLS, WERE YOU SURPRISED, NOT ONLY THAT PHIL BATT WON, BUT BY THE, THE MARGIN THAT HE DID? REYNOLDSON: I WASN’T SO SURPRISED THAT PHIL BATT WON OR BY THE MARGIN, I WAS MORE SURPRISED WITH SOME OF THE OTHER RACES THAT WE RAN. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S RACE I THOUGHT WOULD BE MUCH TIGHTER. THE STATE AUDITOR’S RACE, WE ALMOST WON THAT, WE LOST BY 3,500 VOTES I THINK IT WAS. VERY SURPRISING. WE WON A COUPLE OF LEGISLATIVE SEATS UP IN SHOSHONE COUNTY, THAT’S, THAT’S UNHEARD OF, WE WON A… FRANKLIN: KOOTENAI COUNTY. MAUK: DAFFY DUCK. REYNOLDSON: WE WON ANOTHER SEAT UP IN NEZ PERCE COUNTY AND IT, WE WERE HAPPY TO WIN THOSE. I MEAN, WE HAD CANDIDATES THAT WERE WORKING HARD AND WE WERE ABLE TO PUT A LOT OF RESOURCES AND SUCH INTO THOSE RACES. FRANKLIN: WELL LET’S, LET’S TAKE SOME CALLS HERE. FIRST OF ALL, LET’S TAKE PAT FROM PARMA. PAT ARE YOU ON THE LINE? PAT: YES, YES HI. FRANKLIN: YES? PAT: I’M AN EDUCATOR AND OVER THE LAST THREE TO FIVE YEARS THE STATE OF IDAHO, THROUGH A STRONG DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP, HAS TAKEN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OUT OF THE DARK AGES AND PLACED US ON TRACK WITH A FUTURE THAT’S BASED ON EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND REFORM. AND MY QUESTION IS THIS, GIVEN THE TRACK RECORD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THEIR HIGH HANDED OPPRESSION OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM; WILL WE BE PLUNGED BACK INTO THE DARK AGES ONCE AGAIN? FRANKLIN: WELL THAT’S A, THAT’S A PRETTY POINTED QUESTION, LET’S, LET’S ASK MR. REYNOLDSON, WHAT DO YOU THINK, AND MR. MAUK, ABOUT THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE WITH REPUBLICAN DOMINANCE? REYNOLDSON: WELL, IF PAT’S QUESTION IS ON FUNDING, THEN I THINK HE NEEDS TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PAST 24 YEARS OF FUNDING IN THE STATE. REPUBLICANS HAVE GRANTED, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, 95% OF WHAT DEMOCRAT GOVERNORS HAVE ASKED FOR OVER, OVER THE PAST 24 YEARS. I KNOW THAT FIGURE BECAUSE WE GIVE IT OUT TO OUR LEGISLATORS. IN MANY OF THOSE 24 YEARS THEY, THEY GRANTED MORE FUNDING FOR EDUCATION THAN WHAT GOVERNORS ASKED FOR. NOW THAT’S A MINORITY IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF YEARS, BUT I DON’T THINK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE THE, THE EDUCATION SYSTEM DESTRUCT OR ANYTHING ELSE. FRANKLIN: SO THAT’S, THAT’S MONEY, WHAT ABOUT OTHER ISSUES IN EDUCATION? WHAT DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS, WILL THERE BE ANY CHANGES WITH REGARD TO EDUCATION? MAUK: OH THERE’S GOING TO BE SOME CHANGES; THE, THE NEW SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION HAS AN AGENDA THAT IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAN HER PREDECESSOR, EVEN THOUGH HER PREDECESSOR WAS A REPUBLICAN. AND HOW MUCH PLAY THAT WILL HAVE WITH THE LEGISLATURE, BECAUSE SHE’S OBVIOUSLY GOT TO SELL SOME OF THOSE PROGRAMS TO THE LEGISLATURE, I THINK IT’S HARD TO PREDICT. BUT, BUT THERE’S, THERE’S A HIDDEN ISSUE HERE. YOU KNOW THE REPUBLICANS RAN ON A SLOGAN, A SLOGAN WHICH REALLY DOESN’T HAVE MUCH REALITY IN IDAHO WITH A REPUBLICAN DOMINATED LEGISLATURE, BUT PART OF THAT SLOGAN IS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO CUT GOVERNMENT, THEY’RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THE FAT, THEY’RE GOING TO REDUCE TAXES AND REDUCE SPENDING. WELL, IN A STATE LIKE IDAHO THAT SPENDS THE LARGEST PORTION OF ITS BUDGET ON EDUCATION, LET’S SEE WHAT THEY DO, LET’S SEE IF THE RHETORIC MATCHES THE REALITY. IF IT DOES, WE COULD SEE SOME SERIOUS CUTS IN EDUCATION. AND NOW THEY’VE GOT THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE. NOW IT’S NOT A QUESTION (OF) DO THEY MATCH THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET. WHAT’S THE GOVERNOR GOING TO PROPOSE IN EDUCATION? IS HE GOING TO CUT IT, OR IS HE GOING TO MAINTAIN THE LEVELS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MAINTAINED IN THE PAST? FRANKLIN: WELL LET’S, LET’S HEAR FROM ANOTHER PERSON, JIM IN BLACKFOOT, ARE YOU THERE? JIM: HELLO. FRANKLIN: HI JIM. JIM: HOW ARE YOU? FRANKLIN: YOU’RE ON THE AIR; DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? JIM: YES I’D LIKE TO KNOW IF, MIKE SIMPSON PROPOSED $140 MILLION TAX RELIEF BILL TO PROPERTY OWNERS IF THAT’S GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA FOR PHIL BATT TO BE SIGNING RIGHT OFF THE BAT TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO GET ON THAT RIGHT OFF THE, RIGHT OFF THE BAT. FRANKLIN: RIGHT OFF THE BAT, GOOD PUN MAYBE HE CAN MAKE THAT HIS SLOGAN AS, AS THE GOVERNOR, “DOING IT RIGHT OFF THE BATT.” WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK MIKE? THANKS FOR YOUR CALL. REYNOLDSON: WELL EVERY, EVERY INTERVIEW I’VE SEEN PHIL GIVE OVER THE PAST COUPLE DAYS HE’S SAID, THEY SAID WELL WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO FIRST AND HE SAID I’M GOING TO GIVE $40 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAX RELIEF THIS YEAR, WITHIN THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF MY ADMINISTRATION. SO I’M VERY CONFIDENT THAT PHIL’S GOING TO PUT FORTH A PROPERTY TAX RELIEF BILL, THE LEGISLATURES GOING TO PASS IT THROUGH AND WE’RE GOING TO HAVE IT THIS YEAR. MAUK: NO PROBLEM. DEMOCRATS WOULD’VE DONE THE SAME THING. I MEAN WE’VE GOT A SURPLUS NOW; IT WAS AN EASY PROMISE FOR A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN TO MAKE IN THIS PARTICULAR SESSION. WHAT HAPPENS IN THE YEARS IN THE FUTURE WHEN MONEY TIGHTENS UP, WHEN THERE’S NOT AS MUCH MONEY AROUND, THAT’S REALLY GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE OTHER THING THAT’S IMPORTANT IS THIS GENTLEMEN MENTIONED, YOU KNOW SPEAKER SIMPSON’S BILL IN TERMS OF TAX RELIEF. IT’S NOT SIMPLY THE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF AND THE AMOUNT, THE REAL ISSUE IS GOING TO BE: WHAT’S THE CHARACTER OF THAT RELIEF? WHO’S GOING TO GET RELIEF? ARE URBAN HOMEOWNERS GOING TO GET RELIEF? ARE THE ELDERLY GOING TO GET RELIEF? ARE THE FARMERS GOING TO GET RELIEF? WHAT’S THE PACKAGE AND THE COMPOSITION OF WHO GETS RELIEF? AND THAT’S WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT. FRANKLIN: AND PRESUMABLY THE CHARACTER OF THE BILL– SAY MOVING THE SCHOOLS ONTO A DIFFERENT REVENUE SYSTEM, TAKING IT OFF THE PROPERTY TAX AND PUTTING IT ON MORE THE GENERAL REVENUE. MAUK: SURE. FRANKLIN: I MEAN SO THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE BILL WILL DETERMINE… MAUK: SURE AND, AND YOU CAN’T, RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THERE’S A SURPLUS IT’S EASY TO DO TAX RELIEF, BUT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF HAS GOT TO BE TIED TO EDUCATIONAL SPENDING IN THIS STATE. YOU CAN’T DO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. SO IF YOU DO RADICAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, THEN YOU’VE GOT TO MAKE SOME CUTS IN EDUCATION OR FIGURE OUT WHERE TO COME UP WITH THE REST OF THE MONEY. FRANKLIN: RIGHT NOW AS A RESULT OF THESE ELECTIONS, THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT DEMOCRATIC SENATORS IN THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE…12… MAUK: ARE THERE THAT MANY? FRANKLIN: HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT, HOW MUCH OF A VOICE CAN THE DEMOCRATS REALLY HAVE ON ALL OF THESE ISSUES? MAUK: VERY LITTLE. VERY LITTLE IN TERMS OF FASHIONING PUBLIC POLICY, BUT WE’VE GOT A GOOD CREW OF PEOPLE, MOST OF THEM ARE VETERANS AND THEY’RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SPEAK OUT, THEY’RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO VOICE THE OPINIONS OF DEMOCRATS IN THE STATE AND THEN PERHAPS THEY’LL BECOME THE CONSCIOUS, CONSCIENCE OF THIS LEGISLATURE. FRANKLIN: WELL WE DO HAVE ANOTHER CALL. JOHN FROM TWIN FALLS, YOU’RE ON THE LINE. ARE YOU THERE? JOHN: THANK YOU. THIS ISN’T EXACTLY A POLITICAL QUESTION, BUT I’D LIKE TO KNOW IF THESE GENTLEMEN FEEL THAT THE VOTE OUTCOME ON PROPOSITION 1 IS A TRUE REFLECTION OF THE FEELINGS OF THE PEOPLE OF IDAHO OR IF THERE WAS SO MUCH CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT THAT WORDING SAID THAT PEOPLE REALLY DIDN’T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY WERE VOTING. THANK YOU. FRANKLIN: THANK YOU JOHN, IT WAS VERY CLOSE. WHAT’S YOUR FEELING? DID PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR AND, AND WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF PROP 1 ON PEOPLE GETTING TO THE POLLS TOO? REYNOLDSON: WELL I DON’T THINK THAT PEOPLE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD. I KNOW OUR OFFICE WAS TAKING CALLS SAYING, “WHAT DOES NO MEAN, WHAT DOES YES MEAN? IF I VOTE NO, DOES THAT MEAN NO TO THIS? IF I VOTE YES, DOES THAT MEAN YES TO THIS?” SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. I THOUGHT, ABOUT A WEEK OUT, I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS GOING TO FAIL BY A FAIRLY WIDE MARGIN AND THEN I, I THOUGHT I KIND OF SAW IT CLOSE TOWARDS THE END AND BOY IT, IT DID CLOSE. I THINK MORE PEOPLE DID GET OUT TO THE POLLS, I THINK BOTH SIDES WORKED HARD AT GETTING THE VOTE OUT FOR THEIR SUPPORTERS. SO I THINK IT HAD AN IMPACT ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT VOTED. FRANKLIN: DID IT HELP YOUR SIDE OF THE TICKET? REYNOLDSON: I THINK IT WAS A WASH. IT, WELL IT PROBABLY HELPED OUR SIDE A LITTLE BIT. I KNOW THE, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION GOT OUT THERE AND DISTRIBUTED INFORMATION. I KNOW THE IDAHO FAMILY FORUM GOT OUT AND DISTRIBUTED A LOT OF INFORMATION, RIGHT INTO THE VOTERS HANDS WHICH I THINK IS EFFECTIVE. THE NO ON 1 GROUP HAD A VERY HEAVY MEDIA CAMPAIGN, A VERY EFFECTIVE, I’D SAY, MEDIA CAMPAIGN. BUT THERE WERE REPUBLICANS OPPOSED TO PROPOSITION 1 JUST LIKE THERE ARE DEMOCRATS OPPOSED. SO I WOULD SAY IT, IT PROBABLY HELPED US A LITTLE BIT. FRANKLIN: WHAT’S YOUR SENSE ON PEOPLE’S UNDERSTANDING OF, OF THAT MEASURE AND THE EFFECT ON THE VOTING? MAUK: IT WAS A CONFUSING INITIATIVE AND, AND TRUTHFULLY THE INITIATIVE PROCESS IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO FORMULATE PUBLIC POLICY, IN MY OPINION. IT IS A RECOURSE THAT THE VOTERS WILL GO TO WHEN THEY FIND THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT RESPONSIVE. OR IT HAS BECOME A POLITICAL TACTIC. AND IN THIS INSTANCE I MEAN THERE WAS A LOT OF POLITICAL STRATEGY ASSOCIATED WITH THE INITIATIVE. I, I THINK KELLY WALTON COULD CARE LESS IN SOME WAYS ABOUT WINNING. HE’S BUILT A POLITICAL POWER BASE AND THAT’S MORE SIGNIFICANT FOR THE LONG TERM. AND WE’LL SEE THIS INITIATIVE AGAIN, BUT THE REALITY IS RIGHT NOW. THESE GUYS ARE FRIENDS OF THE REPUBLICANS. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE THE, THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE, THEY’VE GOT COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATURE, THEY DON’T NEED AN INITIATIVE, TAKE IT TO THE LEGISLATURE, LET’S SEE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DO IF THEY WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS BILL AND PASS IT AS A BILL IN IDAHO. I’D LOVE TO RESPOND TO THAT. FRANKLIN: DO YOU SEE THAT AS AN EVENTUALITY? REYNOLDSON: NO, I DOUBT THAT ANYTHING’S GOING TO COME UP ON GAYS OR ANYTHING ELSE OF THAT NATURE IN THE LEGISLATURE. I MEAN IT COULD BE, BUT I MEAN I DOUBT ANYTHING’S GOING TO GO THROUGH. FRANKLIN: THERE HAS BEEN, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME ARTICLES IN THE PRESS THAT NOW WE’RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF INFIGHTING AMONG THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND IDEAS SUCH AS SCHOOL PRAYER AND SCHOOL VOUCHERS PROPOSED. REYNOLDSON: WELL ANYTIME YOU HAVE, WE, WE HAVE QUITE A MAJORITY AND I THINK ANYTIME YOU HAVE THOSE KIND OF MAJORITIES THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS WITHIN THE PARTY. IT’S GOING TO BE UP TO THOSE LEGISLATORS THOUGH TO GET PAST THOSE AND, AND START TO GOVERN BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. FRANKLIN: LET’S TAKE ANOTHER CALL, EDGAR FROM ST. MARIES, ARE YOU THERE? EDGAR: YES. FRANKLIN: YES. WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION PLEASE? EDGAR: I’M A CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF AMERICA IS (INAUDIBLE) OUR MESSAGE TO THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT WE’RE FED UP WITH THEM GIVING AWAY OUR COUNTRY TO EVERYBODY BUT AMERICANS. FRANKLIN: I, I’M SORRY SO YOUR QUESTION IS NOW THAT, THAT THE BECAUSE OF THIS, THIS IS A MESSAGE THAT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ARE NOT WANTED IN THE STATE, IS THAT? EDGAR: WELL THEY’RE JUST, THEY’VE JUST GOT ALL THESE BIG SPENDING BILLS, THEY’RE TAKING OUR TAX MONEY, THEY’RE, I COULD GO INTO THIS IN PRETTY GOOD DEPTH. THEY’RE BRINGING PEOPLE OVER HERE IN AMERICA AND GIVING ‘EM JOBS IN SAN DIEGO, THE FILIPINOS AND STUFF, MAKING GOOD MONEY. THERE’S A LOT OF POLITICS IN THIS AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE JUST FED UP WITH LIBERALS GIVING AWAY OUR COUNTRY TO EVERYBODY BUT AMERICANS. FRANKLIN: IS THIS A MESSAGE THAT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AND BIG SPENDING AND BIG GOVERNMENT IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE WANT? MAUK: I THINK THIS GENTLEMAN REPRESENTS A MESSAGE THAT WE SAW IN THIS CAMPAIGN- WITHOUT A DOUBT. YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT A MESSAGE THAT, THAT REALLY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IDAHO ISSUES. IT’S NOT A MESSAGE THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DEMOCRATS WHO GOVERN AS GOVERNORS IN IDAHO FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. WE’RE NOT PART OF THIS LIBERAL GROUP, BUT WE GOT PAINTED WITH A BROAD BRUSH AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THE ANGER THAT PEOPLE LIKE THIS HAVE ABOUT WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS A LIBERAL AGENDA COMING FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. BUT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU WON. NOW YOU’VE GOT THE REPUBLICANS, NOW THEY’VE GOT THE MANTLE AND WE’LL SEE WHAT THEY’RE GOING TO DO WITH IT. AND THE DEMOCRATS WILL REGROUP AND THEY’LL WRITE A NEW MANIFESTO AND THEY’LL CONTINUE TO BE THE LOYAL OPPOSITION AND THEY’LL RAISE THE ISSUES THAT THEY WANT. BUT I THINK THIS GENTLEMAN’S CONCERNS AT THIS POINT IN TIME ARE PAST. FRANKLIN: IS IT YOUR SENSE THAT DEMOCRATS IN IDAHO ARE OF THE LIBERAL PERSUASION? REYNOLDSON: WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE I THINK, I MEAN WE HAVE FAIRLY MODERATE DEMOCRATS IN IDAHO. I THINK THAT REPUBLICANS BOTH IN IDAHO AND NATIONWIDE RAN ON SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LESS SPENDING, NO TAX TYPE PLATFORMS. I THINK THAT’S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED AND THEY PUT THEM IN. FRANKLIN: OKAY. WELL LET’S GO TO CHARLOTTE IN LEWISTON; ARE YOU ON THE LINE CHARLOTTE? CHARLOTTE: YES I AM, THANK YOU MARCIA. I’M A WOMAN IN IDAHO AND I HAVE A DAUGHTER AND I’M WONDERING NOW THAT THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE IN IDAHO ARE OVERWHELMINGLY REPUBLICAN AND WE HAVE A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH ABORTION RIGHTS IN THE STATE? CAN WE EXPECT A VERY RESTRICTIVE BILL BEING INTRODUCED AND PASSED RIGHT OFF THE BAT? FRANKLIN: RIGHT OFF THE BAT SEEMS LIKE A, HERE RIGHT OFF THE BAT AGAIN, GOOD SLOGAN. THANKS FOR YOUR CALL. CHARLOTTE: YOU BET. FRANKLIN: WHAT DO YOU THINK? HOT TOPIC CERTAINLY, AND WHAT’S YOUR SENSE WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF WHETHER THAT ISSUE IS GOING TO BE RAISED AT ALL? REYNOLDSON: WELL I, I HAVEN’T HEARD ANYTHING COME UP ABOUT THAT. I KNOW THAT PHIL BATT HAS SAID THAT IF THE BILL THAT CAME UP IN ’90, CAME UP TO HIS DESK HE, HE WOULDN’T SIGN IT. SO I, I DON’T THINK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE ANYTHING COME UP. YOU MIGHT SEE SOMETHING PROPOSED, I DON’T KNOW. I MEAN, ANYTHING CAN BE PROPOSED AND DISCUSSED, BUT I DON’T THINK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIONS COME THROUGH, WE, WE LEARNED A LESSON IN ’90 AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE REMEMBER THAT. MAUK: YOU KNOW THE REPUBLICANS RAN ON PROMISES. AND THEY PROMISED A LOT OF VERY CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE, RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN THIS STATE THAT THEY WOULD LIVE UP TO THOSE PROMISES. AND ONE OF THOSE PROMISES HAS TO DO WITH ABORTION. I’M NOT ENCOURAGING THE REPUBLICANS TO INTRODUCE SOMETHING, BUT THERE IS A BIT OF HYPOCRISY ASSOCIATED WITH THE REPUBLICANS THAT WANT TO RUN AWAY FROM THIS ISSUE. I THINK WE WON’T NECESSARILY SEE IT THIS JANUARY, BUT I THINK EVENTUALLY THERE IS A CONSERVATIVE EXTREME ELEMENT WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT’S GOING TO WANT TO TAKE ON THIS ISSUE, AND, AND THEN WE’RE GOING TO SEE HOW MUCH METTLE THERE IS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND HOW MUCH LEADERSHIP THERE IS FROM GOVERNOR BATT. REYNOLDSON: WELL I, I AGAIN I DON’T THINK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE ANYTHING COME UP. WE RAN ON POCKETBOOK ISSUES AND THAT’S, THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT WE’RE GOING TO DEAL WITH RIGHT OFF, SO. FRANKLIN: WHAT ABOUT THE ISSUES, CERTAINLY ONE OF THE THINGS REPUBLICANS HAVE RUN ON IS LESS GOVERNMENT, LESS GOVERNMENT, LESS GOVERNMENT. WE’RE IN A STATE THAT’S GROWING, MORE PEOPLE MOVING IN. WHERE DO YOU SEE, YOU KNOW WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LESS GOVERNMENT AND THEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO PUT THAT INTO ACTION, WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT HAPPENING? REYNOLDSON: WELL I THINK PHIL HAS A LOT OF IDEAS ON THAT, I THINK THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE IS ONE PLACE WHERE THEY SEE THAT THERE’S A LOT OF FAT POSSIBLY. I CAN’T NAME SPECIFIC AREAS IN THERE, BUT THAT’S ONE AREA WHERE THEY’RE SEEING IT. KEEPING OUR SPENDING DOWN, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EVERY ONE OR FOR EVERY TWO STATE EMPLOYEES THERE’S ONE STATE CAR. DO WE NEED THAT MANY STATE CARS? OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE PART OF ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS NATIONWIDE AND STATEWIDE ORGANIZATIONS, ALL THESE CLUBS AND MEMBERSHIPS AND EVERYTHING THAT WAY. MAYBE WE NEED TO REDUCE OR PUT A LIMIT ON THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THERE’S PLACES TO SAVE MONEY AND, AND WITH ZERO BASED BUDGETING. FRANKLIN: CERTAINLY THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF THE BUDGET THOUGH IS, IS IN PERSONNEL, NOT IN CARS OR, OR CLUBS THAT PEOPLE BELONG TO. AND SO THESE CUTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN PEOPLE. REYNOLDSON: UH HUH. FRANKLIN: WHERE DO YOU SEE, WHERE CAN WE, WHERE CAN WE CUT IN A STATE THAT’S GROWING AS, AS FAST AS WE ARE? REYNOLDSON: WELL, I’LL GO BACK TO HEALTH AND WELFARE; ONE THING THAT WE HIT ON DURING THE CAMPAIGN IS THE LEGISLATURE HAS FORMED AN INTERIM JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMITTEE. HEALTH AND WELFARE HAD AN APPROPRIATION FOR A, A PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER ON JUVENILE JUSTICE OR JUVENILE JUSTICE ISSUES, SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. THEY DIDN’T PUT ‘EM INTO PLACE UNTIL THIS COMMITTEE WAS UP. WE SAW IT AS PURELY A POLITICAL APPOINTMENT AND A USE OF MONEY PURELY FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES TO KEEP PROGRAMS WITHIN HEALTH AND WELFARE. THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AREN’T NEEDED. FRANKLIN: MR. MAUK? MAUK: I, THE REPUBLICANS SAY THEY’RE GOING TO DO IT, LET’S SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO. I, I THINK THAT THIS HAS ALL BEEN IN LARGE PART A BUNCH OF RHETORIC. THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN IN POWER IN THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE SINCE 1953. THEY HAVE TO APPROVE ALL OF THOSE APPROPRIATIONS. IF THERE’S FAT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, THE REPUBLICAN DOMINATED LEGISLATURE APPROVED THAT FAT. NOW IF THEY WANT TO CUT IT OUT, I GUESS THEY CAN DO THAT. BUT I THINK THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME TRYING TO FIND SOME SUBSTANTIAL CUTS IN PROGRAMS. THERE’LL BE SOME MIXES HERE AND THERE AND WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT ‘EM REAL CLOSELY AND SEE, YOU KNOW, HAVE WE SHIFTED THIS PARTICULAR, CUT THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM, BUT MAYBE BUILT UP ANOTHER LITTLE FAVORITE PROGRAM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OR SOME OTHER VESTED INTEREST? I DON’T THINK WE’RE GOING TO SEE ANY SIZEABLE CUTS. AND, AND THE POINT YOU RAISED I THINK IS A REAL VALID POINT. IDAHO’S GROWING. THIS GOVERNMENT HAS TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS, THE UNPREDICTABLE NEEDS OF A GROWING ECONOMY. ONE OF THOSE REAL PRESSING NEEDS IS GOING TO BE IN EDUCATION. AS WE GROW, THE DEMANDS FOR EDUCATION WILL GROW EXPONENTIALLY AND THAT’S GOING TO PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THIS LEGISLATURE. FRANKLIN: WELL WE’RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC, WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE ENVIRONMENT. NOLAN, ARE YOU THERE FROM POCATELLO? NOLAN: YES I AM. FRANKLIN: AND YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT FEDERAL LANDS? NOLAN: RIGHT. I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE…CECIL ANDRUS MADE THE COMMENT IN THE PAPER ABOUT AN ARTICLE ON SOME OF THE BIG REPUBLICANS NOW THAT WE HAVE AN OFFICE ARE GOING TO TRY AND TAKE OVER OUR FEDERAL LAND AND REVERT IT BACK TO THE STATE. FRANKLIN: THE SAGEBRUSH REBELLION. INTERESTING QUESTION, I KNOW THAT THIS HAS COME UP ON ISSUES OF THE LAND BOARD AND ALSO MRS. CHENOWETH HAS MADE REFERENCE TO THIS. WHAT’S YOUR SENSE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CALL BY THE WAY. WHAT’S YOUR SENSE? ARE WE GOING TO SAY ANOTHER SAGEBRUSH REBELLION OR ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY IT? REYNOLDSON: NO, I DON’T THINK THAT YOU’RE GOING TO SEE REPUBLICANS TRY AND TAKE OVER THE FEDERAL LANDS OR ANYTHING ELSE AS FAR AS THAT GOES. I KNOW THAT ISSUE CAME UP TOWARDS THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN AND WE SAW IT AS THE DEMOCRATS TRYING TO GRAB ON TO AN ISSUE, TRYING TO DRIVE SOME SORT OF WEDGE OR HAVE AN ISSUE. OUR ANSWER IS, WE DO WANT A SAY IN, IN THE WAY THOSE FEDERAL LANDS ARE HANDLED AND THE WAY THEY’RE USED IN IDAHO. WE WANT A VOICE, WE WANT AS MUCH OF A VOICE AS POSSIBLE AND I DON’T THINK A MAJORITY OF IDAHOANS ARE AGAINST HAVING A VOICE IN THE WAY LAND IN THIS STATE IS USED. MAUK: WELL WE’RE, YOU KNOW DEMOCRATS AREN’T OPPOSED TO HAVING A VOICE. WE’VE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL VOICE IN THE WAY LANDS ARE USED, BUT TO SAY THAT THIS WAS A DEMOCRATIC ISSUE, THAT’S RIDICULOUS. PETE CENARRUSA WAS THE FIRST ONE, AS A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, WHO SAID WE OUGHT TO TAKE BACK ALL THE FEDERAL LANDS. AND THEN BUTCH OTTER JUMPED IN, THOUGHT THAT WAS A GREAT IDEA. AND HELEN CHENOWETH IN PART JUMPED IN AND THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA. NOW I JUST HEARD THIS MAN SAY THAT THEY’RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. WELL, IF THAT’S THE CASE, SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE WERE PROMISED SOMETHING BY AT LEAST THREE CANDIDATES ON THE REPUBLICAN TICKET THAT I’M HEARING NOW THE REPUBLICANS AREN’T GOING TO DO. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT WAS A FOOLISH IDEA. THE DEMOCRATS SAID IT WAS A FOOLISH IDEA, AND I THINK MOST IDAHOANS APPRECIATED IT WAS A FOOLISH IDEA. BUT TO SAY IT WAS, WAS OUR ISSUE. IT WASN’T OUR ISSUE; IT WAS A PROMISE MADE BY THREE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES. THEY NEVER INTENDED TO LIVE UP TO IT AT THE TIME AND THEY WON’T LIVE UP TO IT. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A BALANCE BETWEEN FEDERAL INTERESTS AND STATE INTERESTS IN IDAHO, WHETHER IT’S A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. FRANKLIN: THE SPARKS FLY A LITTLE BIT EVEN AFTER THE ELECTION. WHAT ABOUT NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING IN THIS ELECTION, IT SEEMED TO ME, I KNOW A BIG BILLBOARD WENT UP NEAR MY HOUSE WITH ECHO HAWK WITH A SLASH THROUGH IT, YOU KNOW ECHO HAWK AND. MAUK: WHO DID THAT? DID THE REPUBLICANS DO THAT? FRANKLIN: “ECHO HAWK AND CLINTON, NOT FOR IDAHO.” AND IT SEEMED THAT, THAT ECHO HAWK’S FAVORABILITY WENT DOWN AFTER SOME OF THOSE THINGS STARTED HAPPENING. DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY RESPOND WELL DO YOU FIND, TO THE NEGATIVE ADVERTISING AFTER ALL? REYNOLDSON: WELL I DON’T KNOW, I WOULDN’T REALLY CALL THAT NECESSARILY NEGATIVE ADVERTISING, WE WERE SHOWING A RELATIONSHIP AND A GOVERNING STYLE AND A, A GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY THAT LARRY ECHO HAWK HAD WITH BILL CLINTON, THE SIMILARITIES. WE DIDN’T FORCE HIM TO TAKE THAT PICTURE, IF HE WANTED TO PUT UP A PICTURE WITH PHIL BATT AND GEORGE BUSH OR PHIL BATT AND RONALD REAGAN THAT’S FINE. IN ADDITION, ALL THE POLLSTERS WERE SAYING, “HEY THAT DOESN’T WORK IN IDAHO, YOU CAN’T TIE LARRY ECHO HAWK WITH THE PRESIDENT; IT JUST DOESN’T FLY IN IDAHO.” WE, WE DETERMINED THAT WE WERE GOING TO USE THAT STRATEGY IN THE BEGINNING AND, AND WE WENT WITH IT. I THINK IT WAS EFFECTIVE. MAUK: WAS IT NEGATIVE? I DON’T KNOW IF IT WAS NEGATIVE, BUT IT, BUT IT WAS DECEPTIVE. YOU KNOW THE FACT THAT LARRY ECHO HAWK WENT JOGGING WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON DOESN’T TELL THE VOTERS ANYTHING ABOUT LARRY ECHO HAWK’S POSITION ON THE ISSUES. NOW IF WE’RE SAYING WE DON’T WANT ADVERTISING THAT DIVERTS US FROM THE CORE ISSUES, THEN YEAH, IT DIVERTED FROM THE CORE ISSUES. IT WAS A FORM OF, OF ASSOCIATION THAT HAD NO BEARING UPON WHERE LARRY ECHO HAWK AS A PERSON STOOD, PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUES IN IDAHO. BUT IS IT EFFECTIVE? YOU BET IT’S EFFECTIVE. FRANKLIN: WE’VE GOT ONE. WE’VE GOT TIME FOR ONE LAST QUESTION, ERIC FROM BOISE ARE YOU THERE? ERIC: I AM. FRANKLIN: YES AND ERIC WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION PLEASE? ERIC: WELL, FIRST OF ALL MARCIA, THAT’S A LOVELY BLUE JACKET. FRANKLIN: OH THANK YOU. ERIC: ANYWAY, MY QUESTION. MAUK: IS THAT A FRIEND OF YOURS? FRANKLIN: NO. ERIC: MY QUESTIONS FOR THE REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE. BASICALLY THE REPUBLICANS CAMPAIGNED LARGELY ON THE PREMISE THAT CLINTON AND/OR THE DEMOCRATS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL DEFICIT, THE FACT IS THAT OUR, OUR DEFICIT PASSED THE TRILLION DOLLAR MARK DURING THE REAGAN/BUSH YEARS THROUGH SOME REALLY IRRESPONSIBLE FISCAL MANAGEMENT. AND I’D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THE REPUBLICANS JUSTIFY THIS MANUFACTURED PROBLEM THAT THEY’RE PUTTING IN CLINTON’S LAP? FRANKLIN: OKAY, ERIC, THANKS, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CALL AND, AND YOUR COMPLIMENT BY THE WAY. AND WE, WE HAVE JUST A, A VERY SHORT TIME ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO RESPOND TO THIS. REYNOLDSON: WELL I, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON PROPOSED THAT LARRY LAROCCO VOTED FOR AND THOSE WERE THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PRESIDENT CLINTON INCREASING SPENDING, INCREASING TAXES AND I MEAN I THINK THOSE ARE ISSUES. MAUK: THE REPUBLICANS SAID THEY WERE GOING TO PASS AND ENFORCE IN 100 DAYS A CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. THEY WERE GOING TO PASS A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. I WANT TO SEE THEM PASS THAT BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT AND IMPLEMENT IT IN 100 DAYS. AND IF THEY DO, IT WILL WRECK HAVOC UPON THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE. IT CANNOT BE DONE EASILY, IT TAKES TIME, IT TAKES TRANSITION. THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BROUGHT DOWN THE DEFICIT CONTINUALLY FOR THREE YEARS. FRANKLIN: FOR THE MOMENT AND THE TIME BEING YOU HAVE A LAST WORD AND WE THANK ALL OF YOU FOR TUNING IN AS WELL TO THIS FIRST EDITION OF DIALOGUE AND HOPE WE’LL SEE AND HEAR FROM YOU IN THE WEEKS AND MONTHS TO COME. THANKS VERY MUCH. DIALOGUE IS A PRODUCTION OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION AND IS FUNDED BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION AND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING. TO PURCHASE A VIDEOTAPE OF THIS PROGRAM, PLEASE CONTACT IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION AT 1-800-543-6868. 1-800-543-6868.

Author:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *