Or Ron Paul.
Or Ross Perot.

KR, pull the Statesman archive files and see what the op ed was back in 96 after the Perot election... my bet is it read a lot like your message here.

then why don't Republicans privitize their primary system and pay for it themselves? The current proposal is to change Idaho law and then have a state-subsidized closed primary. Democrats at least, when they have their exclusionary caucus every four years, pay for it themselves.

Also, Richert asserts, "Second, it's clear that the Paul voters didn't just vote for their presidential candidate of choice and call it a day. Many stuck around to vote down the ticket." Maybe. How about some evidence? Perhaps we could accept or reject Richert's hypothesis based on a correlation of Ron Paul % of vote with McKague % of vote in those precincts in their Legislative District.

The sole purpose of the event is for a political party's members to choose their candidate to stand for election in November, against the candidate chosen by the members of the other party(ies).

The matter of principle is simply that it cannot be a Party primary if non-Party members can vote in it. It defies any logic that members of an opposition party can have a say in your candidate selection.

Perhaps opposing football coaches should be able to take turns calling each other's plays....

Why not just scrap partisan primaries completely? We can have a primary election (in the sense of "first") and if no one gets a majority of the vote, we have a secondary election where the top two vote getters are on the ballot. (I think Louisiana does something like this.)

This solves the problem of having what are essentially private organizations using state funds and facilities for private decisions. It also means that the game playing stops. Everyone gets to vote and help to pick the best candidate--regardless of their party affiliation.

The political cannibalism among Idaho Republicans is quite an event. I wish I could go to the state convention. This ought to be really entertaining.

I could argue some of the fringes of your analysis but I think you're very close to being spot on.

I would offer the group of progressive Republicans to the mix. Strong on traditional national issues but more socially "liberal, locally." And yes, these would be considered conservative Dems in the south or midwest.

Regardless all are welcome in my lifetime Party, I just hope I continue to be.

...who they must hire."

I think you have the concept flipped. It is never for government to tell you whom you must hire - I'll march with you on that one.

On the other hand, it may be proper for us to agree on those "distinguishers" we cannot use to refuse to hire someone - such as race, sex, gender, religion, political affiliation, age, etc.

"Respect for the right of conscience" can only be supported to the point that it is not in violation of the U.S. Constitution...with the exception that we always have the right to walk away from a job where we disagree with the organization or our employer.

Thanks for your post and good thoughts.

"First the confusion. If my conscience tells me slavery is not only okay but mandated by my God...then we have a problem. I have a right to practice my religion...but it bumps up against the 13th Amendment. So the Constitution trumps my right of conscience."

True enough. But there is no constitutional protection for sexual orientation. (Well, at least not for those who are honest. This excludes most judges.) The equal protection clause was clearly not understood to protect sexual orientation--homosexuality was still a felony in every state when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

"Regarding the hiring of an employee it baffles me as to why we would even need legal or Constitutional protections for people conducting activities within the law of the land. If Klan meetings do not engage in illegal activity, or strip clubs the same, why should it be the business of the employer?"

Some of us don't have any interest in associating with Klansmen--and would not voluntarily put a penny into a Klansman's pocket. If you don't understand this, the conversation is over. I have a right to freedom of association, and your desire to protect Klansmen should not take precedence.

"Science is not yet in agreement on whether gender is an attribute or choicefull orientation."

Gender is an attribute. Sexual orientation is not necessarily a choice, but then again, neither is alcoholism. Both likely have some element of genetics that predisposes, but there is enough evidence from both correlation studies and longitudinal studies to suggest that at least for some, adult homosexuality is a response to childhood sexual abuse. If you are interested, I can provide a substantial list of studies. If you are a homosexual, you won't be interested in hearing the evidence, because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe.

Your claim that "You are not told whom to hire" is true in the same sense that a person has a choice about paying income taxes. You can have no income. Or you can pay income tax. Or you can go to prison. So you do have a choice. Right?

"We as a Nation have determined that the issue is moot and not even discussable in the common workplace."

When did we determine that "as a Nation"? And not even discussable? You just proved my point. It is now a taboo that liberals believe should not even be discussable.

There are very, very few jobs where I would consider a person's sexual orientation particularly relevant. But there are some where I think it might be appropriate.

For example, I've seen jobs ads (in California) that specified "gay or bi preferred." It was for a gay resort looking to hire an ad copywriter. They obviously thought (and perhaps with good reason) that a person who isn't gay might not be sufficiently culturally familiar to write effective copy. A gay bar might have good reason to give preference to a bartender who either was gay, or who might be interpreted as being gay. I suppose a service that provided HIV counseling targeted to a gay clientele would be more inclined to hire a gay man for the job than a straight man--simply because he is more likely to be able to relate to the clients.

I would no more hire a gay man as a gym coach for a bunch of high school boys than I would hire a straight man as a gym coach for a bunch of high school girls, and for the same reason: a fair number of the kids are going to be really weirded out by having someone in the locker room with them that they know is looking at them with sexual desire.

And there are a lot of employers that ask heterosexual applicants if they are celibate (the Catholic Church), and many that require their employees to conform to standards of behavior of the church that owns them--such as BYU, an example that you brought up. But I suppose that you think this form of discrimination should be unlawful as well.

serves more counties than the mental health organization, with fewer staff, better than Lifeways could...

It was founded and is run by a person with a brain trauma and being gay or HIV positive isn't the main reason to be hired or volunteer.

It's simply loving the people you see and especially finding the one you don't see and wanting to help their dreams become realized and lives bettered.

ANY HUMAN WOULD DO.

Hiring a male P.E. teacher to teach high school P.E. in no way requires him to supervise the locker room. That is not BFOQ. How many womens' sports are coached by men? A bunch. The work and the shower are two different issues.

Homosexuality was not/is not against the law. Homosexual sex was. A homosexual who remained celibate or who had sexual relations with a person of the opposite sex did not break the law.

This is how many Christian religions deal with the issue. I have no idea why God gave different people different sexual attributes, gifts, or burdens. It is not for me to know. But just as he gave blind people a "cross to bear" it is reasonable that he gave homosexuals a cross also - that they are what he made them, and they must bear the burden of abstention (according to many Christian interpretations).

If gender is an attribute and not a choice - as you seem to believe (the science is still not in agreement) then why would we discriminate against people for being as God made them?

Alcoholism of course is a choice. No non-drinker has ever caught it or suffered from it.

We have strayed off topic and probably should take this discussion to another forum, but the truth and law remain that you "are not told whom to hire." And not at all such as your example of not paying income taxes. Perhaps you have just experienced incompetent HR officers who were slothful in their duty or understanding of the law.

And it does appear you misunderstand the workplace. You do not have to associate with a klansman at work, nor a Catholic or Jew, or Irishman, or liberal. You associate with mechanics, engineers, teachers, nurses, pilots, carpenters, cooks, etc.

Doesn't matter that innocent people die in alcohol related auto accidents? You can be walking down the street, riding a bike, in your home, or even in a plane, & die from the actions of someone who has been drinking. Pilots get pulled from duty all the time when alcohol is smelled on their breath. Everybody pays, taxes for police, courts, funerals, prisons,& nonalcoholics aren't in the mix? Like illegal immigration, alcohol is promoted for business in return for campaign contributions. Something stinks in DC!

Republicommunism spin is getting out of hand. I wouldn't doubt if there were people on this blog, republicommunist, like tapping phones, trying to hunt down those dreaded terrorist or just everyday Americans who still think for themselves. Like the Doc., The US verses John Lennon, government afraid of peacenicks.

Well Bounce buddy, being a republican so in support of all the crooked political crap going on in American, willing to put out an excuse for everything, is there anybody working for Dumbya on the old blog. National Security trumps freedom, right? Seems it wasn't long ago somebody was all about some of US not having our names on the old blog. What are the real reasons, building a list, going to knock down a few doors? Are we on a list if we don't go along with government, war, war, war?

Full finacial disclosure by all our representatives might tell too much of the truth to too much of the world? Wouldn't want the democracy we're promoting with war & death to be soiled with reality & truth. Government is crooked as a dog's hind leg, taken over where they pushed out the mob? Something to hide? How about it? Full finacial disclosure by all our representatives, or is there something to hide? Let's go back to before NAFTA, have a look at who contributed to who, which representatives voted for what & where they invested, how well the contributors have done, domestically & foreign. If there is nothing to hide it shouldn't be any big deal. Union busting & illgeal immigration could use a few answers.

Republicommunist like to tap phones, think we all have something to hide. Let's turn the tables, let's hold the hot iron to our representatives. Waterboarding is ok with the suits in DC, wiretapping to get information on US citzens/terrorist paying our taxes in support of the troops. How about a little peak at the old books? I suppose I'm an evil doer to suggest our nations elite would stoop so low? If the truth would be so damaging we're afraid to make it public it seems to be all the more reason to hear it. Are the terrorist in Iraq or DC? Maybe the republicommunist have spun themselves into a little problem, a lie that finally can't be lied/spun into a positive. Let's see the numbers, republicommuinst chicken? Road Island Red? Foghorn Leghorn???

Spin it! Let's either have an investigation, the truth, or live with more lies, republicommuinst spin, & more war/death. I suppose it's none of our business? Only a communist form of government would want to hide the truth, not a government of the people.

The "fungible nature of a paycheck." I understand it perfectly. Any taxpayer paying state or federal taxes to support a government employee such as a postal worker, public school teacher, or police officer - should that public employee seek medical care at a hospital or clinic such as St. Luke's or St. Alphonsus - that taxpayer is subsidizing the associated religions with their tax dollars via the government.

Hmmmm, doesn't that violate church and state? Should we disallow all government employees from using their taxpayer funded benefits at any establishment tied to religion? Of course not. Please don't even answer - we're off topic.

CC, I am not sure what your doctorate is in but mine is in social science and your correlation of alcoholism, childhood sexual abuse, and homosexuality, has certainly been intrigued in some professional literature, but there are not legitimate findings of causation. It's theory - one of many.

Your Northrup Data example is what we call an "I knew this dude" example. Okay, it happened, just as GG ran into corruption in Nebraska. Okay, that doesn't make it so for all.

And of course there are suffers from those who are alcoholics, just as there are sufferers in families with cancer and diabetes, etc. You know that was not my point. No non drinker ever caught alcoholism.

And GG, driving drunk is driving drunk, whether an alcoholic, "merely" a drunk, or a first time drinker. Drunk is drunk.

However, if alcoholism is a disease then it becomes a defense for driving drunk. Hmmm, I don't want that. Or, if it is a disease then all diagnosed alcoholics must surrender their drivers licenses. Hmmm, not necessary since it is drunk driving that is the problem, not being afflicted with alcoholism.

Again, we are way off topic regarding the GOP and its convention.

It's really strange.

"Hmmmm, doesn't that violate church and state? Should we disallow all government employees from using their taxpayer funded benefits at any establishment tied to religion? Of course not. Please don't even answer - we're off topic."

"It's theory - one of many."

I'm glad that you are prepared to admit that this is a legitimate theory. The mainstream media won't even admit that there's a question on this. And yet you want to impose one theory of homosexuality as a basis for ordering employers about.

You might want to read some of the historical materials associated with the First Amendment. "Separation of church and state" is an ACLU construct that has nothing to do with the establishment clause, and often violates the free exercise clause.

"And of course there are suffers from those who are alcoholics, just as there are sufferers in families with cancer and diabetes, etc. You know that was not my point. No non drinker ever caught alcoholism."

And no one thinks that you "catch" homosexuality. But that doesn't mean that we restructure the society to make homosexuals feel good about their affliction.

"However, if alcoholism is a disease then it becomes a defense for driving drunk. Hmmm, I don't want that."

I don't either. But that's essentially what you are arguing for with respect to homosexuality.

I am well aware that "separation" does not appear in the Constitution, that in some of Jefferson's writings he mentioned a "wall of separation" as a means of explaining the intent of that part of the 1st Amendment.

I am well aware that the Constitution only restricts "Congress" (defined as the Senate and House of Representatives) from making such laws - and there being no other such restrictions implied the 10th Amendment empowers the states to make such laws...up to the extent they do not walk on other protections and liberties.

My reading and publishing on the topic is fairly regular.

Don't know why you would say I "want to impose one theory..."

Eh, actually you are wrong - people do think you can "catch" homosexuality. That is the reason some want certain books removed from library shelves (see Nampa), and why some oppose gender related clubs in schools, etc - exactly because they think social pressure and/or affiliation might inflict homosexual tendencies on others.

Eh, wrong again, I am not arguing for labeling homosexuality as a disease - I don't believe that it is, for one minute. Just as I do not know why I am heterosexual - one day in my youth girls stopped being icky and I looked at them differently - I do not presume to know why others are different. And actually it has never concerned me.

"I am well aware that "separation" does not appear in the Constitution, that in some of Jefferson's writings he mentioned a "wall of separation" as a means of explaining the intent of that part of the 1st Amendment."

Except that the courts have taken his meaning out of context. (See http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2004_07_04_archive.html#108926290389622821 for a detailed discussion of this.) In any case, President Jefferson repeatedly demonstrated that his understanding of the establishment clause is substantially in opposition to the ACLU's view of it. President Jefferson, for example, regularly attended church services in government buildings in D.C., and Congress passed measures during his term that used federal funds to operate churches in Ohio Territory. See http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2005_06_26_archive.html#112007614676073173

"I am well aware that the Constitution only restricts "Congress" (defined as the Senate and House of Representatives) from making such laws - and there being no other such restrictions implied the 10th Amendment empowers the states to make such laws...up to the extent they do not walk on other protections and liberties."

The Fourteenth Amendment imposes the First Amendment on the states--although in a more direct and obvious manner than the courts have used.

"Don't know why you would say I "want to impose one theory...""

Because you support laws that punish people for failing to go along with your model.

"Eh, actually you are wrong - people do think you can "catch" homosexuality. That is the reason some want certain books removed from library shelves (see Nampa), and why some oppose gender related clubs in schools, etc - exactly because they think social pressure and/or affiliation might inflict homosexual tendencies on others.""

This isn't correct. Opposition to it is concern that it may encourage confused teenagers to think that homosexuality is normal and healthy. If so, it may discourage such a teenager from seeking help with his problem.

heterosexuals wake up and realize that at no time did they have to decide to be heterosexual. That is just who they are. Why is this same understanding not afforded homosexuals? One reason: religion.

God worshippers rationalize discrimation all the time, and believe they do so with the stamp of approval from their god. In fact, they quote a god as their authority. No arguing with a make believe invisible being, is there? Yet ANOTHER reason to keep your religions and your gods out of my government.

Homosexuality equated to blindness as a "cross to bear" makes me want to barf. The only thing that makes homosexuality a cross to bear is the ignorant ideology of a certain type of people who make it their mission to punish or otherwise publically censure a group of people for being who they were born to be.