Completely unfiltered

[Southern Elk]

I asked about a score card for candidates on a live BHA podcast once. It sounded like something they might entertain at some point. I really wish they would.

Randy, have you given any thought to endorsing candidates? I know your opinion carries a lot of weight with folks around here.

I'm a lifelong conservative, but public lands is my number one issue as well. This will be the first election that I don't vote republican for US Senate and maybe Congressman as well. I will let the Republicans know why they don't have my vote and until they change their tones on public lands, I will do everything I can to convince others to vote against them as well.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I will just throw this out there. Rowe v Wade was decided based on fundamental freedoms under the US Constitution, but left open the door to state constitutions to restrict abortion rights. Query why no states, not even the “deep red” ones, have made an effort to amend their state constitutions. The GOP controls the legislative and executive branches (and likely the judicial as well) in 26 states.

Pro-tip (from someone who has worked in the trenches of politics): the GOP party bosses do not care about abortion except insofar as the issue reliably delivers a sizable chunk of votes. If abortion were banned and the issue put to bed, there’d be nothing left driving people to the polls to vote for them in complete disregard of every other boneheaded policy position they take. Sure, they’ll nip around the edges just to keep the issue alive and active, but they won’t take the steps to ban it outright in the 26 states where they could do so with no real resistance.

Regardless of ones position on this issue (which I will not debate), it is important that we understand how our system works, what can be done and what cannot be done, etc. And, "pro-tip" -- Roe v Wade does not allow state constitutions to eliminate the rights provided thereunder. That is simply not how our form of government works. Roe does allow for a graduated assessment of "interests" over the course of a pregnancy that would in theory allow some significant state (or federal) regulation as one nears full term, but that would be done via standard state or federal legislation, not via state constitution. And even if one chose the state constitution route (very inefficient and sloppy way to address the issue) a state constitution is entirely subservient to the federal "penumbra" of rights recognized in the various cases invoking these rights since 1965 (Griswold).

 

[VikingsGuy]

FWIW - If one is generally liberal on a range of issues, but likes to rifle hunt and has PETA and 2nd amendment concerns about the left; or in contrast one is generally conservative on a range of issues, but values public lands and has concerns about the public transfer folks, waiting to pick a candidate until the general election leaves you with very unsatisfying choices. For folks in this situation, the most important part of the political cycle is to effect who runs for the party you more commonly align with - become involved in the early primary/caucus season. Get that pro 2nd amendment person on the democrats ticket, or that pro-PL candidate on the republican ticket. It is far more effective approach across the range of issues you find important than to abandon a party you more typically align with, but who has lost their way on one of your top issues/#1 issue.

 

[MTorWY]

I thought it was a great podcast. This one and the MeatEater podcast with the Sportsmen’s Alliance finally convinced me to join BHA (had been on the fence for a long time, the line that nobody will agree with an organization 100% got me off of it) and the Sportsmen’s Alliance. Keep up the good work Randy, I appreciate how you speak for sportsmen and hunters.

 

[Yellowstoner]

I sympathize with many of the above posters, but I do believe that politicians can have their opinions swayed on public lands. I won't ever vote for a candidate that is for the transfer of federal lands, but I will contact them and try to have a level-headed conversation with them about it to try and convince them otherwise.

You will never sway someone's opinion on abortion. You might sway their opinion on public lands. Just a thought!

 

[Brandon270]

I'm a Catholic conservative in California who likes to hunt, shoot and fish. My family has farmed and been in the dairy industry for 4 generations. Needless to say people like me are some of the most hated and ignored people in this state. While public lands are a priority to me, my livelihood has been attacked many times by the Democrats in northern and southern California. Between major regulations that don't even make sense on farmers and ranchers to the high speed rail that is a complete joke which has literally torn apart our livelihood where I live. It's hard to vote for these kinds of people, (not that it matters since the majority of the state is liberal anyway). I don't hunt for a living so it's hard to make that my highest priority when I have to support my family.

 

[The Yetti]

The 2 party system is the cause of way more problems than it solves. How a candidate stands on issues should matter, not whether they are an "R" or a "D". Unfortunately a person in DC who stands by their issues instead of toeing the party line gets no where. Until we make it clear to our elected officials that the issues, not the R and D bs, matters nothing will change. When they lose elections due to their stance on the issues that matter to us, that's when change happens. Unfortunately, so many of our fellow voters have subscribed to team politics and vote for their party, regardless of whether that party actually benefits them. In our recent Primaries for Governor, the R and the D candidates who spent the most money got elected, pretty much who each party wanted to run for Governor. I don't know if there is a way to realistically fix it, but I still have hope!