The editorial section of the Tribune was interesting this past Sunday. A few takeaways and observations.
The first one is this. A column was written by somebody I happen to know in support of Cheney, concluding with the line that he's a Democrat, but supporting Cheney.
This follows up on quite a few letters to the editor that say the same thing.
If you are a Democrat, and support Cheney, the single most significant thing you can do for her is to shut up.
Cheney is accused by her opponents of being a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) and supporting the Democrats. Your support of her, Democrat, hurts her.
Isn't this obvious?
So too, I'd note, are letters from outside the state. I don't know why somebody living in Massachusetts thinks writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Wyoming will persuade any Wyomingites to do anything. It won't. But if does help convince those who dislike Cheney not to vote for her, as she's accused also of being, basically, a political carpetbagger.
So again, shut up.
The second interesting item is the op-ed by the Secretary of State defending the state's elections against absurd claims by Mike Lindell, the "My Pillow" guy.
Lindell has been making absurd claims that all sorts of votes were stolen in Wyoming, which is bizarre in a state that overwhelmingly went for Trump. He has formed some sort of organization supporting his claims, and the Wyoming Secretary of State's office even sent somebody to a conference it held. It's asked the organization for its evidence and never received it.
The claims are, as noted, absurd.
The editorial shows how rational Buchanan is in his role. It's a shame that he's leaving the office, no longer contending for it, as he's trying for a state district court judgeship. That's his right, but whoever gets that office is unlikely to be as untainted as he presently is. One of the contenders, Wyoming House member Chuck Gray, has been involved in the circus involved in pointlessly challenging Arizona's election, and that's not a good sign.
As noted here earlier, I really don't know what to make of Buchanan publically announcing he's contending for the judicial position. In some ways, it's admirably honest as he's not messing up the election by hoping to get something else, which he presumably stands a pretty good chance of getting. On the other, he failed to get such an appointment earlier this past year, and this puts a lot of pressure on the nominating committee and the Governor (should he be nominated).
There's more I'm tempted to say on that entire process, but I'll abstain.
Next, a founder of a right wing libertarian organization wrote an article attacking nuclear energy.
A foundress of a group that's been a huge backer of libertarian and far right causes in the state, and her prior appearances in the news haven't been encouraging. I'll just note this. Everyone who is familiar with energy generation on a scientific level is of the opinion that nuclear power is safe and necessary.
Necessary.
This would include, I'd note, a former head of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Gore's article deals with supply problems and costs, but as has been long-established, this is always an argument for anything that's on coming. At first, there's always supply problems and costs are high. It's well established that as something gets up and rolling, costs go down and the supply problems ease.
This is overall part of the constantly made argument that the nation simply can't move away from fossil fuels. Setting aside the argument on whether it must do so for environmental reasons, it's pretty clear the country is moving away from them. It simply is. In the short term, although that's increasingly becoming more and more short term, they will still be there. Nothing is going away overnight. But long term alternative forms of energy generation are taking over, and in some quarters they have been for over a century. The arguments overall on this topic really were ones that were first advanced, and then decided in the 1910 to 1920 time frame, and in the 1970s.
