Is there a need for a Right To Keep And Bear Arms?

Okay, what about that whole line.  You know, the one Justice Stevens brought up.  Assuming that the US military isn't going to attempt a coup, as after all it hasn't for over 200 years, and assuming that the government isn't going to misuse the military in a dictatorial way, which it hasn't ever done, can't we assume at this point that the government. . .well it'd have to be governments given the incorporation of the Second Amendment by the Fourteenth, can protect everyone well enough that we don't really need a right to keep and bear arms anymore?

 Police in a SWAT team, in this case actually Air Force APs in a SWAT team.  Ironically, these USAF APs are donning less in the way of combat gear and apparel than a lot of modern police forces do.  This police force is militarized by default, but do we really want a country with a huge amount of police, and militarized police at that?

In other words, was John Paul Stevens correct, historically?  Basically what he was saying, was, well sure, when there was a legitimate fear that Congress would do away with state militias and co-opt 100% of the armed forces in the United States there was a real risk that there'd be a dictatorship that would come in, but that's not a risk now.  The military isn't going to  be used by the government to depose state sovereignty and the military itself isn't going to engage in a coup.  There isn't going to be a Seven Days In May, Dr. Strangelove, Manchurian Candidate or Fail Safe event, in other words*

Well, starting with those assumptions and Stevens statement, let's assume something else.  If there was no Second Amendment, state and Federal governments would in fact restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

No, they likely wouldn't take all the firearms away.  Even nations with heavy restrictions don't do that.  Contrary to the purveyor of Facebook memes, for example, people can and do own guns in Japan.  You can own military style semi automatics in quite a few countries (most notably those with strong democratic habits).  You can own handguns in quite a few more.  So it wouldn't be the case that everything would be taken away.**

But there would certainly be a lot more restrictions than there currently are, no doubt.   And a lot of those restrictive provisions would be drafted by people who are completely clueless about firearms at that.  

And with history being our guide, we can presume that once the restrictions starts they just keep rolling. The UK didn't have any meaningful firearms restrictions until after World War One and they were very mild until after World War Two.  Now their restrictions are severe and have gone far beyond any rational relationship to any threat of violence the nation's citizens actually faced.  That's the typical pattern. As regulations are drafted by those who seek to restrict, rather than those who seek to use, that's the natural trend line.   That's why no racing fan, for example, would want me to draft up regulations for stock car racing and why no football fan would turn over football regulation to me.

But setting aside the points I raised in my other posts of John Paul Steven's comments, what about the underlying point he raised.  The whole worry is now past us and so we no longer need a Second Amendment.

Well, to do that, we need to grasp why we had one in the first place, and Stevens got part of that right.  The states were worried about a coup and by preventing the Federal disbandment of their militias, their concern was partially alleviated.

That fear isn't quite correctly expressed, as that dimension of it was only partial.  The framers didn't want a standing army as standing armies were a threat to democracy.  A militia isn't a standing army, so the defense establishment of the United States was originally based on militias.  Indeed, to a significant degree it remains so, in the form of the National Guard, which is a type of militia.*-* No standing army, was the thought, no threat of a coup.

But the thought was actually much more than that.  No standing army meant that a future Congress or President couldn't wipe out the sovereignty of the states.  No standing army, no ability to occupy Connecticut.  You get the point.***

But even broader than that, a militia based defense based on armed citizens let people take care of their own immediate security problems.

That had been the nation's history up until then, and it would be for quite some time after, and in recent years with the draw down of the Cold War military, it's become very much the case again.  We'll address if it still is below.  But colonial militias had been 99% of the people's protection against any threat, internal, external, native, etc., from Plymouth Colony on.  Not just in the case of big wars, mind you, but also in the case of small local matters of importance.  Local wars, local violence, all manners of things that required an armed defense.  

And a lot of times that armed defense was exceedingly local.  One Indian band that rose up. . . or one band of highwaymen that terrorized a route.  Things of that type.*-*-*

But that's all gone now, right?  Because you can depend on the government to handle all of this.  Right?

Well. . . not so much.

 Imperial Chinese walled city.  In modern times, quite a few wealthier communities in the US have begun to take on this visage.

A really comfortable aspect of this argument, for people who make it, is that's what the police are for and the police can protect you.  It's highly ironic that this argument comes in an era in which every substantial city I've been to in recent years has walled in communities and some have private security.  People in Steven's class make this argument but then (and I don't know about him personally) they drive through security gates and go into what are little walled compounds, much like Medieval cities.  Most of the rest of everyone lives outside the walls, where presumably the barbarians are.

This alone would suggest that if the police can really handle everything then the same class of people who so frequently argue that must be paranoid.  No threat, no need for walls.



Or maybe there is.

Assuming that you are like most people, and you have no need of "new walls", or of your own private samurai, you might at least have something to consider.

Let's stop and talk about Samurai for a second?

Really?

Yes, really.  The analogy might be more useful than it might at first appear.

In Medieval Japan, samurai were basically self employed.  That is, they attached themselves to an employer, and were fiercely loyal to that employer.

They were also the only class that was allowed to own military arms.

Now, that should be disturbing.

In Steven's future United States I'm quite confident that the folks who guard gated communities would fit into some exception where they'd get to carry arms.  Private security, I'm sure, would get a pass, employed by the rich as they would be.  The rich and industry for that matter.

Are you disturbed yet?  Well if not, you are a trusting soul indeed.

Shades of 1688 there.

Indeed, not only did that not work well in Japan, it didn't work well in the United States, and we have plenty of evidence of that.

Some of that evidence is from my very own backyard.  The Wyoming Stock Growers Association, in the late 19th Century, employed range detectives who were indeed armed.  Of course everyone was armed, but they, even as privately employed men, were given the power of arrest, which was perfectly legal (railroad detectives, also privately employed, retain that right today).  And it is pretty clear that right was abused in Wyoming.

Indeed the Stock Growers Association came so comfortable with the use of force it used it on a massive scale, the Johnson County War, which was halted by private citizens somewhat under the leadership of the Johnson County Sheriff's Office.  Armed on their own, they intervened to stop a private army.

And this isn't the only example of this in the United States.  If you don't like 19th Century examples, take 20th Century ones.  The armed police of coal companies back in Pennsylvania. . . the armed police of mining entities in Ludlow Colorado (augmented by the Colorado National Guard, as luck would have it). . . the armed employees of mining companies in New Mexico that expelled IWW strikers. . . examples aren't hard to find.  And you can find them at least up until the mid 20th Century.

Not so much since then, to be sure, but since then we haven't exactly had an industry and private monopoly on force and we've had a really open and quick press.  Do you trust the rich, well connected and powerful so much that you figure that era is truly past us if there's a monopoly on force.

 Tom Horn. . . an armed industry assassin of the 20th Century.

But let's go the next step, having explored that, how much of a danger in everyday life, leaving aside a nightmarish private police force future, in the current real life world of today?

This is where I'll be frankly I've tended to dismiss many on the most extreme pro gun part of this argument.  Indeed, I've done it just recently where I argued that Americans shouldn't really go around pretending that the Battle of Stalingrad is going to break out in their neighborhoods.  And they shouldn't. But that doesn't mean that all Americans lead a threat free life by any means.  And it also doesn't mean that the police can really protect everyone either.

 German lieutenants in Stalingrad. . . these guys probably aren't coming to your neighborhood.

So let's be frank about the police.  The long time motto, often unofficial, of police forces in the US used to be "To protect and serve". And while I've criticized the police here a lot, that's what they try to do.  But to really believe that the police can protect 100% of all people all the time is frankly just flat out absurd.  Plain resort to the news will show that as often police's role starts after a crime is committed.  

Now, crime is going down in the US, dramatically, particularly violent crime, and I've already addressed that more than once.  But is that because we have a lot more policemen in the country than we used to?

I don't think so.

It's probably simply going down for demographic reasons.  Gun advocates will say that the reduction of gun control has played a role in that, and there's at least some evidence that is in fact true.  What clearly isn't the case is that more gun control reduces crime nor does anyone ever seem to think that if they pass gun control laws they need to dramatically increase the number of police.

And dramatically increasing the number of policemen in the country would be what would really be necessary to make any kind of impact in this area. The increase would have to be enormous. It'd have to reach the point where every public building had an armed police force and every building generally open to the public.  Can we imagine a country in which there's be two or three policemen at every popular bar and restaurant?  I doubt it.

And we wouldn't want that because at some point that very sort of police protection becomes part of the very thing that the framers were in fact worried about.  You'd have a police state by default, and with that, there'd be a definite decrease in liberty and even simply a decrease in the quality of life.  So that's really a non starter.

None of which means that some increase in police presence in some areas isn't warranted.  It clearly is. 

But by the same token some increase in private security may be warranted too, and that's actually what the denizens of those walled compounds have done, which leaves them with little room to argue.  If you live in a walled development and it has private security that's armed, you in fact are living with a type of private militia, like it or not.  And if you argue for significantly removing privately held firearms, you are really arguing those guys ought to go and ought to be replaced by city police. But the city isn't going to do that for you.

For the rest of us, we have to judge our exposure to risk, ourselves.  Most people are never going to carry a gun and most feel they have no need to.

But is that a universal?

Now I often see what I'd regard as amusing and over dramatic, indeed paranoid, references to people who talk as if they're under constant threat.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that there are no threats in the world at all. There are.

 The advertisement of handguns for personal protection isn't a new phenomenon, but it did take a big break in the mid 20th Century before returning in the late 20 Century

Indeed, in my own life I've experienced things in which I needed some element of protection directly at least five times, and I don't lead a really dangerous life.  Two of those times I was in fact coincidentally armed and that may have made a real difference.  And this doesn't count the odd occasions in which I took up some protection for myself due to threats that related to one of my occupations, even though nothing developed.

And I'm just a regular guy.

Thinking on it, I can think of at least three other instances in which various folks I know were confronted with situations, out of the blue, in which they had to protect themselves and were armed.  At least two of them were extremely severe occasions that arrived without expectation.  There's no telling what would have occurred if they hadn't been armed.  In two out of the three, they might have been killed on the spot.

In not one of these instances could the police have possibly been any help.  The only thing they would have been able to do would have been to investigate a shooting after the fact.  Not much protection, just investigation.

Stuff like this happens more than we might imagine, and in more places than we might imagine.  Most of it simply goes unreported, everywhere.  In none of the instances I'm personally aware of were the police ever called.

So, frankly, even in the 21st Century there are plenty of instances in which an individual resorts to arms and a crisis passes.  Most of those go completely unnoticed. They wouldn't if the individual who made resort ended up badly injured or dead, but those statistics don't exist because they don't exist.

And like it or not, these things happen in Canada, Australia, the UK and France.  The difference is that there, when they happen, the person who protected themselves just shuts up and moves on so as to not risk any attention at all.

Okay, that's one sort of area where Justice Stevens is probably flat out wrong in his probable assumptions, or he assumes that in a post Second Amendment United States licensure will still let this occur (although I doubt he thinks that). What about the second area?  What we've talked about so far is the threat from individual actors.  It's pretty clear that the police would have to be enormous to take this on. But what about that more militia like area referenced by the Second Amendment?

Well, that presupposes that what we have talked about wasn't part of the what the militia in earlier times did, which I'd argue is in error.  Walled compound denizens, as I already noted, are fielding a type of mercenary militia.  But let's go away from that and talk about military type threats.  That is, armed bodies or single actors who are acting for an organized cause.

If you are a rancher on the southern border of the US you don't really need to get much further than this, I suspect.  It's easy to dismiss this threat but if you are running cattle outside of Eagle Pass, Texas, drug and human cargo smuggling gangs are just as much of an organized armed body threatening you as ISIL ever will be.  Indeed, while there's nobody who pretends these groups live an area where its legal to acquire them, they are armed with military weapons.  If you are going out to check your cattle in that area, you'd be nuts not to take along a firearm.

Most Americans, of course, will never be confronted by such a threat.  But we have have had a host of violence of that type spill over the border (since about 1910 actually) and we have been subject to terrorist attacks on our own soil since the 1993 Twin Towers bombing attempt.  We're so disinclined to recognize these things for what they are that we forget some and discount others.  They are, however, what they are.  We've endured several of them within the last couple years and there's no way to believe that individuals motivated by, for example, Islam, or by sheer greed in another example, are capable of being deterred by the mere existence of a set of laws.

It'd be nice to believe that domestic intelligence sources will catch all them all before they act, but they simply will not.  They probably catch more than we know. But they won't catch them all.

Now, no doubt, you are thinking that you really don't need to arm yourself against ISIL.  And you likely do not.  But on occasion, there are those will probably will need to, and perhaps should have done so, or just accidentally happened to be.  Pretending that we can build a police state sufficient to catch every Tamerlane Tsarnaev is really engaging in a fantasy.  But imagining that the response by the city of Boston was "brave" is equally  fanciful.  It wasn't.  It was a disarmed response however.

But it was also probably a response you are comfortable with if you live in West Roxbury.  If you live in the Southside. . . well not so much.

___________________________________________________________________________________

*Of interest, while such an event seems so extraordinarily far fetched, even in modern times, let's say post World War Two, democracies have been occasionally pronto to such risks or even actual events. Both the Greek and Turkish states have fallen repeatedly to coups, although Greece seems to have gotten past it.  Turkey hasn't, in that its' undergoing a massive reversal of its democratic fortunes through its chief executive right now.

Russia has certainly seen its democratic fortunes reversed and is now ruled by a strong man, by way of another example.  But even the United Kingdom was subject to some serious thought of a coup attempt in the 1970s, oddly enough, by some members of its establishment.  The moment came and went without action, but it did in fact occur. 

**And contrary to what  some seem to think, there are some countries in the world with strong "gun cultures" other than the United States. Switzerland being a prime example.

*-*State Guards units are also organized militia forces in some states, but not all.  Like the National Guard, they receive Federal funding, but only some.

State Guard units have an interesting history as they were in some ways a protest over the Dick Act, which some states opposed on the basis that they didn't want the state militias so closely aligned with the U.S. Army following that 1903 act.  It was also part of a slow boiling New England movement that dated back to the Mexican War in which those states were really unhappy with their militia units being called up for unpopular foreign wars.  The Philippine Insurrection may have been the boiling point on that and so by World War One some states were maintaining two militia establishments.  Most states only did this during wartime as the National Guard needed to be replaced while mobilized.  Its come back into popularity, particularly along the Mexican border, in recent years.

Quite a few states by law regarded every male over sixteen years of age and under some older age, typically sixty, as members of their states militia.  The power to mobilize this group of men is exceedingly rarely exercised.

***And they had real experience with just such a thing. The right to keep and bear arms wasn't something that had been simply thought up by Congress. As is sometimes noted, the same right appeared in some state constitutions.  More than that, however, it had been a feature of the English Bill of Rights, which the English seem to have now forgotten, as had a provision limiting standing armies. Those provisions provided that the King had violated the rights of Protestant Englishmen (Catholic Englishmen didn't get the same rights) in the following ways:

Standing Army.

By raising and keeping a Standing Army within this Kingdome in time of Peace without Consent of Parlyament and Quartering Soldiers contrary to Law.

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

So the following was provided:

Standing Army.

That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

This was passed in 1688, just a little under a century prior to the American Revolution.

*-*-*In recent years its been really popular for critics of the Second Amendment to point out that in Southern states militias also were used, it's claimed, to chase runaway slaves.

I don't know how often that really happened,  not often I suspect, but Southern states did worry about slave rebellions.  But that wasn't the only reason they had militias by any means and this point is grossly exaggerated in that context.

The Tell of the Tape: Riflemen on the Western Front

On this day, in 1918, the Allies had 1,340,000 combat troops on the Western Front.  The Germans, 1,569,000, a considerable German advantage.

This doesn't, of course, take into account the Austrians, now teetering on the brink of exhaustion, and heavily committed in Italy.  Nonetheless, the Central Powers had a definite advantage, even if it was one that they had failed to make even greater. They could have greatly bolstered earlier, and on this day, if they were less committed in the East, irrespective of the war in the East being over.  And while the United States still have only a few divisions in France their numbers were increasing every day.

By mid June, Americans arriving in France would boost Allied numbers to the point where it intersected with German combat losses for a German Army that was heavily drained by the German Spring Offensive.  And the Germans would decline every month thereafter.  The Allies would peak out in September and then decline themselves, but still retain a huge advantage over a much depleted Germany.

The Spring Offensive followed by the 100 Days Offensive.

Occupation of Toul-Boucq Sector (Lorraine), April 3 - June 28, 1918 26th...

American troops were being deployed in less active sectors by this time.  I'm not sure why, but my guess it was to free up experiencd French troops and to give them some combat experience at the same time.

German Army lands in Finland at the request of the Finnish Parliament

Gustav Adolf Joachim Rüdiger Graf von der Goltz, German infantry commander.  He'd remain in the region until June 1919, leading elements of the Freikorps that were very closely connected with Germany against the Reds, and others,  in Finland, Latvia and Estonia.

The Finnish parliament had been driving out of Helsinki by Finnish reds.  That resulted in its request for German assistance.  Accordingly, on this day in 1918 German troops landed on the Finnish mainland and would soon commence advancing on Helsinki.  The German force consisted of the : 95. Reserve Infantry Brigade and 2. Guards Cavalry Brigade, augmented by additional German support, naval and artillery forces.  About 10,000 troops in all.

This demonstrates how the Germans remained capable of being diverted at the same time they were suffering devastating losses in the West.  Perhaps this commitment made more sense, however, in that Finland falling to the Reds would have been a disaster for the Germans, and ironically the world as well.

Which shows us how complicated things had become by this point. The Germans would actually fight on in the region after World War One ended, with troops who had volunteered to do so in a thin guise of their being Freikorps.  Things were, by this point, really confused.

Martin Luther King's Last Speech: "I've Been To The Mountaintop". April 3, 1968

When Laramie discontinued the teaching of the German language

Getting upset with all things German had gone a bit far.

Ft. Sill, April 2, 1918

Some days things just don't go well.

Progressive Patrician Arrogance, or perhaps Cluelessness, and Blindness. John Paul Stevens and the Second Amendment.

John Paul Stevens is hardly the first person to suggest repealing the Second Amendment of the Untied States Constitution and he's not even the first person to opine as to that in the New York Times.  Heck, he's not even the first person named Stephens/Stevens to do so. Bret Stephens wrote an op-ed captioned that in the Times in 2017.  But Stevens very short editorial (it's so short, it's more in the nature of a typical letter to the editor) is different in that Stephens was a United States Supreme Court Justice.  And that should give us pause, but not for the reason that he likely things it should.  It should give us pause for this statement contained within it:

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

Stevens short article contains more than that.  Indeed a lot of the text is taken up by an argument that not until the Heller decision was any individual right recognized.  This is disturbing in and of itself as Stevens should be well aware that up until very recently very few Second Amendment cases made it up to the Supreme Court, indeed its still the case that that very, very few do, and that was because the Supreme Court avoided the amendment like the plague.  It likely did that as there is in fact no rational way to interpret it other than that it conveys an individual right.  Indeed, it very clearly restricted, originally, the United States government from passing legislation involving restrictions on the ownership of small arms and, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, there was no earthly way that it wasn't "incorporated" to similarly restrict states by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Indeed, the dirty little secret of interpretation of the Second Amendment is that its exceedingly easy to do and exceedingly easy to understand what it means.

Indeed Justice Steven's implicitly admits that by the text of the paragraph set out above.  While he goes on in his text about how no Court prior to Heller had held that governments couldn't restrict firearms ownership, he then admits that the very purpose of the Second Amendment, from the very onset, was to do just that.

And he's at least partially correct in his position. The framers of the Constitution, with very good reason, feared standing armies and feared that if there was one some future government would use it to destroy the independence of the states, and maybe democracy in the nation itself. There's small chance of that today, Stephens asserts, so there's no need for the Second Amendment.

Indeed, he's implying there's no chance of that today.

And that's where Patrician Stevens is massively incorrect.

There may well indeed be no or little chance of a future government or President using the Army to effect a coup.  Indeed, the closest we've come to a coup of any type was the Obergefell decision which was a species of judicial coup as it was not even close to being supported by the law.   Stevens had no role, as he was retired by that time, in that case, but that event provides the most notable example of a governmental entity seizing power in a significant way.  And that takes us to our next point.

Stevens assumes that we're past an age when the government is a threat to the states in any fashion, or by extension to the people. So he's comfortable with, and is in fact urging, that a right be surrendered as unneeded.  Don't worry, he's saying the government will protect you.

For what its' worth, the concept of keeping and bearing arms was not unique to the United States at the the time the Constitution was adopted.  It was in fact an English common law right, as long as you weren't Catholic. Catholics were deprived of that right, but then they were also deprived of the right to freely exercise their religion as well, and that takes us to the greater point.

Rights exist as they're rights.  Once a person feels that rights can be surrendered as the government will take care of them, they convert themselves into a ward of the state. This is the very thing that Jefferson predicted would happen to the American nation once it became largely urban, as he felt that urban people couldn't sustain a democracy as they were always wards of a nanny state that gave them things. And this in fact what occurred, during Jefferson's own lifetime, in France, which went from being a monarchy, to a republic, to a dictatorship with a "benevolent" dictator the French still admire in very short order.

If we can trust the government to protect us at all times (and more on that in a moment) and therefore we need no longer have any right to do so ourselves, then we should also be able to trust the government with information.

Does anyone?

That is, if a benevolent and loving government will protect our persons, wouldn't it always tell the truth?  So whatever a government says about another nation, it's leader, global warming, various dangers, the need for war or peace, well. . . you can trust them, right?

So there ought to be no need for freedom of speech or the press either.  Indeed, just think of how much more peaceful the world would be if I only had to get the "news" from the official government spokesman.

Would Stevens accept that?

Indeed, would he accept everything said by President Trump as truthful?  He should.  He trust the government to always do right and protect us.

By the same token, we surely should do away with the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizures. A government that wants to protect us would never make an unreasonable seach, just reasonable ones, wouldn't it?

Indeed, why have trials by jury?  Or even really trials at all?  If the government, which we trusts so completely and fully with our welfare, is so benevolent at all times that we need always trust it, it's not going to accuse anyone falsely.  It's kind and protecting officers would never make a false accusation, or perhaps even simply an inaccurate one.

Rights exist for a reason and the moment you begin to compromise on one, you compromise on them all.  The examples to that effect are too plain to ignore. But perhaps to Stevens, with his very long career in the government, that's not plain.  Indeed, it's rarely the case that members of any one class or occupation feel themselves to be in the wrong as a group.

Trust us.  Nearly any body says that.

Or trust in yourself and keep your rights.  That may be the better, if more intellectually difficult, as then you have responsibility, option.

Statistics, if presented without scrubbing, are simply the presentation of facts. Some about Gun Control

Facts, as they say, are stubborn things.

We've been spending some time looking at the Second Amendment and Gun Control proposals out there.  In doing so, we haven't been all the time "anything at all times" in our arguments, and some of our arguments have been subtle and have dealt with  attitudes and even marketing.  We've consistently argued here a number of things that are repeatedly lost in the current discussion, and particularly are in the current one.  These are:

1.  Violence in the United States, and indeed globally, is way, way down.

2.  Mechanically, there's very little that's really changed with semi automatic weapons for a century or more.

3.  The incidents caused by the current debate are so distinct in their nature that its highly evident that they have a physiological and societal cause that almost no one is willing to admit or address.

That last item is by far the most important one.  And like most American debates the reduction of the debate to a simple one isn't doing the topic any favors. 

One thing that people might actually want to do, if they're discussing firearms, is look at the actual records.  I've tried to do that, but here somebody else has put it together in a nice graphic form.

From:  https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/the-truth-about-gun-control-n29

This is a pretty simple table, but this pretty much sets out a set of facts that are actually facts.  There's a lot of constant debate on this topic which are based on erroneous arguments and all that will do is lead to a result that's not likely to do anything.

Amongst those arguments, by the way, are the ones that I've heard recently that at least admit a bit of a demographic and then get it wrong.  That is that this is a "white male problem".  That's in correct and racist.

One thing that argument totally seems to miss is that even in this age of diversity, most Americans are in fact "white" and many of those who are not "white" will likely be so categorized in later demographics for the same reason that the Irish and Italians were once not "white". The entire concept of "white" is pretty vague anyhow, but it's worth noting that the majority of any crimes should be committed by whites, and as males commit most crimes, most crimes in the United States should be committed by white males.  Until there's some real statistical analysis of this topic, that argument is suspect.

Particularly as it omits John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who were male but not white males.  Under the weird way that race is categorized it would also omit Nidal Hasan, who should clearly be in this category.  And it would omit Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  Nor would it include Omar Mateen.  Only Farook and Malik, moreover, can really be argued for omission from this category by categorizing them as terrorist, but then when you start to do that you find that there's a very strong tendency to take out anyone who doesn't seem to quite fit as a terrorist, while taking out those who commit such acts but who aren't from the Middle East as non terrorist.  Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was a self confessed terrorist, for example, but as he was not from the Middle East he's been regarded as simply a sick individual.

He  may have in fact been sick, but the problem with such omissions is that terroristic acts appeal to the sick.  ISIL doesn't really reject people for mental health reasons.  

So, once again, the common analysis here is wrong.

What is correct, and we've noted it before, is that these acts end up being committed by the politically motivated and the mentally ill.  Sometimes they're committed by the politically motivated mentally ill.  Political motivation presents a separate topic entirely, but fortunately for the United States, we don't really see it enough that we need to discuss gun control in that context in this thread, but we will in an upcoming one.

And we're not going to go back over our prior discussion on the what we're seeing socially and societally in regards to the other group other than to note this.  In order to address that problem, you actually need to address that problem.  And none of the current proposals do that. As that's a hard and difficult conversation to have.

Today In Wyoming's History: April 1, 1918

Today In Wyoming's History: April 1: 1918  It was reported that  by this day, for a period dating back to December 1, 1917, Wyoming's revenue's from oil royalties had increased 74%, an impact, no doubt, of World War One.

Where I attended Easter Mass, 1987

 

The Catholic Church were I attended Easter Mass in 1987 in South Korea.

Hoping you are having a joyous Easter in 2017.

The 2018 Wyoming Election

 

Ready or not, here it comes.

Back in 2016 I ran a thread, well a series of threads, on the General Election. That election became so wild that one post couldn't contain it as I updated it.  Hopefully that won't occur here (truly).

This year, in terms of the mid term election, we have a few races that might upset that, however.  Particularly in the context of our turbulent times.  So, who knows, maybe this one will have lots and lots of additions.  I hope not.

Let's start with whose up.

The big race this year is for Governor.  Citing term limits, Matt Mead is stepping down. As term limits have already been declared unconstitutional for legislative offices in Wyoming, and the same logic surely applies for the Governor's office, he need not really do this, but if he did want to run he would have to take the matter to Court.  Frankly, I wish he would.

Wyoming has a long history of multiple term Governors and Mead has done a good job.  He'd be serving the state to do one more term.  But absent a "draft Matt Mead" movement, which isn't going to happen, he's not going to do that. A pity really.

So we'll see a contest for that race.  Two candidates have announced, one has more or less announced and has an organization going, at least three others are heavily pondering.  We'll add those soon.

And Liz Cheney's seat is up again, as it must be every two years.

Liz only got in as the two front runners took themselves out, Stalingrad style, in the primary. This would suggest that she might be vulnerable, but so far this race doesn't look to be heating up much.  There's no official opponent yet, but there are some sounds from a Jackson physician. We'll take a look at this soon as well.  While logic holds that Cheney should be vulnerable, Wyoming's strong tradition of reelecting incumbents operates against that.

And that also favors Senator John Barasso who is also up.

Senator Barasso has handily defeated any opponent that's run against him so far anyway and there's no reason at all to believe that he can be picked off.  Nonetheless some elements of the AltRight have been barking at him, so he'll probably face a GOP primary contest, but one that's unlikely to have much success.  No Democrats have really emerged yet.

And so the race begins.

__________________________________________________________________________________

January 23, 2018

Well the Governor's race is officially kicked off.

Harriet Hageman, a far right Republican with Libertarian leanings has announced she's running.  Running against her is Rex Rammel, who is even further to the right and a Tea Party adherent whose self declared himself to be "Wyoming's Donald Trump".

Now, the Trump part of this is perhaps disturbing as readers here will recall that I was firmly convinced that there was no earthly way that Trump would win the presidency, and yet he did.  This shows my predictive powers aren't necessarily on the mark.  Be that as it may, I'll predict right now that Rammel, who is an Idahoan veterinarian who had a controversial elk ranch there, and who subsequently relocated to Rock Springs, will do not better than he did when he was in the early race against Liz Cheney.  Indeed, I'd regard Rammel as a bit of an extreme gadfly given his positions, which fit into a certain demographic category on public lands, that I'll deal with in another post.  He's so extreme he'd arrest Federal employees who resist his concept that the State doesn't own the Federal domain, which it does not.

Hageman is not a gadfly by any means, and is a well known practicing attorney in Cheyenne. Be that as it may, I think she's running far to the right of most Wyomingites as well and I doubt that her early race will do well all the way to the primary.  She's not as extreme as Rammel, but she make some hints of being fairly far in the Libertarian right field.

Knocked out of the race already is Ed Murray who was expected to make a run. Murray is a respected Republican conservative and the current serving Wyoming Secretary of State.  A month ago Murray was accused of sexual assault of a type by a woman who had once worked in a law office he had worked in many years prior.  I frankly doubted the claim and in recent weeks thought Murray would likely announce but yesterday a second woman came forth, the daughter of a former Democratic Wyoming Governor herself and married into another prominent Democratic Wyoming family, although she now lives in Virginia.  Both incidents were alleged to have occurred in the 1980s. As I somewhat know the second woman's family, it'd be hard for me to discount her story of being forcibly kissed by Murray in 1989. So, another politician would appear to have gone down, perhaps, as part of the "Me Too" revelations that made so much news in 2017.

There will be more Republicans to announce, and it's widely expected that Matt Gordon, a figure with positions similar to Murray's, will announce.  I'd guess that now he must be under a lot of pressure to do just that.

On the Democratic side Mary Throne, a lawyer in Cheyenne, has entered the race.  Throne is well known and respected and while she's been careful, and wise, not to stake out too many hard and fast positions right now, she does stand a chance in a state that doesn't favor Democrats.  Given the disarray in the GOP field she might be able to take a page out of Governor Sullivan's book in which he gained the state house in a late season campaign that had seen the Republicans in disarray early on.

The race for Congress has also kicked off.

Elizabeth Cheney is of course running, but she's likely concerned as she did not take a majority of votes in the GOP primary and you can still see a lot of "Cheney for Virginia" stickers around.  And she's already drawn one Republican contender, Rod Miller.

Miller is, by early appearances, eccentric, but he's certainly all Wyoming.  Miller is a former cowboy and rancher from Carbon County who lives now in Buford.  Wild looking with long hair and a longer beard, he's pro public lands, unlike Cheney whose positions are unclear.  In a normal year, Miller wouldn't stand a chance, but with Cheney not particularly liked by a lot of Wyomingites, he might have a better chance than normal.

And John Barasso is running to retain his seat in the Senate.  

Barasso looked to draw some Steve Bannon inspired non Wyomingites to contend against him in the GOP primary, but this looks increasingly unlikely.  Gary Trauner, who twice ran for the U.S. House and did very well, is running against him as a Democrat.  Trauner lost a 2006 bid for the House 47.8% to unpopular Barbara Cubin's 48.3%. In 2008 he came within 10% of much more popular Cynthia Lummis Given that, it's curious that he hasn't chosen to run against less than popular Cheney who is serving her first term and who Wyomingites haven't really warmed up to.  Barasso will be much more difficult for Trauner to unseat.

___________________________________________________________________________________

January 24, 1918 

The Tribune's article today on Murray noted that he had been expected to be the front runner for the Gubernatorial race.

I don't know if that's true or not but it does seem clear that these two combined allegations have effectively ended his political career.

The first of the two accusations, it should be noted, was the much more serious and Murray has denied it unequivocally.  It would constitute a true species of sexual assault.  The second accusation is crass and crude and would constitute a species of assault, but in terms of it being a "sexual assault" it would not likely be in the legal context but might be in the current social context.  That one occurred in 1988 and Murray had married in the interim.  He hasn't admitted it, but instead has said that he has no recollection of the event, alleged to have occurred on New Years Eve when the second accuser was babysitting for Murray and his wife.  Having no recollection is a pretty weak denial.

This is interesting in the current political context for a couple of reasons.  One is that frankly at least I, and I suspect some others, would have been inclined to dismiss the first accusation but for the second.  The second, standing alone, would have been crass and inappropriate but probably could have been excused away due to New Years over indulging or something and the voters might have forgiven Murray.  Standing together they're enough, in my view, to wipe out is chance of obtaining any other elected or even appointed position.  The first one, if true and reported immediately, may have lead to criminal prosecution at the time.

So, what to make of all of this?

Well, for one thing, in our current political atmosphere the day does seem to have finally arrived in which old sins aren't forgiven by the electorate.  Those skeletons, or at least those sexual skeletons, are coming back out and will get you, if they're in that closet.  And even things that were once only minor examples of male brutish behavior (which the first of these allegations is much more than) are too much.

More immediately, if Murray was really the front runner, as the Tribune assumed, his fall is a huge gift to Hageman who is now the only real candidate running.  That has to be putting a lot of pressure on Gordon.
__________________________________________________________________________________

January 29, 2018

What does the (possible) recovery of oil do to the Governor's Race?

__________________________________________________________________________________

February 4, 2018

Taylor Haynes has now entered the race.

Apparently he actually did last month and its just being reported now, which might be because he's evolved, over time, from a surprise right wing candidate into a Tea Party candidate and now into what the Tribune calls a "perennial candidate".  Perennial candidates in Wyoming are mostly noted for repeatedly loosing, although there are exceptions.  One time Casper City councilman and legislator Keith Goodenough started off as a perennial candidate.

Haynes is running right with Rammel on the hardcore "take back the land" that we didn't own in the first place and bases his assertions on his reading of the U.S. Constitution, which he even maintains doesn't allow for the United States Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, a radical, wrong, and frankly nutty idea.  In his case, further, it's rather sad as he's highly educated and didn't start off as a candidate whose ideas were nutty.  Indeed, Haynes comes across with some really surprising statements in this area.  For example, according to the Star Tribune:

Haynes claimed that the federal government is aware that they do not own any public lands in Wyoming and will readily turn them over if the state insists.

“You just enforce it,” he said. “The state has jurisdiction.”

Oh really?

All of this has to be serving Harriet Hageman well, right now.  Compared to Rammel and Haynes she's the voice of conservative reason even though she herself is in the extreme right.  Rammel and Haynes will likely vie for the same vote in the primary and destroy each other (they both announced, oddly, in Rock Springs).  Hageman would normally be competing for that vote too, but chances are good that far right voters who are not Tea Party adherents will go to her.

Of course the ultimate beneficiary is likely to be Mary Throne, the essentially uncontested Democratic candidate who now occupies the entire middle.  That will end once the GOP has some mainstream candidates announce, but whoever that candidate will have to fight off extremists from the right in the primary before turning to Throne.  Shades of Mike Sullivan?

On all of this, and subject to another thread here, we have the irony of the recent ENDOW study suggesting that the state needs to get into the air travel funding arena to boost our economy. The Federal government is doing that now, and the state is somewhat, but WYDOT recommended a greater role and the ENDOW study endorsed that.  We addressed that here:

ENDOW Study. Air Travel First

 

 Federal Express at the Natrona County International Airport.  An airport that can  handle a plane like this could sure easily handle intra state air travel.

We've posted a lot about Wyoming's Boom and Bust economy over the years, particularly the last few years as we've slid into a bust.  Supposedly we're coming out of that right now, although a report that the state issued last week stated the opposite.  Citing employment figures, the report felt we were still in a bust.  Perhaps note noted in that, although I've discussed it here, a revived petroleum economy is not likely to be quite as labor intensive as prior booms as technology has developed to the point where exploration and drilling are not as labor intensive as they once were.  This will not be true. . . yet, of the support infrastructure where more of the jobs actually are, but we note this as the oil industry as subject to the labor reducing aspects of technology just like everything else.  This should give economic planners in Wyoming pause.

Taylor Haynes is quoted rhetorically musing  on this, stating:

“We have a pretty good tax structure and a nice place to live, so why aren’t we overrun with companies wanting to come here?” Haynes said.

Even he, a libertarian (in essence) comes up with a government role here, noting;

Haynes said he wanted information technology taught to every public school student in the state in order to create a workforce that can serve the technology industry. He also wants high school students to be able to select a college or vocational track.

That's fine, I suppose, but at this part I can't help but note what seems to be a significant disconnect in the GOP from average folks, although less so for Hageman who shares my occupation and therefore its travel burdens.   In the Tea Party end of the GOP there seems to be an illusion that somehow, if the public lands, end up in state hands it magically cures all economic ills.  Now, what it would do is to dispossess average people, which is why average Wyomingites are dead set against this.  Haynes and Rammel, based upon what I know of them, are quite well off and may simply not see what things are like for average Wyomingites.  After all, they are both imports from elsewhere.

And they both occupied professions that don't put people on the road to go 200 miles or more in one day, and then turn around and come back, routinely.  Lots of Wyomingites do.  Taking t he public lands away from them, and that's what state ownership would end up doing, makes their lives worse and doesn't address the state's actual economic ills at all.

_________________________________________________________________________________

February 6, 2018. 

It turns out that there's an additional Republican candidate running that I'd been unaware of, that being Bill Dahlin.

I don't know much about Dahlin and his campaign has been rather obviously fairly quiet to date.  He's a businessman from Sheridan, and that's about all I know about him personally, and that from his website.  According to that, he grew up in Sheridan, had a business career outside the state, and returned to Wyoming in 2000.

His positions would be characterized as conservative most places but would be regarded as moderate in the context of the current election.  He doesn't favor the transfer of public lands from the Federal Government to the state and believes that "public lands belong to the public".  He admits that in the past he's voted a split ticket.  He's for the legalization of industrial hemp (which would require Federal action, not state).

He was the first person to actually enter the race, which his a bit disturbing in some ways as he sure hasn't gotten much press for doing so.

__________________________________________________________________________________

February 10, 2018 

Ed Murray resigned as Wyoming Secretary of State yesterday, February 9.


Former U.S. Congressional candidate Leland Christensen, who would be Congressman Christensen if Tim Stubson had dropped out of the race (or, conversely Tim Stubson would be Congressman if Christensen had dropped out) announced his candidacy for the office only hours prior.  Christiensen mounted an effective campaign for Congress, as did Stubson, and the splitting of the GOP vote between them effectively wiped each other out allowing Cheney to advance past the primary.  Christensen, in spite of doing well in that race, must have concluded that taking on an incumbent Cheney was unlikely to be successful.

The day prior well known Cheyenne Democrat Jim Byrd also announced for Murray's position.

Governor Mead will now have to appoint somebody to fill Murray's vacant office.  That individual is likely to be a candidate as well, as everyone well knows, and therefore it will be interesting to see who he appoints.

____________________________________________________________________________________

February 16, 2018

Tom Forslund, former manager of the City of Casper (for 23 years) has indicated he's thinking of getting into the race.  He's currently the Director of Wyoming Departments of Health & Family Services.

Forslund appears to be testing the waters, and even admitting he's doing so, noting that he's balancing his desire to run, his desire to be effective and the costs of running.

If he gets in, he'll instantly be the GOP front runner.  He's not an extremist and he has actual real world experience in government, including that of managing the largest city in Wyoming to have the city manager form of government.  He was generally well liked as Casper's city manager and he certainly has experience with good and bad economic times.

In a lot of ways, Forslund would be a breath of fresh air in a campaign that, so far, has been dominated by some fairly extreme ideas on the GOP side of the race.

___________________________________________________________________________________

February 22, 2018

Mark Gordon, who was widely expected to run this year, has announced he "intends" to run. That's not the same, for some reason, as actually announcing his campaign, but it's close.

Gordon is the State Treasurer and  is also a highly educated Johnson County rancher.  He's been universally popular in his various political efforts and this likely makes him the front runner.

With Gordon in, it'll be interesting to see if Forslund determines to stay out.  In the House race this lasts go around Christensen and Stubson split the rank and file GOP vote which allowed the far from universally popular Cheney to advance to the general election. Forslund will not command the support going into the race that that Gordon will but, if he manged to secure quite a bit of it, and if he in particular still retains a Natrona County base (which is far from certain) that could repeat allowing potentially Hageman to advance.  In that instance my prediction would be that Throne would win in the general election, a scenario we've also seen in the past, although not the recent past, which allowed two Democratic governors to serve in succession for a sixteen year period in spite of Wyoming being a heavily GOP state.

____________________________________________________________________________________

February 23, 2018

Businessman David Dodson has declared as as "Reagan Republican" against John Barrasso, as of yesterday.

Except he's not.

Not a Republican that is.  Or at least not really running as one.  He's running as an independent.

That will assure that Dodson, who is a relocated Colorado businessman living in Jackson Hole, and a part time business lecturer at Stanford, will get to the general election, but it also means that he's basically running against the GOP.  Removing an incumbent has proven to be nearly impossible in Wyoming, so the odds are very much against him.

Having said that, Barrasso may be somewhat more exposed to a center conservative than we might at first suppose.  Barrasso is a relocated Pennsylvania orthopedic surgeon who  gained his appointment by way of an appointment from the GOP.  I.e., he didn't win the position in order to gain it.  He's steadily risen to prominence in the Republican Party and he makes a real effort to return to the state every week, but he always tends to come across a bit as an outsider.  Dodson will be an outsider as well, of course.  Barrasso, however, has sided with the people who believe that the Federal government basically shouldn't be controlling the public domain which is in opposition to what most Wyomingites believe and which puts him, almost without his knowing it, in a certain radical camp.  I've seen posts by individuals I know to be true Republican conservatives in the state really dissing Barrasso, without being specific as to why, but basically because of this issue.

Which does not mean that I think he's being replaced in the Fall is likely.  But Dodson's entry is interesting.

___________________________________________________________________________________

February 28, 2018

Dodson is not only running, but it turns out that he's willing to invest some major advertising dollars in the effort this early.  That is unusual.

The day after I posted the item above, full page advertisements by Dodson, directed at Barasso, began to appear in the Star Tribune.  The last couple of days television advertisements, and highly aggressive ones at that, started appearing on television.  And it's only February.

This makes it pretty plain that Dodson is prepared to campaign right from the onset of his announcement through  the fall and invest some major cash in the effort.  His television advertisements proclaim he's a "Reagan Republican", but running as an independent, and that Barasso "has a fight on his hands".  He really might.

___________________________________________________________________________________

March 13, 2018

The Dodson television blitz continues on.  A recent television ad featured his sister, if I caught that right, who apparently was the first member of the Dodson family to move to Wyoming and who made a plea for her brother on the basis that she doesn't want to see her sons have to move out of the state for work.

Dodson's campaign so far seems to be 100% economic.  That might be a good start to things but I wonder how far it will really take him.  He claims to be a Reagan Republican but what does that mean in this context?  It has to mean more than the economy I suspect or this campaign will run out of steam.

It's also going to be hard at some point for Dodson not to seem like another political carpetbagger in the state.  John Barasso isn't from Wyoming either, he's from Pennsylvania, but he did spend the entire significant part of his work life here.  Dodson was born in Greeley, which at least is a hardscrabble western work town, but most of his working life was spent elsewhere and his Wyoming residence is in Teton County, which equates with massive wealth which isn't something that he'll have in common with most Wyomingites.  His campaign, as noted, is 100% economic so far, but what does he believe on anything else?  He'll have to start letting people know, and soon.

Mark Gordon appears ready to officially announce his campaign on March 15 here in Casper, which would make him the second gubernatorial candidate to announce from Casper.  It's interesting that people seem to want to distance themselves from Cheyenne for their official announcements.  Anyhow, he's set to run.

Right now, I'm listening to an episode of the Right to Roam podcast in which Gordon is a guest.  Those podcast run about 45 minutes in length and I'm about 3/4s of the way through it and I have yet to hear the $65.00 question on what his views are about public land.  I think, based on what little I know about Gordon, that he opposed the attempt at a land grab by the state, but I'm hoping to hear that question asked.

I note that as both Barasso and Gordon have adopted a "stop the Federal land grab" and "stop the War on the West" banners in their early campaigns.  With Barasso, he's already on record supporting a state land grab and worked to have that inserted in the last GOP platform.  This is a massively unpopular view here in the state and no doubt Gary Trauner, the Democratic candidate, will be harping on that, as he seems tuned into local issues pretty well.  Whether Dodson will get off the "Wyoming has the worst economy in the US" drumbeat long enough to notice that is another matter.  If he doesn't, the Star Tribune columnist who mused that Dodson may mostly serve to open the door for Trauner might prove to be correct.

What that means with Gordon is another matter and I hope we will soon learn.  Liz Cheney has been busy with some bill that impacts Wyoming lands from a Federal prospective and it's quite clear that she's in the minority on this view and likely knows it. She also may very well know where her bread is buttered, politically, and so far benefits from the fact that her only GOP challenger is quite eccentric.  It seems pretty clear that Cheney could be bumped out of her seat fairly easily if a popular Republican, say Matt Mead, ran for it, of if a popular Democrat for that matter, ran for it.  So far, that's not happening.

___________________________________________________________________________________

March 16, 2018

Mark Gordon officially announced yesterday.

__________________________________________________________________________________

March 21, 2018 

Cheyenne businessman Sam Galeotos announced that he would announce for the Governor's office today.  Galeotos has been an active figure in business and community in Cheyenne, but he's otherwise a political newcomer.

The race on the Republican side is beginning to become a bit crowded.

___________________________________________________________________________________

March 25, 2018

Leland Christensen came out this past week and announced that he was a candidate for State Treasurer. Earlier Christensen had been announced to be a candidate for Secretary of State, a race he is now implicitly abandoning.

The Teton County native and former sheriff's deputy has been a long time Teton County legislature and was a candidate for the U.S. House in 2016.  Indeed, he'd likely be Wyoming's Congressman but for Tim Stubson, with whom he split the vote opposing Cheney.  Of course, by the same token, Stubson would now be Wyoming's Congressman but for Christensen.

Running for the Treasurer office being left by Scott Gordon is a good move for Christensen who is likely positioning himself for a future run at Congress or the Governorship. As he did well in the Congressional race, he's likely to do well in the race for Treasurer.

___________________________________________________________________________________

March 26, 2018 

The Casper Star Tribune ran an interesting column today on the "branding" by the various candidates for Governor. That is, their logos and whatnot.  

I'm not commenting on that, but rather on a comment that was included in the article, that being that the two best funded campaigns were those of Scott Gordon and Sam Galeotos.  I don't know much about Galeotos, a political newcomer, so that surprised me.  Given that, Galeotos may prove to be a pretty major contender, or at least a pretty active one.

___________________________________________________________________________________

March 28, 2018

Jillian Balow announced that she was running for re-election as Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Balow took office following the chaotic administration of Cindy Hill which had resulted in a contest between the legislature and the Superintendent which ended up in court.  In her announcement she emphasized that she had desired to bring some stability into the office.  To date she is the only person to have announced for the office.

____________________________________________________________________________________

March 31, 2018

Dodson's television campaign has expanded out beyond its solitary economic theme.  For awhile, I wondered if that's all it was going to focus on, but a new ad with Dodson speaking, in his now typical somewhat angry tone, claims that during Barasso's entire tenure as a U.S. Senator he's only introduced one bill that passed and that was for a new Federal courthouse in Teton County.  Dodson then dismisses that as being for Barasso's rich friends and donors.

I don't know.  I think that might oversimplify the American Congressional method of drafting legislation but I truly don't know what Barasso's legislative record is.  I am sure he's going to have to answer to Dodson soon.  FWIW, however, I doubt that Republican wealthy in Teton County care much about Federal courthouses.  Indeed, I'd think of that being more of a Democratic thing quite frankly.

Both Dodson and Barasso made an appearance at an event I went to in Natrona County recently.  Dodson had a table one day, while I was there, and Barasso toured through the day prior.  I avoided Dodson's table as I'm shy and don't like to engage much in conversation with folks I don't know, but I soon regretted it as quite frankly there were a series of questions I'd like to have asked him.

Gary Trauner toured through the county this past week, so Natrona County is getting a lot of attention.  I didn't happen to run across him however.

__________________________________________________________________________________

April 1, 2018

The Star Tribune proclaimed that the Governor's race was "Gordon's To Lose", meaning that in their opinion he'll be the next governor of the state unless he blows it.

Well, perhaps, but some of the things noted in the article would hint that he might be blowing it already.  Principal amongst them is the fact that nobody really knows what his views actually are on anything, although maybe that's an advantage early on.

The CST pointed to his website which simply notes a series of vague things without saying much of anything at all.  Specifically, if you go to his website, you'll find under issues the following:

Building a Bright Future

Mark understands that here in Wyoming, we’re an open book. You can write your own chapter and shape your own destiny.

Growing up on the ranch in Kaycee, when his family or neighbors had a problem, they didn’t look to the government to solve it. They rolled up their sleeves, banded together and got the job done. As Governor, Mark will fight to get government out of the way and allow the people of Wyoming to prosper.

Wyoming remains the best state in the nation to live, raise a family or start a business. With some of the lowest taxes in the country, favorable regulatory policies, access to private and public-sector resources, Wyoming is the place to be for self-starters, entrepreneurs and anyone who wants to chart their own course.

Mark understands what it takes to retain and foster Wyoming’s youth and talent while attracting the best and brightest to advance current industries in our state and grow new ones. He has a broad range of experience in the fields most important to Wyoming, from running a family ranch, owning and operating Main Street businesses, and working in the energy industry. Mark recognizes that Wyoming is ready to be a leader in these fields and many more – from technology and computer science to advanced manufacturing and engineering.

Reducing the Size of Government and Decreasing Spending

Ensuring Wyoming has a balanced budget and that our government is living within its means is absolutely essential. This means prioritizing needs versus wants. Wyoming’s revenues are down significantly and while recent economic forecasts have been promising, we are not out of the woods yet. We must rein in our spending today to ensure fiscal stability tomorrow.

Mark’s track record in the Treasurer’s office demonstrates his ability to do more with less while safeguarding taxpayer dollars. A fiscal conservative all his life, Mark has the private and public-sector experience to chart this new course Wyoming.

The boom times over the last decade have resulted in rising spending rates that Wyoming simply cannot keep up with. During this time, Mark has successfully managed the state’s second largest

contributor to general fund income – investment income. He has delivered the funds best performance in the past decade and has set procedures in place that ultimately position Wyoming to benefit further from investment income in the years to come. He has firsthand knowledge of the state’s fiscal position and knows how to best protect taxpayer’s money while making it work efficiently and effectively for our citizens.

As Governor, Mark will conservatively manage spending levels without growing government, while still providing the essential services the people of Wyoming depend on.

Ensuring the Future of Wyoming’s Natural Resources

Wyoming’s natural resources are second to none. Be it oil, gas, coal, uranium or wind – Wyoming has it all. And there are no greater stewards of these energy and natural resources than the people of Wyoming.

Throughout his career, Mark has worked to push back against federal overreach and cut through bureaucratic red-tape that has kept much of our natural resources under lock and key.

As Governor, Mark will ensure responsible development of our state’s vast natural resources while protecting open space and access to public lands. He will work to position Wyoming as the leader in advanced energy technologies including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and new carbon-to-product markets.

Defending Our Conservative Values

A lifelong conservative, Mark works to defend the Wyoming values of limited government, low taxes and personal responsibility. He understands the importance of local control and has fought to keep Washington out of Wyoming. Mark is a staunch protector of the Constitution. He believes in putting families first and is pro-life.

Mark is a lifelong member of the NRA and believes the right to bear arms is fundamental. Growing up on a ranch, owning guns is part of his way of life. Mark hunts, taught all his kids how to shoot and owns a firearm for personal protection. Mark will continue to be a relentless defender of the Second Amendment.

I guess we can very vaguely, maybe, take a few things away from this.  He's a fiscal conservative. . . we get that.  He's a conservative in general.  More specifically; 

• Like everyone, seemingly, in Wyoming, he believes there's a lot of Federal overreach.
• "As Governor, Mark will ensure responsible development of our state’s vast natural resources while protecting open space and access to public lands." which presumably means he's not party of the "grab them and sell them" wing of the GOP on public lands, although his exact position on that issue remains unknown."He will work to position Wyoming as the leader in advanced energy technologies including Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) and new carbon-to-product markets" which puts him in the GOP camp that oddly maintains that there Federal government spends too much while urging it to spend in this area."He believes in putting families first and is pro-life."" Mark will continue to be a relentless defender of the Second Amendment."

So we know something, if not enough.  At some point, I think that needs to get fleshed out.

Harriet Hageman is, on the other hand, making her views known including one that would propose to have the Federal Government transfer 1,000,000 acres to an already cash strapped State of Wyoming as an administrative experiment. That's a precursor to a push for a full transfer no matter what a person may otherwise maintain.  At least when this went up on her Facebook page it was going over like a lead balloon. This is a massively unpopular idea with most Wyoming citizens.

The Tribune thinks that Hageman is relying too much on rural voters which I think assumes a lot about rural voters.  Anymore I'm not hearing any support amongst most rural voters for transferring the public lands to the states.  Indeed, I don't hear ranchers talk about it at all with any support and the only group of people I hear support it are on a certain radical wing of the GOP that is in the Tea Party camp.  

While I'm very much opposed to that position, I'll give Hageman credit for setting out her views on a lot of issues, which may reveal an internet based effort to get her views out in front of Gordon.  It's pretty clear that she's trying to run as a conservative and not a Tea Party candidate while tossing some Morning Blend their way at the same time.

Galeotos seems to be tanking more the Gordon approach, only more so.  He has a list of things he supports but they're all one liners that most Wyomingites support.  Galeotos is apparently the first or second best funded campaign but he's not doing much on his website information wise.

Again, maybe that's intentional.  Gordon is out in front, everyone believes, so by getting very specific he can only be attacked.  Galeotos has a lot of money for a big push when the time comes and might not want to get into a fight now.  Hageman is the least well funded so perhaps an internet based campaign that's surprisingly specific and less radical than we might expect, if still notably to the right of Galeotos and Gordon is her strategy.

That leaves out several other GOP candidates, of course, but a couple are simply being dismissed by the Tribune and I think they're right to do so.  The one that  has been surprisingly quiet and remains an unknown is Bill Dahlin.  Given the lack of name recognition, if Dahlin hopes to have a chance, he probably better get active in the GOP field fairly soon.