An editorial in my local paper bemoans the cancellation of the final Republican debate, originally scheduled for March 19 in Portland. The candidates, writes the ed board, “have yet to focus on many of the issues that are of vital importance to Oregonians and Northwesterners.” Seemingly unaware that the issues most important to Oregonians are the same issues — the economy, “entitlement” programs, how many cabinet departments each candidate promises to slash — important to the rest of the country, the paper then goes on to opine that “Without a debate, it may be difficult for Oregonians to figure out where the candidates stand on the state’s medical marijuana law and protections for imperiled salmon species in the Columbia River basin.”
Well, yes. It will be difficult to figure out where the candidates stand on these issues because the candidates have probably not even considered the issues. (Ron Paul, who would legalize marijuana full-stop, without monkeying around with this “medical” business, is the exception.) Why each state feels entitled to address its parochial concerns on the national stage is beyond me. At the Jan. 26 debate in Florida, the candidates went into mind-numbing detail on American policy toward Cuba, a topic which anyone outside of the Palmetto state devotes very little attention. Newt Gingrich in particular has made a point of pandering to whichever community he happens to land in, from talking up a new VA hospital in New Hampshire to advocating the expansion of the Port of Jacksonville in Florida. At one debate, Romney brushed off “this idea of going state to state and promising people what they want to hear, promising hundreds of billions of dollars to make people happy.” Besides, if there are Republicans in Oregon basing their primary votes on Rick Santorum’s take on federal timber payments or fish management, I would suggest they reconsider their priorities. Really, when a candidate wants to tear down the wall between church and state, does it matter what he thinks about a few fish?
The Register-Guard’s professed curiosity about Northwestern issues is especially curious considering the ease with which any moderately intelligent person can predict the candidates’ responses. For the slow types that apparently make up the paper’s ed board, I offer the following primer:
Mitt Romney: Favored protecting salmon under the Endangered Species Act in 2005. Now denies he was ever pro-fish.
Ron Paul: Sorry, Fish and Wildlife Services was eliminated when the Interior Department got the axe. But don’t worry — the free market will save the salmon. (Just hope the free market isn’t hungry for fish sticks.)
Newt Gingrich: Will enable fish to self-defend by outfitting streams with laser-guided defense missiles. Alternatively, may consider shipping salmon to Mars to aid in terraforming project.
Rick Santorum: Clearly humans have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Rejects the “phony theology” of environmentalism.
. . . So Well Read. . . 