Conservative News & Commentary

Dec 8, 2015 — by: J. Madison
Categories: Government

Greg-walden-headshotIt is said that principled people rarely have to deliberate about what to do, because their principles inform them of the correct decision. However, those who follow the way of pragmatism struggle mightily at ever turn.

Congressman Greg Walden is a pragmatist. His PR team would disagree with that statement. They would claim Walden is a conservative who works hard just like the average person in Oregon’s 2nd District, which he represents. They would continue that every day Walden is fighting the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama. They would say Greg Walden is pro-business and wants to stop the insanity of regulation by the Federal Government. 

Unfortunately that is only true when it also benefits Greg Walden.

That is the difference between a person of principle and one who is a pragmatist — the principled person is guided by a set of principles outside of themselves, whereas the pragmatist is guided by what is best for them, changing positions with the whim of the winds.

Walden and KBRA

Copco-dam-klamath-riverSo Walden has decided to do his own thing again. Walden is in a last minute rush before the legislative clock runs out in 2015. A KBRA deal must be struck by Dec. 31st or the KBRA will be no more. Back in October Walden visited Klamath Falls. During that time he claimed to reluctantly be for the KBRA because there was no other way forward — no better alternative. Yet, after returning to his home in DC, Walden’s draft legislation gutted the KBRA/KHSA by keeping Klamath River dams in place and revoking tribal rights to water. 

How could Walden be for the KBRA/KHSA in October and then in less than six weeks later completely rewrite the major tenants of the stakeholder’s (aka special interest group’s) proposal? Because Walden is a pragmatists, and pragmatists first do what is best for them. That is why pragmatists make awful representatives and legislators — they only are concerned about the citizens they serve when it comes election time.

Who knows who offered Walden a better deal to modify the KBRA when writing his legislation??? All we know is someone did, and thus his word as his bond is meaningless. Matter of fact, Walden has been neutral, then against this proposal, then for it and now trying to find a happy medium. Walden wants to slice the baby in two, giving half a child to each side. In other words, what a pragmatist would do.

Personally, I hope the KBRA fails, and the myths of “water certainty”, “community stakeholders” and “affordable power” will not be legislated into reality. The base argument of who really has foundational water rights in the basin can once again resurface. Moreover, we can expose those who want to hoard water in order to inflict pain on others (not a Christian virtue by the way). However, the point of this article is to provide yet another example of how Congressman Greg Walden says one thing in the District and then does something completely different back in DC. Until we wake up as voters and un-elect such pragmatists, our country continues down the road to serfdom.


  1. Jan Craig ~ Dec. 8, 2015 @ 10:27 am

    How timely, Dianne. We will be meeting with Greg's reps. in LaGrande in person and by phone to discuss BLM/USFS issues on Dec.18th....might as well throw some water on the fires! Jan #
  2. Paul Clark ~ Dec. 8, 2015 @ 12:28 pm

    Generally speaking, the agreement has been very confusing, and from what I can glean from the media, it was dead! I don't see what the problem is, other than the tribes and environmentalists are having a cow right now. In reality, what is wrong with Congressman Walden's proposal? Is there one farmer or rancher who wouldn't be pleased if everyone signed on? I know I am probably stupid, but it is the first proposal I actually understood! It was very clear what the terms are. Maybe Congressman Walden has been reading Trump's book, The Art of the Deal. Right in the book, Trump says, if you're serious in a negotiation about wanting something -- and, by the way, being serious is the only time to enter into it -- and if there's something dead certain you've gotta have, you have got to start out with the most outrageous position. The opener has got to be so outrageous that the compromise is exactly what you want. The opener is the most outrageous demand that you can make. Have you ever thought about why in the past few decades, conservatives lose every time when dealing with the left wing ideologues? We always start with the most conservative proposal and then we compromise until nothing is left. Wake up Conservatives, it is time to stand up and realize that "compassionate conservatism" is getting us nowhere! #
  3. J. Madison ~ Dec. 8, 2015 @ 1:18 pm

    Paul - the problem with the KBRA and with Walden's last minute solution is THE PROCESS. The KBRA was agreed to by special interests, behind closed doors -- tax payers & electric rate payers were not invited. Walden's grand "compromise" is the same thing: secret meetings with the same special interest groups. Matter of fact Walden is on conference calls today & tomorrow with special interests to get this deal done. Look, if Walden is so eager to give away Federal land, how about giving it to Klamath County, the State or local private interests?!? The Feds should get out of the land business all together because they are awful at managing it (like about everything else). Instead Walden is trying to give everyone a little of something to make them happy -- except for us, the tax payer and rate payer -- we get stuck with the bill and unintended consequences these genius central planners never predict. #
  4. Paul Clark ~ Dec. 8, 2015 @ 4:46 pm

    I know you are a not a left wing ideologue by your comments Mr. Madison so my question to you is what are the rate increases and what tax money are we losing in terms of dollars and cents? The convoluted explanations of the KBRA have been so ambiguous that the public doesn't understand it, myself included. Generally when agreements are in cryptic terms there are many hidden details the public is not supposed to know. And as you said, the Federal Government cannot manage anything and have closed most roads in the area they want to give away because of lack of management. If the tribes see it as an opportunity to make use of the land, they will certainly log it, and maybe open it up to recreation for a price? A good example is Pyramid Lake, Nevada. They do a much better job of fish & game management than the Feds could ever do. They charge the public for an excellent fishing experience and everyone wins. If they chose not to manage recreational land use, it wouldn't be any worse than it is now, and chances are it would be logged! You are correct when you say we need to get the feds out of our way and do something with all federal land. We need to revive the Sagebrush Rebellion movement, which would eliminate The Department of Agriculture and The Department of the Interior. (USFS & BLM) #
  5. J. Madison ~ Dec. 9, 2015 @ 9:21 am

    Paul, there are no specific answers to your great questions — and that's another reason why I am totally against this special interest boondoggle. We DO know rates will go up if PP has to remove dams... the law of supply and demand tell us that (less supply with same or more demand for electricity). I have no problem with Tribes getting land, but they should not get an exclusive deal. If/when the Feds divest themselves of our natural resources (which they should), those resources should be available to all, not just the Tribes. That is what the General Welfare clause in the Constitutions is all about — not specific benefits, but the same benefits for all. In other words equality under the law, not preferential treatment for specific groups and none for others. But with this legislation Walden is playing political favorites and rewarding some over others — completely contrary to what the founders stood for. Our tax rates won't go up per se, but the Fed is broke — worse, $20 Trillion in debt. How does the Federal Government have the ability to purchase land for Tribes without going further into debt? #

Leave your reply (* = required field)

* :
* :
* Comment: