What’s the point of this story? Seems like a needless slam Crapo.

But I guess I’m just like Crapo in that I’m for freedom but don’t want a robber coming into my house and freely taking things.

Maybe that’s how the Republican mind works?

It’s only pork when it’s somebody else’s pork. When it’s local, it’s delicious bacon!

While Mr. Crapo leans conservative, he’s morphed into a Career Politician. Not to the point of an Orrin Hatch, but on that same career path. (Can he write songs about beloved Democrats?)

I guess I don’t understand the problem with his actions. The first part was about limiting the Presidents, or the executive branch of the government, concerning National Monumnets. The second item is related to a congressional measure concerning the Minidoka monument. If he was supporting a measure to limit congresses role and then was supporting a congressional act concerning National Monuments I would answer differently.

EDITOR NOTE–For us the juxtaposition a day or two apart was too much to resist. You have us confused now. Was the Minidoka deal an act of congress or done from the “top down?”

Dave, Dave, Dave..

I appreciate your desire to find fault, but this is more apples and oranges.
The Nunes-Crapo bill seeks to stop the “top-down” Presidential orders that create monuments, often over the desires of state leaders and private property owners.

The Minidoka monunment is just a few acres in size and has been in negotiations for many years with local leaders, property owners and human rights interests. It was created by federal legislation.

Paul is right in that private donations have aided the site. But no need to get the facts when you can gin up what looks like a problem for a federal representative.

EDITOR NOTE–Thanks for the clarification.

I’d agree with the Guardian that it appears Senator Crapo is being a bit two sided in this case. There is a tie between the proposed Nunes – Crapo bill and the Minidoka internment site.

The Minidoka site (aka Hunt Camp) was established as a National Monument on January 17, 2001 by Presidential Proclamation 7395 in the waning days of the Clinton presidency. It had been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1979.

Had the proposed Nunes – Crapo bill been in effect in 2001, it is possible the Site might not have been established then. On the other hand, maybe Congress would have approved it since the Site has great significance as far as constitutional rights are concerned. Even today.

Congress has since approved funding for development and improvement of the Site, and others, so one can argue that amounts to Congressional oversight.

Congressional approval of proposed national monuments is probably a good thing. If that is what the Nunes – Crapo bill proposes fine. But in this case it does appear Senator Crapo is trying to walk both sides of the fence.

And Lindsay, you say the Site was created by federal legislation. Could you be more specific? Like when Congress created the Site. The Management Plan doesn’t mention, as far as I can see, that the Site was created by federal legislation. As I read the Plan, the Site was created by the Executive Branch.

And maybe you could also tell us how the Senator voted on the last AMTRAK funding bill. Was it consistent with his advocating return of AMTRAK service to Idaho?

For more information on the Minidoka site see: http://www.nps.gov/miin/index.htm or
http://www.nps.gov/miin/parkmgmt/upload/02-MIIN_Presentation_Background_11-06.pdf
(Minidoka NPS management plan)