Sage Dixon is Not the Guy We Thought We Elected
The older I get the less I listen to what people say and the more I look at what they do. ~Andrew Carnegie
OpEd by Shari Dovale
Sage Dixon spent a couple of hours recently trying to convince his constituents in Idaho’s District 1 that he was still the conservative good guy that they thought they elected in 2014.
Dixon barely gained enough votes against George Eskridge in that first campaign, but riding the coattails of enormously popular Liberty Legislator Heather Scott tipped the scales for him. However, since that first race, Dixon has not shown himself to be everything he promised to be.
He likes to say that he is “not loud” in Boise, but the truth is that he spends more time staying under the radar not wanting to upset the establishment, and he isn’t getting anything done.
His voting record is far from that of which his constituents expected, voting for progressive, anti-liberty bills such as House Bill 200, a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Health and Welfare. The money in this bill covers childcare expenses related to the pandemic.
At one time, Sage told us that conservatives are supposed to stand against debt and big government. Dixon does not seem to follow his own mantra. It would seem that he votes for lots of bills like this. I guess he likes and accepts the free federal money argument. Our kids and grandkids are sure to thank him later.
If you would like further explanation of this progressive, big government spending, click here.
Related: Freedom and Spending Index: The Idaho Legislature Is Blue
While I appreciate the little NRA license plate bill that he pushed through in his first term, as it was (in his words) a way to learn the system, what has he done since?
He has signed on to a few other bills, written by other legislators. He has promised to stand up and testify in favor of several of them, but somehow decided against doing that. Oops, wait a minute… he made promises to other legislators and didn’t keep them? Would that be considered a lie, or merely unethical?
Since he took the reigns, at leadership’s behest, of the Ethics Committee, Dixon has become the conscience of the Boise Legislature, claiming that, “If anyone is lying, I don’t think they should be there.”
This begs the question as to whether or not Dixon will admit to lying in the last 7-8 years? I have heard many people ask that same question in just the past few weeks.
Most people have taken notice of Dixon in the past few months due to his heavy-handed treatment of conservative legislators by way of his not-so-ethical Ethics Committee, of which he has led for more than one term.
Not standing up for the Constitution is a blatant violation in most of his constituents views, and he showed this during two separate hearings this year. The first resulted in the forced resignation of Rep. Aaron von Ehlinger.
The ethics committee has three options after a finding of guilt during their public trial. The first is a recommendation of expulsion, which would require a two-thirds vote of the House to achieve. The second and third are reprimand and censure, which only require a 50% vote of the House to accomplish.
Chairman Dixon recommended that Rep. Von Ehlinger receive just a censure (easier to get through the House) but also recommended that his punishment be, in effect, an expulsion (which is much harder to attain). He recommended that the Representative no longer be paid, be banned from the Capital grounds, not allowed to work for his District, etc. That is an expulsion, yet it only required a 50% vote to achieve.
This seems like a political dirty trick and only worthy of the swamp that is controlling this state.
The second ethics trial was against Rep. Priscilla Giddings. This leader in the Liberty movement took issue with how the previous hearing was being railroaded. Apparently, you cannot question the ethics of the ethics committee and come out unscathed.
Dixon held a townhall recently in which he attempted to sooth the frayed nerves of his voting constituency. When asked about the unethical behavior of the committee member, John McCrostie, the Democrat Representative that was caught stealing his opponents campaign materials and destroying them, he claimed that he couldn’t do anything about it because it was for a prior year, and not a current issue.
However, he clarified, that if that issue (or the issue of elected House members committing adultery) came before his committee at this point, then he would certainly take it upon himself to weigh their guilt.
One wonders how far Dixon is really prepared to defend this statement, as Redoubt News has discovered that a formal ethics complaint was filed earlier this year concerning Rep. Brent Crane, who called himself the third most powerful member of the House, saying he would ensure von Ehlinger’s expulsion. The problem being that Crane’s boasting and proclamation of von Ehlinger’s guilt came before the hearing convened.
We were also told that the “ethics” committee, of which Dixon is the Chairman, threw it out and refused to consider it. Crane was left on the committee for the von Ehrlinger hearing.
Dixon also made the bold statements that he, nor his committee, knew of the plans of either Rep. Giddings or Speaker Scott Bedke to run for the position of Lt. Governor. This is an obvious cover-up, as Redoubt News published an article on this topic way back on April 29th:
BOISE DISTRACTION! Is Idaho Speaker Scott Bedke Running For Lt Gov?
We knew about it way up here in the far distant District 1, Dixon’s district, and it was common knowledge all over Boise, yet Dixon and his committee were the only ones that did not know? I, along with many others, do not find that answer credible.
These are not the first instances of Dixon throwing conservative legislators under the bus. It was not that long ago where Dixon made friends with a far-left Communist-leaning psuedo-journalist that Dixon has since used to trash anyone not onboard with his agenda.
While his seat-mate, the only real conservative representative in North Idaho’s District 1, Heather Scott, was coming under fire from leftist all over the region, Sage Dixon held an interview in which the result was an absolute thrashing of Rep. Scott. The article was based mostly on comments made by Dixon, and was not left up to conjecture. It was an undeniable hit piece, of which the writer kept spinning his wheels in his apparent attempt to line bird cages. Dixon has yet to justify, or even explain his participation in this nastiness.
In the marxist-styled propaganda piece, the writer, and apparently Dixon as well, have no issue tying Dixon to the establishment tools like Scott Bedke and Christy Perry. Dixon is also promoted in the article by Black Lives Matter advocate, Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad. Even then Dixon has no issue with distancing himself from the conservative Rep. Scott, who is known as no fan of Marxist-trained groups.
Dixon obviously knew what was being said in the article, as he responded to much of it. Yet, he never defended his seat mate.
He did not defend her visit to Malheur in 2016 either, probably because he also visited the refuge during the protest. However, when she went a second time, Dixon was slated to accompany her but fell ill with an apparent flu and spent the time sleeping in his office. So he can conveniently say he only went once, yet would that be the full truth?
How about the controversy surrounding General Lee’s Battle Flag? The main stream media (MSM) had a heyday over this in 2015. Heather Scott was riding on a float in the Priest River Timber Days parade and displayed what is actually a battle flag from the Civil War.
The media, the lefties, and the cancel culture went nuts and spread around the photo of her. I understand that it went national.
Did Dixon defend her actions? Not at all.
However, it does make one wonder why the main stream media has protected him for all these years, by cutting him out of all the photos?
Yes, it is true that Dixon was on that truck with Rep. Scott but has never taken any backlash for it. You can even see him smiling at the flag in one photo.
A pure propaganda hit piece in which the Marxist media PROTECTED Sage Dixon from any repercussions? This was shortly after his first election, in 2015. One wonders why he would have been protected by the progressives and the MSM back then, and since?
There are quite a lot of questions for Mr. Dixon, of which he has yet to see fit to explain. Is avoidance of answers considered unethical, as he complained about Rep. Giddings?
Dixon admitted that he did not want to answer questions about his controversial behavior during the ethics trials. He said he was hoping that it would “just work itself out.” I wonder how that is ‘working out’ for him now?
Dixon once told this writer that he enjoys “being a politician.” And he indicated during the recent townhall that he still holds out hope for a leadership position, as he said he “would not turn it down.”
Sage Dixon is not the man that I thought I was voting for in 2014. He is more like Sen. Jim Woodward, who’s statements indicated that he was not concerned for his constituents during the pandemic. Actually, the two have tied themselves together quite nicely, during previous townhalls.
It is time that we return North Idaho to the conservatives, and remove these progressive establishment hacks.
The views, opinions, or positions expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions of Redoubt News. Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our content to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here
I believe that ALL elected officials should realize that you can’t please all of the voters with their decisions but should at least try to please those who put them in the office they hold.
“It has been for some Time a Question with me, Whether a Commonwealth suffers more by hypocritical Pretenders to Religion, or by the openly Profane? But some late Thoughts of this Nature, have inclined me to think, that the Hypocrite is the most dangerous Person of the Two, especially if he sustains a Post in the Government, and we consider his Conduct as it regards the Publick. The first Artifice of a State Hypocrite is, by a few savoury Expressions which cost him Nothing, to betray the best Men in his Country into an Opinion of his Goodness; and if the Country wherein he lives is noted for the Purity of Religion, he the more easily gains his End, and consequently may more justly be expos’d and detested. A notoriously profane Person in a private Capacity, ruins himself, and perhaps forwards the Destruction of a few of his Equals; but a publick Hypocrite every day deceives his betters, and makes them the Ignorant Trumpeters of his supposed Godliness: They take him for a Saint, and pass him for one, without considering that they are (as it were) the Instruments of publick Mischief out of Conscience, and ruin their Country for God’s sake.” – Silence Dogood (July 23, 1722 [No. 9])