When I arrived for new student orientation at the University of Idaho in August 1974, the second person I met, welcoming us all on the tour bus, was the new student president, Dirk Kempthorne. He was a great greeter - really, my introducer to Idaho.

From right then I could tell: To the degree people simply have innate political and campaigning talents, you could see them in Kempthorne, who died on April 24. Over the next academic year I observed him in my role as a student newspaper reporter covering the student government. The idea that he might end up in higher office in the “real world” was thought a possibility.

To meet him at any point in his adult life was to encounter a courteous, self-possessed, able communicator well capable of navigating whatever social waters he encountered. He really was well suited for politics.

What I didn’t know on orientation day but learned later was that Kempthorne already had been through a political wringer. The February student election was contentious, with Kempthorne facing initially one opponent, Jeff Stoddard, then a third entry, Rod Gramer (in the years since a prominent regional journalist and education advocate). Kempthorne was a plurality and not a majority winner, and the question of what might have happened if Gramer had not entered - as in many such cases - has been hashed over ever since by those who were around at the time.

But there was more. After the election a student activist named John Orwick filed a petition saying the election rules had been violated (he didn’t allege any candidate was responsible) with the implication that the election results should be thrown out. That wrangling went on for weeks until time came to swear in the new student officers, and at that point Orwick agreed to drop the challenge. His pullback followed discussions with Kempthorne which convinced him the new president would work to change and improve the election process (which he did). Kempthorne announced that decision, adding, "John decided to withdraw his petition so the people who took the oath of office tonight wouldn't have to worry about being bounced out of office.”

Over the years ahead, Kempthorne seemed to have the golden touch in Idaho politics, reaching a succession of offices - Boise mayor, U.S. senator, Idaho governor, Interior secretary - no one else has matched.

That does not mean it was all automatic. Sometimes he happened to be in the right place at the right time. And some of it involved something more.

Kempthorne’s political trajectory really began with his successful race for Boise mayor in 1985. But that candidacy did not come out of nowhere. It emerged from what was then a roiling stew of Boise politics, over the unlikely subject of downtown redevelopment: The leaders of city hall had one vision for how that should proceed, and an increasingly large and popular opposition had another. That well-organized opposition won two seats on the Boise City council in 1983, and was poised for a takeover in 1985. Its leadership picked out a slate of contenders from across the political spectrum. A key question: Who should they choose for mayor? Maybe someone new, who could project well across a wide range of people?

Dirk Kempthorne, who was just one among several serious prospects, emerged from that selection process, and he was an excellent choice. His run for mayor - helped by riding a popular insurgency - was smooth and efficient. After he won, his tenure as mayor won widespread applause, and he remarkably won re-election unopposed. His elections to the Senate and the governorship were not surprising.

From a distance, all of this would look easy, and in hindsight, almost foreordained.

But the point here is that even in the case of well-timed political talent, there are hinges that can swing either way, and can choke off a path of progress as easily as enable it. Dirk Kempthorne seemed to understand those hinges, in politics and often in government as well, well. He was able to make a difference as a result.

Tuesday’s election in Virginia over adopting a redistricted - gerrymandered - congressional district map was, whatever else, dramatic. As the vote trickled in over a couple of hours, it stayed close almost always, and while the “no” side narrowly led most of the time, the “yes” side eventually prevailed.

Idaho doesn’t have a lot of election nights like that anymore, but the primary election about a month from now does have some unpredictability about it, and some races that could be close in the Republican primary, where most of the action will be.

A bunch of contests have emerged pitting two clear sides against each other, mainstream candidates against the harder-edged contenders aligned with the state party structure. Both have scored wins in recent years; in 2024, the state party side seemed to get the better of it. This year, especially in the Magic Valley, we’ll see if a pushback attempt succeeds.

One of those contests stands out for the stark choices involved and the unmistakability of whatever the voters decide. That is the race for the Senate in District 6, which includes Moscow, part of Lewiston, and rural areas around them.

It’s a district that in theory might have been designed for something resembling moderation, but has not turned out to be. Moscow is nearly central, but its university community is offset by a large religious group development. The district’s senator is third-term Republican Dan Foreman of Moscow. His challenger is Lori McCann of Lewiston, a Republican House member appointed in 2021 and elected twice since.

Don’t let the party label fool you: They could hardly be more different, a description with which they’d both probably agree.

Foreman’s history doesn’t sound like the makings of a political success story, though he’s been elected repeatedly in a competitive area. Reportedly, he has shouted at constituents (notably students) who tried to talk with him at the Statehouse; among other things he was reported as saying “abortion is murder.”. He has said of his home area, “Latah County, particularly the university, greater Moscow area, is a cesspool of liberalism.” During a candidate forum in the 2024 election he told a fellow candidate, a member of the Nez Perce Tribe, to “go back to where you came from.” (Foreman has denied saying it, but others at the meeting said he did.)

His legislative record is, mostly, on the edge of where even current Idaho Republican caucuses are willing to go. He does not support any space between church and state, considers climate change a “scam” and has introduced legislation to make abortion first degree murder. The whole record (including in the recent session acting against a measure designed to cripple the Idaho Education Association) is a little more complex than that, but you get the drift. He has been well liked by the state Republican organization and the influential Idaho Freedom Foundation.

McCann, on the other hand, has been a backer of public schools and higher education and notably the University of Idaho - usually an ordinary thing in a district home to a large state university, but not a given these days. She was quoted: “Some Idaho legislators believe higher education should be defunded. I do not.” (She was quoted as saying Foreman’s IEA bill actions were motivated by the upcoming primary election against her.) She has been a defender of public libraries too, and generally has not joined in the culture wars that have attracted so many Republican legislators in recent years.

For her actions in some of these areas, local and state Republican organizations have criticized her and even set up a “platform enforcement” hearing to decide whether she had been sufficiently faithful to the state Republican platform.

All that is background to her complaints about being able to work with Foreman, or even talking with him: “We can’t get in to see him. We’re not getting replies back.”

Two well-established Republican legislators in the same district so sharply at odds in policy and approach make for a highly unusual primary contest. The results will have a lot to say about what this section of Idaho is all about.

And something to say about in general too.