Raul Labrador is an attorney and it shows. He is smooth, pleasant and sometimes evasive - very good qualities in a lawyer but not such great stuff when you are running for Congress. So I have some questions for him regarding two very hot topics this political season.

The situation surrounding the state of Arizona is deeply troubling. A quick review reveals that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law a statute that would help protect the citizens of that state from the depredations of drug cartels, human traffickers and other criminal invaders from Mexico. This state law neither duplicated nor pre-empted Federal immigration law, but simply enforced it. Finding that too horrific to bear, our own President and his Attorney General sued the state of Arizona.

Let that settle in for a moment. Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Mexico vs. the Citizens of Arizona. That's right, the government of Mexico filed a "friend of the court" brief in this case. Our President sides with the country that is providing an unrelenting stream of criminals into this nation resulting in attacks on our citizens, law enforcement and the further destruction of our economy.

When asked where he stood on the Arizona situation, Raul Labrador said that he didn't support Jan Brewer but was calling on Barack Obama to send troops to the border. Later on, after it was clear that approximately 70 percent of the population backed Governor Brewer in her attempt to protect her state, Mr. Labrador gingerly allowed that he supported Arizona but regretted it was necessary. It's tough, when you make your living as an immigration attorney, to convince the skeptical among us that you'd rather pinch off the flow of clients and slowly go broke in order to keep America safer. Money talks and Raul's money says he prefers weak borders.

Now I am going to ask for an unequivocal answer. Mr. Labrador - do you fully, without reservation, support Jan Brewer and the case that the State of Arizona is making in order to protect itself? Or will you entrust the situation to Barack Obama?

The second area of concern is Puerto Rico. As a life-long Republican, I am vigorously opposed to statehood for this island. I don't have anything against islands but this particular one is chock full of liberals. Barack Obama is clear that he desires statehood for Puerto Rico, probably because it will give him a few million more votes, two liberal Senators and an increase in liberal Members of the House. The added bonus will be a leap in population lining up for welfare entitlements.

The Obama agenda marches forward and who will we send to stop it? Is Raul Labrador Idaho's gift to Obama? When asked if he's for statehood for Puerto Rico, Raul gives a nebulous response, along the lines of "now is not the time" but this is no time to be coy. Would that be a "yes" or a "no"? This is a tough one: Will Raul remain loyal to his birthplace or to the needs of a resurgent conservatism?

I heard Raul speak the other day and he stated that he doesn't make pledges. That's fine as long as he doesn't expect me to make any promises regarding how I will vote. If I hear that Raul has vowed to remain firm on no statehood for Puerto Rico and I see from his positioning on immigration issues that he truly is for states' rights, I will vote for him. If not, all bets are off and it doesn't matter how shrill the calls are for party unity. These are fair questions and they deserve clear answers. Nothing less will serve.

Where does Raul really stand on these issues? He's the only one who knows and so far, he's not telling.

Linda Cook is a Rathdrum resident.