So, our senior Senator is, after all, going to run for re-election. We were pretty certain that he was going to do so when he was aggressively shaking down all of those K-street lobbyists for big bucks with the help of Leo Giacometto. But you never know until the candidate actually pays the filing fee. So far, neither Republican candidate -- state Rep. Mike Lange or Kirk Bushman -- has formally filed, but they will certainly do so.
Here we are in a season of "change" and Montanans are having to decide whether to send Sen. Baucus back for his 6th term with the help of an unprecedented amount of out-of-state lobbyist money. Hm. I wonder how the Democratic Party in Montana is going to nuance their campaign theme: "Vote for change in Washington! Except when we say not to!"
Many will point to his senior position on the Senate Finance Committee as a reason to re-elect him. That's a good reason -- except that it's not. First of all, the Finance Committee doesn't decide on spending in Montana, as many mistakenly believe -- that's the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we lost our seat on that committee when we traded in Sen. Burns for Sen. Tester.
No, what the Finance Committee chair is really, really, really good for is raising lots of money from certain sectors -- namely, sectors that are regulated by decisions made by the Finance Committee. Why else did Baucus manage so easily and quickly to raise $9 million and counting, with nearly all of it from outside of Montana? Probably not because all of those corporate types are concerned about the needs of Montana. More likely because they expect to get something.
Actually, the fact that Sen. Baucus is a long-time Finance Committee member, and for years now his party's ranking member, is a pretty good reason not to re-elect him. After all, the Finance Committee is responsible for the solvency of things like Social Security and Medicare.
And is Social Security more secure today than it was when Sen. Baucus became the ranking Democrat on the committee? Hardly. It is more imperiled than it ever was, and it is hard to escape the notion that Sen. Baucus has been asleep at the wheel on the Senate Finance Committee -- fiddling while Rome burns (to mix metaphors.) In fact, America may thank Montana for voting out Baucus so someone else can head up that committee.
Sure, one can blame Republicans on that committee, too -- but what has Baucus done to boldly change course during his time as chairman? The only Senators who are willing to propose some bold ideas about entitlement reform right now are Republicans like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint -- and unfortunately they are a minority even within their own party. But at least the Republicans have some people on the field -- Baucus hasn't even suited up yet when it comes to entitlement reform. Should we give him another 6 years on Finance? We're not convinced.
We realize that Sen. Baucus is the overwhelming favorite in this race, barring something really, really unexpected. Yes, he took money from Abramoff, he has Leo Giacometto helping him raise money from lobbyists, and he has been in Washington too long -- but we doubt that those slogans will be as persuasive to Montana Democrats in 2008 as they were when they used them against Burns in 2006. In fact, in the past we have gotten some indignant responses from Democrats when we have made these comparisons.
Well, hidden somewhere in Baucus's $9 million, doesn't there have to be at least an aggregate of a couple hundred thousand from people who are getting something pretty sweet from our senior Senator? Just taking a wild stab on the odds. And if Burns was there too long when running for his 4th term, then how much more so would that be true for a guy wanting to check in for a 6th? Just asking.
So what kind of really, really unexpected event would be necessary to make the race close? Oh, maybe something like lots of hard-hitting investigative journalism, going through that $9 million with a fine-tooth comb. Coming soon to a Montana newspaper near you.
