Steve Daines -- the right stuff

One of the hardest things in modern Republican politics is finding strong candidates who have the right stuff: 1. A talent for being able to campaign effectively (and for statewide offices, preferably some experience at it,) 2. Sufficient drive and stamina for seeing a physically and emotionally grueling campaign through to the end, and 3. Enough life experience to have gained the tools necessary to actually be worth electing. Even among conservatives who are engaged with the issues of the day and who care enough about them to have an opinion, is is uncommon for the most talented to be interested enough in politics to take a break from whatever it is they are succeeding at in life.

This isn't to say that Democrats are universally willing to set aside careers in the private sector to run for office, but it is to say that someone genuinely committed to the general priorities of the left will have formed habits of mind that think of government service as a high calling, if not the highest of callings. That just isn't true of most people who are genuinely committed to the general priorities of the right, especially absent some sort of family tradition of political involvement and public service.

While both parties regularly succeed in putting up candidates who have two of the three, sometimes getting them elected when the political tides are ebbing or flowing in the right direction, it is nice when the stars align and we get what appears to be the total package. Such seems to be the case for Montana Republicans in our U.S. Congressional race, where we have Steve Daines as what the Billings Gazette calls "the prohibitive favorite" in the upcoming three-way GOP primary. There is plenty of time between now and the fall to address the issues in this campaign, so for now just a few political comments.

Montana Republicans got to know Daines during the last gubernatorial campaign, when he was State Sen. Roy Brown's running mate in what both had to know would be a long-shot campaign to unseat Gov. Schweitzer. While the ticket went down to defeat, they ran a hard-working campaign that kept the Schweitzer campaign and the Montana Democratic Party busy enough to prevent them from dumping all of their resources into state legislative races. The end result was that the GOP re-captured the State Senate, and held the Democrats to a tie in the House -- given the national flood in 2008 that swept Democrats into every office from President down to the proverbial county dog-catcher, all Republicans were swimming upstream, and indeed, the Montana Senate was, as we recall, the only state legislative body in the entire country to change hands from Democrat to Republican that year, while every other state either saw Republicans losing control of legislative bodies or simply clinging to an existing majority.

Daines and Roy Brown deserve a great deal of credit for that accomplishment by Montana Republicans. They were linemen, throwing hard blocks that allowed the running back to sneak through for a first down. It is therefore not surprising that, unlike our wide-open governor's race, no-one of stature in the Montana GOP jumped into the race to challenge Daines for the seat being vacated by Congressman Rehberg. Daines got a nice fundraising jump by initially declaring for the U.S. Senate race against Sen. Tester, then stepping aside when Rehberg announced his intent to run -- this was a politically sophisticated move that bodes well for Daines's ability to navigate political waters. It would be naive to suggest that anyone stayed out of the race through respectful deference to Daines, but the Republican bench is not particularly deep with people with recent experience in running a high-profile state-wide campaign. Daines had that experience -- plus the right stuff, and one suspects that other would-be Congressmen decided to take a pass on trying to take him on in a primary.

Presumably if there were any skeletons in the closet, the thorough Schweitzer campaign would have rattled them out 4 years ago, so what remains at this point is for Daines to campaign tirelessly through to the November election, the results of which, one hopes, will give him the opportunity to prove to Montanans that he has the right stuff where it matters most -- representing our state with distinction in Washington.

Bipartisan consensus -- or lack thereof

It seems that this is the week for Billings Blog and Montana Headlines to write about the other's posts.

Today, Mr. Crisp reports on the new ad from the governor touting their "bipartisan ticket." He correctly notes that the governor "has been working this line for four years, and Republicans still haven't found a way to react except by sounding pissy about it."

Fair enough -- hard to argue with either contention. But then Crisp goes on to say this:

But voters' desire for bipartisan consensus is real, and the GOP ignores it at its peril.

Point well taken. But proper responses to this statement include some pointed questions, first among which is this: On exactly what did the governor "work across party lines" (as the ad claims) in the last couple of legislative sessions? Montana Headlines was following it pretty closely, and if there were any significant bipartisan compromise solutions, they must have been done in the dead of night without the press watching.

Far from being engaged in bipartisanship, the governor has basically gotten everything he has wanted, and prevented any meaningful Republican legislation from passing.

Crisp is right that the Republican approach to the Lt. Gov. has been ineffective. There has been little creativity in dealing with the situation, but rather a bit too much public bitterness at the perceived betrayal. Showing anger or spite in public is a sign of weakness.

What creativity there has been has been too little -- or rather too much (wasn't the first suggestion an "invitation" to have Bohlinger endure 90 minutes of public grilling at the Republican Winter Kickoff?) -- or too late (such as inviting Bohlinger to debate Steve Daines at the Republican convention.)

Trying to play the "John Bohlinger isn't a real Republican" card was doomed to failure from the start in a state that doesn't even have voter registration by party and where about a third of voters (a significant majority of whom vote mostly Republican) consider themselves to be independent. It has played into the governor's hands by keeping the Republicans busy trying to chase a rabbit they really don't want to catch with a dog that won't hunt.

What Republicans have failed to do is to demonstrate what real compromise in Montana could have looked like over the last 4 years -- and then compare that vision to what actually did happen.

If there is a single thing that John Bohlinger has done that has had the effect of bringing Republican ideas into the current administration, its has been well hidden. If there is a single example of Bohlinger's presence in the administration affecting policy in a way that middle of the road Montana Republicans would recognize as reflecting their party's ideals, can we hear about it? And if there is a single example where the presence of the Lt. Gov. helped forge any sort of improved relations between Republicans and Democrats, it has escaped notice.

Bohlinger has not been a force for bipartisanship -- he has been a tool of a peculiar sort of triangulation, and a pretty useful one at that. The strategy has worked, and as with most triangulation, the goal is not bipartisanship -- it is the neutralization of the opposition in order to promote the triangulator. There is a difference.

It isn't easy to fight triangulation, but if Crisp is right that Montanans are hungry for "bipartisan consensus," then at least part of the answer for Republicans would have to lie in demonstrating that there is nothing bipartisan about the current administration -- and in articulating specific policies on which Republicans sought compromise from the governor, only to be rejected. It may even involve quietly reminding Democratic legislators that they received offers for discussion and compromise from Republican legislators -- but only marching orders from the governor's mansion.

Polling recommendations

If the "leak" of a memo based on internal polling was intended somehow to embarrass the Montana GOP, it is unlikely to have that effect.

The supposed "bombshell" of the memo was that GOP legislative candidates were advised not to attack the governor. Far from being some unusual recommendation, it is something that should be common sense -- and from reading Republican legislative candidate literature, it is something that at least in the Billings area, legislative candidates have already been doing for months.

As Chairman Erik Iverson pointed out, this polling data only confirms what has already been a change in direction for the Montana Republican Party, where in the past everyone's fortunes depended on the outcome of major statewide races such as a Presidential race or Senate race. It was never probably a very good strategy in a state like Montana, where voters are noted for their independence and cross-ticket voting. And in the current state of voter flux nationally, it makes even less sense now.

And again, this is a turn that the Montana GOP had already taken some time ago. The silly days of thinking that there were major political gains to be made by repeatedly calling the governor a "mint farmer" or by criticizing him for letting Jag climb on tables and chairs in the state Capitol are long gone.

To be sure, many of the governor's policies deserve criticism -- and alternative visions need to be presented. Some might interpret this as attacking the governor, but of course such straight-forward critiques and contrasts are the legitimate stuff of campaigns.

It is, however, the job of the Roy Brown campaign to do that, and the pollster was stating the obvious by noting that legislative and local candidates aren't going to gain any ground by personal attacks on the governor. The governor has a singular talent for getting under the skin of Republicans -- as we have noted before in these pages, the governor is very Clintonesque in that respect. But we must resist the urge to fire verbally at will, no matter how tempting and even pleasing the prospect might be at any given moment.

Montana Headlines has made these same points before, and while we don't shy away from criticizing policies or actions of the governor, we try to do so on points of substance -- such as our continuing coverage of the governor's refusal to follow a rule that he himself signed into law, or our critiques of how the budget surplus was wasted.

If the memo wasn't intentionally leaked by the GOP (which we suspect it was,) it should have been, because it only serves to highlight for Montana voters the new direction of the Montana GOP, with its emphasis on having local and legislative candidates run their own campaigns on their own merits -- with the benefits percolating up to benefit statewide candidates. It is good long-term strategy, and will pay dividends. Kudos to Erik Iverson.

The governor: "Take responsibility when you're wrong..."

The governor's new ad is out, and it is a pretty good one. It is straight from the current Democratic playbook -- the governor on the back of a horse, bawling calves in the background, etc.

The ad is all about symbolism, which is a big part of what an effective television ad is about. Just ask Barack Obama, who has been schooled by the McCain camp on that front recently with an effective, hilarious, mocking viral ad campaign that conveys the sense that Obama is an empty suit with nothing much behind the high-flown messianic rhetoric and worshipful fan-base.

But one should be careful, when massaging the symbolism, not to say inconvenient things that can bite you with sharp-toothed facts, and the governor did just that, when he said that he had "learned as a rancher" a list of good American, apple-pie things that included "taking responsibility when you're wrong."

The irony is that in at least one high-profile example to be found in the real world, the governor continues to refuse to take responsibility for breaking the law by doing Public Service Announcements (PSA's) -- using public funds to produce and distribute them -- while a declared candidate for public office.

There isn't much debate over whether the governor broke both the spirit and the letter of the law that he himself signed. The Democratic legislator who wrote the bill has confirmed that the Republican interpretation (i.e. the plain as the nose on your face interpretation) is what he intended. In other words, the law was intended to prevent public officials from doing exactly what the governor did with his "Ag Month" PSA's -- in this case, the governor even had the chutzpah to include his "Montana is on the Move" official campaign slogan in the "public service" announcement.

Ongoing coverage is on YouTube for those who want to listen to all the details of the special hearings now ongoing. One thing is clear -- the governor is refusing to accept responsibility for something he and his employees did that was wrong. As we have noted before, it would have been simple for the governor to say -- oops, we goofed and weren't watching the calendar closely enough. The matter would have blown over in days. It is precisely the governor's intransigence in admitting a relatively minor mistake that has turned this into much bigger matter of whether the governor considers himself to be accountable before the law or not.

We again note that the governor has made no more such PSA's -- if he were so certain that the intent of the legislation was not to ban the activity, why isn't he continuing to "serve the people of Montana" by making lots more PSA's?

We would also note that as Sec. State Brad Johnson told us in his Montana Headlines interview, it is perfectly possible for a government department to put out PSA's without using the name, face, or voice of the person in the department who is running for office.

The governor could have had the head of the Dept. of Agriculture or a volunteer announcer do the ads, could have left out the governor's campaign slogan "Montana is on the Move," and everyone would have been happy and unquestionably within the law.

If Sec. State Brad Johnson has no problems understanding and following the law -- and still manages to do the part of his job that requires putting out necessary PSA's -- why is is so difficult for the governor to do so?

The joke goes that one of the most dangerous places to be standing in Montana is between this governor and a television camera. Now, we have to add a radio microphone to the list of danger spots, it would appear.

That state surplus

So, we have an even bigger surplus than projected. It looks like a quarter is directly attributable to oil and gas revenues, and one suspects that even more is responsible indirectly. This shows us just a bit of what Montana could have if we were to get serious about energy development.

Not surprisingly, Sen. Roy Brown had one of the most trenchant comments about the "underspending" by state government -- spun by the governor as intentional "belt-tightening." Yeah. Right.

Brown: "The fact that state agencies were unable to spend at least $14 million should tell Montanans just how bloated the last budget was. The budget is growing so fast that state agencies couldn't keep up and spend it all, and that's not something to be proud of."

The governor's campaign's silly lies about Roy Brown -- (why no fact-checking?)

You'd think that if you were going to lie about something, you'd make sure that it was a good one -- one worth getting busted over.

So why lie about whether Roy Brown went to school in Montana? (Cf. our recent post.)

Let's review the statements by the governor's campaign manager, Harper Lawson (our emphasis):

"Governor Schweitzer does not need a lecture on the needs of rural Montana from a retired oil executive who grew up in Wyoming."

"What does Roy Brown know about Class AA schools in Montana, anyhow? Governor Schweitzer went to a Class C school here in Montana while Roy Brown was growing up in Wyoming."

Whether the better man running for Montana governor grew up in Wyoming didn't bother us, but neither did these statements ring quite true. So how about a little fact-checking?

Roy Brown was indeed born in Wyoming, and did grow up there... until he was about 6 months old or so. His family moved to Montana when he was the ripe old age of 4 -- in 1955, which was the year, incidentally, when the governor was born.

So, for the statement to be true about the governor going to a Class C school in Montana while Roy Brown was "growing up in Wyoming," well, the governor would have had to have started high school quite early -- several years before he was born, actually. Oops.

Again, all we can say is, "wow." Brown is really, really busted by the governor's campaign -- he didn't make it to Montana until he was 4 years old, carpet-bag in hand, no doubt!

How does the governor's campaign come up with such damming information about Sen. Brown?

If spending part of infancy there means that Brown "grew up in Wyoming," then that is a pretty innovative definition of the term "growing up." But then, Montanans are familiar with the liberties the administration occasionally takes with facts -- and shouldn't be surprised at this creative license.

And how about this one: all of Brown's grade-school and high-school were done in Billings, and he worked his way through college in Butte.

And since the governor's campaign brought up the issue, we would note the following: The governor, it seems, went to a private Catholic boarding school in Colorado for high-school, stayed in Colorado for college, and only returned to Montana for graduate school. It is pretty amusing for Lawson to wax eloquent about the governor going to a class C high-school when he apparently only did so for all of a year, before leaving the state.

Little white lies by the governor's campaign? Sure.

Who on earth cares about who went to high school where and when? Nobody with any sense.

Silly stuff? Yup, that's how we'll label this post.

But when the governor's spokesman lies when there is no reason to lie, that should raise some eyebrows. Is lying (or at the least a casual disregard for the truth) just a habit or reflex for the governor's campaign?

The original point to a Brown campaign spokesman making a reference to the governor only wanting to do debates in Montana cities where there are AA schools was to illustrate the point that the governor apparently doesn't want to be bothered with debating Brown in front of audiences in smaller Montana communities. The governor's spokesman tried to divert attention from that question by making up stuff about Brown that he thought no-one would fact-check. He thought that Montanans would see red at the horror of a purported out-of-stater running for governor. (How "old Montana" is that, anyway?) Well, the facts have been checked and found wanting.

And the question is still out there -- why won't the governor debate Brown in places like Miles City and Sidney?

One can understand why Chuck Johnson wouldn't think to fact-check something as basic as Lawson's comments -- but this episode should let Mr. Johnson know that he might, in the future, want to consider fact-checking every statement that comes out of the mouths of the governor's spokesmen before commiting them to print.

The governor doesn't want to debate in front of smaller-town audiences

So Roy Brown calls for 18 debates, and the governor predictably says no.

Not sure why he wouldn't want to debate in smaller communities -- after all, the governor and his supporters have been trying to pin the old "big oil" label on Sen. Roy Brown (as if it would be something to be ashamed of even if it were true.) The governor needs to spend just a wee bit more time with the folks in Billings, where he will discover that there simply isn't any "big oil" here. If he thinks that what we have here is "big oil," then he needs to get out more -- to places other than California fundraising soirées, that is.

And then the governor's spokesmen are apparently now trying to make an issue out of the fact that Roy Brown went to high school in... Wyoming.

Wow. Talk about nailing one of those uppity foreigners to the wall.

We seem to recall an article from during the last legislative session indicating that a very large percentage (at least 40%) of Montanans weren't born here -- will they be amused by the governor trying to make an issue out of Brown being from such a distant and exotic locale as... Wyoming?

Or maybe the guv is just unhappy about the fact that Roy Brown is continually reminding Montanans in this campaign about how Wyoming (and North Dakota) are making money hand-over-fist in the energy industry while by contrast Montana's governor has been sitting on his hands when it comes to energy policy (and shaking his fists at anyone who crosses him.)

And the Brown campaign won the round with this one alone:

In response to Schweitzer's call for five debates, Brown's spokesman Tyler Matthews called it "disappointing that the governor doesn't want to go anywhere in the state where there won't be a TV camera."

Ouch. We definitely want to see Brown and Schweitzer debating in places like Miles City, Sidney, and Dillon. But we can expect to see the governor dodging that sort of thing. While he talks the rural talk, he's really more comfortable in Missoula and Helena -- when he has to be here in Montana at all.

When it comes right down to it, the governor's race is the only really big game in town this year -- the press should want to milk it for all it's worth, and press for a long series of debates. The governor may have to miss a few out of state fundraisers -- but we think the sacrifice would be worth it.

Update: More at Big Sky Cairn.

The governor did wrong -- but ratchet the rhetoric down a notch next time

Over at Big Sky Cairn, we posted on the governor's recent alleged breaking of campaign laws by doing public service announcements after he had officially filed for re-election. See also Western Word for more background on the imbroglio.

It is a valid and seemingly well-substantiated charge on the part of the Republicans, and as we have pointed out before, this sort of thing is absolutely necessary in order to keep the other party honest. But as we also pointed out in that post (dealing with the governor's fundraising trip to Kentucky Derby,) the GOP doesn't do itself any favors when it overdoes the rhetoric. Follow the preceding link for our full diatribe, but the heart of the critique was this:

It's just fine to file a complaint against the Dems when they appear to have broken a campaign law. In fact, it's necessary.

But at the same time, we should treat it like taking out a stinking bag of trash -- it's gotta be done, there's no pleasure in it, and we would prefer that the trash wasn't stinking in the first place.

The Montana GOP, rather than treat this like a big deal... should just matter-of-factly file a complaint when the Dems get caught...

...if the Dems want to claim to be the party of the squeaky clean, we'll hold them to it.

So the Montana Headlines reaction was less than enthusiastic upon reading things like this in the GOP press release:

...violating a key campaign finance law -- Well, maybe. Will Montanans agree that this is a "key" law that is a linchpin of democracy, or will they see it as a good law that makes sense (does any Montanan want public officials to use their positions to get what amounts to free campaign ads?) We think the latter.


...he's going to pay dearly for his illegal activity... -- Well, maybe. But as the Dems proved in their having to pony up money in FEC fines for violations in the Tester campaign, they tend to look at the paying of fines for breaking political practice laws as part of the cost of doing business. They probably have a line-item for it in the governor's campaign budget. With as much money as the governor has in his war-chest, he'd hardly feel the impact of the fines, even if they were in the tens of thousands of dollars.

And in addition, we don't yet know that he is even going to have to pay, so it shouldn't be stated with such certainty that "he's going to pay dearly." Stating that someone is guilty before they've even been officially charged by authorities, let alone convicted, is a practice that we would think Republicans would rather leave to Democrats.

After all, it was the governor himself (demonstrating the fact that he either doesn't understand the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," or doesn't care) who boasted during the Tester campaign that Sen. Conrad Burns was definitely going to jail and that Burns and Abramoff were going to share a cell with bunk-beds.

The fact that Governor Schweitzer signed this measure into law, and then turned around and broke that very same law, is the sort of arrogant, heavy-handed tactics Montanans have come to expect from him.
-- Maybe. It would be in character, if the stories are to be believed. But it might also just be a careless mistake, as we noted in our Big Sky Cairn post.

There is a difference between intentionally arrogant actions in which one knowingly flouts the law and the kind of passive arrogance that is shown by not bothering to think about the fact that there might be rules to be followed. Montanans will understand the difference, and if it is clear that the governor was just being careless, then overstating the case isn't going to help the overall GOP message about the governor and the unsuitability of his style of governance. Some people might just think he's being picked on, and feel sorry for him.

There are more examples in the GOP complaint itself of what seems to be overstated language (keeping in mind that in a formal complaint, specific language sometimes has to be used to match the language in the law being appealed to,) but regular MH readers will get the idea.

Measured rhetoric is generally more effective than overwrought rhetoric. Republicans do better when we act like responsible adults and methodically expose Democratic misdeeds using carefully chosen, even understated, words that we don't later have to retract or revise. There is room for humorous hyperbole in a blog-post or a stump-speech, but press releases and formal complaints should be, if anything, understated, when making charges against Democrats.

The governor probably did wrong on this one. The Commissioner of Political Practices has made the initial statement that this should have been filed as an ethics complaint, and thus not made public, but the details will be examined and we'll find out the facts.

Based on the Gazette article, there seems to be a definite problem -- since on the one hand a spokesman for the governor claims that "no state funds were used," and yet the Agriculture Department official says he spent 10-12 hours preparing the ad, then used a government e-mail account to send it out to radio stations. That sounds like state funds were used -- so why say they weren't? And the ads were played free of charge as public service announcements -- precisely the kind of thing the law intended to prohibit. So why try to claim that they somehow weren't covered by the law? As Electric City pointed out, the thing to watch is how the governor responds.

And on that score, our chief executive gets an obvious failing score. The failure to own up to the truth on this is potentially much more serious than the transgression itself.

But the making of these ads, while probably against the law, doesn't rise to the level of an Abscam scandal -- it's rather just one more relatively small and tedious example of why we need someone with a serious and professional attitude as our new governor. Like, say, Roy Brown. And that, we believe, is something that the people of Montana are going to be able to understand quite well by the time this campaign is over.

The governor -- feeling the heat, putting out fires at the Hardin Prison

Forget the over-confident talk from the sinister side of the political spectrum.

This governor's race is going to be very competitive and close. The governor's actions show that he is feeling the heat from a Roy Brown campaign that continues to build momentum in spite of the fact that it is the governor who has the big bucks.

Most recently, the governor was down in Hardin trying to bluster his way through the morass of the Hardin detention center. It is as clear as the summer sun that at the very least, the governor has been treating that situation with neglect. It just doesn't deserve the kind of attention that important things get. Like, say, a fundraiser at the Kentucky Derby or jetting to California to do the Daily Show. After all, it's just Eastern Montana.

Yet, he's complaining that he is being blamed for something he didn't do. Well, actually, in a sense that's right. He hasn't done anything. He hasn't, until now, even deigned to talk to the community of Hardin about their concerns, even when they made a much publicized trip to Helena to get his attention.

A glaring omission in the Gazette article is that the governor doesn't appear to have been asked "why not?"

The good people of Hardin have been trying to get a response from him or a meeting with him, and it has never happened. Why not?

What it took to get his attention was apparently having an angry Hardinite leave a banner up at the Capitol after a recent demonstration that said "We've been Schweitzerized. Was it as good for you governor as it was for us?"

Ed Kemmick rightly describes the governor's reaction as "thin-skinned." (He also correctly deducts style points from the sign-writer for not knowing where to use commas.) If the guv is truly surprised that the folks down in Bighorn County would be unhappy with him, then one wonders if he is really the highly skilled pol that he is made out to be. Let alone whether he has the right temperament for the job.

Of course, the important skill is in the ability to convey, via the media, a sense of righteous indignation. And there, too, things seemed to fall just a bit flat on the governor's visit to Hardin. Because there are just so many obvious questions that a single visit isn't going to fix.

The governor's statements basically amount to saying "I really wish this would all go away, and since I want it to all go away, that should show I care."

This isn't over by a long shot. Perhaps the real reason that the governor was down in Hardin (besides being personally miffed about the banner) is that the Republican Party down there is in a resurgence. They've got a newly revamped and energetic organization, and the community as a whole is really disinclined right now to be cutting slack to Democrats -- especially in the governor's race and AG race. The resentment at being cut out of the state prison business in favor of the for-profit prison in Shelby whose corporate executives have cut all of those checks to the governor's campaign -- well, it's not showing signs of going away.

This past weekend, Bighorn County Republicans had an unheard-of gathering of well over 100 people for their annual Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner. All of the statewide candidates were there, and energy levels were high, by all reports. Most people would be surprised to know that 100 active Republicans in Bighorn County even exist, so this is a sign of a fire having been lit down there.

And it is a fire that a quick visit and some glib talk and indignant posturing isn't going to put out any time soon. Maybe the governor will get serious about helping Hardin solve the problem that he and his Democratic friend, Attorney General McGrath helped create. Maybe it will happen even though he hasn't shown any signs of being interested in solving it prior to this election year.

A fix of some sort would be good for Hardin, and we'll be happy for them if it comes about. A healthy economy for Hardin is more important than scoring political points. But we'll still be asking why it took the pressures of an election year for the governor to focus on it, even though this train has been bearing down on Bighorn County for his entire term of office, headlight glaring and whistle blowing.

The fact that this meeting in Hardin happened at all is a testimony to the inroads that Roy Brown is making in the governor's race.

When challenges aren't constructive

Montana Headlines expressed a dim view of Rep. Roger Koopman's grand attempt to remake the Montana GOP in his own image by recruiting Ron Paul supporters to run against GOP incumbents. Sometimes, challengers were inexplicably being recruited to run against GOP incumbents even when there were hard-to-fill legislative race slots in that same county.

In other words, given the chance to unseat Democrats or to try to unseat "moderate" Republicans (who almost anyone else would consider to be pretty conservative,) Koopman's strategy chose the latter.

One wonders if he and his compatriots are afraid of head-on contests with tough Democrats. If their message is so compelling, they should be able to sell it anywhere, anytime, against anybody. At the least, they should leap at the chance to do battle with, well... what would Koopman call them? Half of the Republican Party in Montana is "socialist," according to Koopman, so that must mean that Democrats are, what? Leninists?

Wouldn't Koopman, et. al. ignore the socialists (Republicans) when there are Leninists (Democrats) to do battle with?

We are gratified that the firestorm of complaints directed at Koopman convinced him that he was looking forward to an ignominious primary defeat, causing him to drop out of his own race -- the biter was bitten, it seems. Again, it isn't that there is anything wrong with primary challenges -- that is just a part of working things out within a party. The trouble was that one never got the feeling that Koopman was laying the groundwork for the kind of situation where, if his candidate lost a primary, he would encourage his people to come together with other Republicans to get the Republican primary winner elected. How could Koopman credibly have supported someone he had already labeled a "socialist?"

This was never constructive intra-party dialogue in the making. All of this is very unfortunate, since we believe in having a big-tent party -- which includes having the tent be big enough to include Republicans of Koopman's views. (Again, assuming that they are willing to accept and work with more moderate Republicans toward the common-goal of forming a legislative majority on the right in Helena.)

But as Carol over at Missoulopolis pointed out, the really damaging challenges are not primaries -- that kind of thing sorts itself out by November. Koopman is actually to be commended for advocating a use of the primary process to influence the Montana Republican Party, rather than a third-party route.

No the challenges that are going to be most damaging to the causes of limited government, rule of law, lower taxes, lower spending and less government regulation are rather going to be those where Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates have filed. They can siphon off just enough votes to cost a Republican an election. And we have a number of them, just on the statewide level:

We have Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates for governor, U.S. Congress, Secretary of State, and State Superintendent. The only race where there is enough cushion to not worry about this is in Rehberg's Congressional race. The other races are likely to be close ones.

The rightward third parties have also inexplicably filed in several statewide races that will be close rather than to file against the Max Baucus race, which won't be close, barring a miracle.

Are we to assume that Montana Libertarians are rooting for another 4 years of the current governor, and are we to believe that they believe that we will have a more libertarian version of public education in Montana if the state's schools are overseen by a Democrat for yet another 4 years?

Does Montana's Constitution Party want to promote Linda McCulloch's career, and want her overseeing our state's elections?

Third parties have also filed in some potentially close legislative races -- do they believe that things will be more to their Constitutional and Libertarian liking with a Democratic legislature writing and passing all of the legislation?

Whether that is the intent, it may end up being the effect. It is hard to imagine that libertarian and constitutionally-minded Montanans want this.

Steve Daines to be Roy Brown's running mate

Sen. Roy Brown will be announcing formally tomorrow that Bozeman businessman Steve Daines will be his running mate. The two of them will kick off a statewide tour similar to Brown's one-day around-the-state swing that he took when he announced his candidacy.

Word dropped in the comments section of this blog earlier this week was that it would be Daines (of GiveItBack.com fame.) This was unconfirmed, however, and there weren't even any other rumors in the blogosphere about it. While that commenter proved to be correct on the name, the commenter's style was rather dyspeptic, and there didn't seem to be much of an understanding of the selection process for a running mate -- which hurt the credibility of that particular comment at the time.

Several other names had certainly been be in the rumor-mill as possibilities, and Brown has made no secret of the fact that he has had serious discussions with a number of potential running mates.

But it is hard to imagine a better final choice for Brown than Steve Daines.

As we noted in our own response to that comment earlier this week, Daines is an outstanding choice for a running mate. He has the kind of tireless energy that can keep up with Sen. Brown. He had himself considered running for governor against the present occupant of the governor's mansion, but the time just didn't seem right for him.

Brown and Daines will have their work cut out for them, running against a formidable politician who has the power of the incumbency.

Just as the current governor, who had no experience in elective office, was wise to choose a running mate with extensive time in the legislature, so too it is a brilliant move for Brown -- an experienced legislator -- to choose an energetic and politically savvy outsider.

A Lt. Gov. candidate of Daines's energy and intellect is a major asset to the ticket. And having a candidate from Bozeman is a distinct advantage, since big Republican turnouts in Yellowstone and Gallatin counties will be lynchpins in a Republican victory this fall in the governor's race.

The lefties will predictably come up with reasons to downplay Daines, but as we have pointed out on Montana Headlines before, Daines is a guy who has shown an ability to make the Dems seriously worried. To quote from that post:

...for some reason that we can't figure out, Daines has Democrats worried. Why else would the governor have appeared recently with a sign behind him saying "We Gave It Back?"

Everyone knows good and well that the surplus wasn't given back -- and Democrats are proud of the fact that they spent nearly all that money on "essential services" rather than giving it back in tax credits or cuts. For them, it was a major political victory won by a no-compromise stance that the money wasn't given back -- a victory they should be proud of.

So why the sign saying "We Gave It Back?"

We of course know why -- the governor and his Democratic allies blew through the billion dollar surplus as though it didn't exist. The only thing that went to the taxpayers was a "check in every pot" election year $400 one-time rebate, rather than real, permanent tax relief.

The last thing that the governor wants to run against is someone who has shown some creativity in demonstrating that the Democrats most certainly did not respond to a historic surplus by saying to themselves "let's give it back." But we're glad that he gets to deal with Daines after all.

For those in Billings, the press conference and announcement will be at at Brown's headquarters on Grand Ave. at 9 AM.

Check your local Republican listings if you are in one of Montana's larger cities, and get out to see Roy Brown and meet Steve Daines when they visit in the next couple of days. Let's see a huge show of support, just as we did on Brown's announcement tour, which had outstanding energy and turnout.

And in the coming months, voters in every corner of Montana will get to meet our Republican Gov/Lt.Gov. team -- we suspect that with every month that goes by, the race will tighten for exactly that reason.

Browsing around, we also note that Roy Brown has a new website -- check it out, make a contribution to the cause, and volunteer to help out.

The Lt. Gov. did show up -- good for him, good for us

In the last MH post, we asked the question of whether Lt. Gov. Bohlinger showed up at the Helena caucus in response to GOP Chairman Erik Iverson. The post started with the intent of just asking the question, but as we searched in vain to find any news report, that initial open-minded attitude started to drop away. Mistake.

Wrongly assuming that he had not, given that Google News searches revealed nothing, we made some comments that were erroneous, and went on to others that were snarky at the least -- mean-spirited at the worst. We should have waited for a response to our question before commenting further. We apologize to Lt. Gov. Bohlinger for assuming that he didn't show up. Rather than delete the post, we will leave it up as a monument to the errors of hasty judgments.

Our criticism now would be of the Montana press, which gave wide coverage to the fact that Bohlinger was not able to vote under caucus rules, and in some cases criticized the Montana GOP for its lack of openness. One would think that the following would have been big news.

Here are the responses we received:

From an anonymous commenter who seems to be knowledgeable about the event --

Yes, Lt. Gov. and the brand-new Mrs. Lt. Gov. were among the earliest arrivals (at about 5:15 for an event that started at 5:30) for the Lewis & Clark County caucus.

They were greeted warmly by the Central Committee chair, ushered inside and acknowledged politely by several other attendees. The Lt. Gov. also spoke to the crowd for several minutes extolling the virtues of John McCain. I'm sure that the Senator's third-place finish in the voting can be ascribed to his endorsement. Mr. Bohlinger never made an attempt to vote in the caucus.

Pictures exist of the couple throughout the evening.

And our good friend Jack the Blogger over at Western Word sent us this link. Isn't it odd that only Fox News online seems to have carried this AP story? A search for the text of the above quotation reveals no other links.

We can only be very glad that this cordial meeting took place, and hope that there are many more to come. In the AP article, Bohlinger is quoted as saying this:

“I don’t think that signing on to be Brian’s partner makes me a Democrat,” Bohlinger said, adding he has not given up on the Republican party “and I hope they don’t give up on me.”

The Republican caucus has drawn attention to the fact that Montana doesn't have registration by party, and so the only way that one can be identified with a party is by being on the ballot as a Republican or Democrat -- or by being someone whose actions show a support for the Republican Party.

On the one hand, we would like to have registration by party in Montana -- for a number of reasons.

But on the other hand, there is a sense in which there is something appropriately Montanan about having to prove that one is a Republican or Democrat by one's actions.

There is a way forward for Bohlinger as a Republican, should he choose to take it -- and it involves action. Coming to the caucus and respecting party rules was a good start. It was also a good start for him to be graciously invited by Iverson and courteously received by the gathering.

What can the Republican Party do now? Iverson has already indicated that he will invite Bohlinger to speak at the GOP convention this summer, and that is a good start. It is perhaps not in the best spirit of bridge-building to ask him to have a 90-minute question and answer session -- sort of the political equivalent of a public root canal. But the ground rules should be clear -- conventions are meant to build and boost the Republican Party -- and Bohlinger should respect that and speak in a way that boosts and helps the Republican Party.

What else can Bohlinger do? He can do fundraisers to benefit the Montana GOP or the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee. He can work to get a Republican AG elected and to get Duane Grimes elected as State Auditor. He can take public stands where he sides with Montana Republicans on some issues where most Montana Republicans disagree with the governor.

We think this would be a great thing for the GOP, and a great thing for Bohlinger. Will it help the governor? Maybe -- but we suspect it would be a wash. Sen. Roy Brown will defeat the governor in the coming election based on the issues and on Republican fundamental strengths -- not on how how the governor uses Bohlinger as a tool against Republicans. And if we proactively reach out to the Lt. Gov. and get him to commit to our party and some of our candidates, there will be less of an opportunity for him to be used in that way.

Thanks again to Lt. Gov. Bohlinger for coming to the caucus, thanks again to the forward-looking Iverson for inviting him, and thanks to the Helena gathering for receiving him warmly. May this be the start of something beautiful.

Bohl'ing them over -- Erik Iverson style

It seems that Erik Iverson is taking advice from Montana Headlines -- well, probably not, but perhaps great minds just think alike.

Back in the summer, when Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger wanted to attend the Republican state convention (the first that he would have attended in many years -- just happening to be the year before his re-election campaign with the Democratic governor,) we thought that the GOP made a mistake in not welcoming him with open arms, and had this to say:

So what should party central have done? Well, Lt. Gov. Bohlinger is one of a handful of Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and when he expressed a desire to attend the GOP convention, he could have been invited to come and give a major address to the convention.

...Bohlinger, as a self-described good Republican, would doubtless have been more than happy to get up and give a speech advocating the importance of gaining Republican majorities in the state House and Senate. He could have talked about the importance of defeating Sen. Baucus, and of keeping Rep. Rehberg and Sec. State Johnson in office. He could have publicly lamented the Tester Senate victory.

Bohlinger wants to be an active Republican again? Then for heaven's sake don't give him the cold shoulder. Tell him "welcome, back, John -- we're excited -- we need all the help we can get to get the governorship back!"

Give him a place of honor, publicize it widely that Lt.Gov. Bohlinger wants to help the GOP win elections. The prodigal son has come home -- so kill the fatted calf, put a ring on his finger, let the dancing begin. All the men could show up in bow-ties. All the ladies could wear vintage dresses from Aileen's.

Well, now the good Lt. Guv has his opportunity -- but it seems that he's not able to take advantage of it due to being on his honeymoon in China.

Too bad, because Chairman Erik Iverson not only was inviting Bohlinger to attend, but to be a major speaker.

Iverson wrote to Bohlinger that he was offering him --

...the opportunity to hold a ninety minute "Question and Answer" session with the Republican delegates in attendance. This session will be a great opportunity for you to reconnect with members of the Montana Republican Party.

Reconnect, indeed. We had the opportunity to hear Bohlinger some time ago on YPR -- when he articulated what it meant to him to be a Republican, it was pretty much straight Democratic talking points, and nothing that anyone from any of the various wings of the GOP would recognize as Republican.

But perhaps the most important thing about being a member of a political party -- particularly a leader in a political party -- is loyalty to that party.

Like all Republicans, we know people of a variety of persuasions within the GOP who feel that the party mainstream has left them behind. That is part of the reality of large coalition parties such as our two major parties in this two country.

One can have one of several responses to feeling left by one's party -- one can switch to another party (and unlike Lt. Gov. Bohlinger, be a man about it and admit it,) one can decide to remain nominally in the party but withdraw from active political involvement until such time as one can support it again, or one can remain active in the party and remain loyal to the ticket, while hoping and working to change the party to become more to one's liking.

All of these are honorable responses. It would have been nice if Lt. Gov. Bohlinger could have come to the GOP's winter meeting here in Billings -- his home town, no less -- to talk to the GOP party faithful about why a path that seems dishonorable to most Republicans is honorable in his eyes. Or even better -- maybe we would see a new John Bohlinger, one that was rooting for Republican victories in legislative races and statewide races.

Now that would be news -- and it would solidify Bohlinger's claims to be a Republican.

In his letter, Erik Iverson reminded Bohlinger of his own words -- Bohlinger said he wanted to attend the GOP state convention last summer because "it would be very important to certify my Republican credentials..."

But do not fear that all is lost because Bohlinger is out of town for this big GOP meeting -- there will be more opportunities for him to "certify his Republican credentials." Many more.

As campaign season heats up, we hope that Bohlinger will be invited to Republican fundraisers and rallies all over the state. In fact, all Republican candidates should make a point of sending him a fundraising letter asking for contributions -- starting with Roy Brown.

As a good Republican who can afford to honeymoon overseas, we expect he will gladly write checks to help Republican candidates in close races against Democrats. And our biggest race this year is Sen. Brown's race, so since Bohlinger is a good Republican, we expect that he will dash off a $500 check to Roy, and encourage his wife to do the same.

He should be invited to every Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner in the state and asked to help rally the troops to win victory for the GOP in the fall. He should be invited to speak at those dinners, and be told that he will be expected to comport himself as a good Republican, urging people to contribute to the Republican party, volunteer to work for Republican candidates, and vote for Republicans. We, after all, want to help him "certify his Republican credentials."

We look forward to seeing him in the audience at the Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner in Billings, rising with the rest of the Republicans in attendance to give Roy Brown a standing ovation -- cheering him on to victory in the governor's race. It will be great -- and the cameras will be there to catch Bohlinger's smiling face and enthusiastic expression as he applauds Roy.

And if he shows up and advises the attendees to vote Democratic or implies that they should -- well, now, that will be quite the "certification of his Republican credentials," won't it?

Notes on the governor's fundraising letter

We've already had Ed Kemmick handicap the quality of the quotations in the Gazette article about the governor's campaign sending a certain fundraising letter to people who had contributed reportable amounts to Republican candidates for governor in 2004.

And we've had LITW label the GOP reaction as "hysterical," sort of missing the point that Roy Brown, for instance, was reporting on the reaction he was getting from Republican faithful, rather than saying anything negative himself about it.

As Bob Brown (one of the former candidates whose donors were hit up) pointed out, there is nothing illegal whatsoever about the letter. Nor is there anything unethical about it. Fundraising data is public information, and the governor's campaign simply used that public information.

What was unusual about the letter wasn't having Democrats hit up Republicans for money -- we get on Dem fundraising direct-mail lists all the time. What was odd was having a sitting governor send a letter to those who funded his opponents, telling them in the first sentence that his campaign had taken note not only of whom they had contributed to, but exact amounts.

It is one thing to be put on a mailing list, and quite another to have something of that specificity coming from a governor. Again, there was nothing illegal or unethical about the letter, which was written in a nice, friendly sort of way. It was just unusual.

The reactions that we heard from those who received the letter were absolutely as negative as Roy Brown said he was getting from people he has met on the campaign trail since then. But the letter was a sort of Rorschach test.

Those who claimed to have personal knowledge of the governor's strong-arming ways saw the letter as vaguely menacing -- "I know where you live, I know you gave to my opponent, and how much."

We'd be interested to know if anyone else has seen this tactic before: a large-scale letter sent by a candidate in one party to supporters of the opposition, reminding them that what they give is public information.

Anyway, those who had contributed to Pat Davison's campaign felt they were being reminded that they had contributed money to a convicted felon.

Those who have a visceral dislike for John Bohlinger saw the prominent featuring of Bohlinger's name and the emphasis on the "bipartisan ticket" as yet one more example of cynical game-playing on Bohlinger's part, messing with the party he claims to belong to even as he works to defeat its candidates up and down the ticket.

And so forth.

Most expressed a determination to respond by sending a check to Roy Brown.

Surprisingly few mentioned the letter's citation of the goofy Gazette online poll that showed the governor with a 75% to 25% "lead" over Roy Brown, which was a bit concerning, since it perhaps shows a lack of knowledge about the complete unscientific nature of online polling of this kind.

Anyone who believes that the governor is going to carry a majority in the coverage area of the Gazette -- let alone win it by a 3 to 1 margin -- is of course welcome to do so, or to believe any other sort of foolishness.

What is also interesting is that the Gazette itself, which is quick to point out that its own online polling "unscientific" (put differently, "for entertainment purposes only") didn't mention this aspect of the letter, and point out that on-line polling has no scientific validity.

Will the letter be successful? To a certain extent, it can hardly not be successful. A few people may send a check the governor's way (although that could hardly have been the main point,) and some may feel a bit unnerved and decide not to give to Roy Brown, having been reminded that someone in Helena is watching. If you are someone who believes those stories about political opponents getting tax audits and what-not, then you might decide to put your money elsewhere -- or maybe just leave it in the bank.

But for every dollar "gained" by one of those two ways, ticked-off Republicans will probably give several more to Brown's campaign, wiping out any real advantage. So money couldn't be the main point.

The main value of the letter was rather, surely, to test the Brown campaign -- to see if it will be reactive rather than pro-active. If Brown's history of campaigning is any indication, he will stick to his campaign strategy and for the most part ignore this sort of stunt.

The governor's campaign was out for a reaction -- preferably an over-reaction that it can point to either as a sign of unreasonableness or of weakness (depending on the audience to whom the over-reaction is being pointed out.)

As LITW pointed out, "independents are watching."

Republicans in general would do well to remember that attacking the governor -- especially in a reactive way -- has never worked. Name one thing it has ever accomplished. One.

He's just too good at that sort of jujitsu.

Yes, the campaign for governor will have to involve Republicans answering -- calmly -- the Democratic charges against Brown, and pointing out -- matter-of-factly -- what the current administration has done wrong and what it has failed to do right.

But to the extent that the race turns into Republicans being drawn into a three-ring circus, it is only to our disadvantage. When someone is clowning around, usually ignoring the act is the best way to get them to quit.

For the Billings Gazette, Roy Brown is just local news; also -- addressing the first (weak) attacks on Brown

Yes, Roy Brown is from Billings, but why did Charles Johnson's piece on the progress of Sen. Roy Brown's gubernatorial bid get put in the "local" section of the Gazette on-line? Especially when it was datelined "Helena?"

Just curious.

Sen. Brown is staying on theme, as he should: our state government has spent too much money and hasn't cut taxes when it could have.

The business equipment tax needs to be eliminated entirely. It is a relic -- one that the vast majority of states that used to have one have since gotten rid of.

As to the executive branch's defensive statements in response -- well, they are pretty weak.

There is of course the usual bragging about the $400 election-year "check in every pot" property tax rebate that the governor preferred to a real across-the-board property tax cut. It made work for all of those new Department of Revenue employees that we apparently so desperately needed (isn't it logical to respond to a $1 billion dollar surplus by hiring more tax collectors?) And it helps with the re-election campaign of the governor and the Democratic legislators the executive branch orders around.

And then there is the red herring of Sen. Brown and others voting to over-ride vetoes on certain spending bills. Well, perhaps true -- heaven forbid that the legislature actually determine how money is spent.

The whole reason that those vetoes happened was that the governor was unwilling to compromise with the legislature in general and the Republican-controlled House in particular. The governor's original spending demands were rammed through, pretty much unchanged, even though Democrats in the Senate were prepared to do some compromising with Republicans.

Which left a number of bills out there that had been passed by both houses of the legislature that didn't fit into the executive branch's master plan.

What was amazing was not that Sen. Brown voted again for the same bills that he had voted for the first time they came around -- what was amazing was that Democratic legislators allowed themselves to be strong-armed into voting against bills they had originally voted for.

In some cases, as we recall, there were even cases where Democratic legislators had co-sponsored bills -- and when the governor vetoed them, they were cowed into voting against their own bills when it came to over-riding the governor's veto.

So, the truth will out in the end -- but it is going to be a long, hard campaign, refuting these kinds of tedious charges against Sen. Brown, one at a time.

Sen. Brown continues his trip around the state

Sen. Brown, as promised, is off and running hard. Travelling around the state, he is meeting with weekly newspapers, radio stations, local clubs and groups, people in coffee shops and cafes.

In other words, Sen. Brown is setting out to win the governor's race Montana-style -- one voter at a time.

So far, here has been Sen. Brown's path around the state:

Monday -- Billings, Huntley, Hardin, Crow Agency, Forsyth, Roundup, ending the day at the Harvest dinner in Lewistown, with nearly 100 enthusiastic attendees.

Tuesday -- Stanford, Fort Benton, Chester, Havre, and Chinook.

Wednesday -- Fort Belknap, Malta, Glasgow, Wolf Point, and Scobey.

Thursday and beyond -- Plentywood, Sidney, Glendive, Terry,Miles City, and Hysham.

Next week will be about 25 cities in Western Montana.

Montana Headlines encourages readers who have had a chance to see Sen. Brown on the campaign trail to e-mail us with reports, impressions, and updates. We feel confident that those who go to hear him will leave enthusiastic about his candidacy.

May the best man win

Montana Headlines has, so far, refrained from endorsing anyone's campaign. Much of this is because of the fact that we have hard primary campaigns ahead of us, and we're waiting to see how the various candidates perform under pressure.

We have a 5-way race for President. Mike Lange and Kirk Bushman are facing off to see who will face Max Baucus in the U.S. Senate race, Tim Fox and Lee Bruner are running for the GOP spot on the ticket in the AG race, etc...

While we still could see someone else jump into the governor's race, we are prepared to say that it really doesn't matter who it might be -- we'll be going with Roy Brown.

And so, we're happy that the first icon to go up on Montana Headlines is for Sen. Brown (see the sidebar at right.)

There may be others to follow in other races, there may not. We're a bit picky around here to begin with, and we're inclined to see what the Republican voters of Montana have to say about some of these primary races.

Stay tuned for more on the governor's race, but keep in mind that posts of equal or greater importance have been backing up around here. Reviews of books on Benjamin Disraeli and Julius Caesar, more observations on agriculture both modern and ancient, comments on recent symphony concerts, etc. are all in various phases of conception at this point.

Stick around.

Getting the Scoop on Roy Brown

We were gratified to learn that this "level-headed hometown blog" encouraged at least one right-thinking Montana blogger to turn out to see Roy Brown on his whirlwind tour of the state today.

It was interesting to read Scoop's impressions, since a whole lot of people are going to be getting to know Sen. Brown for the first time in the coming months. Those impressions are worth reading, and they ring solid and true.

As Scoop put it, referring to the six-figure investment that the Dems made into attempting to defeat Brown in his most recent legislative race, "no wonder they were trying to sink this guy!"

Word on the Billings street was that Brown returned from his trip invigorated from the enthusiastic reception he received around the state and, well, looking and sounding like someone who is ready to be our next governor. He's at another level of campaigning, and he is showing that he is more than ready for it.

The Gazette editorial page begins its honeymoon with Roy Brown

The Billings Gazette editors certainly picked a great day to run an editorial about the Old Fund liability issue -- right after Sen. Roy Brown set a date for the formal launch of his campaign for governor, and the day before the scheduled formal announcement.

The piece itself is a typical Gazette editorial that throws together a bunch of mushy alternating statements, first putting the 2003 Republican legislature in a bad light and then acknowledging mitigating factors and shared blame between the parties involved. But tempted as we are to critique, once again, the turgid prose and confused organization of Gazette editorials, our emphasis today is on content.

The piece culminates with highlighting then House Majority Leader Roy Brown's sponsorship of the bill that borrowed $23 million from the Old Fund as part of a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to address a projected $232 million budget deficit, although the editorial does acknowledge that the bill had overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Gazette editorial writer then wraps up with a final "pay as you go" scold (presumably Gazette editorials at the time were advocating $23 million in addition tax increases or program cuts -- we can't find it in the Gazette archives, but maybe it's hiding somewhere.)

In short, the net effect of the piece seems to send a not-so-subtle message that Republicans are fiscally unreliable -- not particularly helpful to Sen. Brown's campaign, given that he is rightly running his campaign at least in part on the reckless 40% state spending increase we have endured over the last 4 years.

One wonders, though, whether the editorial writers at the Gazette bother to read their own newspaper.

You see, Gazette reporter Jim Gransbery -- on the very same day, wrote an excellent article that includes key information about what happened in the 2005 legislative session that was left out of the editorial. But not once in the editorial is the year 2005 even mentioned, even though presumably the editors got a sneak preview of Granbery's piece.

Yes, right there in the news section of the Gazette itself is the rest of the story. Namely, the story of what happened in the very next session after the money was borrowed from the Old Fund:

When the state's financial situation improved, Sen. John Esp, R-Big Timber, introduced a bill in 2005 to repay the Old Fund, but the bill was tabled on a party-line vote in a committee controlled by the Democrats, (Sen.) Brown said.

He said Esp approached the governor's budget director, David Ewer, about repaying the money, but nothing came of the overture.

Ewer said Tuesday he recalled vaguely Esp's effort, but his office did not take part in any of the hearings of Esp's bill.

Brown said that with a $1 billion surplus in the state's checking account this year, the Schweitzer administration made no effort to repay the money when the Legislature was in session.

Isn't that fascinating? David Ewer only "vaguely recalls" GOP efforts to repay the money, and apparently didn't bother going to the hearings about a bill that would have paid back the money in 2005 -- obviating the need even to be discussing this issue in 2007.

Given the budget director's, shall we say, colorful performances in the last legislative session, we find it hard to believe that he would pass up an opportunity to weigh in publicly with his opinion.

Unless, that is, the executive branch and the 2005 Democratic legislature was in such dither to get down to spending as much money as possible that they didn't want to have their allowance cut by $23 million plus interest.

And then, there was a $1 billion surplus this last session. Couldn't the executive branch have done with a little less of a spending spree and cut $23 million free somehow?

The 2003 legislature did what it had to do in the face of a deficit -- if anything, Sen. Brown and the Republican legislature should be praised for finding a comprehensive solution for situation it faced. They raised some taxes, but avoided raising taxes that would hurt the economy and jeopardize future tax revenues. They cut spending, but by borrowing a little of the government's own money avoided even deeper cuts.

Republicans had faith that the economy would improve, and that the money would then be available to replenish the fund. And at the very next session, that's exactly what they tried to do -- to no avail.

So, why didn't the Gazette editorial mention any of this? Why didn't it mention the events of 2005?

Maybe there's more to the 2005 story than Gransbery was able to dig up -- but then why didn't the Gazette hold off on on an editorial that prominently features Sen. Brown in a negative light until that paper could get the story straight?

Was it more important to get that editorial published the day before Sen. Brown's formal announcement of his candidacy for governor?

Sen. Brown's initial lap around the track

One thing that everyone knows about Roy Brown is that he is a tireless worker, as we noted yesterday, and the opening of his campaign only indicates more of the same.

On Thursday, he is going to be starting out with his announcement early in the morning in Billings, and then flying around the state: Billings, Helena, Great Falls, Kalispell, Missoula, and Bozeman -- and back in time for a piece of pie and cup of coffee at the venerable Stella's Bakery in Billings that evening. So we hope that our faithful readers in those cities will check their local Republican listings and turn out to show support for Roy.

Then, it's 50 towns in 10 days on the road.

Advancing a four-point program, Brown said he will work for long-term real property tax relief; elimination of the business equipment tax now frozen at 3 percent; a return to accountability and integrity in campaign finance and openness in government; and the enactment of responsible state spending.

Sounds pretty good. And Brown has the record to show that he has legislatively worked to achieve just those goals. He correctly points to the 40% increase in spending over the last two legislative sessions as a trend that we can't sustain:

"If there is a blip in the economy, the taxpayer-funded surpluses will not be there to fund the new spending," he said. "There are automatic escalators written into those spending increases..."

While it isn't good for one's mental health to spend too much time reading the comments section after articles in the Billings Gazette, it is interesting to note that Roy Brown is, depending on who you read, "just another liberal Republican" or "another rape, pillage and plunder Republican." While it's never any fun to get abuse from anyone, if you're getting it from the far opposite extremes of the spectrum, then you're not doing too bad.

Oh, and back to that 6 cities in one day and 50 towns in 10 days thing:

From what we understand, once Sen. Brown gets warmed up, he'll try to pick up the pace a little -- so the opposition shouldn't get too complacent.