PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar -- Montana Headlines interview (Full text)

MH: Commissioner Brad Molnar, welcome to Montana Headlines -- thanks for taking the time to do this interview.

First, we've got to ask this question: are you related to Thomas Molnar…

Brad Molnar: Yes. First cousin.

MH: Hold on, wait for the rest of the question. Thomas Molnar, the famous Hungarian conservative philosopher and historian/political theorist?

Brad Molnar: No. Wrong Hungarian, sorry. Cousin Tom runs a septic pumping service in South Bend, Ind. I don't think that he is very philosophical about it. Don't suppose he thinks it's a political statement either. I could be wrong about that though.

MH: Well, we’re off to quite a start, aren’t we? So let's start with a simple but crucial question: what exactly does a PSC Commissioner do?

Brad Molnar: All fifty states have some form of Commission. Fed regulators (FCC and FERC) share responsibilities with us. If state or federal legislation grants monopoly power we act as a brake to make sure the customer get the value as if there were competition. I'm pretty sure the brake is broke.

MH: Correct us if we're wrong, but you seem to enjoy your job as a PSC Commissioner immensely.

Brad Molnar: Yup.

MH: Put differently, a lot of public office holders enjoy the attention, the power, or the potential for future political ambitions that go with their jobs (yes, that was a little side-swipe at your opponent) -- but don't necessarily seem to enjoy the day to day grind of their lives in public service. You seem, more than most, to just plain enjoy doing what you do. Do we have that right, and is this typical for PSC Commissioners?

Brad Molnar: I truly enjoy the job. Like most before me I am amazed at how different it is from how it is perceived. I would say that all five of us are very dedicated to doing the job as best we can. Even Toole, which surprises me. But he is so political and infecting the Commission that he overshadows the good he can do. Raney and Jergeson have become far more political since Toole got elected.

MH: What is it that you find so enjoyable or satisfying about this job?

Brad Molnar: The total and ongoing exposure to new problems and various solutions in a room filled with very intelligent people and very different ideas. The fight for individual liberty and against runaway liberalism is fought here every day. But it’s not like in the legislature -- you can't go back to your caucus at the mid-day break or go home. You are in for four years. I've actually had to develop people skills...

OK "try" to develop people skills.

MH: We've heard it said that PSC Commissioners have a more direct impact on the daily lives of Montanans than do many state-wide positions that are higher profile. Is that true, and if so, could you explain?

Brad Molnar: We make the Appropriations Committee look like a bunch of panty-waists. Schweitzer talks (and talks and talks,) about energy but we analyze myriad proposals constantly. We recently implemented an additional 50 MW of QF wind (never mind the jargon just catch the drift.) If history holds that will cost consumers over a billion dollars more than the electricity is worth.

And we have zero capacity for ancillary services to firm it. NWE was against it. Montana Consumer Council was against it. I was the only no vote. The press never reported it (Who would write the story and who would understand it?). Only lobbyists and special interest liked it. By the time it kicks in no one will remember it and those that voted for it will be retiring from their new jobs as lobbyists for the same special interests. (Least ways that's my humble opinion)
On a 3-2 vote we OK'd sending 2,000,000 of NWE ratepayer dollars to Portland and Seattle to help spread the word about energy efficiency in the wood pulp industry. I'm sure that most of that money will find its way back to Montana via liberal PACS. Not one word in the daily press. TRY THAT in the legislature.

A rate increase of $15M got big press but the $60M "tracker" we passed several weeks later never got a mention. I was the only no vote and will soon show the world why. But the "why" is a twenty year deal. Legislative actions are only good for two years. Our mistakes can't be undone, are under analyzed, and in the billions of dollars. That is why we have more impact.
And the obvious. You get an energy bill every month. All business and government entities get a utility bill every month -- so you actually pay all three.

MH: Readers of Montana Headlines know that we find your opponent, Billings Mayor Ron Tussing, to be... well, let's not go there.

From a public-interest perspective, we were definitely rooting for Curry in the Democratic primary, but as we wrote in an earlier post, "From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match."

You don't seem like someone to back down from a fight, and you're certainly in one. We haven't seen a lot of fireworks yet -- when will it start, and what shape will it take?

Brad Molnar: It's definitely started. The state Demo party has filed grievances against me with the Office of Political Practices about the Billings Brownout. They were thrown out because Noonan tried twice to get the form right but couldn't quite grasp the concept. Mary Jo Fox (formerly with Raciciot then Martz -- now Tussing's campaign manager) has filed and amended several, also on the Billings Brownout, and of course the D's on the Commission have asked for a ruling from the AG also stemming from the Billings Brownout.

Plainly they feel the Billings Brownout is a good thing in need of attack to try to drown out Tussing's enormous negatives by creating some for me. Pretty stupid. EVERYbody I have talked to about it sees right through it. Does anybody think Tussing could even win Mayor again? The last three days of his campaign for Mayor were a gathering of some of the slimiest people in Montana politics. How they escaped prosecution I have no idea. I expect I'll get some on me as all the old ones are back plus a few new faces.

Because they are issueless they have really tied me up with all the work I have to do on their inane complaints. It is very consuming of emotional capital, money and time. IS this really the best way to form a new government every two years? The Tussing campaign (Led by Mary Jo Fox and Joe Gunthals) is the spiritless fate we must now suffer for failing to rein in crap-mongers during so many campaign cycles. Especially the last mayoral campaign in Billings and the Fox v Cooney for Senate. I fully expect a repeat of the final days of the mayor’s race with enough crap slung by "independent expenditures" to make me vote for Tussing. Tussing’s name is so negative that they can't raise him up. They need to try to bring me down.

MH: One war that you are definitely winning, from what our eastern Montana readers tell us, is the Burma-Shave sign war. Do you expect to maintain your commanding Burma-Shave lead over Tussing -- and so our readers who don’t make it onto the roads of PSC District 2 can know what on earth we're talking about, could you share a couple of your favorite Burma-Shave campaign sign sequences?

Brad Molnar: Displaying all the creativity and originality that Tussing can muster on energy and telecom issues ("I want to explore options and "look for"...never mind) -- Ron Tussing has copied my signs.

MH: Mayor Tussing really is shameless, isn’t he? But in all fairness, he did manage to compose a puerile ditty about the city administrator he was in a fight with -- readers can look that monumental act of creativity up in the MH archives (search for "The House that Ron Tussing Built") -- or in the court records from when the City of Billings was being taken to the cleaners for millions in no small part because of Tussing.

We digress shamelessly -- go on...

Brad Molnar: Of course I copied them from the Burma Shave idea but let’s admit that I took them to a new level in Montana politics. The people that have mentioned Tussing's signs, regardless of party leanings, all use the word "copy cat".

What else did he think people would feel? That he was clever? The rest of us learned in fourth grade that "copycats" were to be shunned on the playground. He has a right to do it but it's dumb and again raises all of his other myriad ethics issues.

But for the unenlightened they are signs with jingles on them rather like the old Burma Shave signs. Some are silly but all fit my theme.

Those Liberal Fellas / Sound Real Clever / Do their ideas work / Never Ever / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This is the only sign to be stolen so far; last cycle it was the only one to be driven over.)

Mine it now / Drill it now / Don't need Arabs / To show us how / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This one is very popular. Got me labled a racist. Sheesh.)

When near a school / Drive real slow / Let those little / Voters grow / Molnar for Public Service Commission -- ( This is also a carryover from last cycle. Actually from an original.)

Can't make him run / Can't make him cry / Molnar is / A stand up guy / Molnar for PSC Molnar for PSC -- (In case they were wondering.)

MH: These are, of course, 5 separate signs in a row, and you have to wait a bit for the next line -- very effective. As noted before, you are crushing the opposition in the Burma-Shave wars. Turning to more serious topics on the campaign front, where is this election going to be fought and won?

Brad Molnar: I think that I have to play a heads up game but it is already decided. In redistricting my area was designed to be Republican and Jergeson’s was designed to be Dem. The others are plus or minus 6%.

But 140,000 of my 200,000 voters all live in Yellowstone County. Obama people are really registering a lot of people here but we don't know how many of those will actually vote. That and the Baucus money thing are the only two unknowns.

Other than that the Gazette is the paper of record for the district and everywhere I go people are well aware of Ron's reneging on the $160,000 pay to leave, shoving the reporter and claiming self defense, the law suits, the multiple ethics violations, voting money for his wife’s projects, subordination violations, lying under oath, being already bought and paid for by lobbyists, etc.

Getting yard or Burma sign locations is easy. I just have to say that Tussing is my opponent. I think that the majority of people have already made up their minds about us. If he is the kind of guy (with the kind of followers he has) they want on the PSC they can have him. But plainly even those that supported him for Mayor have come to see that the City Manager was right and Tussing had to go to protect the people of Billings and now they have buyer’s remorse.

I think the primary numbers show that. Curry's campaign was nonexistent (I saw just two yard signs). The Curry votes were not Pro Curry. They were anti-Tussing. No idea what that means in the general. People should wonder why the Dems and liberals are so willing to debase themselves to get Tussing on the PSC when they already have a majority and the odds of Repubs sweeping all three open seats are long.

MH: You mentioned the Gazette as the paper of record in your PSC district. Do you believe that the Montana press in general and the Billings Gazette in particular has given you fair and balanced coverage during your tenure as commissioner and during this campaign?

Brad Molnar: In general "no." But, in truth, I think it is improving. Dennison and I have a respect for each other and trade barbs without ongoing animosity. Actually a healthy reporter/reportee relationship.

I miss talking with Chuck Johnson. He was very unfair to Judy Martz but always fair with me. I think, and hope, that my chagrin with LEE lies with the editors. I know it is with AP. Gouras is OK. Hergenrider in Billings tries to be fair but Lutey is nothing but a partisan hack. The new Capitol Correspondent for the GF Tribune has definite Democrat leanings. Sometimes he overrides them sometimes not. The jury is still out on him.

What's her name, the old GF Capital correspondent, was great. Very unbiased writing but she went to work for Lee in Missoula. Lucky Missoula. AP should have picked her up for Helena. Assume I will have between 45 days and 4 years to regret these comments.

MH: How about being a little more specific and forthright in answering the rest of these questions!

Anyway, while we're on the press, tell us about your working relationship with the Billings Outpost and its editor, David Crisp. Crisp at Billings Blog and Montana Headlines are the totality of the political blogging scene here in this part of the state, so we take a keen interest in the success of the Outpost.

Brad Molnar: I have total respect for David as a person, for his intellect, his ethics, and his journalistic capacities.

MH: While he often describes himself as a conservative, it would seem that you and he would probably have slightly different conceptions of what that word exactly means.


Brad Molnar: I think that David is more like a European style "liberal/conservative" and I am perhaps "right" of that sniveling, teary eyed, limp wristed, panty-waist that wrote Genghis Khan’s prisoner policy.

Dave's and my differences are probably more specific – for example, where we might both agree that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution would require all states to recognize a gay marriage from any state, I would argue that it should not because of the 10th Amendment but he would challenge my conservative credentials for making such an interpretative argument after standing on fundamentalist interpretation ideals for so long. Hope that is not too obtuse; and that Dave concurs.

MH: I imagine that we’ll find out, since Billings Blog and MH regularly engage in good-natured, yet substantive disputes.

Anyway, in spite of your differences, your column was a staple at the Outpost for some time.

Brad Molnar: It was very popular. Even in Wyoming. But the #1 comment I got was from Dem's telling me how surprised they were that they actually agreed with me. Dave paid me $30 per column and never tried to censor me. People still tell me they miss it; but alas.

And I miss writing it. Actually the column appeared in several papers off and on.

MH: Let's touch on a few specifics, starting with your public comments condemning the "right to work" plank inserted into the platform at the recent GOP convention. For the record, MH opposes such laws, too. What on earth happened up in Missoula that this plank got shoved into the party platform?

Brad Molnar: That is what happens when people do not pay attention. I was not on the floor when it took place and it is so cloaked that...well, it happened. True conservatives cannot accept government intervening in private sector contracts. Period.

MH: Agreed. How do PSC Commissioners affect the interests of labor union members, and what specifically have you done to look out for them while on the PSC?

Brad Molnar: As you know I was the first Republican in the history of Montana to represent Laurel in the legislature. Some said that the union influence made it impossible. I figured that railroaders did not have enough money to be liberal so talked about what we had in common (which is most things) and they kept me in till term limits.
I actually enjoy working with union guys. They are long on doing and short on pussy footing. But more directly, when the Judith Gap wind farm was being started they wanted to use out of state, non-union contractors. There are no in-state non-union contractors that could have built the project.

At the PSC level I made a motion to place in our docket that "Little Davis Bacon" would apply. Still not sure if it would have applied but I tried. Only got one vote, Raney's. The other D's took a powder.

MH: "Little Davis Bacon?"

Brad Molnar: State version of Federal "prevailing wage."

MH: Got it. So is it possible that Republicans, if they don't insist on blowing it, have the opportunity to win the support of traditional unions in Montana and elsewhere?

Brad Molnar: Of course. Under Jerry Driscoll the AFL-CIO dropped their participation in slime ball politics and focused on jobs for their people. Republicans tend to like that concept so it was symbiotic.

I have encountered a strong union sentiment to that in my PSC campaign. The trade unions pulled Tussing's endorsement to fight for me. (No resolution of that yet. Railroaders in Forsyth recognized me at a cafe, and walked up to offer their support).

Union workers are just individuals. Approach them as such and all things are possible. Don't attack their union. After all it is their union. Let them change its policies if they so desire. They vote on this stuff and their leaders. If you don't like it then join and vote.

How tough is this? It's called freedom. Not every fight requires war. I have noticed that Republicans that complain about union money and "bus loads" of volunteers have not donated a dime to local candidates or even a few afternoons stumping for a candidate.

If we are being out-organized, out-donated, and out-volunteered by a minority, why do we have the right to be critical of others for digging out their pocketbooks and getting off the couch?

MH: You’re preaching to the choir. No whining about unions allowed around here.

Next up is energy deregulation.

Brad Molnar: OH BOY!!!

MH: Well, you knew it was coming. Listening to your opposition, the evil state legislator Brad Molnar was single-handily responsible for deregulation, ensuing high energy prices, and general chaos, mayhem, and destruction. Did we leave anything out?

Brad Molnar: And I did it at the request of my corporate masters....

I was such a powerful legislator that Bob Gannon handpicked me. I didn't even have to show up at the hearings. If you have nothing to say, but an election to win...make it up.
Considering Tussing's history why would this surprise anyone?

MH: You’ve got a point there. But leaving aside the fact that this argument is so… so 1990, are we correct in suspecting that this is, just maybe, a bit of over-wrought election year shrillness?

Brad Molnar: Actually since they have decided that conservation efforts are the root of all evil they have pretty much left this cut and paste argument alone. But I'm sure we will see more of it.

It's really a stupid argument to raise. I'm the one that took my own time and money trying to sue to get it overturned. The D's on the Commission actually took a public vote to try and block the suit to keep the facts from coming to court.

The facts are clear. The PSC acted in collusion with MPC and PPL, and lied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to facilitate the sale of MPC generation assets as quickly as possible. They had to ignore a dozen brakes put on them by the legislature. The document they did this with is the first one under my pic on the PSC website.

Notice that they clearly state that the federal government does not allow states to deregulate –rather, only a Commission can request the state's generation be granted (EWG status.)

MH: Is there a "rest of the story?"

Brad Molnar: I was absolutely shocked when the Repub party did not even ask if they could help. I was shocked when the Demo party refused to even discuss how to reregulate and I was shocked when my fellow Commissioners ordered our legal staff to stand with the PPL attorney (He has donated to Tussing) and defend our deregulated status.

I never asked them to help or give money. Just stay out of the way. When Raney switched to oppose the reregulation effort he publicly stated it was for "partisan political considerations" from the bench. (last entry below my pic on the PSC website).

Not a word in the press. An unbiased study of the causations, the issue, the process are a gold mine on how to have a better future and not make the same mistakes again (state and federal) but alas, the issue is better political fodder. Geez, it even happened before Tussing moved to Montana to claim the title Most Failed Chief of Police/Mayor Billings Has Ever Known...but it seems to be the only thing he knows anything about.

MH: Let’s turn to some more dirty stuff. We've had an annoying commenter who periodically shows up on MH threads that deal either with you or Ron Tussing, saying that you were convicted of felony assault and battery.

Knowing how devoted Mayor Tussing's fawning admirers are, this sort of anonymous charge will probably continue to appear on various blogs and in the comments section of the Gazette during this campaign. Would you like to enlighten MH readers regarding your past felonious activities?

Brad Molnar: I would rather talk about my future felonious activities but my compatriots would prefer that I not. Such stories will probably continue to surface in the blogosphere but not on the editorial page because they would be actionable and could not muster a defense onnaconna taint true.

Actually a felony would preclude me from serving would it not?

MH: We tried making that logical point, along with pointing out the absence of anything in the press about it in the last election cycle, but some people are logically challenged.

Brad Molnar: Yes, I've had a few scrapes but never seen a judge... plainly self defense.

Sorry, but I can't match Tussing man-handling a reporter at his announcement for mayor when he dared ask why Tussing thought he could break the $160,000 settlement agreement. Apparently Tussing claimed self defense and said he was afraid the man was armed (he had a camera and is 1/3 the size of Tussing)

He has not assaulted anyone for carrying a camera before or since. Charges dropped. Had that been me I would still be in the clink. It amazes me when they know they are vulnerable yet go forward with their cowardly attacks. They don't even care if they hurt their own candidate. Very poorly thought out. Tussing should be avoiding these issues like sumac.

MH: Enough on that – if we continue, our readers will be forced to go take a shower and won’t be able to finish reading this most engaging interview.

Let’s talk some specifics of how the PSC works. How do PSC commissioners interact with the state legislature -- do you have an advisory role in the crafting of legislation?

Brad Molnar: We often craft our own. For example the PSC crafted the legislation to increase the USB (consumer tax) on natural gas by 300%. I was the only commissioner to oppose it.

MH: Do you testify before committees?

Brad Molnar: There is at least one Commissioner present for just about any piece of legislation that concerns what we do. Often just to answer technical questions. Just as often we offer pro and con positions as determined by our votes to support or oppose various pieces legislation.

For example Mood (the other R) and I have, for the past two sessions supported legislation to mandate that the PSC put together a "lowest cost possible" energy portfolio for utility customers with the option for "green power" aficionados to pay more for their chosen color of electrons.

The three Democrat commissioners have always stood with the enviro lobby and opposed same. All of us agreed that Gov. Schweitzer’s HB3 Special Session was patently illegal. Ergo none of the D's went to testify so they could not be questioned.

MH: Most interesting – we’ll have to pay attention in the next session to see who testifies and when.

Can you give examples of laws that have passed or nearly passed in the legislature in the last couple of sessions that were injurious to Montana citizens -- ones that a Republican legislature should overturn in the coming session?

Brad Molnar: Of course the aforementioned 300% increase in USB taxes (it was made far worse in committee at the request of MDU).

HB 25 has a moratorium on new coal-fired plants and created a new 3.5% tax on energy. If we repeal the Renewable Energy Portfolio (SB 415 Schweitzer/Tester) we could save about $50M immediately and millions more per year.

MH: How about any that need to be fought and kept from passing in the next legislative session?

Brad Molnar: Have been a little preoccupied with the next couple of months to worry about the next session but I assume that everyone agrees that the people of SE Mont would be represented very differently before legislative committees if Tussing should win.

MH: Fair enough, but still, is there legislation that you as a PSC Commissioner would like to see introduced and debated in the next legislative session?

Brad Molnar: Along with Rep Everett I tried to make fraud by, or before, the Commission the same as fraud anywhere (punishable up to two years after discovery) rather than you have thirty days after a ruling to file an action.

Only the three D's on the Commission and NWE opposed it in committee. It got clobbered in Committee and twice on the floor just to get a rehearing.

Listen to the tapes. Jergeson went berserk to kill it. Totally berserk. It was amazing. My jaw dropped. It would have allowed the Commission to be held responsible for the fraud and collusion they committed (and admitted to) when they asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate Montana Power and PPL.

Dems really hate the truth on this subject. I'll bet they quote Justice Nelson on this topic when they blog. Four justices refused to sign his dissent so they naturally quote him like he actually represented someone other than himself and his loathing for my conservative politics and our many years running feud over his judicial activism.

MH: Well, that spares us from having to ask for a comment or two about the role of the judiciary.

Next up, what kind of a grade would you give the current governor when it comes to the basic pocketbook issues of utility rates?

Brad Molnar: A+ for taking credit for the efforts of others.

D-minus for what he has done to consumers and the cost causers he has planted.

When I nailed him on imploring us to help low-income ratepayers with their increasing utility bills, when he promoted every cost causer in the legislature he said, "Yes, but my concern was for the jobs it creates."

Six months building wind mills and 20 years of higher rates. Make that an "F."

Same, exactly the same, answer from his transmission guy (Tuttle) at the Colstrip meeting of the interim ETIC when he was asked by Weisman (D-Great Falls) about the impact of the Montana Idaho Intertie.

So it is definitely Schweitzer’s policy to ignore costs if he gets a good headline about jobs. He is a very bright guy so I assume he knows he is guilty. It's just that the press prefers to not ask any follow up questions. Just quote the press agent...or they might not be invited to the next wine tasting.

Same thing when Barret told legislators to resist my amendment to HB 3 (special session) that would have saved consumers $38.85M on electricity bills (That reminds me. We should try that one again.)

ZERO dems voted for it. Why doesn't Schweitzer say what he has done to lower energy bills (not counting subsidizing the poor with other people’s money)...make that F-minus.

Republicans put price caps on the renewables in SB 415 2005 in House Committee. The amendments to pull off the consumer protections were called the governor’s Amendments...mainly because they were. Hell of a floor fight. Nothing in the press.

What is lower than F-minus? Add $10,000 to the war chest against me.

MH: Let us know if there is a spike in fundraising from Helena after this interview appears.
Let’s move on to a different intra-governmental relationship. How do PSC commissioners interact with the federal government?

Brad Molnar: Constantly. Directly via meetings with FERC and FCC top personnel at NARUC meetings and teleconferences and through regional stake holder issues (BPA) and transmission issues to the east. The commissioners you must work with are "no nonsense" professionals. They Googled me before I got there and judged if I had anything to add to the issue.

If not, you will just be a placeholder and cannot represent Montana. Very judgmental and very hard working group. They wouldn't let Tussing carry the donuts.

MH: As entertaining as it is to pull a visual of Mayor Tussing fetching donuts and coffee for the big boys, let’s hope we don’t have to deal with that. How has the change to Democratic control in the U.S. Congress affected things in the last couple of years?

Brad Molnar: It appears to me that the people voted to end the war. They still have the war but got stuck with a freshman congress controlled by a bunch of enviro zealots that simply refuse to have a holistic approach to energy and the environment.

I never thought that there would be a working majority in congress that was willing to perform great violence on families in the US via their utility bills (Cap and Trade/carbon tax) (a crafty tax hidden in utility bills that we will never get rid of.). I must now concede the possibility and work to mitigate the harm.

MH: Will the outcome of the Presidential race this year affect what you do at the PSC?

Brad Molnar: Both Obama and McCain have signaled that they will sign Cap and Trade. They are both willing to sell this country down the river for a sound bite.

Maybe Sarah can get McCain to moderate but I doubt it. Before it was Warner-Lieberman it was McCain-Lieberman. Either way we are screwed and, if I am in the majority, will write rules to mitigate the damage they will do.

If not in the majority I will use the position to inform consumers....actually a pretty good weapon....which is why I am so heavily targeted.

Add another $10,000 to Tussings war chest. I'm joking -- it will be independent expenditures.

MH: We’ll look forward to getting those mailers. Let's turn back to the specifics of energy for a final question. Is it safe to assume that we are in agreement that for now, drilling for more oil, building more oil refineries, and mining and using more coal are the irreducible minimum in relieving the burdensome cost of energy?

Brad Molnar: Those that argue against more drilling are just plain goofy....but may get elected president. It's a purist environmentalist argument..."No carbon at any cost -- but confuse the issue at every turn."

MH: And would we also be in agreement that the "all of the above" approach to attacking the energy supply issue on every front is essential to meeting our energy needs in the long run?

Brad Molnar: And the short run. Look how fast Bakken turned the argument. Even Tester is taking credit for it now.

MH: Moving on from that, what alternative energy source is the most promising for Montana -- and what makes it the most promising technology?

Brad Molnar: Wind, though not as a stand-alone generation. But wind with compressed air storage (still in R&D), tied to hydro, tied to EXISTING natural gas.

As a nation we have 205,000 megawatts of natural gas baseload. We would be generations tying it to wind and the results would be astoundingly good. Building gas generation to support wind....totally political and wildly anti-consumer.

And when you say "for Montana"...the only winners are those that sell wind power. That's why people have to be forced to buy it i.e. thru renewable energy portfolios etc and that's why they are forced to pay a $16 BILLION dollar subsidy. Montana is often called the Saudi Arabia of wind (so is No Dak. So Dak. Texas etc etc...it's what people say when they think a vacuous statement will work better than facts...usually on the 6 o'clock news).

Do the Arabs have to mandate the use of oil? Do Arabs subsidize its sales to help hide the true costs? If wind is mandated why subsidize it? The least complicated to authorize is "cogeneration" on a case by case basis as long as it is not a Qualified Facility. We have plenty of affordable/reliable energy in Montana. Why we are convincing ourselves that greater investment in subsidized/unreliable energy is a winning argument is beyond me. We have not and cannot curtail one megawatt of electricity from Colstrip since we built Judith Gap with its 135MW capacity. Know why?

MH: I think that is pretty obvious, and can be summarized in one word: demand -- which is only going up.

Brad Molnar: And you would be wrong. Have a nice day.

MH: That's a cliffhanger of a note to end on. We'll have to find the real answer to that one another time, then.

Commissioner Brad Molnar, thank you again for taking the time to talk with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in your campaign – and while we may regret this, you can have the last word.

Brad Molnar: Luck? I'm up against a discredited cop, that became a discredited mayor, that admits he would be a know-nothing Commissioner. How tough could it be.....INCOMING!!!!

"Net-roots Ninnies" -- and a note on Sirota

Note the quotation marks -- Montana Headlines isn't given to calling names, but we do enjoy quoting the title of the piece in today's New York Post by one of our very favorite liberals -- the very smart, articulate, and unflappable Kirsten Powers. She is a Fox News regular, and is one of the few people who can get Sean Hannity to be polite for a few minutes. And when she is subbing on the best conservative talk-radio program around, "Brian and the Judge," it is always a treat.

So why does Kirsten call the netroots folks "ninnies?" In short because in their obsession about Obama's recent flip-flop on FISA and other perceived transgressions against progressive purity, they are losing sight of the fact that they are, in the end, not terribly relevant to the Democratic Party's electoral prospects:

Newsflash to the netroots and the media (which seems perpetually confused on this issue): The netroots are not the base of the Democratic Party.

Overwhelmingly white, male and highly educated, they're a loud anomaly in a party that's wholly dependent on the votes of African Americans, women and working-class whites.

Ouch. Ms. Powers is of course right that this demographic doesn't provide a lot of the votes to the Democratic machine, but on the other hand highly educated white males have always played a disproportionate role in Democratic politics -- even before the netroots came along. It's all part of that egghead thing, or what John Kenneth Galbraith called the members of his "New Class" that were needed to run things in the modern world.

If you have a welfare state with a highly centralized government, there will always be a place for technocrats to make decisions, tell people what to do, and generally run things. Cf. Democratic voting patterns in university towns, in capital cities, and on the staffs of most news organizations.

But leave it to Kirsten Powers to be unimpressed with the idealistic take-no-prisoners attitudes she sees these days from the left-roots:

Grow up, net rooters: You're going to see more Obama compromises with reality, more shifts to address what the real Democratic base cares about. Don't even be surprised if he comes out with a plan to allow domestic oil drilling.

Drill, drill, drill? We can only hope.

_______________________

Speaking of loud anomalies, David Sirota springs to mind. A one-time quasi-Montanan now back in the big city, he is a sound and fury sort, proffering what are generally conventional leftward solutions disguised as pseudo-populism. So it was surprising to find that MH and Sirota were in agreement with something the latter wrote in today's column that appeared in the Billings Gazette.

Most of the piece is of the unremarkable "Accidental Tourist" genre, bemoaning the homogenization of American society. (It is of course all the fault of corporations and franchizing -- making one wonder if Sirota is advocating legislation to ban Applebee's.)

But he does take note of something very real that Montana Headlines, with its emphasis on state and local politics, can't help but decry:

...in every corner of the country, the discussion is almost completely national focused. Who will be the vice-presidential nominees? What will the latest scandal mean for the presidential candidates? How can Democrats or Republicans win the congressional election?

Now, even decades ago, in the politically precocious early days of a young Montana Headlines, presidential politics were all the rage with the general public, while local and state races were dutifully ignored just as today.

What is perhaps different is that the explosion of media sources -- traditional and alternative -- have dramatically increased the level of detail that a political junkie has about national races and issues that really didn't perhaps need a lot more attention. Which is, of course, the great thing about the blogosphere part of the alternative media -- left and right alike. Because it is decentralized, it allows both "net-roots ninnies" and right-wing ranters like MH the opportunity to draw attention to state and local races and issues that in the past would have been ignored.

It is unfortunately true, of course, that all too many posts in regional blogs like those found in the Montana blogosphere simply rehash talking points about national politics that have already been endlessly regurgitated.

But the possibilities are there for us to make Mr. Sirota happy by dissecting state and local politics -- so shouldn't we try?

____________

Update: Jay at LITW believes the above post to be "mean-spirited" -- the readers can decide for themselves. His musings are worth perusing, but there is one point in particular that bears comment.

He claims that concerns about FISA on the left are a reflection of civil liberties concerns, while saying that those on the right who supported that bill were primarily motivated because it was "our team's" idea.

The bottom line is that the final sticking point on the bill didn't involve high-flown ideas about civil liberties. It was retroactive telecom immunity from being sued at the plaintiff's bar. Supporting such immunity should be pretty much a matter of common sense -- after all, if someone was wronged by government intrusion into their privacy, violating principles of unreasonable search and seizure, who did the wrong? Pretty clearly it would seem to be the government that demanded the cooperation of the telecom companies, and not the companies who cooperated with what the government asked for, citing a time of national threat.

If bounds were overstepped, or if threats were over-stated, the fault lies with the government, and it is the government that should be punished within the constraints of the legal system. And it is from the government that anyone who has suffered loss should seek restitution.

There was one group, and one group only, who wanted the immunity stricken from that bill, and that is trial lawyers who hoped to make easy and tidy windfall profits from cases against telecom companies who would hopefully fold quickly in order to have it over with.

Not only would the wrong party be unfairly footing the bill, but we could be assured that they would have reason not to cooperate with, say, a President Obama faced with a future national emergency, demanding their help in gathering information about potential threats to the American populace.

It was perhaps wrong to characterize progressive furor over FISA as being a matter of "progressive purity," at least in an ideological sense. It was, at root, much more venal than that. It is well known that trial lawyers provide the backbone of funding for progressive politics, so the temporary intransigence of the left on retroactive immunity for telecom companies can fairly be seen as an act of simple financial self-interest.

Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 2 of 2

Read Part 1 of the interview here.

Part 2:

MH: The Secretary of State's office oversees a wide variety of governmental functions, all of which are important, but most of which are out of the view of the average Montanan. Could you, for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with what your office does, give an overview?

Brad Johnson: Elections are, of course, the one that everyone notices. But the Secretary of State's office also serves Montana's business community as a filing office. When a new business gets started, they register their name here so no one else in Montana can use it. Corporations and Limited Liability Companies file annual reports with us, so the public can be aware of contact information, who's on their board of directors, and more. After business filings, we also preserve records for the rest of the state, we publish that state's Administrative Rules, we oversee Notaries Public, and more. That's one of the reasons I like the Secretary of State's office: it's an office of government that does humble, quiet work. It really is a place to serve the people.

MH: You mention filing and reporting for corporations as being a role of the Secretary of State's office -- are there things under the purview of your office that you think could be changed in order to create a more business-friendly climate in Montana? Will you be advocating for any legislation in the upcoming session?

Brad Johnson: This office definitely improves the business climate in Montana. The first step has been to hold fees down. Not one business reporting fee has increased during my term. The second is to reduce paperwork, which we did by shifting to online annual reports and which we’ll continue doing by bringing more services online. We’re improving the methods by which we deliver information about administrative rules, which many businesses need to do their job. Those are just a few of the areas where I hope to make even more improvements over the coming years.

MH: Let's turn to politics. You are one of only two Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and the only one in Helena. This has thrust you into a high-profile leadership role in the state party that you probably didn't anticipate having 4 years ago when you defeated Bill Kennedy for the Secretary of State position.

What has that been like, and what are your thoughts as a leader about what we Republicans will need to do in order to recover from the losses we have sustained in the last couple of election cycles?

Brad Johnson: I wholeheartedly believe that the excited, committed crop of Republicans we have this year is ready to come roaring back in 2008. We've got so much excitement at the grass roots, it's really moving. I try to think of myself as a resource to them. I believe there's an understanding out there among the activists that it was never offices or numbers or majorities that made this party great -- it was our beliefs. Our beliefs will make us great again.

We don't need to think about being in power; we need to think about being in the right. As long as we are, and we stay that way, we will be a great political party. Fiscal conservatism, the values of the American family, a strong nation with a strong defense, liberty and individualism -- we stood for those things once, and we were great. If we stand for them again, we will be great again.

MH: Speaking of your new high-profile role, part of the package deal is that you've drawn fire from the left here in Montana -- we've certainly seen it in the blogosphere. You've also had to have felt a bit isolated as the sole Republican member of the state land board. We're not giving away any big secrets here when we say that you are being targeted by the Democrats in this election. How does this affect day-to-day life in doing your job as Secretary of State?

Brad Johnson: I've had my share of criticism from the Democrat party, that's true. But I just don't let it affect the job. While I'm there, the Secretary of State's office will not descend into partisanship. I've actually got an elected Democrat serving as my elections deputy -- Lisa Kimmet, former Clerk and Recorder for Prairie County. Many people don't know that, but to me, it's a guarantee of high quality elections for everyone. We have a Republican Secretary of State and a Democrat who's working right alongside me to make sure Montana's elections remain among the cleanest, fairest in the country.

MH: Funny thing -- one struggles to think of examples where the leftward bloggers in Montana, let alone the mainstream press, commends you for having hired a Democrat as your elections deputy.

Brad Johnson: I admit it’s a bit frustrating. People on the other side of the aisle line up to sing Schweitzer’s praises for having “Republican” John Bohlinger in his administration, but they’re dead silent when our side does something similar. But I try not to let those frustrations come up too often. The truth of the matter is, you don’t do the right thing for credit, you do the right thing because it’s the right thing. And an election that both sides can trust is absolutely the right thing.

MH: One more question on attacks from the left: we've heard stories about a nationwide effort on the part of Democrats specifically to take over Secretary of State offices at the individual state level, presumably to have more control over the election process. Have you had evidence that you are being targeted on a national level?

Brad Johnson: We’ve had some interaction with the national Democrat and left-leaning organizations. Their “Secretary of State Project” wrote about my race once, and have been said to have an interest in it. We encountered MoveOn.org, too, believe it or not. They sent us a bunch of petitions urging Montana to move to paper ballots. Of course, we passed that law in 2005…

MH: Yes, that was an amusing illustration of how out-of-touch MoveOn.org is, once they get away from the coasts.

One more political question -- you were an early supporter of Gov. Mitt Romney, who was successful in winning the Montana Republican Presidential Caucus. Have you been asked to be involved in Sen. McCain's presidential campaign here in Montana -- and regardless of whether you will be actively involved, how would you suggest that the Montana Republican Party can transfer some of that Romney grassroots energy to John McCain?

Brad Johnson: I've already been advocating the importance of electing John McCain to the White House. I haven't been involved in the campaign yet, but I'm spreading the word on a personal level as much as I can. As far as transferring some of the Romney enthusiasm to McCain, I think there's a relatively simple formula that will work: Romney earned a lot of his support simply by showing up. He came here, he listened to Montanans, and he treated us like we mattered.

Frankly, we saw the same thing in the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Those two were here a lot, and their supporters were very enthusiastic for that reason. That's what the party and the McCain campaign need to do to transfer the Romney enthusiasm. Treat individual voters with respect. Listen to their ideas. And give them some time. They will respond. Chairman Iverson is already doing this at the party level; I have every confidence that we're going to see it from the McCain campaign as well.

MH: Let's leave politics and for the final question go back to the job you've been doing as Secretary of State. You've overseen a major modernization of the Secretary of State's office during your 4 years. Tell us a little about some of the things happening behind the scenes in your office that might not be making front page news.

Brad Johnson: When I ran for this office, I committed to bringing the Secretary of State's office into the 21st century. It's going well. We've got online candidate filing now, a statewide voter registration database, business annual reports are mostly online, we've just upgraded our Administrative Rules system into an easily searchable online database, we've established a steering committee to guide statewide policy on electronic records and information management, and more.

Right now we're in the middle of a project to completely revamp the office's computer system, with an end goal of making all our records available electronically, and all our reports submittable electronically. We've saved over a hundred thousand dollars with the online annual reporting. Electronic services cut down on paperwork and time for the citizen and the fee-paying business, and they're cheaper for the state to provide. It's a win win situation for everyone.

MH: A "win-win" situation is a good note to end on. Secretary Johnson, thank you very much for spending time with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in the campaign.

Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 1 of 2

Note to readers: please see our introductory comments on method and ground-rules that we published with our interview with Republican State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes.

____________________________________________

MH: Secretary Johnson, first of all welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you for agreeing to do this interview.

To start off, Montanans read in the newspapers last month that you just finished visiting the election offices in all 56 Montana counties in your capacity at the chief election administrator of the state. That was quite an undertaking.

Share with us, if you will, some of your impressions about the state of elections in Montana. What are we doing well, and what are some of the challenges that we face in what promises to be one of the biggest primary and general elections that Montana has seen in quite some years?

Brad Johnson: Montana's elections are some of the cleanest and fairest in the country. When I meet with other Secretaries of State from around the nation, they're always envious of how smoothly elections proceed here. One of the first reasons for that is our paper ballot requirement. While other states around the country are dealing with all the security risks of electronic voting machines, every single vote in Montana is on paper where we can count it by hand if we need to. That was bipartisan legislation for which I was proud to be the first proponent.

Another reason Montana's elections work so well is our system of local control. County election officials make their own decisions about whether to count ballots by hand or using a machine. County Commissioners make their own decisions about ordering a hand recount if they believe there's a problem with the total. We have some of the best election administrators anywhere in the country, and I'm proud to call each and every one of them a colleague.

That was one of the best things accomplished by the tour. I had the chance for real face-to-face interaction with the people on the front lines of our electoral process. County election officials had the chance to tell me directly what they wanted form the state. When they asked for more training on the statewide voter registration database, they got it. When they asked for more communication, they got it.

There are still areas we can fine tune. In the last legislative session, my office worked with Rep. Brady Wiseman on legislation to require random audits of some counties vote counts after an election. That didn't pass, but we hope to return to that issue in the next session. Overall, we've got a great election system here -- one that other states look to as an example.

MH: How did the June primary go from your perspective, given the record turnouts, especially on the Democratic side?

Brad Johnson: There are a number of important points to observe about our primary election. The first is that, for the first time ever, Montana endured the rigors of full fledged modern Presidential campaign. The result? Short, well-managed lines, no challenges to the counts, and timely reporting of the results. In brief, this election proceeded nearly perfectly in process. I think a large share of the credit for that goes to the outstanding local election administrators, who trained hard, worked hard, and delivered results for the people of Montana.

Another important point that I’m happy about is that this year, for the first time ever, the Montana Secretary of State’s office delivered accurate, up-to-the minute results on election night. In years past, our “final unofficial count” has been available at some point the day after. But the simple fact of the matter is that the people demanded better. We delivered it, and I was pleased by that.

Voter turnout was great – just a percentage point or two shy of our office projection. And, I might add, the highest since Congress made changes in how we measure voter turnout.

I think every Republican has to look at the turnout figures on the Democrat side and say some version of, “It’s time to get to work. That’s a large number of people voting in the Democrat primary. Obviously the high visibility of the Obama vs. Clinton contest was driving that, combined with the McCain nomination being long-since settled, but even so, we have to look at those numbers and respond with more work and more ideas. We can take nothing for granted.

MH: Was there anything in the results in Bob Kelleher's win in the Republican Senate race or John Driscoll's race in the Democratic House race that raises any red flags for your office, given how unexpected these results were?

Brad Johnson: We certainly did have questions from some folks shortly after the primary. There were a few who wanted to blame the Kelleher situation on some problem with vote counting machines. But Montana has a number of counties that count their ballots by hand. The simple fact of the matter is that the results of the Senate primary in hand-count counties essentially mirrored those in the machine count counties. Kelleher won. Driscoll won. Figuring out why will be a great opportunity for professors and analysts. But they did win, and it was not a problem with the count.

I will take a moment here to say I believe that’s a trend which is highly destructive to democracy. On both sides – Republican and Democrat – when the results are not what we wanted, we blame the system rather than admit we could have lost. Democrats did it in 2004 in Ohio, a few Republicans have been doing it now in Montana… but what happens if those efforts succeed? What happens if the public comes to believe that the only legitimate election is one where your candidate wins? People will lose faith in the system of self government. That’s something I think we all want to prevent.

MH: You took some flack from the left during the last legislative session when you advocated for election workers and their reasonable proposal to close registration a mere two business days before the election. Did we see the kinds of backed up lines and overloaded staff on election day that we did in the fall of 2006? Will you be advocating for such legislation again, or do you think that we are just stuck with voter registration loading down our election offices on election day itself?

Brad Johnson: In the political world, we have a big debate going on about “everyone should be able to participate in an election, even if they forget to register up until the last minute” vs. “Voting is a responsibility, if you can’t be bothered to pay attention you should not take part.” I believe in voting as a responsibility, and I work every day toward increasing people’s informed, prepared participation. I also believe in increasing participation. That’s why I think HB281 in the 2007 session was such a good compromise. It still opened up the process much more – from 30 days before the election down to three. But it asked for just a little bit of prior preparation.

But none of that takes into account the technical part of election work. One thing that frustrates election workers everywhere is how little people outside the business understand what we do. The simple fact is that late registration is very, very hard for county election workers to implement in a way that preserves a smooth election process for the rest of the voters and also maintains the integrity of the process. But people outside don’t see that. They just see the “participation vs. responsibility” debate.

I have a responsibility to see the election workers’ perspective though. And their opinion was near-universal. 55 out of 56 county election administrators wanted to roll back the date of late registration. I won’t name names, but HIGHLY partisan Democrat election administrators wanted to see that deadline rolled back. On the other hand, relatively politically inactive Democrat election administrators also completely supported rolling back the date for late registration. As well, Republican election administrators supported rolling back the date. Election administrators of no party also supported it. Among the most highly-regarded election administrators in the state – of all political stripes – all said the deadline should be rolled back.

It’s not that I don’t understand the Democrats political position. What I don’t understand is why they were so unwilling to listen to a universal consensus from the people in the field.

And after all that, it absolutely must be said: we did far, far better this year. My office undertook a campaign of public service announcements – that never used my name, face or voice, I should add – encouraging voters to register early. As well, the major Presidential campaigns were all working on getting voters registered early. County election offices worked on getting voters registered early. And the team effort worked. Lines were shorter to non-existent in some counties. They moved faster. It was a good result. But we’d have an even better result if we closed registration on the Friday before the election.

MH: Some states are enacting measures to decrease the chances of voter fraud, such as photo ID's. Another concern in many states that isn't yet an issue in Montana but that may become one in the coming years is the possibility of illegal immigrants voting in our elections. Do you have any thoughts about these and other voter fraud concerns in Montana and how the legislature might take action? It is the position of Montana Headlines that every fraudulent ballot cast disenfranchises a voter who followed the rules. Any thoughts on that?

Brad Johnson: In the last legislative session, I testified on behalf of a bill that would have made it a felony to knowingly falsify information for the purpose of registering to vote. The Democrats killed it. That’s one step the legislature could take right away that would address many of the concerns you mentioned. I share your position that if voter fraud happens, it disenfranchises honest voters.

It should be pointed out that the non-partisan Legislative Audit Division identified instances of individuals who attempted to vote more than once, but those attempts were thwarted by the statewide voter registration database. The numbers of such attempts were small, but recent Montana elections often include very close races. Just this June, we had a House primary decided by one vote. Every attempt at violating election law is significant, and I would like to see the Legislature strengthen the penalties for it.

MH: A final election followup -- how far away are we from going to vote-by-mail in Montana? We've heard some pretty convincing arguments that fraud would actually be more difficult to perpetrate with an all-mail system as opposed to our current mix of absentee ballots, in-person voting at the precinct level, and early voting at election offices.

Brad Johnson: Montana’s local election officials tend to be strongly in favor of mail ballots. I think their arguments have merit – especially in regard to the savings to the taxpayer that could be realized. But I also think we don’t want to be too hasty about this. There are questions that need to be answered. Is the county paying for the return postage? Or the voter? If we make the voter pay for the stamp, is that the same thing as charging people money to vote? If not, then where does the money for postage come from? And does the expense of postage eat up the hoped-for savings?

More than all that, I’m not sure we can completely take away a traditional in-person polling place because it offers accommodations for Montanans with disabilities that simply can’t be offered with a mail ballot. And finally, there are just some folks like me who like doing things the old fashioned way, and voting in person.

So there are two sides to the story, and we don’t know the answer yet. I’d like to see us be quite thorough in studying the issue before making any decisions.

Read Part 2 of the interview with Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson here.

Duane Grimes -- Montana Headlines interview reprise-- full text

In May, Montana Headlines ran a 3-part series with Republican State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes as the first of a planned set of interviews with the Montana Republican Party's major candidates for state-wide office. One of our intentions at the time was to put the entire interview into a single post for ease of linking to it -- here it is in that one-post format.

Coming up this week is the Montana Headlines interview with Secretary of State Brad Johnson. We have made arrangements for further interviews -- stay tuned.

______________________________________________

MH: First of all, welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you very much for agreeing to do this interview.

Let's start with a basic question: What is a State Auditor, and why does Montana need one?

Duane Grimes: The State Auditor regulates the insurance and securities industries in the state of Montana. Every state has a similar position, though in many states it is called the Insurance Commissioner and is actually an appointed rather than an elected position. The responsibilities of the Auditor have everything to do with the affordability and accessibility of the things you depend on to protect your family, business and future. In election years, the race for Auditor often gets overshadowed by races ‘higher-up’ on the ballot such as U.S. Congress or Governor, which is unfortunate given that decisions made by the Auditor’s office affect the daily lives of nearly every Montanan.

My 9-year-old daughter earlier this year had to go to school and tell her teacher and classmates what the State Auditor did, so I had to boil it down. I told her that the Auditor "makes sure insurance companies keep their promises." She wrinkled up her nose because she didn't know what an ‘insurance company’ was. So I boiled it down even further, saying, "the Auditor helps people with some of the problems they have when they get in accidents or go to the hospital."

And that's what it is. Insurance is the promise of financial protection and allows us all to assume the inherent risks in life, anticipated or not, with some sort of safety net. The Auditor is your first line of protection to ‘insure’ that safety net is as promised. Most people I talk to say about the same thing, "When I needed the Auditor, I really needed help!"

Montana – and every state – needs some form of Insurance Commissioner to ensure that honest businesses can provide a variety of quality insurance options to consumers at reasonable prices, and that unscrupulous businesses are stopped and prosecuted.

MH: How many years has it been since Montana has had a Republican State Auditor? Why have Republicans not been as successful in recent years as Democrats in getting elected to this statewide office?

Duane Grimes: Well, it has been 16 years since we had Andrea Bennett, a Republican. She succeeded Sonny Omholt who had the job since before the 1972 Constitution. (As a matter of fact, some folks involved back then have told me it was Omholt's reputation and friendliness that caused the position of Auditor to be retained in the massive state government reorganization of the early 1970's.) Since term limits, for the last 16 years we have had Mark O’Keefe and John Morrison.

The candidate that initially ran against O’Keefe was an insurance agent and long time legislator from Stevensville, Fred Thomas, who was accused by O’Keefe of being the "fox in the henhouse," because of his insurance affiliation, and that is probably the reason Thomas lost. For his first term, Morrison ran against a Republican who didn't campaign at all, and then I lost to him in his reelection bid 4 years later in 2004. I later found out that no incumbent in a ‘mid-tier’ race like this has ever lost a re-election! Now the seat is open again in this 2008 race and I think I have a very good chance to win the race.

MH: So our Republican Sec. State Brad Johnson should be feeling pretty good right now, if no incumbent in a mid-tier has lost, historically?

Duane Grimes: Historically, sure, but I’m certainly not going to jinx Brad’s campaign by making any predictions! It also used to be true that you had to win Yellowstone County to win a statewide race: both Brad and Jon Tester broke that truism. The political landscape in Montana continues to change, and candidates can take nothing for granted.

MH: You are not an insurance agent, so you can't fairly be accused of partiality towards the insurance industry, but your reference to O'Keefe accusing Fred Thomas of being a "fox in the henhouse" just because of what he had done for a living is rather amusing.

This is not to make light of any unfair criticisms that Thomas had to endure. Rather, what is interesting is that Democratic candidates for Attorney General are often closely tied to the Montana Trial Lawyers Association -- and that Democratic candidates for State Superintendent routinely are very closely tied to the Montana Education Association. And yet, we don't tend to hear "fox in the henhouse" comments about those particular races. We are told that their opinion should have particular weight since lawyers understand the law and educators understand education. And yet if someone with experience in the insurance industry is interested in being what amounts to an insurance commissioner, it is automatically assumed that a nefarious scheme is afoot.

Don't worry -- you don't have to respond to that -- it's just some MH editorializing.

Getting back to your own situation, you clearly see the Auditor's role as being an advocate for Montana consumers of insurance and investment products -- and that is as it should be. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, aren't consumers best served by having a climate where insurance companies see Montana as a good place for them to do business? Most insurance companies seem to want clear ground rules that aren't going to turn into shifting sands, which includes a stable regulatory climate. If Montana is seen as a stable place for insurance companies to do business, won't there will be more of them competing to offer better products at lower prices?

Having a stable, open, and businesslike environment to encourage good insurance companies would seem to be important. You don't need to have a stance toward insurance and investment companies that is adversarial from the outset in order to do your job as Auditor to help Montana consumers, do you?

Duane Grimes: I believe that the best help an Auditor can bring consumers is by ensuring that there is a stable marketplace; the two go hand-in-hand. If honest businesses are able to operate in Montana and be successful, more businesses will open or move here and thus increase competition, ultimately making consumers the big winners.

Interestingly, my opponent has already begun to accuse me, in her words, of being “all too happy to carry the industry’s water,” in an attempt to portray me as ‘anti-consumer.’ I believe that an effective insurance commissioner should have open lines of communication with the small-business community rather than be reflexively combative from the start simply as political posturing. Arbitrarily treating small business – which is what most local insurance agents are – as the enemy is the wrong way to go about being a successful regulator and successful advocate for consumers.

MH: You've been running a positive campaign, not criticizing past State Auditors or the current Auditor's office, and that's one of the reasons that Montana Headlines has been particularly supportive of your candidacy. We like positive approaches to politics and government.

But for the benefit of readers, let's talk in general "compare and contrast" terms. For instance, the average educated Montana voter can make some fairly accurate general predictions (regarding basic things like taxes, spending, and government regulations) about how a "mainstream Montana Democrat" would approach, say, being governor, when compared to a "mainstream Montana Republican." That same educated Montana voter probably couldn't do the same, though, when talking about the State Auditor position.

Given what the Auditor's office does and given the current philosophical and policy positions of the Republican and Democratic Parties in Montana, could you -- as a reasonable mainstream Montana Republican – give some generalizations about how a Republican might approach the office of the State Auditor differently from a Democrat?

Duane Grimes: The simple answer to this question is in the general perceptions about the role of government that the political parties take: government solutions (Democrat) vs. private sector solutions (Republican). To a point, this may be valid. For instance, in the huge area of health care reform it is critical that we foster free market solutions rather than big government approaches. Those free market solutions really do work by the way, and help hold down costs. There are many ways the free market is not being allowed to function properly and I look forward to collaboratively addressing them.

But to back up a minute, in the bigger picture…this position is one of a regulator, so really the political affiliation is much less important than the personal philosophy and approach that a particular candidate has to the position. The State Auditor must be tough, fair, and impartial in their duties, working for the betterment of all Montanans, regardless of political affiliation.

The second thing, which also is apolitical and so vitally important, is how the next Auditor will administer the agency. The Office has a staff of great people, but I believe that they need to be recognized, understood, and engaged with the organizational leader to operate efficiently and strategically for the benefit of the consumer. The office currently averages over 700 complaint calls per week, and I intend to take some of those calls personally to ensure I stay engaged with the daily concerns of Montana consumers. A hands-on, knowledgeable approach to administration of the office will be crucial to the effective operation of this regulatory agency.

MH: This is an important point -- the job of State Auditor is to regulate the insurance and investment industries in Montana. Sometimes detractors of the Republican Party think that just because we believe in the power of free markets and individual liberty, that Republicans somehow won't do the jobs they were elected to do if they involve government regulation. This is simply not the case -- most Republicans elected or appointed to positions like these tend to be "strict constructionists," so to speak, faithfully and fairly following the letter and intent of the laws passed by state legislatures.

Duane Grimes: Agreed. Belief in a free market economy is not a belief in no regulations and no laws. We have an established legal framework; businesses that do not abide by these laws should be shut down. Let me be clear: Businesses that attempt to cheat or defraud Montanans will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is an area where I believe the current Auditor has done a commendable job.

MH: You have been rightly critical of the Bush administration for taking steps to federalize some aspects of insurance regulation. You stated: "To have all the states regulated by a central federal bureaucracy is bad for Montana because all our oversight would be west and east-coast driven. Montana consumers would be caught in the middle, ending up losing the most."

Montana Headlines is all for state and local control whenever possible, so this news was disturbing. For those who aren't familiar with this recent move by the federal government to usurp what has traditionally been the prerogative of individual states, could you give some examples of how this change in federal regulation (which it sounds like is being done solely by the Executive Branch, and not even by Congress) will affect Montanans?

Duane Grimes: Fortunately, this is currently simply a proposal from the U.S. Treasury Department and many of its components need approval of Congress before being implemented. This would include the establishment of an Office of Insurance Oversight within the Department of the Treasury. While the proposal has many strong backers, there are also many, like me, against such federal takeover of an industry that, I believe, works best when regulated at a state level.

MH: To follow up on that, is there anything that Montana can do -- and specifically the office of the State Auditor -- either to reverse this decision or to mitigate its effects on our state?

Duane Grimes: There are things Montana’s State Auditor can and should do to ‘mitigate its effects on our state.’
Our current State Auditor has spoken out against this proposal and I will uphold that stance should I be elected; additionally, the Auditor has a great deal to do with how federal policy changes are received by the State Legislature as well as has input into the national model legislation.

It is extremely important for the Auditor to understand the technical issues and driving forces behind proposals such as this, as well as be very engaged in the process in order to help direct the policy in the direction that best impacts all Montanans. Working collaboratively with, instead of against, good companies that want to do business here is the best way to ensure that consumers have good insurance options available to them, and Montanans should be able to meet face-to-fact with the person who is their ‘first line of defense’ rather than having to call a 1-800 number in Washington, D.C.


MH: You've been traveling the state for months, going to every county Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner to talk to Republican party faithful, and meeting Montanans of all political persuasions. Are there any common themes that you are hearing from voters that have affected how you are thinking about the job of State Auditor and about what the next Auditor needs to do to respond to those concerns?

Duane Grimes: As I have talked with folks across the political spectrum including small business people, families, ranchers, and seniors, I have come to truly appreciate the depth to which the actions taken by the State Auditor’s office affect every single person at the core of their (financial) security: one’s ability to receive healthcare, making an honest living, becoming financially independent, ensuring their families’ and their children’s futures.

This race is easy to overlook when compared to such high-profile ones as President or Governor which are also on the ballot, but it has humbled me to realize how vitally important a tough, fair and impartial regulator is to the daily lives of every Montanan.

MH: You were the first Montana Republican candidate, at least that we noted, to make a point of reaching out to bloggers on your website. How have you seen the Internet affect your efforts to get your message out in 2008, compared to your previous run for State Auditor and your previous legislative races?

Duane Grimes: My two sons think this whole blogging thing is great and are excited that Dad is finally getting into it. This race isn’t as high-profile as others; we don’t get the media coverage others do. But it’s extremely important for voters to know how the State Auditor’s office affects their daily lives and blogs are a great outlet.

In that way, it has been night and day the difference I’ve found that the internet, including websites, e-mail, and blogs have provided the ability for myself as a statewide candidate to reach so many more voters. Hopefully, in a small way, this has helped voters be more informed about the issues of the Auditor’s office and feel they can reach out directly to me as a candidate.

MH: To end on a lighter note, there has been a great war of ideas "raging" in the Montana blogosphere in recent days about "Operation Chaos." At the risk of putting you on the outs with Rush Limbaugh and at least one Montana blogger who feels differently, can Montana Headlines ask whether you want Republicans to turn out on June 3rd to vote for Duane Grimes in your (unopposed) primary -- or whether you think your candidacy would be better served by having Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton to foment chaos in the Democratic ranks?

There's no right answer to this question -- but the future peace and tranquility of the Montana blogosphere does depend on it.

Duane Grimes: Frankly, I don’t think having Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton and potentially fomenting ‘chaos’ in the Democratic ranks would have a huge impact on the race for Montana State Auditor! (Nor would being on the outs with Rush Limbaugh bother me too much… but it would be good campaign press…!)

This may sound like the politically-correct answer, but Montanans have the freedom to choose which ballot they want to vote in the primary. While I am all-for promoting ‘peace and tranquility’ in the Montana blogosphere, I need every vote I can get!

This is a great opportunity for folks to get in the habit of voting Grimes!

MH: It's funny that you say that -- a contemplated MH post at one point was going to be the announcement of "Operation Practice Voting Republican." It doesn't sound as exciting as "Chaos," though, so that post never got off the ground.

So, any final comments for MH readers?

Duane Grimes: Yes, and thank you. I would like to take the opportunity to directly address an aspect of the healthcare debate: how do we stem rising costs?

There are many ideas out there about how to see that all citizens have access to health insurance, and addressing this challenge is a key issue in the race for State Auditor.

But let’s backup a minute. Isn’t the primary cause of the lack of access to affordable health insurance the ever-rising cost of healthcare for all of us? This is the root of the problem and until those in a position to do so – such as the State Auditor and others – take a stand to fix the system, basic healthcare for Montana families and citizens both young and old will only become more out of reach.

One of the biggest factors in rising costs is the lack of free-market competitiveness in our health care system. But how can these costs be stemmed? I believe that one way is by adding transparency to the process.

We know the costs of virtually everything else we pay for – a loaf of bread, an oil change – but have a hard time getting prices and out of pocket costs when we need vital healthcare. If we actually know those costs we would be able to compare prices and be more informed consumers. Transparency of costs would allow for a more competitive health marketplace.

There are a number of efforts currently involved in transparency, led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt and the National Institutes of Health at the federal level, as well as the health care forum and legislative committees here in Montana, all of which I will work with to make our health care system and its costs more transparent to every citizen.

Frankly, the State Auditor has the ability to be a key player in the health care costs equation and, in fact, has a responsibility to Montana citizens to ensure a balanced marketplace of health insurance options. By improving the insurance climate through tough but fair and impartial regulation, consumers will win by having a better choice of affordable insurance options and honest businesses will want to do business here. These are the best means to work toward long-term solutions to holding down the costs of health care for everyone.

MH: That's a very interesting angle to approaching health care costs through the Auditor's office. It will be good to watch as these and other issues develop during the course of the campaign. And that's a good place to wrap things up for now.

Thank-you again for taking the time for this interview -- it would be nice to do an update a few months down the road if you have time. Good luck in the campaign.

Un-be-lie-va-ble -- Driscoll and Kelleher

Tuesday's primaries show what strange things can happen when there is a combination of a power vacuum, some name recognition, and a multi-candidate primary.

On the Democratic side, the appointed sacrificial lamb meant to take on Denny Rehberg in the U.S. Congress race has been Jim Hunt. John Driscoll has pulled off a stunning upset over Hunt, in spite of the fact that Driscoll neither raised money nor campaigned.

On the Republican side, the race in the 6-way primary for U.S. Senate seems to have incredibly gone to Bob Kelleher, in spite of the fact that he didn't campaign and (to put it mildly,) has no support with the Republican Party grassroots due to his past Democratic and Green Party candidacies. Most active Republicans had expected the race to come down to a contest between Rep. Mike Lange and Kirk Bushman, both of Billings, and both of whom had worked the usual Republican venues across the state very hard.

What do the races have in common?

First, in both races, no-one prominent stepped forward to take on an entrenched incumbent. For Republicans, where was, say, a Marc Racicot to take on Max Baucus? For Democrats, no-one of the prominence of even a John Morrison was willing to take on Rehberg. Anyone who has not held state-wide office before is fighting an uphill battle when running for a major federal office, even if tacitly or openly endorsed by the party.

Second, in both races, having multiple candidates lowered the bar of what was needed to win to a plurality of votes -- in the case of the Republican primary, a combination of a low Republican turnout and having 6 names on the ballot allowed Kelleher to win with only about 27,000 votes, or 35% of the total.

Third, in both races, the supposed "front-runners" didn't have enough money to make up for their lack of name recognition. Voters won't generally vote for someone whose name they don't recognize.

Which brings us to the final point -- both of the men who won had natural name recognition. Kelleher has become a sort of legend as a perennial candidate -- the sort who gets enough attention to have his name register in the subconscious of the casual voter, but who doesn't get enough attention to attract antipathy. Driscoll is a former PSC commissioner who would, even with that kind of a regional position, register in the subconscious of people who read the newspaper from time to time.

If anyone believes that there aren't a lot of casual voters who just randomly vote for a name, just note the case of Joshua Garnett: a local Billings truck driver whose only news coverage was that he was a convicted felon wanted for parole violations in another state, and who relatively quickly dropped out. Garnett received 2700 votes, or 4% of the total.

So now, Republicans are stuck with a U.S. Senate candidate who might have a hard time promising to "protect and defend the Constitution," since he believes we should have a parliamentary-style government, one with zero ability to raise even token amounts of money from Republicans. And the Democrats find themselves with a candidate who has pledged not to campaign or raise money -- not exactly a formula for setting things up for a real challenge to Rehberg in 2 years.

We assume that Mr. Kelleher would be preferable to Sen. Baucus -- we'll have to take a closer look at the former. But don't look for him to have any financial or other support of any significance from the larger Republican party.

One thing that wasn't a surprise was the 20% showing for Ron Paul. It is Paul's strongest showing of the season, and reflects an absent McCain campaign that didn't excite many Montana Republicans to begin with. But the solid McCain win should indicate that the vast majority of our national delegates should go to McCain.

___________________________

Update: Jay over at LITW questions the MH assumption that Kelleher would be preferable to Baucus. He makes a good point -- it was a hasty comment based on a lack of information. It would have been better to remain silent.

The main point was that Kelleher won't be getting Republican support -- the other comment reflected a desire not to be hasty in writing off Kelleher before learning something about him.

We will become familiarized with Kelleher soon enough. From the bizarre buzz that has come our way so far, no-one should hold their breath waiting for MH to endorse Kelleher. In any way.

Still waiting for Lt. Gov. Bohlinger to endorse some Montana Republicans

Montana Headlines has taken the position that Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger, who claims to be a Republican, needs to do some things that it is reasonable for a prominent Republican to do. Like support and campaign for Republicans in hotly contested races. And we would be looking for real help, not "help" that would actually hurt the Republican candidates in question.

Lt. Gov. Bohlinger did admittedly endorse Sen. McCain for President -- at least in the Republican primary. Given that Montana will go easily for Sen. McCain, this isn't particularly bold (although if he continues to support Sen. McCain as Democratic rhetoric ramps up against McCain, can we assume that this is a Bohlinger endorsement of a "third term for Bush?)

But lay presidential politics aside. We have been waiting for Lt. Gov. Bohlinger to speak out in favor of Montana Republicans running for office in competitive races. We can understand it if he doesn't endorse Roy Brown for governor, since he is running on the Democratic ticket. But what about other races? Will Bohlinger endorse Taylor Brown for state senate or other Republicans running in competitive races that will determine control of the state legislature?

Will he campaign against Sen. Baucus? Or will he endorse Grimes for Auditor, Johnson for Secretary of State, Herman for OPI, or the Republican AG candidate?

We can cross the last one off the list, since Bohlinger has endorsed trial lawyer Mike Wheat for AG. Oh well -- he still has quite a few opportunities to burnish his "Republican credentials."

Duane Grimes -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 3 of 3

Read Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

____________________________

MH: You've been traveling the state for months, going to every county Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner to talk to Republican party faithful, and meeting Montanans of all political persuasions. Are there any common themes that you are hearing from voters that have affected how you are thinking about the job of State Auditor and about what the next Auditor needs to do to respond to those concerns?

Duane Grimes: As I have talked with folks across the political spectrum including small business people, families, ranchers, and seniors, I have come to truly appreciate the depth to which the actions taken by the State Auditor’s office affect every single person at the core of their (financial) security: one’s ability to receive healthcare, making an honest living, becoming financially independent, ensuring their families’ and their children’s futures.

This race is easy to overlook when compared to such high-profile ones as President or Governor which are also on the ballot, but it has humbled me to realize how vitally important a tough, fair and impartial regulator is to the daily lives of every Montanan.

MH: You were the first Montana Republican candidate, at least that we noted, to make a point of reaching out to bloggers on your website. How have you seen the Internet affect your efforts to get your message out in 2008, compared to your previous run for State Auditor and your previous legislative races?

Duane Grimes: My two sons think this whole blogging thing is great and are excited that Dad is finally getting into it. This race isn’t as high-profile as others; we don’t get the media coverage others do. But it’s extremely important for voters to know how the State Auditor’s office affects their daily lives and blogs are a great outlet.

In that way, it has been night and day the difference I’ve found that the internet, including websites, e-mail, and blogs have provided the ability for myself as a statewide candidate to reach so many more voters. Hopefully, in a small way, this has helped voters be more informed about the issues of the Auditor’s office and feel they can reach out directly to me as a candidate.

MH: To end on a lighter note, there has been a great war of ideas "raging" in the Montana blogosphere in recent days about "Operation Chaos." At the risk of putting you on the outs with Rush Limbaugh and at least one Montana blogger who feels differently, can Montana Headlines ask whether you want Republicans to turn out on June 3rd to vote for Duane Grimes in your (unopposed) primary -- or whether you think your candidacy would be better served by having Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton to foment chaos in the Democratic ranks?

There's no right answer to this question -- but the future peace and tranquility of the Montana blogosphere does depend on it.

Duane Grimes: Frankly, I don’t think having Republicans vote for Hillary Clinton and potentially fomenting ‘chaos’ in the Democratic ranks would have a huge impact on the race for Montana State Auditor! (Nor would being on the outs with Rush Limbaugh bother me too much… but it would be good campaign press…!)

This may sound like the politically-correct answer, but Montanans have the freedom to choose which ballot they want to vote in the primary. While I am all-for promoting ‘peace and tranquility’ in the Montana blogosphere, I need every vote I can get!

This is a great opportunity for folks to get in the habit of voting Grimes!

MH: It's funny that you say that -- a contemplated MH post at one point was going to be the announcement of "Operation Practice Voting Republican." It doesn't sound as exciting as "Chaos," though, so that post never got off the ground.

So, any final comments for MH readers?

Duane Grimes: Yes, and thank you. I would like to take the opportunity to directly address an aspect of the healthcare debate: how do we stem rising costs?

There are many ideas out there about how to see that all citizens have access to health insurance, and addressing this challenge is a key issue in the race for State Auditor.

But let’s backup a minute. Isn’t the primary cause of the lack of access to affordable health insurance the ever-rising cost of healthcare for all of us? This is the root of the problem and until those in a position to do so – such as the State Auditor and others – take a stand to fix the system, basic healthcare for Montana families and citizens both young and old will only become more out of reach.

One of the biggest factors in rising costs is the lack of free-market competitiveness in our health care system. But how can these costs be stemmed? I believe that one way is by adding transparency to the process.

We know the costs of virtually everything else we pay for – a loaf of bread, an oil change – but have a hard time getting prices and out of pocket costs when we need vital healthcare. If we actually know those costs we would be able to compare prices and be more informed consumers. Transparency of costs would allow for a more competitive health marketplace.

There are a number of efforts currently involved in transparency, led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt and the National Institutes of Health at the federal level, as well as the health care forum and legislative committees here in Montana, all of which I will work with to make our health care system and its costs more transparent to every citizen.

Frankly, the State Auditor has the ability to be a key player in the health care costs equation and, in fact, has a responsibility to Montana citizens to ensure a balanced marketplace of health insurance options. By improving the insurance climate through tough but fair and impartial regulation, consumers will win by having a better choice of affordable insurance options and honest businesses will want to do business here. These are the best means to work toward long-term solutions to holding down the costs of health care for everyone.

MH: That's a very interesting angle to approaching health care costs through the Auditor's office. It will be good to watch as these and other issues develop during the course of the campaign. And that's a good place to wrap things up for now.

Thank-you again for taking the time for this interview -- it would be nice to do an update a few months down the road if you have time. Good luck in the campaign.