Steve Daines -- the right stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

Operation Chaos -- an alternative view

Most of what follows was originally written as a response to the Hammond Report post advocating a Montana "Operation Chaos" -- a response that was shelved for the time being (but saved, never knowing when a slow day might make it worth writing about.) Then, Chuck Johnson made the topic briefly famous today, and nothing else is on the burner right now, so here goes:

....................

Rush Limbaugh is wrong on this one for a number of reasons. He's certainly not thinking about what is best for Montana's Republican candidates or the specific political situation here in Montana.

First, Sen. Clinton is hardly the more defeatable candidate -- in fact, there's a strong case to be made that she's the more formidable of the two, so why help make that case to the Democratic superdelegates?

Second, isn't anyone else around here old-fashioned? Whatever happened to the idea (around which the Montana GOP caucus was designed) that each party has the right to choose its own candidate? There is something a bit dishonorable to an old traditionalist about intentionally meddling in another party's nomination process. The fact that it has been done before, by both parties, doesn't change that.

Third, does chaos (even if successfully produced -- a doubtful proposition) really work in our favor? Obama continues to lead, and the buzz of an active campaign continues to bring lots of money into his coffers. Democrats are registering in droves to vote in this contest that is dragging out. Are we supposed to be wild about that, and interested in perpetuating this endless Democratic voter registration drive? Whoever registers now is just more likely to vote for Democrats again in the fall.

Fourth, if Montana were to follow the trend from every other state in the region, Obama should by all rights win the primary here. Since Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, helping Sen. Clinton win Montana would only give Montana Democrats cover in the fall if Obama turns out to be as unpopular in Montana as the Montana Democrats already running from him seem to believe. They can just say, "don't blame us, we wanted the more moderate candidate!"

Finally, we have some important primaries ourselves. While Republicans are busy voting for Clinton, do we want Ron Paul to embarrass McCain in our own primary? Does it matter who we have facing off against Baucus and what kind of a campaign that Republican runs, even in the face of defeat? And don't we want Republicans to vote Republican even in uncontested primaries so those candidates will have that extra name recognition and "brand loyalty" when it comes to the fall ballot?

There seems to be a lot not to like about Operation Chaos -- even if one ignores the ethical sphere.

But then, Rush is the brilliant one. And Rush is interested in the big national race and the attention it gets him -- whereas the parochial Montana Headlines focus is on how best to get Montanans invested in our own statewide candidates, legislative candidates, and local candidates.

Ask any Republican running for office in Montana (including those in uncontested primaries) whether or not they want Republicans to go to the polls in June and fill in the circle next to their name. It would be surprising if any of them actually thought it would do them more good to have Republicans turn out in droves to vote for the Presidential candidate favored by the governor and his brother.

When challenges aren't constructive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Washburn (or Clint Regenold) for HD 69

In the past, Montana Headlines has asked liberals to define "wingnut" and other names they call conservatives here in Montana.

While most of the time such labels are loosely and unfairly applied, perhaps this is a good definition of wingnut mentality, if there ever was one.

We're all for principles, and for principled stands taken by politicians who go against the grain and are willing to stand alone. Every legislator ultimately has to vote his conscience, and occasionally that will clash with someone else's idea of practicality.

But Rep. Roger Koopman crossed a line when he created what amounts to an "enemies list" made up of his fellow legislators. It would be one thing if Koopman could rationally believe that conservative Republicans of his defined level of ideological purity could win a majority in the Montana House and Senate. But he knows good and well that they can't. Either that, or he is delusional.

This delusion was doubtless born of the Ron Paul performance in the recent limited Montana GOP caucus. Paul came in second, and a great number of his followers honestly (and incredibly) believe that Paul would have won in an open primary election. Given that Paul's best performance in a primary (as opposed to a caucus) rarely broke into double digits, this kind of self-delusion is truly breathtaking.

Proof of Ron Paul involvement in this project is the involvement of Dave Hart, Ron Paul's state director. During the caucus campaign, Hart and other Ron Paul supporters indicated that they were wanting to work within the party constructively.

If this is what they meant by working constructively within the party, then we'd like to see what they might mean by by destructive.

What really set the blood to boiling around Montana Headlines was the inclusion of Rep. Elsie Arnzten of Billings. We're not as familiar with the other Republicans on Koopman's list, but with all due disrespect to Rep. Koopman, he doesn't have to run in Arnzten's district, which leans heavily Democratic. Let's just say that Koopman would go down to spectacular defeat in this district where Arnzten wins handily.

And Koopman has the nerve to call the legislators on his list "socialists." This, after the Republican caucus in the House held together for one 51-49 party line vote after another throughout the last legislative session. Rest assured, given the fact that the more conservative wing of the Republican caucus narrowly won the leadership elections and set the agenda, the more moderate members of the caucus were undoubtedly the ones taking the biggest political risks in those votes of party loyalty -- not the Roger Koopmans in the House.

Koopman has called for "real conservatives" to challenge the legislators on his list. Of course, if any are fool-hardy enough to try, they will likely be trounced.

We, on the other hand, would like to see Rep. Koopman be successfully challenged by a "real Republican" -- i.e. one who understands what Ronald Reagan meant by the 11th commandment: Thou shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican.

Now we're just taking a wild stab here, and we in general don't like things that start with "What Ronald Reagan would do is...." But we imagine that Reagan would say that Koopman was most certainly "speaking ill" by calling his fellow conservative Republicans "socialists," just because they don't meet his standard of ideological purity. It is a disgrace even to allow Koopman to claim the mantle of "conservative." We're not sure what to call his kind of extreme approach, but it is anything but conservative.

One last thing -- we've seen things on blogs and comments that say that Koopman is speaking for or representative of "the Montana Republican Party."

The truth is that Koopman is speaking for a distinct minority of the Republican Party. Maybe 10% at most -- albeit a very vocal 10%. It isn't that we don't accept that 10% in the Montana GOP. We do and should, and we value the most right-leaning members of the party, and we should value anything truly conservative and Constitutional that they bring to the table. They are a part of the "big tent" every bit as much as moderate to liberal Republicans are.

But the real voice of the overwhelming majority of Montana Republicans is reflected not by Koopman, but rather by GOP Chairman Erik Iverson's comments:

Asked if he agreed with Koopman’s labeling of the 14 targeted Republicans as “socialist incumbent ‘Republicans,’ ” Iverson said, “I refer to them as Republicans. We’re a big-tent party. We’ve got room for all Republicans of all types of ideologies.”

Good for Iverson -- we couldn't agree more. Don't get us wrong -- we are fine with having Roger Koopmans in the party and in the legislature if they can get elected and represent their constituencies. That's not why we are endorsing his opponents. It is not right to purge people of Koopman's ideology or voting record any more than it is right to purge moderates from the party.

But it is perfectly fine with us if the voters in HD 69 rid us of a Republican who isn't willing to work within the Republican coalition, but who seems bent on destroying it in favor of a permanent Republican minority. We know nothing about Washburn or Regenold -- but let's hope that one of them emerges as a consensus candidate of sane Republicanism in that district, and at the very least gives Koopman a taste of what he is advocating for the legislators on his enemies list.

Taylor Brown for SD 22

Very happy news for Republicans across the state this week, as Taylor Brown put an end to rumors and speculation, confirming that he is indeed running for state Senate District 22, as many had hoped he would.

SD 22 is one of the monstrosities created by the gerrymandering redistricting committee controlled by Democrats after the 2000 census. It is about 150 miles long, starting in the southern suburbs of Billings, going down the Yellowstone Valley, picking up Colstrip and Forsyth, and ending on the outskirts of Miles City. It has parts of no fewer than 4 different counties.

This is a district currently held by a Democrat, Lane Larson, but Taylor Brown stands a as good a chance as anyone to defeat an incumbent in that district.

Brown is a long-time ag broadcaster, and owner of the Northern Broadcasting System (which included the Northern News Network and the Northern Ag Network) based in Billings. As such, he is a household name throughout the extensive rural reaches of this district. For those who spend any amount of time on the road in rural Montana, listening to local radio stations, Taylor's name and voice are pretty familiar.

He is also just a good guy who is almost impossible not to like. He understands rural and small-town concerns in a way that few candidates probably could, since he lives daily with the news and reports that affect so many of his future constituents.

But he also knows what it is like to run a large business enterprise based in Billings, and thus is in a position to understand his Billings constituents as well.

SD 22 was not drawn with the purpose of grouping people together with common regional interests -- the redistricting commission had no such concerns. It was drawn to try to make a district competitive for Democrats, and it worked for them in the 2004 election.

But if someone is going to represent this sprawling district with its very different segments along its length, it would be hard to think of someone better prepared to do the job justice than Taylor Brown. We'll be following his campaign closely and when the inevitable dirty attacks come (they'll think of something,) we will be a part of responding to them.

The attacks will come not just because Democrats are facing an uphill battle in their attempt to retain control of the state Senate this election -- but because Taylor Brown is a natural future statewide candidate, with his high name-recognition levels and positive image around the state, particularly throughout rural Montana.

But every journey starts with a first step, and this is Brown's first run for public office. Republicans around the state should wish him well, write him a check, and help watch his back.