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.
Showing posts with label 2008 U.S. House election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 U.S. House election. Show all posts
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Unbreakable -- Congressman Rehberg 's re-election bid
Missoulapolis and Western Word have already commented on the excellent article in the Missoula Independent on U.S. Congressman Denny Rehberg.
The article contains plenty of negative comments from Democrats about Rehberg, but they pale by comparison to the positive portrayal of Rehberg that can't help but come through. And those negative comments generally have a ring of desperation, such as this one from California trial lawyer (and now cowboy-hat-wearing Montana Dem chairman) Dennis McDonald:
"He’s been nothing but a lap dog for president Bush since day one."
The trouble is that the left has been trying the "lapdog for Bush" mantra for quite some time and it isn't sticking -- in no small part because it isn't true. As Montana Headlines has pointed out in previous posts, an at-large Congressman from a small state like Montana is wise to vote with his party caucus a good amount of the time -- otherwise Rehberg's legislation wouldn't have the support of the GOP caucus that it needs in order to pass.
But Rehberg doesn't have a particularly high ranking of party-line voting for someone who is a Republican from a conservative-leaning state. According to the Washington Post's system, he has a lifetime rating of 92.3%. This might seem high, until one realizes that this puts him as 266th out of 442 members on the Washington Post's list of party-line voters. How often does the average Democratic Congressman vote with the Democratic Party? Answer: 92.3% of the time -- does this perhaps mean that Dennis McDonald believes that his party is made up of lapdogs?
Anyone who has been watching Rehberg grow into the role of Montana's titular Republican Party leader can't help but be impressed with how he is handling the role. The Independent piece does a good job of conveying how sure on his feet Rehberg is, and how at ease he is in almost any setting in Montana. It also portrays accurately just how hard-working Rehberg is, with a tireless schedule of traveling the state, listening to constituents and keeping his finger on the pulse of places as diverse as Butte and Broadus.
Is Rehberg wealthy? Sure, he is. Given that the Democratic Party is the party of the über-wealthy, it is hard to imagine why the Dems would want to try to make an issue out of that, but it seems that they do. Of course, their guy Jim Hunt (as we pointed out before) is so poor that he was able to dash off a 5 figure check just to make sure Justice Jim Nelson kept his job looking out for trial lawyers' interests on the Montana Supreme Court in his last election.
But the best quotation of the article on this score comes from Bob Brown:
Jim Hunt will have a tough time making the case that Rehberg has lost touch, adds Bob Brown.
“Rehberg is far more in touch with Montana and Montana values than Jim,” Brown says. “Jim’s certainly a competent guy, but Denny has the enormous advantage of having traveled this whole state and having been a student of the political process both in Washington, D.C., and in Montana.
A fellow who has spent most of his life as an attorney in Helena is more in touch than Dennis Rehberg?”
The writer, Rob Harper, adds this comment of his own after having watched Rehberg in action:
The better question might be: Is anyone better at staying in touch than Dennis Rehberg?
Answer: Right now? No.
When it comes to staying in touch with every corner of Montana, there is no-one else in Rehberg's league. Like the professional that he is, he will concentrate on his job, and as a politician he will concentrate on one election at a time. But in this year of the Sen. Baucus cash juggernaut, it is hard not to look a bit into the distance at 2012, realizing that Rehberg will likely face off against Sen. Tester with 6 straight winning statewide elections under his belt and having spent more than 2 decades building his statewide support and organization.
The article contains plenty of negative comments from Democrats about Rehberg, but they pale by comparison to the positive portrayal of Rehberg that can't help but come through. And those negative comments generally have a ring of desperation, such as this one from California trial lawyer (and now cowboy-hat-wearing Montana Dem chairman) Dennis McDonald:
"He’s been nothing but a lap dog for president Bush since day one."
The trouble is that the left has been trying the "lapdog for Bush" mantra for quite some time and it isn't sticking -- in no small part because it isn't true. As Montana Headlines has pointed out in previous posts, an at-large Congressman from a small state like Montana is wise to vote with his party caucus a good amount of the time -- otherwise Rehberg's legislation wouldn't have the support of the GOP caucus that it needs in order to pass.
But Rehberg doesn't have a particularly high ranking of party-line voting for someone who is a Republican from a conservative-leaning state. According to the Washington Post's system, he has a lifetime rating of 92.3%. This might seem high, until one realizes that this puts him as 266th out of 442 members on the Washington Post's list of party-line voters. How often does the average Democratic Congressman vote with the Democratic Party? Answer: 92.3% of the time -- does this perhaps mean that Dennis McDonald believes that his party is made up of lapdogs?
Anyone who has been watching Rehberg grow into the role of Montana's titular Republican Party leader can't help but be impressed with how he is handling the role. The Independent piece does a good job of conveying how sure on his feet Rehberg is, and how at ease he is in almost any setting in Montana. It also portrays accurately just how hard-working Rehberg is, with a tireless schedule of traveling the state, listening to constituents and keeping his finger on the pulse of places as diverse as Butte and Broadus.
Is Rehberg wealthy? Sure, he is. Given that the Democratic Party is the party of the über-wealthy, it is hard to imagine why the Dems would want to try to make an issue out of that, but it seems that they do. Of course, their guy Jim Hunt (as we pointed out before) is so poor that he was able to dash off a 5 figure check just to make sure Justice Jim Nelson kept his job looking out for trial lawyers' interests on the Montana Supreme Court in his last election.
But the best quotation of the article on this score comes from Bob Brown:
Jim Hunt will have a tough time making the case that Rehberg has lost touch, adds Bob Brown.
“Rehberg is far more in touch with Montana and Montana values than Jim,” Brown says. “Jim’s certainly a competent guy, but Denny has the enormous advantage of having traveled this whole state and having been a student of the political process both in Washington, D.C., and in Montana.
A fellow who has spent most of his life as an attorney in Helena is more in touch than Dennis Rehberg?”
The writer, Rob Harper, adds this comment of his own after having watched Rehberg in action:
The better question might be: Is anyone better at staying in touch than Dennis Rehberg?
Answer: Right now? No.
When it comes to staying in touch with every corner of Montana, there is no-one else in Rehberg's league. Like the professional that he is, he will concentrate on his job, and as a politician he will concentrate on one election at a time. But in this year of the Sen. Baucus cash juggernaut, it is hard not to look a bit into the distance at 2012, realizing that Rehberg will likely face off against Sen. Tester with 6 straight winning statewide elections under his belt and having spent more than 2 decades building his statewide support and organization.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Steve Doherty -- the left's latest candidate
Even thought it is hardly the most interesting thing we could write about, Montana Headlines would be remiss not to take note of the latest prospective Dem candidate for Montana's lone U.S. House seat: Steve Doherty.
It's hard to keep track of them all -- it seems like only yesterday that Mike Wheat supporters were astroturfing Montana blogs (including our own) by putting out "Mike Wheat for Congress!!" comments on unrelated threads. It apparently! Didn't create!! Enough Buzz!!! -- and Wheat is back to seeking the AG job.
It appears that the Democratic Party has decided that since they can't come up with a competitive candidate to challenge Rep. Rehberg, they might as well find one that makes their left flank giddy (to make up for the fact that the left will be laboring tirelessly to get Sen. Baucus re-elected -- a task that they will obediently do, but which makes the left decidedly ungiddy.)
It is interesting that a number of the names being floated have been trial lawyers. This is a bit yummy for Republicans, since the latest P-base poll reveals that the endorsement of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association carried the biggest negatives for a candidate of any of the advocacy groups respondents were asked about.
A full 49% of those polled said that such an endorsement would make them inclined to vote against said candidate, while a mere 17% said it would make them more likely to vote for that candidate. Did we mention that Doherty is a trial lawyer?
Also from the latest P-base polling, a whopping 92% of Montanans said that judges should remove themselves from hearing cases where an involved attorney contributed money to their campaigns. Given that the MTLA engages in systematic selection of the judges before whom they will hear cases (or who will decide precedents that will make their jobs easier) through massive campaign donations to judicial races, we think that it will be great to have a trial lawyer running in a high-profile race like the Congressional race. It will give us the chance to put the spotlight on the MTLA and the inordinate influence it has on the judicial and legislative life of Montana.
But back to Doherty. He is a "Founding Co-Chair" of the Progressive States Network. Others on the board include David Sirota (nuff said,) Ned Lamont (the guy who Moveon.org bankrolled to defeat Joe Lieberman in the Dem primary in Connecticut, but who got his clock cleaned by Lieberman in the general election,) Wes Boyd (President of Moveon.org iteself,) David Brock (the guy who made fortune and fame digging up juicy tidbits about Hillary Clinton for the American Spectator, and then used the revolving door to make more money and fame on the Dem circuit as a "former conservative.")
You get the idea. Progressive States Network is based in New York City and is funded by, well, we're not exactly sure, since such things aren't public knowledge. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But to be sure, when Doherty gets into the race, it will be interesting to watch where the reportable money comes from into his campaign. How much will come from Montana? Probably about as much as the 9% or so donations coming from Montana that fuel Sen. Baucus's campaign, we would imagine.
But what does the PSA stand for? After reading the information on the website, it sounds like they stand for having the government give lots of nice things to lots of people (presumably at least 51% of the voting public,) with it all paid for by more taxes on "the rich." Given how the left defines "rich," this translates into "hold onto your wallet, everyone."
We imagine that it will be childs' play for the Rehberg campaign to handle Doherty, should he choose to accept his sacrificial role.
A left-wing trial lawyer deeply involved in an east-coast-liberal Moveon.org subsidiary that seems to have little to say about things like, say, agriculture, rural America, traditional moral values, protecting gun rights... No, don't throw us into that briar patch!
It looks like Rehberg is going to have plenty of money to spend down-ticket.
OK, our next post will be about something interesting.
It's hard to keep track of them all -- it seems like only yesterday that Mike Wheat supporters were astroturfing Montana blogs (including our own) by putting out "Mike Wheat for Congress!!" comments on unrelated threads. It apparently! Didn't create!! Enough Buzz!!! -- and Wheat is back to seeking the AG job.
It appears that the Democratic Party has decided that since they can't come up with a competitive candidate to challenge Rep. Rehberg, they might as well find one that makes their left flank giddy (to make up for the fact that the left will be laboring tirelessly to get Sen. Baucus re-elected -- a task that they will obediently do, but which makes the left decidedly ungiddy.)
It is interesting that a number of the names being floated have been trial lawyers. This is a bit yummy for Republicans, since the latest P-base poll reveals that the endorsement of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association carried the biggest negatives for a candidate of any of the advocacy groups respondents were asked about.
A full 49% of those polled said that such an endorsement would make them inclined to vote against said candidate, while a mere 17% said it would make them more likely to vote for that candidate. Did we mention that Doherty is a trial lawyer?
Also from the latest P-base polling, a whopping 92% of Montanans said that judges should remove themselves from hearing cases where an involved attorney contributed money to their campaigns. Given that the MTLA engages in systematic selection of the judges before whom they will hear cases (or who will decide precedents that will make their jobs easier) through massive campaign donations to judicial races, we think that it will be great to have a trial lawyer running in a high-profile race like the Congressional race. It will give us the chance to put the spotlight on the MTLA and the inordinate influence it has on the judicial and legislative life of Montana.
But back to Doherty. He is a "Founding Co-Chair" of the Progressive States Network. Others on the board include David Sirota (nuff said,) Ned Lamont (the guy who Moveon.org bankrolled to defeat Joe Lieberman in the Dem primary in Connecticut, but who got his clock cleaned by Lieberman in the general election,) Wes Boyd (President of Moveon.org iteself,) David Brock (the guy who made fortune and fame digging up juicy tidbits about Hillary Clinton for the American Spectator, and then used the revolving door to make more money and fame on the Dem circuit as a "former conservative.")
You get the idea. Progressive States Network is based in New York City and is funded by, well, we're not exactly sure, since such things aren't public knowledge. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But to be sure, when Doherty gets into the race, it will be interesting to watch where the reportable money comes from into his campaign. How much will come from Montana? Probably about as much as the 9% or so donations coming from Montana that fuel Sen. Baucus's campaign, we would imagine.
But what does the PSA stand for? After reading the information on the website, it sounds like they stand for having the government give lots of nice things to lots of people (presumably at least 51% of the voting public,) with it all paid for by more taxes on "the rich." Given how the left defines "rich," this translates into "hold onto your wallet, everyone."
We imagine that it will be childs' play for the Rehberg campaign to handle Doherty, should he choose to accept his sacrificial role.
A left-wing trial lawyer deeply involved in an east-coast-liberal Moveon.org subsidiary that seems to have little to say about things like, say, agriculture, rural America, traditional moral values, protecting gun rights... No, don't throw us into that briar patch!
It looks like Rehberg is going to have plenty of money to spend down-ticket.
OK, our next post will be about something interesting.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Notes on the Kennedy withdrawal
It was quite a surprise to wake up this morning, grab a cup of coffee, and read that Bill Kennedy had withdrawn from the U.S. House race against Denny Rehberg.
We wish Kennedy the best in dealing with his health problems. And three cheers for this:
"I'd rather not," Kennedy responded when asked to expand on his health concerns...
Good for Kennedy. Things have really gotten out of control in recent decades with the press and public demanding to know the medical details of public officials or those running for public office. Excuse me, but it is none of the public's business whether the Secretary of Energy or a U.S. Senator is having hernia surgery or a colonoscopy.
There are some things that are on a "need to know" basis only -- and we don't need to know anyone's private medical issues. End of rant.
Second point: there will inevitably be those in the right-thinking world that will do a "yeah, right," in response to Kennedy's citing of health reasons. Yes, he was trailing badly in fund-raising and in the polls, but if the guy says health concerns are causing him to drop out... health concerns it is.
The reality is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to run even a local election campaign. A statewide campaign for federal office against a multi-term incumbent? Certainly no room for any health problems.
Even a "minor" health problem can mean the difference between being able to run an effective campaign or not. It doesn't take much -- particularly when you are already spread as thin as Kennedy is. Being County Commissioner in a large county like Yellowstone County is time-consuming, and he sits on what sounds like dozens of boards and committees of various sorts.
Some time back, in the course of critiquing the level of discourse in certain missives from the Montana GOP state office about Kennedy and his campaign, we noted the importance of a Gazette letter to the editor by former Republican Yellowstone County Commissioner James "Ziggy" Ziegler -- most famous locally for being owner/operator of Stella's, an eating establishment of fine repute in downtown Billings. (On a totally unrelated note, Ziegler is to be commended for his personal efforts to eliminate the death penalty in Montana -- a cause that Montana Headlines has also advocated.)
The Ziegler letter has taken on a bit of the status of an urban legend in Billings. For one thing, there were the curious reports of the more than 6 months that it took the Gazette editorial page editor to get around to publishing the letter. (OK, keep in mind that this sort of story can get exaggerated easily -- but one could hardly expect MH to ignore it.)
Additionally, after the letter appeared, word on the county street was that Kennedy was suddenly showing up for a lot more of his County Commissioner meetings than he had been. He was probably also not happy at the prospect of having Republicans expect him to return a hefty portion of the coming year's salary -- which, as the letter pointed out, Democrats had demanded that Conrad Burns do after his first U.S. Senate race while a sitting County Commissioner.
The point being that if Kennedy felt some outside pressure to keep up with his County Commissioner duties (something reasonable to expect of him) while raising funds and campaigning for the U.S. House, it would take a lot out of him physically. As noted before, this kind of schedule calls for incredible stamina -- a candidate can't afford any kind of health problem under such circumstances.
So again, we wish Kennedy well with his health, and look forward to him devoting himself to his County Commissioner duties here in Yellowstone County.
And while this relieves a little pressure on Republicans for the time being, we shouldn't get too confident. The Democratic bench in Montana is hardly a shallow one at the moment -- and Sen. Baucus has enough money for three major state-wide campaigns. Rehberg will have a serious contender, and he will be well-funded. Who knows -- perhaps yet one more of the pressures on Kennedy was having party bosses tell him that they have a stronger contender that they want to run... so think about getting out of the way.
But undeniably this event does even the playing field a little, even if only for a little while. With Sen. Brown coming on strong against Gov. Schweitzer, that race is going to be a close one that will keep the governor busy. At the moment, both Rehberg and Baucus are essentially without competition, which means that Rep. Rehberg can and should be working tirelessly to raise money that will build the GOP infrastructure and benefit all Republican candidates in Montana -- just as Sen. Baucus has done in the past in his own lop-sided races.
We wish Kennedy the best in dealing with his health problems. And three cheers for this:
"I'd rather not," Kennedy responded when asked to expand on his health concerns...
Good for Kennedy. Things have really gotten out of control in recent decades with the press and public demanding to know the medical details of public officials or those running for public office. Excuse me, but it is none of the public's business whether the Secretary of Energy or a U.S. Senator is having hernia surgery or a colonoscopy.
There are some things that are on a "need to know" basis only -- and we don't need to know anyone's private medical issues. End of rant.
Second point: there will inevitably be those in the right-thinking world that will do a "yeah, right," in response to Kennedy's citing of health reasons. Yes, he was trailing badly in fund-raising and in the polls, but if the guy says health concerns are causing him to drop out... health concerns it is.
The reality is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to run even a local election campaign. A statewide campaign for federal office against a multi-term incumbent? Certainly no room for any health problems.
Even a "minor" health problem can mean the difference between being able to run an effective campaign or not. It doesn't take much -- particularly when you are already spread as thin as Kennedy is. Being County Commissioner in a large county like Yellowstone County is time-consuming, and he sits on what sounds like dozens of boards and committees of various sorts.
Some time back, in the course of critiquing the level of discourse in certain missives from the Montana GOP state office about Kennedy and his campaign, we noted the importance of a Gazette letter to the editor by former Republican Yellowstone County Commissioner James "Ziggy" Ziegler -- most famous locally for being owner/operator of Stella's, an eating establishment of fine repute in downtown Billings. (On a totally unrelated note, Ziegler is to be commended for his personal efforts to eliminate the death penalty in Montana -- a cause that Montana Headlines has also advocated.)
The Ziegler letter has taken on a bit of the status of an urban legend in Billings. For one thing, there were the curious reports of the more than 6 months that it took the Gazette editorial page editor to get around to publishing the letter. (OK, keep in mind that this sort of story can get exaggerated easily -- but one could hardly expect MH to ignore it.)
Additionally, after the letter appeared, word on the county street was that Kennedy was suddenly showing up for a lot more of his County Commissioner meetings than he had been. He was probably also not happy at the prospect of having Republicans expect him to return a hefty portion of the coming year's salary -- which, as the letter pointed out, Democrats had demanded that Conrad Burns do after his first U.S. Senate race while a sitting County Commissioner.
The point being that if Kennedy felt some outside pressure to keep up with his County Commissioner duties (something reasonable to expect of him) while raising funds and campaigning for the U.S. House, it would take a lot out of him physically. As noted before, this kind of schedule calls for incredible stamina -- a candidate can't afford any kind of health problem under such circumstances.
So again, we wish Kennedy well with his health, and look forward to him devoting himself to his County Commissioner duties here in Yellowstone County.
And while this relieves a little pressure on Republicans for the time being, we shouldn't get too confident. The Democratic bench in Montana is hardly a shallow one at the moment -- and Sen. Baucus has enough money for three major state-wide campaigns. Rehberg will have a serious contender, and he will be well-funded. Who knows -- perhaps yet one more of the pressures on Kennedy was having party bosses tell him that they have a stronger contender that they want to run... so think about getting out of the way.
But undeniably this event does even the playing field a little, even if only for a little while. With Sen. Brown coming on strong against Gov. Schweitzer, that race is going to be a close one that will keep the governor busy. At the moment, both Rehberg and Baucus are essentially without competition, which means that Rep. Rehberg can and should be working tirelessly to raise money that will build the GOP infrastructure and benefit all Republican candidates in Montana -- just as Sen. Baucus has done in the past in his own lop-sided races.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
You buy them books, and they chew on the covers
Maybe some people find the GOP e-mail "Kennedy Chronicles" to be witty and engaging. We'd enjoy hearing from them, if they're out there. We're going to be critical of that state GOP e-mail -- but we would insert the caveat that bloggers are just bored guys sitting typing in their pajamas who don't do any real political work, while the folks who put out the "Kennedy Chronicles" are paid professional politicos. So consider the source and remember that this is amateur political commentary.
Anyway, the tactic really has the Dems running scared.
The "Chronicles" attempt to portray Kennedy as a "Perennial Candidate." Which he sort of is. But then so are Denny Rehberg and Max Baucus and nearly every politician. I guess the point is that Kennedy lost one of his races (Sec. State in 2004) and had another aborted because now Gov. Schweitzer beat him to the punch in 2004 on the Dem side. But then, Rehberg lost one, too (his unsuccessful run against Baucus for Senate some years back.)
We're shocked that a politician would use one elective office as a launching pad for a higher office. Shocked. Never heard of such a thing.
Rehberg is our guy in this race. He gets our support at every turn, and we fully expect him to win handily himself and to work to elect other Montana Republicans. Not only is it critical that we keep a common-sense conservative like Rehberg in the House, but we are also profoundly grateful that our highest ranking Republican elected official actually seems to care about strengthening and developing the state-wide GOP organization at the grassroots level.
That's a pretty new experience for Montana Republicans.
A lot of good hard work is being done up at the GOP HQ, but goofy stuff like this isn't the best way to inspire confidence and enthusiasm in us who help pay the bills up there.
The Chronicles are just plain silly. As we have said before, Republicans tend to win when we correctly convey to voters that we are the party of grownups. This sort of thing, on the other hand, is more like a sophomoric frat-house prank, and thus more appropriate for use by our loyal opposition -- or at least it would be if it were more nasty and effective. Things like the Chronicles may actually have the potential to make Kennedy seem like something that he is not -- a credible threat to Rehberg in 2008.
The sad part of it is that tucked into the last episode of the Kennedy Chronicles e-mail was a link to a Gazette letter that actually conveyed a point that if true should have some legs.
It seems that when another Yellowstone County Commissioner named Conrad Burns was running for the U.S. Senate, Democrats demanded that he return that portion of his salary that represented the time he spent away from his commissioner job campaigning. Amazingly enough, apparently Burns actually did return the money.
And yet, Commissioner Kennedy apparently didn't return any of his salary in 2004, even though he spent much of the cycle campaigning state-wide for Secretary of State. And there is no evidence that he has taken the initiative to announce that he is returning any of his salary for the time that he is now spending campaigning for the U.S. House seat he seeks.
It would seem that when Democrats make "rules" for Republicans to follow, they shouldn't have to be reminded by Republicans to follow those rules themselves.
This is the sort of thing that Montana voters would be interested in hearing. Too bad it's being lost in a cloud of silliness -- for now, anyway.
And too bad that it took a letter to the editor to point it out. One would think that a Gazette reporter would have noticed that one Yellowstone County Commissioner returned salaray for time spent campaigning, while another didn't. Sounds like an interesting story that hasn't happened -- yet.
Anyway, the tactic really has the Dems running scared.
The "Chronicles" attempt to portray Kennedy as a "Perennial Candidate." Which he sort of is. But then so are Denny Rehberg and Max Baucus and nearly every politician. I guess the point is that Kennedy lost one of his races (Sec. State in 2004) and had another aborted because now Gov. Schweitzer beat him to the punch in 2004 on the Dem side. But then, Rehberg lost one, too (his unsuccessful run against Baucus for Senate some years back.)
We're shocked that a politician would use one elective office as a launching pad for a higher office. Shocked. Never heard of such a thing.
Rehberg is our guy in this race. He gets our support at every turn, and we fully expect him to win handily himself and to work to elect other Montana Republicans. Not only is it critical that we keep a common-sense conservative like Rehberg in the House, but we are also profoundly grateful that our highest ranking Republican elected official actually seems to care about strengthening and developing the state-wide GOP organization at the grassroots level.
That's a pretty new experience for Montana Republicans.
A lot of good hard work is being done up at the GOP HQ, but goofy stuff like this isn't the best way to inspire confidence and enthusiasm in us who help pay the bills up there.
The Chronicles are just plain silly. As we have said before, Republicans tend to win when we correctly convey to voters that we are the party of grownups. This sort of thing, on the other hand, is more like a sophomoric frat-house prank, and thus more appropriate for use by our loyal opposition -- or at least it would be if it were more nasty and effective. Things like the Chronicles may actually have the potential to make Kennedy seem like something that he is not -- a credible threat to Rehberg in 2008.
The sad part of it is that tucked into the last episode of the Kennedy Chronicles e-mail was a link to a Gazette letter that actually conveyed a point that if true should have some legs.
It seems that when another Yellowstone County Commissioner named Conrad Burns was running for the U.S. Senate, Democrats demanded that he return that portion of his salary that represented the time he spent away from his commissioner job campaigning. Amazingly enough, apparently Burns actually did return the money.
And yet, Commissioner Kennedy apparently didn't return any of his salary in 2004, even though he spent much of the cycle campaigning state-wide for Secretary of State. And there is no evidence that he has taken the initiative to announce that he is returning any of his salary for the time that he is now spending campaigning for the U.S. House seat he seeks.
It would seem that when Democrats make "rules" for Republicans to follow, they shouldn't have to be reminded by Republicans to follow those rules themselves.
This is the sort of thing that Montana voters would be interested in hearing. Too bad it's being lost in a cloud of silliness -- for now, anyway.
And too bad that it took a letter to the editor to point it out. One would think that a Gazette reporter would have noticed that one Yellowstone County Commissioner returned salaray for time spent campaigning, while another didn't. Sounds like an interesting story that hasn't happened -- yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)