A couple of items from the GOP state convention:
The national convention delegates have been named -- as noted in an earlier post here on MH, they were the slate of delegates and alternates recommended by the delegate selection committee.
Dave Hart, the Ron Paul coordinator wasn't happy that none of the official slate were Ron Paul supporters. He has a point -- but only to a point. It is traditional, once there is a settled nominee, to send a slate of delegates for that nominee to show party unity. You can bet your bottom dollar that most of the delegates going to Minneapolis to vote for John McCain did not have McCain as their first choice at the beginning of the campaign season. The slate appears to be heavy with known Romney and Huckabee supporters.
So a question for Hart would be this: did any Ron Paul supporters submit applications to be national convention delegates and say that while they were Paul supporters, they are now willing to go the convention to vote for and be supportive of the party's nominee? One doubts that if Steve and Cindy Daines had announced their intention to vote for Mike Huckabee at the national convention (Daines was the Huckabee state coordinator,) that they would have been selected as delegates.
Alternatively, did Hart approach either the nominating committee or the McCain campaign, offering to negotiate a reasonable split of the delegation -- based either on Paul's share in the caucus (25%) or in the primary (20%,) perhaps? And in return, the Paul people, who are pretty organized, could have agreed not to nominate any others from the floor. Given the complexity of the voting (Chuck Johnson reports that the tabulation of the votes took nearly 5 hours yesterday,) neither side could be completely sure in advance of the final results (which were indeed apparently fairly close.) One would think that the opportunity to have one big happy family at the convention with such a slate approved by unanimous consent, would have been strongly considered by the state party. One certainly hopes so, anyway.
Absent Hart making such overtures, the state party could only assume that the Paul delegation intended to go for the full slate -- upon which the only logical response would be for the nominating committee to nominate a full slate of John McCain supporters. Which is what they did.
This is all tea-leaf reading, since MH is not privy to the inner workings either of the delegate selection committee at the state party or of the Ron Paul campaign. Anyone reading this who does have such knowledge is welcome to contact us.
___________________
Quote of the day from Bob Kelleher: “It would be a lot better if I lost. I didn’t plan on winning.”
The same article states that Kelleher advocates banning handguns and that he has apparently lost none of his fervor for "replacing the U.S. form of government with the parliamentary system."
And Democrats claim to be serious in wondering why he wasn't given a prime-time speaking slot.
____________________
More from Carol at Missoulapolis live-blogging the state convention about the section of the platform committee that got taken over by the Ron Paul folks. Apparently we Montana Republicans have taken an official position for the gold standard now. Must-read stuff. Someone needs to send this woman to the national convention to live-blog through Montana eyes -- get a professional impersonator to go door-to-door campaigning in her house district for her while she's gone. Something.
Showing posts with label 2008 U.S. Senate election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 U.S. Senate election. Show all posts
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Michael Lange to run as write-in candidate
There has been plenty of talk about it, but the rumor-mill had reached a point where it was clear that Michael Lange, who garnered the most votes of the "real Republicans' in the Republican primary won by Bob Kelleher, was indeed going to run as a write-in candidate for the U.S. Senate, and would probably make an announcement to that effect this weekend.
And he did.
Even under the best of circumstances, write-in candidacies are a long-shot, and these aren't the best of circumstances. Short of a situation where Bob Kelleher takes votes from Max Baucus's left and where Sen. Baucus simultaneously is found to have some serious scandal, Lange doesn't have a prayer. Of course, in a year like this, who knows?
Patty Lovaas, who came in a distant 4th in the primary, is trying a different approach, planning to try to get on the ballot as an independent, even though Montana law is clear that she cannot. She plans to challenge that law in court. Sorry, but the law that states that a party candidate can't turn around and run on the ballot as an independent is a good one, since it prevents an angry primary loser from playing spoiler in the fall. The fact that this year we had a bad result from the perspective of most Republicans isn't a reason to change a good law. As we have stated before, the fundamental reason we are in this situation is that the Montana GOP failed to recruit a strong candidate with good name recognition, low negatives, and the ability to raise reasonable amounts of money (or, better, that the Republicans who fit that bill failed to step forward.) One doesn't change laws because of something like that. And while there are certainly exceptions, in general we Republicans shouldn't be in the business of trying to use the courts to overturn laws we don't like.
Ms. Lovaas, during her brief stint on the GOP candidate speaking circuit, impressed no-one that we have heard from, and the way she is talking about her attempt at an independent run only reinforces the conviction that she was just part of the the six-ring circus of distractions that helped make this problem happen for the GOP in the first place. The best thing that Lovaas can do for the Republican Party in Montana right now is to get out of the way.
There are really only three reasonable options available -- 1. just write off a Senate race that was already unattainable as a practical matter, 2. have Lange, the 2nd place finisher, run a write-in campaign, or 3. have someone come off the bench to run an independent or write-in campaign. If there was anyone willing to do option 3, that person would have run in the primary, so we are really left with 1 and 2. It is hard to say which would be most helpful to the Republican Party.
The Montana GOP will do well to take a neutral approach to Lange's run, neither supporting nor opposing it. There is no way that the GOP can endorse or support Bob Kelleher, the more one learns about him. But neither will it play well to have the GOP endorse or support a write-in candidate when Montana voters, confused as they probably were when they did it, voted for Bob Kelleher. The rules are that the winner of the primary gets the "R" line on the ballot. Period. The state party is not obligated to help Kelleher just because he has the "R" line, but it would seem a little dicey for the official party organization to come out against the person who won the primary. Best just to stay out of the way and let Lange do his thing.
We'll see what kind of a campaign Lange mounts -- if it is one that promotes Republican ideas and doesn't cause injury to the Republican Party, more power to him. His argument that Montanans need a choice is compelling, and Lange is an articulate and tireless campaigner. He should make the race more interesting, and given the other choices available, it wouldn't be surprising if he ends up setting some sort of record for the number of write-in votes cast in a Montana race.
And he did.
Even under the best of circumstances, write-in candidacies are a long-shot, and these aren't the best of circumstances. Short of a situation where Bob Kelleher takes votes from Max Baucus's left and where Sen. Baucus simultaneously is found to have some serious scandal, Lange doesn't have a prayer. Of course, in a year like this, who knows?
Patty Lovaas, who came in a distant 4th in the primary, is trying a different approach, planning to try to get on the ballot as an independent, even though Montana law is clear that she cannot. She plans to challenge that law in court. Sorry, but the law that states that a party candidate can't turn around and run on the ballot as an independent is a good one, since it prevents an angry primary loser from playing spoiler in the fall. The fact that this year we had a bad result from the perspective of most Republicans isn't a reason to change a good law. As we have stated before, the fundamental reason we are in this situation is that the Montana GOP failed to recruit a strong candidate with good name recognition, low negatives, and the ability to raise reasonable amounts of money (or, better, that the Republicans who fit that bill failed to step forward.) One doesn't change laws because of something like that. And while there are certainly exceptions, in general we Republicans shouldn't be in the business of trying to use the courts to overturn laws we don't like.
Ms. Lovaas, during her brief stint on the GOP candidate speaking circuit, impressed no-one that we have heard from, and the way she is talking about her attempt at an independent run only reinforces the conviction that she was just part of the the six-ring circus of distractions that helped make this problem happen for the GOP in the first place. The best thing that Lovaas can do for the Republican Party in Montana right now is to get out of the way.
There are really only three reasonable options available -- 1. just write off a Senate race that was already unattainable as a practical matter, 2. have Lange, the 2nd place finisher, run a write-in campaign, or 3. have someone come off the bench to run an independent or write-in campaign. If there was anyone willing to do option 3, that person would have run in the primary, so we are really left with 1 and 2. It is hard to say which would be most helpful to the Republican Party.
The Montana GOP will do well to take a neutral approach to Lange's run, neither supporting nor opposing it. There is no way that the GOP can endorse or support Bob Kelleher, the more one learns about him. But neither will it play well to have the GOP endorse or support a write-in candidate when Montana voters, confused as they probably were when they did it, voted for Bob Kelleher. The rules are that the winner of the primary gets the "R" line on the ballot. Period. The state party is not obligated to help Kelleher just because he has the "R" line, but it would seem a little dicey for the official party organization to come out against the person who won the primary. Best just to stay out of the way and let Lange do his thing.
We'll see what kind of a campaign Lange mounts -- if it is one that promotes Republican ideas and doesn't cause injury to the Republican Party, more power to him. His argument that Montanans need a choice is compelling, and Lange is an articulate and tireless campaigner. He should make the race more interesting, and given the other choices available, it wouldn't be surprising if he ends up setting some sort of record for the number of write-in votes cast in a Montana race.
Friday, April 25, 2008
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.
....................
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.
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, February 28, 2008
The powerful Sen. Baucus
Jack over at Western Word has really been shining the light on our senior Senator. He has documented a couple of striking examples of Sen. Baucus taking credit for something -- only to have the claims of victory turn out not to be true.
He notes today that finally the Missoulian has caught up to Baucus's claims on "saving the Flathead" -- half of Montana got Baucus's exuberant e-mail that bragged about Baucus "crushing" Canadian energy development projects. The winning line from British Columbia Energy Minister Richard Neufeld really can't get repeated enough:
When asked last week about Mr. Baucus's characterization of the project, Mr. Neufeld said: "If Max Baucus says the sun is shining, the first thing you do is go out and have a look."
Smaller population states like Montana get a lot out of having just as much representation in the U.S. Senate as do states like New York and California. The Senate is a sort of equalizer for largely rural states like ours, and so votes for the Senate often don't track with other statewide voting patterns (consider our neighbor North Dakota, which has Democratic Senators-for-life but goes reliably Republican for President and in state government.)
The problem is that Senators like Baucus often become far more adept at convincing their constituents of their power and influence in Washington than they are at actually being powerful. Baucus is not alone in being perceived in his own state as being powerful in Washington, even while being rather more of an underachiever in the job itself. He probably has some Montanans convinced that business in Washington isn't allowed to start until Sen. Baucus walks into the Capitol building. That doesn't make it true.
Will Montanans figure this out in time for the November election? It will be hard, what with Baucus spending his untold millions in campaign dollars to flood the state with campaign staffers (one of these eager beavers was floating around Billings the other day -- nice young man from the East Coast -- apparently Baucus couldn't find anyone from Montana to take the job.)
But with episodes like Jack is documenting, we can see why Baucus understands that he is going to need to spend $13 million or whatever (we can't count that high) in order to run against an opponent who may not be able even to break into 7 figure fundraising.
He notes today that finally the Missoulian has caught up to Baucus's claims on "saving the Flathead" -- half of Montana got Baucus's exuberant e-mail that bragged about Baucus "crushing" Canadian energy development projects. The winning line from British Columbia Energy Minister Richard Neufeld really can't get repeated enough:
When asked last week about Mr. Baucus's characterization of the project, Mr. Neufeld said: "If Max Baucus says the sun is shining, the first thing you do is go out and have a look."
Smaller population states like Montana get a lot out of having just as much representation in the U.S. Senate as do states like New York and California. The Senate is a sort of equalizer for largely rural states like ours, and so votes for the Senate often don't track with other statewide voting patterns (consider our neighbor North Dakota, which has Democratic Senators-for-life but goes reliably Republican for President and in state government.)
The problem is that Senators like Baucus often become far more adept at convincing their constituents of their power and influence in Washington than they are at actually being powerful. Baucus is not alone in being perceived in his own state as being powerful in Washington, even while being rather more of an underachiever in the job itself. He probably has some Montanans convinced that business in Washington isn't allowed to start until Sen. Baucus walks into the Capitol building. That doesn't make it true.
Will Montanans figure this out in time for the November election? It will be hard, what with Baucus spending his untold millions in campaign dollars to flood the state with campaign staffers (one of these eager beavers was floating around Billings the other day -- nice young man from the East Coast -- apparently Baucus couldn't find anyone from Montana to take the job.)
But with episodes like Jack is documenting, we can see why Baucus understands that he is going to need to spend $13 million or whatever (we can't count that high) in order to run against an opponent who may not be able even to break into 7 figure fundraising.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The suspense is over -- Sen. Baucus is running for re-election
So, our senior Senator is, after all, going to run for re-election. We were pretty certain that he was going to do so when he was aggressively shaking down all of those K-street lobbyists for big bucks with the help of Leo Giacometto. But you never know until the candidate actually pays the filing fee. So far, neither Republican candidate -- state Rep. Mike Lange or Kirk Bushman -- has formally filed, but they will certainly do so.
Here we are in a season of "change" and Montanans are having to decide whether to send Sen. Baucus back for his 6th term with the help of an unprecedented amount of out-of-state lobbyist money. Hm. I wonder how the Democratic Party in Montana is going to nuance their campaign theme: "Vote for change in Washington! Except when we say not to!"
Many will point to his senior position on the Senate Finance Committee as a reason to re-elect him. That's a good reason -- except that it's not. First of all, the Finance Committee doesn't decide on spending in Montana, as many mistakenly believe -- that's the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we lost our seat on that committee when we traded in Sen. Burns for Sen. Tester.
No, what the Finance Committee chair is really, really, really good for is raising lots of money from certain sectors -- namely, sectors that are regulated by decisions made by the Finance Committee. Why else did Baucus manage so easily and quickly to raise $9 million and counting, with nearly all of it from outside of Montana? Probably not because all of those corporate types are concerned about the needs of Montana. More likely because they expect to get something.
Actually, the fact that Sen. Baucus is a long-time Finance Committee member, and for years now his party's ranking member, is a pretty good reason not to re-elect him. After all, the Finance Committee is responsible for the solvency of things like Social Security and Medicare.
And is Social Security more secure today than it was when Sen. Baucus became the ranking Democrat on the committee? Hardly. It is more imperiled than it ever was, and it is hard to escape the notion that Sen. Baucus has been asleep at the wheel on the Senate Finance Committee -- fiddling while Rome burns (to mix metaphors.) In fact, America may thank Montana for voting out Baucus so someone else can head up that committee.
Sure, one can blame Republicans on that committee, too -- but what has Baucus done to boldly change course during his time as chairman? The only Senators who are willing to propose some bold ideas about entitlement reform right now are Republicans like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint -- and unfortunately they are a minority even within their own party. But at least the Republicans have some people on the field -- Baucus hasn't even suited up yet when it comes to entitlement reform. Should we give him another 6 years on Finance? We're not convinced.
We realize that Sen. Baucus is the overwhelming favorite in this race, barring something really, really unexpected. Yes, he took money from Abramoff, he has Leo Giacometto helping him raise money from lobbyists, and he has been in Washington too long -- but we doubt that those slogans will be as persuasive to Montana Democrats in 2008 as they were when they used them against Burns in 2006. In fact, in the past we have gotten some indignant responses from Democrats when we have made these comparisons.
Well, hidden somewhere in Baucus's $9 million, doesn't there have to be at least an aggregate of a couple hundred thousand from people who are getting something pretty sweet from our senior Senator? Just taking a wild stab on the odds. And if Burns was there too long when running for his 4th term, then how much more so would that be true for a guy wanting to check in for a 6th? Just asking.
So what kind of really, really unexpected event would be necessary to make the race close? Oh, maybe something like lots of hard-hitting investigative journalism, going through that $9 million with a fine-tooth comb. Coming soon to a Montana newspaper near you.
Here we are in a season of "change" and Montanans are having to decide whether to send Sen. Baucus back for his 6th term with the help of an unprecedented amount of out-of-state lobbyist money. Hm. I wonder how the Democratic Party in Montana is going to nuance their campaign theme: "Vote for change in Washington! Except when we say not to!"
Many will point to his senior position on the Senate Finance Committee as a reason to re-elect him. That's a good reason -- except that it's not. First of all, the Finance Committee doesn't decide on spending in Montana, as many mistakenly believe -- that's the Senate Appropriations Committee, and we lost our seat on that committee when we traded in Sen. Burns for Sen. Tester.
No, what the Finance Committee chair is really, really, really good for is raising lots of money from certain sectors -- namely, sectors that are regulated by decisions made by the Finance Committee. Why else did Baucus manage so easily and quickly to raise $9 million and counting, with nearly all of it from outside of Montana? Probably not because all of those corporate types are concerned about the needs of Montana. More likely because they expect to get something.
Actually, the fact that Sen. Baucus is a long-time Finance Committee member, and for years now his party's ranking member, is a pretty good reason not to re-elect him. After all, the Finance Committee is responsible for the solvency of things like Social Security and Medicare.
And is Social Security more secure today than it was when Sen. Baucus became the ranking Democrat on the committee? Hardly. It is more imperiled than it ever was, and it is hard to escape the notion that Sen. Baucus has been asleep at the wheel on the Senate Finance Committee -- fiddling while Rome burns (to mix metaphors.) In fact, America may thank Montana for voting out Baucus so someone else can head up that committee.
Sure, one can blame Republicans on that committee, too -- but what has Baucus done to boldly change course during his time as chairman? The only Senators who are willing to propose some bold ideas about entitlement reform right now are Republicans like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint -- and unfortunately they are a minority even within their own party. But at least the Republicans have some people on the field -- Baucus hasn't even suited up yet when it comes to entitlement reform. Should we give him another 6 years on Finance? We're not convinced.
We realize that Sen. Baucus is the overwhelming favorite in this race, barring something really, really unexpected. Yes, he took money from Abramoff, he has Leo Giacometto helping him raise money from lobbyists, and he has been in Washington too long -- but we doubt that those slogans will be as persuasive to Montana Democrats in 2008 as they were when they used them against Burns in 2006. In fact, in the past we have gotten some indignant responses from Democrats when we have made these comparisons.
Well, hidden somewhere in Baucus's $9 million, doesn't there have to be at least an aggregate of a couple hundred thousand from people who are getting something pretty sweet from our senior Senator? Just taking a wild stab on the odds. And if Burns was there too long when running for his 4th term, then how much more so would that be true for a guy wanting to check in for a 6th? Just asking.
So what kind of really, really unexpected event would be necessary to make the race close? Oh, maybe something like lots of hard-hitting investigative journalism, going through that $9 million with a fine-tooth comb. Coming soon to a Montana newspaper near you.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Kirk Bushman getting ready to declare for U.S. Senate
It has been coming for a long time, but Kirk Bushman has confirmed that he is getting ready to announce for the U.S. Senate race next week. He wisely delayed declaring his candidacy until after the safe birth of his and his wife's first child in December.
Had he declared last fall, and then had to take a break from scheduled campaign appearances when it was baby time, that would have broken his stride.
As it is, he can now declare, start to campaign and raise money, and push on through to the finish.
Who would make a better candidate to run against Sen. Baucus -- Mike Lange or Kirk Bushman? Hard to say. Each has certain strengths. It is hard to see how it will be good for the Republican party, for our state legislative candidates, and for Roy Brown in his race against the governor to have the Baucus campaign endlessly running ads about Lange's "YouTube moment." But then, who knows -- maybe people would shrug all of that off and become desensitized to it.
In order to win, any Republican candidate running against Baucus is going to need some breaks. Republican fundamentals are sound in Montana, to be sure. Baucus has been in Washington too long. He took money from Jack Abramoff.
It is also hard to believe that someone who has shaken down K-street lobbyists as shamelessly as Baucus has to put together his war-chest won't carry the impression that he owes those lobbyists more than he owes Montanans -- at least when no-one is watching, which they usually aren't. Sen. Baucus has been serving on or presiding over a Senate Finance committee that has been driving Social Security down the road into insolvency during his entire tenure, with nary a creative idea proposed to deal with the impending crisis. And Baucus is hardly an inspiring campaigner.
But that won't be enough -- we will need some breaks. While we suspect that Bushman will be a more palatable candidate and one who will be more beneficial to the overall Republican ticket, that is just a guess. Lange has far more political experience, and now that he has learned a costly lesson, it could be that he will be less likely to make beginners' mistakes against Baucus.
But that, after all, is why we have primaries. May the best man win, and go on to give Sen. Baucus a race that makes him sweat a little -- and with some luck, one that makes him sweat a lot.
Had he declared last fall, and then had to take a break from scheduled campaign appearances when it was baby time, that would have broken his stride.
As it is, he can now declare, start to campaign and raise money, and push on through to the finish.
Who would make a better candidate to run against Sen. Baucus -- Mike Lange or Kirk Bushman? Hard to say. Each has certain strengths. It is hard to see how it will be good for the Republican party, for our state legislative candidates, and for Roy Brown in his race against the governor to have the Baucus campaign endlessly running ads about Lange's "YouTube moment." But then, who knows -- maybe people would shrug all of that off and become desensitized to it.
In order to win, any Republican candidate running against Baucus is going to need some breaks. Republican fundamentals are sound in Montana, to be sure. Baucus has been in Washington too long. He took money from Jack Abramoff.
It is also hard to believe that someone who has shaken down K-street lobbyists as shamelessly as Baucus has to put together his war-chest won't carry the impression that he owes those lobbyists more than he owes Montanans -- at least when no-one is watching, which they usually aren't. Sen. Baucus has been serving on or presiding over a Senate Finance committee that has been driving Social Security down the road into insolvency during his entire tenure, with nary a creative idea proposed to deal with the impending crisis. And Baucus is hardly an inspiring campaigner.
But that won't be enough -- we will need some breaks. While we suspect that Bushman will be a more palatable candidate and one who will be more beneficial to the overall Republican ticket, that is just a guess. Lange has far more political experience, and now that he has learned a costly lesson, it could be that he will be less likely to make beginners' mistakes against Baucus.
But that, after all, is why we have primaries. May the best man win, and go on to give Sen. Baucus a race that makes him sweat a little -- and with some luck, one that makes him sweat a lot.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Sen. Baucus and judicial confirmations
In what MH thought would be the less-noticed post of the two put up that day, Thursday's note about Montana's Senators voting against the confirmation of Leslie Southwick to the federal bench attracted a couple of challenges, and further discussion of the issue deserves a full post.
The 9 Democratic Senators who voted for the Southwick confirmation were listed in that post, and then there was an MH assertion that Senators Tester and Baucus "apparently are to the judicial left of all of the above Democratic Senators."
Now, left vs. right is perhaps not the best terminology to use in describing judicial philosophy, but given the wars that have raged since Democrats decided with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas that scorched-earth tactics would be the norm in preventing originalists/strict constructionists from reaching the federal bench, we feel confident that readers will know what we're talking about when we refer to a more "conservative" or "liberal" judiciary.
We can argue about what comprises "judicial activism" or originalism, etc. But the bottom line is that one of the results of the Bork wars was that concerns that had been building slowly for several decades came to a head on the right.
Political conservatives had been realizing that liberal political objectives were being achieved via the federal courts that couldn't be achieved at the ballot box. Things that in the past would have been pursued via the political consensus of a Constitutional amendment were being handed down with the help of creative judicial reinterpretations of the Constitution.
Conservatives realized that in order to counter this phenomenon of "legislating from the bench," they had to develop a relatively coherent conservative judicial philosophy and promote it. It's no big mystery that Republican presidents have, since Reagan, drawn heavily from those who espouse that general "conservative" philosophy in their judicial picks, while Democrats draw from their own stable of potential jurists with a rather different view of the law and the role of the courts.
And with very few exceptions, the votes on judicial nominations track pretty closely with other liberal/conservative voting divides. Whether a Senator votes in a generally conservative, ACU-friendly fashion or votes in a generally liberal, ADA-friendly fashion is a pretty good predictor of how that Senator will vote on a controversial judicial nomination.
So while liberal vs. conservative may not be precise judicial terminology, it is useful shorthand for summarizing the voting blocs in the U.S. Senate over the last two decades.
Which brings us to our own Democratic Senators here in Montana. The record is clear: when push comes to shove, they do not vote with the most judicially moderate segment of their party.
We can first dispense with Sen. Tester. The Southwick confirmation was the first controversial nomination on his watch that was being filibustered by Democrats. He voted with the left. So until further tests of his stances on judicial nominations come forward, that's where he stays.
Sen. Baucus's record at first blush appears to be more moderate and complex, but in reality, it is pretty simple, and it, too, is squarely on the leftward side of things:
Put simply, when a substantive shift in a more conservative direction might result on the Supreme Court, he votes with his colleagues on the left. When a conservative is replacing another conservative, he will sometimes throw a vote in the direction of the right.
Before going to Supreme Court nominees, let's recall that Sen. Baucus was notably not a member of the "Gang of 14" Senate moderates of both parties who reached a compromise that put an end to the Democrats' practice of filibustering President Bush's more conservative judicial nominees and not allowing them an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
As an example, Baucus voted repeatedly against cloture on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In other words, he voted to filibuster Estrada and not allow him to get a floor vote (where a 55 vote majority was waiting to confirm him.) Democratic Sens. Breaux of LA, Nelson of Nebraska, Miller of Georgia, and Nelson of Florida all voted for cloture on Estrada's nomination, so it wasn't like Sen. Baucus would have stood alone in his party.
Few observers had any doubt that the main reason why Estrada was so vehemently opposed was that this is a traditional stepping-stone to the Supreme Court, and that a Hispanic nominee to that Court would be difficult to defeat, even if he were quite conservative. So he had to be stopped before he could get to the launching pad.
Even the Gang of 14 couldn't agree on Estrada, so he ended up withdrawing his name from consideration, tired of the years-long controversy. But he is still a poster-child for that whole process of filibustering nominees, of which Sen. Baucus was a part.
Let's consider the three main controversial nominees that the Gang of 14 did, however, allow to proceed to a full floor vote:
Janice Rogers Brown -- the first African-American woman nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals: She was good enough for Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska and even the most liberal members of the Republican caucus. But Sen. Baucus voted against her confirmation (she was confirmed 56-43)
Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit: Good enough for Democratic Sens. Landrieu of LA and Byrd of WV, and all of the liberal end of the Republican caucus except Lincoln Chafee of RI. But Sen. Baucus voted against her confirmation (she was confirmed 55-43)
William Pryor to the 11th Circuit: Good enough for Democratic Sens. Nelson of Nebraska and Salazar of Colorado, and all of the liberal-leaning Republicans except for Sens. Collins and Snowe of Maine. But Sen. Baucus voted against his confirmation (he was confirmed 53-45)
You get the idea. Any picture that Sen. Baucus might want to portray in Montana of being centrist on judicial nominations like these is wrong. No fewer than 7 Democratic Senators and all of the liberal wing of the Republican party managed to vote for at least one of these 4 nominees. But not Sen. Baucus.
-----------------
Moving on to the Supreme Court nominations:
There have been 3 Supreme Court nominees in the last 20 years who, if confirmed, would shift the Court rightward: Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
Baucus voted against not just one, or two, but all three.
In addition, when President Reagan nominated William Rehnquist to be elevated from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, Sen. Baucus was one of only 33 Senators to vote against Chief Justice Rehnquist's confirmation.
When there were votes on a conservative nominee that wouldn't change the left-leaning ideological composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, because a conservative would be replacing another conservative, then he voted for the nominee: Scalia and Roberts.
The left, of course, threw a fit when Baucus voted to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts. And, to be honest, they have a legitimate gripe, on at least a couple of scores.
First, there doesn't seem to be a dime's worth of difference between Roberts and Alito -- the difference was only that Alito would shift the philosophical makeup of the Court as it existed at the time (since he was replacing Sandra Day O'Connor,) whereas the confirmation of Roberts wouldn't (since he was replacing Wm. Rehnquist.)
Sen. Baucus's decision on how to vote, in other words, doesn't seem to have been made on the qualifications or record of the nominee.
And really, those decisions don't necessarily appear to have been made based on what Baucus would consider to be an ideal philosophical makeup of the Court, either.
If they were, then after losing the Clarence Thomas nomination fight -- one which unquestionably moved the Court to the right -- one would expect that Baucus would have fought the next conservative nominee tooth and nail (i.e. John Roberts) in an attempt to move the Court back to where he thought it should be back at the time of the Thomas hearings. Someone who believed that the Thomas nomination unacceptably shifted the Court to the right should and would come out swinging when there was an opportunity to try to shift it back to the left.
As with so many of Sen. Baucus's decisions on how to vote on this or that issue, it is difficult to figure out just what the reasoning is, other than some vague sense he seems to have that "this time I should throw a bone to the right," and "this time I'll stick with the left."
That vague sense of knowing when to cast obfuscating votes has served Sen. Baucus's career well -- it's hard to argue with the political strategies of a guy poised to run away with his 6th U.S. Senate election. He has managed to keep an infuriated left from mounting a primary challenge against him, and he has managed to keep Republicans from making him a priority target for defeat.
And for those who find this sort of incomprehensible wishy-washy straddling admirable, then Sen. Baucus is your man. Just know that at some point a bill that is important to you will come up. And know that there is a good chance that whether you get his vote will depend on whether that vague sense of how to vote in his own political self-interest happens to tip in your direction on that particular day.
Some time ago, we remarked regarding another of Sen. Baucus's positions:
This vacillating approach (and it seems to be a modus operandi on a variety of issues) drives liberals as crazy as it does conservatives. This isn't middle ground, it is no-man's land.
Such an approach is all well and good for Sen. Baucus's re-election efforts and K-Street fundraising, but it makes him a sort of thing apart from the normal straight-forward way that most Montanans think and talk -- regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.
But that is a digression from the theme at hand, prompted by Sen. Baucus's recent vote against Judge Southwick's confirmation.
Montanans who understand that appointments to the federal judiciary and Supreme Court remain one of the most critical functions of the U.S. Senate need also to understand this:
There is plenty that is difficult to understand about Sen. Baucus's makes his decisions on how to vote -- but there is certainly nothing moderate, let alone conservative, about Sen. Baucus's record on judicial nominations.
The 9 Democratic Senators who voted for the Southwick confirmation were listed in that post, and then there was an MH assertion that Senators Tester and Baucus "apparently are to the judicial left of all of the above Democratic Senators."
Now, left vs. right is perhaps not the best terminology to use in describing judicial philosophy, but given the wars that have raged since Democrats decided with Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas that scorched-earth tactics would be the norm in preventing originalists/strict constructionists from reaching the federal bench, we feel confident that readers will know what we're talking about when we refer to a more "conservative" or "liberal" judiciary.
We can argue about what comprises "judicial activism" or originalism, etc. But the bottom line is that one of the results of the Bork wars was that concerns that had been building slowly for several decades came to a head on the right.
Political conservatives had been realizing that liberal political objectives were being achieved via the federal courts that couldn't be achieved at the ballot box. Things that in the past would have been pursued via the political consensus of a Constitutional amendment were being handed down with the help of creative judicial reinterpretations of the Constitution.
Conservatives realized that in order to counter this phenomenon of "legislating from the bench," they had to develop a relatively coherent conservative judicial philosophy and promote it. It's no big mystery that Republican presidents have, since Reagan, drawn heavily from those who espouse that general "conservative" philosophy in their judicial picks, while Democrats draw from their own stable of potential jurists with a rather different view of the law and the role of the courts.
And with very few exceptions, the votes on judicial nominations track pretty closely with other liberal/conservative voting divides. Whether a Senator votes in a generally conservative, ACU-friendly fashion or votes in a generally liberal, ADA-friendly fashion is a pretty good predictor of how that Senator will vote on a controversial judicial nomination.
So while liberal vs. conservative may not be precise judicial terminology, it is useful shorthand for summarizing the voting blocs in the U.S. Senate over the last two decades.
Which brings us to our own Democratic Senators here in Montana. The record is clear: when push comes to shove, they do not vote with the most judicially moderate segment of their party.
We can first dispense with Sen. Tester. The Southwick confirmation was the first controversial nomination on his watch that was being filibustered by Democrats. He voted with the left. So until further tests of his stances on judicial nominations come forward, that's where he stays.
Sen. Baucus's record at first blush appears to be more moderate and complex, but in reality, it is pretty simple, and it, too, is squarely on the leftward side of things:
Put simply, when a substantive shift in a more conservative direction might result on the Supreme Court, he votes with his colleagues on the left. When a conservative is replacing another conservative, he will sometimes throw a vote in the direction of the right.
Before going to Supreme Court nominees, let's recall that Sen. Baucus was notably not a member of the "Gang of 14" Senate moderates of both parties who reached a compromise that put an end to the Democrats' practice of filibustering President Bush's more conservative judicial nominees and not allowing them an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
As an example, Baucus voted repeatedly against cloture on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In other words, he voted to filibuster Estrada and not allow him to get a floor vote (where a 55 vote majority was waiting to confirm him.) Democratic Sens. Breaux of LA, Nelson of Nebraska, Miller of Georgia, and Nelson of Florida all voted for cloture on Estrada's nomination, so it wasn't like Sen. Baucus would have stood alone in his party.
Few observers had any doubt that the main reason why Estrada was so vehemently opposed was that this is a traditional stepping-stone to the Supreme Court, and that a Hispanic nominee to that Court would be difficult to defeat, even if he were quite conservative. So he had to be stopped before he could get to the launching pad.
Even the Gang of 14 couldn't agree on Estrada, so he ended up withdrawing his name from consideration, tired of the years-long controversy. But he is still a poster-child for that whole process of filibustering nominees, of which Sen. Baucus was a part.
Let's consider the three main controversial nominees that the Gang of 14 did, however, allow to proceed to a full floor vote:
Janice Rogers Brown -- the first African-American woman nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals: She was good enough for Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska and even the most liberal members of the Republican caucus. But Sen. Baucus voted against her confirmation (she was confirmed 56-43)
Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit: Good enough for Democratic Sens. Landrieu of LA and Byrd of WV, and all of the liberal end of the Republican caucus except Lincoln Chafee of RI. But Sen. Baucus voted against her confirmation (she was confirmed 55-43)
William Pryor to the 11th Circuit: Good enough for Democratic Sens. Nelson of Nebraska and Salazar of Colorado, and all of the liberal-leaning Republicans except for Sens. Collins and Snowe of Maine. But Sen. Baucus voted against his confirmation (he was confirmed 53-45)
You get the idea. Any picture that Sen. Baucus might want to portray in Montana of being centrist on judicial nominations like these is wrong. No fewer than 7 Democratic Senators and all of the liberal wing of the Republican party managed to vote for at least one of these 4 nominees. But not Sen. Baucus.
-----------------
Moving on to the Supreme Court nominations:
There have been 3 Supreme Court nominees in the last 20 years who, if confirmed, would shift the Court rightward: Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
Baucus voted against not just one, or two, but all three.
In addition, when President Reagan nominated William Rehnquist to be elevated from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, Sen. Baucus was one of only 33 Senators to vote against Chief Justice Rehnquist's confirmation.
When there were votes on a conservative nominee that wouldn't change the left-leaning ideological composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, because a conservative would be replacing another conservative, then he voted for the nominee: Scalia and Roberts.
The left, of course, threw a fit when Baucus voted to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts. And, to be honest, they have a legitimate gripe, on at least a couple of scores.
First, there doesn't seem to be a dime's worth of difference between Roberts and Alito -- the difference was only that Alito would shift the philosophical makeup of the Court as it existed at the time (since he was replacing Sandra Day O'Connor,) whereas the confirmation of Roberts wouldn't (since he was replacing Wm. Rehnquist.)
Sen. Baucus's decision on how to vote, in other words, doesn't seem to have been made on the qualifications or record of the nominee.
And really, those decisions don't necessarily appear to have been made based on what Baucus would consider to be an ideal philosophical makeup of the Court, either.
If they were, then after losing the Clarence Thomas nomination fight -- one which unquestionably moved the Court to the right -- one would expect that Baucus would have fought the next conservative nominee tooth and nail (i.e. John Roberts) in an attempt to move the Court back to where he thought it should be back at the time of the Thomas hearings. Someone who believed that the Thomas nomination unacceptably shifted the Court to the right should and would come out swinging when there was an opportunity to try to shift it back to the left.
As with so many of Sen. Baucus's decisions on how to vote on this or that issue, it is difficult to figure out just what the reasoning is, other than some vague sense he seems to have that "this time I should throw a bone to the right," and "this time I'll stick with the left."
That vague sense of knowing when to cast obfuscating votes has served Sen. Baucus's career well -- it's hard to argue with the political strategies of a guy poised to run away with his 6th U.S. Senate election. He has managed to keep an infuriated left from mounting a primary challenge against him, and he has managed to keep Republicans from making him a priority target for defeat.
And for those who find this sort of incomprehensible wishy-washy straddling admirable, then Sen. Baucus is your man. Just know that at some point a bill that is important to you will come up. And know that there is a good chance that whether you get his vote will depend on whether that vague sense of how to vote in his own political self-interest happens to tip in your direction on that particular day.
Some time ago, we remarked regarding another of Sen. Baucus's positions:
This vacillating approach (and it seems to be a modus operandi on a variety of issues) drives liberals as crazy as it does conservatives. This isn't middle ground, it is no-man's land.
Such an approach is all well and good for Sen. Baucus's re-election efforts and K-Street fundraising, but it makes him a sort of thing apart from the normal straight-forward way that most Montanans think and talk -- regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.
But that is a digression from the theme at hand, prompted by Sen. Baucus's recent vote against Judge Southwick's confirmation.
Montanans who understand that appointments to the federal judiciary and Supreme Court remain one of the most critical functions of the U.S. Senate need also to understand this:
There is plenty that is difficult to understand about Sen. Baucus's makes his decisions on how to vote -- but there is certainly nothing moderate, let alone conservative, about Sen. Baucus's record on judicial nominations.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Bushman for Senate?
As we noted before, we like Mike Lange quite a bit, regardless of what people might say about him. He has brought a fresh approach to Montana politics from a different perspective than comes from the usual Republican sources (we can say that sort of thing, since we're about as usual as they come.)
But we have also pointed out that whoever decides to take him on in a primary is likely to win and go on to tackle Max Baucus in the fall of 2008.
While it just hit the Gazette this morning, thanks to LITW we learned yesterday about the latest AP story on Kirk Bushman's contemplated run for the U.S. Senate.
LITW of course puts the worst possible face on Bushman's proposed candidacy -- that, of course, is their job, so that's not really a criticism of that site. But we would offer a slightly different perspective on the points LITW makes.
In talking about the importance of reforming Social Security through personalization of accounts, Bushman is tracking right with the message of the GOP presidential candidate who will win Montana in the fall of 2008.
We know this, since all of the GOP candidates appear not to be afraid of speaking the truth about the need to do something about Social Security entitlements before a system on a collision course with demographic reality confronts our children and grandchildren with bankruptcy and extremely hard choices.
It is a message that resonates with younger voters (non-socialist younger voters, that is,) most of whom are skeptical in the extreme about what, if anything, they will see when they retire in return for decades of their payroll taxes that aging baby-boomers will snarf up in a few years. Democrats will always think election to election on Social Security, and that's not a bad immediate political strategy, given the aging population. But Republicans can, should, and will think differently.
And as for the SCHIP veto, Bushman will be advocating a carefully targeted program that helps children from low-income families, rather than one that would turn into a middle-class entitlement that undermines private health insurance -- just like the Congressman who will win Montana in the fall of 2008 -- Denny Rehberg.
All in all, if these were two items that Bushman chose to comment on, they aren't particularly poorly chosen ones if he wants to start out by unifying the Montana GOP base in support of him. And if he can get the GOP base behind him, the race won't be a landslide for Baucus.
Bushman would probably make a very solid candidate, and the word on the street that has been floating about him and his contemplated run here in Billings has been all very positive. He will unquestionably raise money. Not Max Baucus money, but perhaps approaching Jon Tester money -- and the latter proved that the candidate with the most money doesn't always win.
Unlike Bob Keenan, whose past experience holding elective office meant that he should have known he had to get in some time ago if he were planning to mount a strong campaign against Baucus, Bushman is a political newcomer and thus has good reason for not being ahead of the curve at this point.
Let's comment on the obvious: in conventional terms, Baucus is unassailable. A candidate who takes on an incumbent like him is like David going after Goliath, which means that it's not precisely hopeless, but that little stone from the slingshot has to hit him precisely in the center of the metaphorical forehead -- which takes luck, the grace of God, or both.
Also, Goliath can stumble. Baucus isn't likely to, since he is a life-long professional politician who has seemingly been running for office for longer than most Montanans have been alive, but it does happen, even to the best of them. And while neither Democratic left nor the Republican right hate Baucus, it is by the same token hard to find people who are just so excited about Sen. Baucus that they can scarcely contain themselves.
Baucus doesn't seem to have that kind of visceral loyalty, and is therefore only an Abramoff away from turning the race into a barn-burner. Come to think of it, he did take money from Abramoff and he has been in Washington too long -- we can just use the old Dem TV ads that were used against Burns in 2006 if we get strapped for cash.
What is important is having a solid candidate who works tirelessly, doesn't get discouraged, works the grassroots and gets the party faithful behind him, and who is mentally prepared for the inevitable million-dollar personal smear campaign that will be directed his way. Doesn't matter how clean he has lived and worked -- they will come up with something. He just has to expect it, and so do his Republican backers.
In short, Bushman needs to be prepared to be personally destroyed by the Baucus machine. Not a particularly palatable prospect for a candidate (which is of course why there haven't been high-profile Republicans standing in line to take on the good Senator,) but if he carries it off and continues to work tirelessly while holding his head high and not losing his cool, he will have served his party well and will have gained state-wide name recognition for another, future race, if that's what he wants.
Also, if Baucus were to run essentially unopposed, he would pour his entire war-chest into the state-wide Democratic machine to win legislative races and other state-wide races. He needs to be made to work for his Senate win. For anything else to happen in a state with as many Republicans as Montana has would be a disgrace to the state party.
And, Baucus could always stumble. It's not much to hold on to -- but a year is a long time in politics. It's why football teams who are playing a 30-point favorite still suit up and play hard, because on any given Sunday...
Good luck to Lange and Bushman. Let's have a nice, clean fight, where most of the rhetorical blows just happen to land on the other party.
But we have also pointed out that whoever decides to take him on in a primary is likely to win and go on to tackle Max Baucus in the fall of 2008.
While it just hit the Gazette this morning, thanks to LITW we learned yesterday about the latest AP story on Kirk Bushman's contemplated run for the U.S. Senate.
LITW of course puts the worst possible face on Bushman's proposed candidacy -- that, of course, is their job, so that's not really a criticism of that site. But we would offer a slightly different perspective on the points LITW makes.
In talking about the importance of reforming Social Security through personalization of accounts, Bushman is tracking right with the message of the GOP presidential candidate who will win Montana in the fall of 2008.
We know this, since all of the GOP candidates appear not to be afraid of speaking the truth about the need to do something about Social Security entitlements before a system on a collision course with demographic reality confronts our children and grandchildren with bankruptcy and extremely hard choices.
It is a message that resonates with younger voters (non-socialist younger voters, that is,) most of whom are skeptical in the extreme about what, if anything, they will see when they retire in return for decades of their payroll taxes that aging baby-boomers will snarf up in a few years. Democrats will always think election to election on Social Security, and that's not a bad immediate political strategy, given the aging population. But Republicans can, should, and will think differently.
And as for the SCHIP veto, Bushman will be advocating a carefully targeted program that helps children from low-income families, rather than one that would turn into a middle-class entitlement that undermines private health insurance -- just like the Congressman who will win Montana in the fall of 2008 -- Denny Rehberg.
All in all, if these were two items that Bushman chose to comment on, they aren't particularly poorly chosen ones if he wants to start out by unifying the Montana GOP base in support of him. And if he can get the GOP base behind him, the race won't be a landslide for Baucus.
Bushman would probably make a very solid candidate, and the word on the street that has been floating about him and his contemplated run here in Billings has been all very positive. He will unquestionably raise money. Not Max Baucus money, but perhaps approaching Jon Tester money -- and the latter proved that the candidate with the most money doesn't always win.
Unlike Bob Keenan, whose past experience holding elective office meant that he should have known he had to get in some time ago if he were planning to mount a strong campaign against Baucus, Bushman is a political newcomer and thus has good reason for not being ahead of the curve at this point.
Let's comment on the obvious: in conventional terms, Baucus is unassailable. A candidate who takes on an incumbent like him is like David going after Goliath, which means that it's not precisely hopeless, but that little stone from the slingshot has to hit him precisely in the center of the metaphorical forehead -- which takes luck, the grace of God, or both.
Also, Goliath can stumble. Baucus isn't likely to, since he is a life-long professional politician who has seemingly been running for office for longer than most Montanans have been alive, but it does happen, even to the best of them. And while neither Democratic left nor the Republican right hate Baucus, it is by the same token hard to find people who are just so excited about Sen. Baucus that they can scarcely contain themselves.
Baucus doesn't seem to have that kind of visceral loyalty, and is therefore only an Abramoff away from turning the race into a barn-burner. Come to think of it, he did take money from Abramoff and he has been in Washington too long -- we can just use the old Dem TV ads that were used against Burns in 2006 if we get strapped for cash.
What is important is having a solid candidate who works tirelessly, doesn't get discouraged, works the grassroots and gets the party faithful behind him, and who is mentally prepared for the inevitable million-dollar personal smear campaign that will be directed his way. Doesn't matter how clean he has lived and worked -- they will come up with something. He just has to expect it, and so do his Republican backers.
In short, Bushman needs to be prepared to be personally destroyed by the Baucus machine. Not a particularly palatable prospect for a candidate (which is of course why there haven't been high-profile Republicans standing in line to take on the good Senator,) but if he carries it off and continues to work tirelessly while holding his head high and not losing his cool, he will have served his party well and will have gained state-wide name recognition for another, future race, if that's what he wants.
Also, if Baucus were to run essentially unopposed, he would pour his entire war-chest into the state-wide Democratic machine to win legislative races and other state-wide races. He needs to be made to work for his Senate win. For anything else to happen in a state with as many Republicans as Montana has would be a disgrace to the state party.
And, Baucus could always stumble. It's not much to hold on to -- but a year is a long time in politics. It's why football teams who are playing a 30-point favorite still suit up and play hard, because on any given Sunday...
Good luck to Lange and Bushman. Let's have a nice, clean fight, where most of the rhetorical blows just happen to land on the other party.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Those nasty, thieving Montana Republicans (Don't believe us? Just ask Matt Gouras at the AP)
Republicans aren't satisfied with grinding children under their heels. In this state we even stoop to beating up on a defenseless woman.
Today's Lee newspapers throughout the state carry a nice little piece that tells the story of how mean Republicans have stolen Linda McCulloch's domain name.
We have a big smiling picture of Ms. McCulloch (after all, she and her party are above all of this,) with the caption telling that "her domain name, www.lindamcculloch.com, was bought by Republicans, using a ploy some people are calling ‘political cyberfraud.’"
We're curious, for starters, how Gouras come to write this piece in the first place? Was it because of his tireless scouring of the web for such things, or did he get contacted by state Democrats about doing a puff-piece on Linda McCulloch? A back-story would be interesting.
And then we have Ms. McCulloch herself doing the "woe is me" routine, showing how mean the Republicans are, likening them to criminals:
"In this day and age of identity theft, taking somebody's name and using it without their permission seems kind of like going into their house without permission," McCulloch said.
Did the state GOP buy up the MuCulloch domain name and put their own information about her on it? Certainly they did.
But how did this article on this subject come to be written in the mainstream Montana media in October? And why does it take until the very end of the article for it to be mentioned that www.BobKeenan.com was taken by Democrats?
And why doesn't the article say that the Democratic party grabbed Keenan's domain name way back in July, when the first rumblings were being made about a possible Keenan run against Max Baucus?
Given the depths to which the Baucus campaign stooped during the last campaign, against Mike Taylor, this website was little more than a political warning of what Keenan and his family could expect should he dare to enter the race. Not that Dems are any more worried about Baucus losing in 2008 than they were in 2002 -- personal assassination of a trailing Republican Senate candidate is simply worth it if it allows them to redirect the Baucus war chest toward state legislative races.
Gouras must be a reporter who isn't paying attention, since the state's premier left-wing blog was bragging about Dems taking the Keenan domain name several months ago. One would think that the Keenan domain-name grab would have been even more newsworthy, since the Dems took out a domain name to put up a website trashing a private citizen who neither was in public office nor had declared candidacy for a public office.
Getting McCulloch's domain name appears to have been part 2 of a tit-for-tat that was initiated by the Democrats. But you wouldn't get that from Gouras's article.
So why does the GOP get the bad press, then: the headline, the first 3/4 of the article, the photo, and the photo caption? Reading the comments in the Gazette online edition, it seems that the take-home message for most readers was indeed that Republicans were the bad guys.
How much work would it have taken for Gouras to establish a timeline? Was there bias involved on his part, or was it just plain lazy and careless reporting by a paid professional who should know better?
Whatever the answers, it simply confirms us as Republicans in our conviction that every election we run is not just run against Democrats, but rather against a Democratic opposition that is aided by a press that is indifferent to the appearance of bias at best, and outright slanted against us at worst.
There really isn't a lot of practical difference between the two choices, at least as far as the guys on the receiving end are concerned. The fact that the press doesn't intend to be unfair is reassuring for the consciences of editors and reporters, but that is small comfort for those of us who have to live with the results at the ballot box.
But while we should never stop patiently pointing out the bias in this sort of piece, no matter how tiresome it gets, the flip side is that Republicans should place alongside their "Rather Biased" bumper stickers ones that say "No Whining."
Pointing out bias and correcting the record helps with the voting public. Thinking that doing so will stop biased reporting in the media, however, is a pipe-dream. It won't.
If we want to win elections, we need to counter the one-two punch of Democratic advertising and the Montana media with our own message taken directly to the voters.
We need to carry it to enough people to make up for outsourced opposition research and advertising like this particular AP article (again, whether it was meant as such or not is irrelevant from a practical standpoint.)
No one is going to help us but ourselves. Sounds like a conservative attitude, doesn't it?
Today's Lee newspapers throughout the state carry a nice little piece that tells the story of how mean Republicans have stolen Linda McCulloch's domain name.
We have a big smiling picture of Ms. McCulloch (after all, she and her party are above all of this,) with the caption telling that "her domain name, www.lindamcculloch.com, was bought by Republicans, using a ploy some people are calling ‘political cyberfraud.’"
We're curious, for starters, how Gouras come to write this piece in the first place? Was it because of his tireless scouring of the web for such things, or did he get contacted by state Democrats about doing a puff-piece on Linda McCulloch? A back-story would be interesting.
And then we have Ms. McCulloch herself doing the "woe is me" routine, showing how mean the Republicans are, likening them to criminals:
"In this day and age of identity theft, taking somebody's name and using it without their permission seems kind of like going into their house without permission," McCulloch said.
Did the state GOP buy up the MuCulloch domain name and put their own information about her on it? Certainly they did.
But how did this article on this subject come to be written in the mainstream Montana media in October? And why does it take until the very end of the article for it to be mentioned that www.BobKeenan.com was taken by Democrats?
And why doesn't the article say that the Democratic party grabbed Keenan's domain name way back in July, when the first rumblings were being made about a possible Keenan run against Max Baucus?
Given the depths to which the Baucus campaign stooped during the last campaign, against Mike Taylor, this website was little more than a political warning of what Keenan and his family could expect should he dare to enter the race. Not that Dems are any more worried about Baucus losing in 2008 than they were in 2002 -- personal assassination of a trailing Republican Senate candidate is simply worth it if it allows them to redirect the Baucus war chest toward state legislative races.
Gouras must be a reporter who isn't paying attention, since the state's premier left-wing blog was bragging about Dems taking the Keenan domain name several months ago. One would think that the Keenan domain-name grab would have been even more newsworthy, since the Dems took out a domain name to put up a website trashing a private citizen who neither was in public office nor had declared candidacy for a public office.
Getting McCulloch's domain name appears to have been part 2 of a tit-for-tat that was initiated by the Democrats. But you wouldn't get that from Gouras's article.
So why does the GOP get the bad press, then: the headline, the first 3/4 of the article, the photo, and the photo caption? Reading the comments in the Gazette online edition, it seems that the take-home message for most readers was indeed that Republicans were the bad guys.
How much work would it have taken for Gouras to establish a timeline? Was there bias involved on his part, or was it just plain lazy and careless reporting by a paid professional who should know better?
Whatever the answers, it simply confirms us as Republicans in our conviction that every election we run is not just run against Democrats, but rather against a Democratic opposition that is aided by a press that is indifferent to the appearance of bias at best, and outright slanted against us at worst.
There really isn't a lot of practical difference between the two choices, at least as far as the guys on the receiving end are concerned. The fact that the press doesn't intend to be unfair is reassuring for the consciences of editors and reporters, but that is small comfort for those of us who have to live with the results at the ballot box.
But while we should never stop patiently pointing out the bias in this sort of piece, no matter how tiresome it gets, the flip side is that Republicans should place alongside their "Rather Biased" bumper stickers ones that say "No Whining."
Pointing out bias and correcting the record helps with the voting public. Thinking that doing so will stop biased reporting in the media, however, is a pipe-dream. It won't.
If we want to win elections, we need to counter the one-two punch of Democratic advertising and the Montana media with our own message taken directly to the voters.
We need to carry it to enough people to make up for outsourced opposition research and advertising like this particular AP article (again, whether it was meant as such or not is irrelevant from a practical standpoint.)
No one is going to help us but ourselves. Sounds like a conservative attitude, doesn't it?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Rep. Rehberg and the SCHIP veto
Now that President Bush has unsurprisingly vetoed the SCHIP expansion passed by Congress, voices on the left (as well as certain editorial boards) are curiously using the event to critique Denny Rehberg -- who actually voted for the bill.
Ostensibly, the message that these voices are sending to Rehberg and to all of Montana is that Rehberg needs to prove his worth by convincing Republican Congressmen to change their minds and vote to over-ride the President's veto, even though on the first go-round, those Republicans voted against this bill.
This is an obvious no-brainer for Republican Congressmen who voted against this SCHIP bill. If they vote to over-ride the veto, then they can fairly be criticized as having been heartless wretches deep down inside (reflected in their first vote,) and as having only voted for the bill the second time under withering pressure from the "good guys" -- i.e. they caved in, and have no principles.
Democrats running against them will thus have two talking points against them in the upcoming elections, not just one -- talking points that will hurt those Congressmen with the Republican base as well as with "swing" voters.
So it is not surprising that those in the know are writing off any realistic chance of an override. It would be suicidal and unprincipled to change one's vote on legislation that hasn't been altered to address one's concerns.
So, what should Rehberg be doing at this point? Certainly not what the Billings Gazette editorial board urges him to do (namely twist Republican arms.) Rehberg would be well advised not to trust the wisdom of advice that is offered by those who go after Congressmen and the President with hyperventilatory language:
"Bush puts politics first, U.S. children last" reads the histrionic Gazette opinion headline.
Right. Bush puts kids dead last. Behind every other government program, segment of the population, or request for money. Bottom of the heap. In the dustbin.
Glad we cleared that up.
And in another restrained and measured turn of phrase, the Gazette editors say that President and others who voted against this legislation are "wrong at best and downright heartless at worst."
Got it? Downright heartless. They grind poor kids under their heels. And maybe even enjoy it.
No, Rehberg should ignore the Gazette's advice and do exactly what he is doing -- stand by his vote for the legislation, saying that enough changes were made to it to satisfy his most important objections to the original Democratic House bill that he opposed.
Rehberg did what good legislators do -- he outlined what changes he preferred, and when he got enough of them, he gave in a little, too, and voted for the legislation.
But twisting fellow Republicans' arms to over-ride the President's veto? Think again. Not a good idea, both because the President's objections to the bill have some merit and also because it won't work.
Democrats know that no-one is going to be able to make an over-ride happen, and thus their rhetoric calling for Rehberg to work to engineer one in the House is an attempt to set up our Congressman for failure.
What Rehberg can and should be doing is to call for the Democratic leadership to stop procrastinating, and rather get right to a vote for an over-ride. Democrats are instead dragging the vote out for 2 weeks in spite of the fact that an over-ride isn't going to happen. Which shows that whatever other motivations they may have had, in this particular phase of the game they are angling only for political gain, and not for the kids.
Presumably Sen. Baucus will wait until he's run as many SCHIP campaign ads in Montana as he wants, and then tell Harry Reid that he'd like a vote. For the sake of the children, of course.
The program as it exists is safe, having had legislation passed to keep it going, but it needs to be settled with final legislation that includes a reasonable expansion of the program.
It is furthermore entirely possible for Congress to do something incredibly unusual -- actually negotiate with the President to see what kind of legislation that he would actually sign that would expand and strengthen SCHIP for children in genuinely low-income families. And doing so in a way that has long-term sustainability -- and that won't undermine private insurance programs.
Until now, Congress has chosen to try to craft a "veto-proof" bill, rather than to craft a bill that the President wouldn't veto in the first place. This is a legitimate attempt, but need we point out that the final bill they passed wasn't veto-proof? Which makes one wonder whether Democratic Congressional leaders like our Sen. Baucus intended simply to provoke this veto in the first place. Just how many changes would have been necessary to get 15 more Republican votes in the House (and probably a President's signature thrown into the bargain?) Probably not all that many.
There will be an over-ride vote once Democrats have played enough politics with children. It will fail. And then Rehberg can be right in there, working to craft a compromise with the President that will help just as many low-income children in Montana, and that will actually get the President's signature.
Remember this: Rehberg originally supported the House Republican version of the bill, which would have expanded SCHIP funding and coverage for the kids who need it -- and, which the President would have signed.
Rehberg made a good compromise in giving this legislation a try, and is to be commended for being someone willing to work with the other side. Now he can fairly call on his Democratic colleagues to stop playing politics, and to craft an SCHIP bill that will actually be signed into law.
Because a bill signed into law is the only kind that will actually help Montana's kids.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Montana's left has decided -- Max is good enough
According to Charles Johnson's "Horse Sense" column, Sen. Max Baucus will not have a primary challenger.
Baucus has been sliding a bit leftish, mostly by emphasizing his CHIP legislation at every turn, and keeping his K-Street connections quiet.
Apparently, that was all the nod that Montana's left needed in order to quell their once burning desire to give Baucus a primary challenge in order to punish him for his deviations from liberal orthodoxy. Baucus has to be thinking to himself -- "wow, that was easy."
Actually, anyone who surfs around the lefty blogosphere in Montana has known for some time that there wouldn't be a primary challenger, given the increasingly friendly tone toward Baucus of late. The Baucus camp felt confident enough to start running paid ads on Left in the West and Montana Netroots, and did it by making the case most likely to win netroots hearts: "Keep a Dem in office," and "help build our majority in 2008."
As E.J. Dionne pointed out today when talking about the Yearly Kos meeting:
The key litmus tests for Kos and his many allies in the blogosphere involve not long lists of issues developed by the ACLU or the AFL-CIO, but loyalty in standing up against Bush and doing what's necessary to build a Democratic majority.
In other words, anyone who puts policy ahead of partisanship gets booted out the netroots door -- or is at least made to stand in the corner.
Dionne may have come to this on his own, but we suspect that he drew heavily from Jonathan Chait's famous article in the New Republic from back in May, in which Chait dissected the liberal netroots movement and came up with the conclusion that it is, first and foremost, a movement consciously modelling itself on the conservative movement -- which it perceives as being a take-no-prisoners partisan enterprise.
We might argue about how accurate Chait's take on the conservative movement was (would that we had actually been as organized, determined, and unified as he portrays,) but he made some excellent points. The article was and is well-worth reading.
But getting back to Baucus: before reading Chait's article, MH would have predicted a primary challenge from the left, intended to drive him in that direction. After reading Chait's article, we were certain that there would never be such a challenge -- unless the left were convinced that Baucus was 100% unassailable in the general election. Since winning is everything in the new liberal netroots world (at least according to Chait -- and now Dionne,) nothing that created enough dissension to risk the seat would be done.
The lack of a Baucus challenger from the left suggests that what MH has been saying for some time is apparently an opinion shared by our Democratic friends: Baucus is more vulnerable in this election than he has been in a long time -- and not just in the event of a Rehberg challenge.
Consider also the quick Democratic move to grab domain names associated with Bob Keenan. All of this should cause Republicans to consider this race to be in play -- because apparently Democrats do.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Keenan run would be healthy
If former Montana state Senate president Bob Keenan throws his hat in the ring, vying to be the candidate to challenge Sen. Baucus next year, it would be healthy for the state GOP.
Political memories are short, though, so Keenan would do well to get on in and start raising money, making phone calls, and travelling around the state. A lot has happened since Keenan's primary challenge to Sen. Conrad Burns, and even more has happened since Keenan was Senate president.
He needs to remind Montanans of his leadership qualities and ability to mount a tough campaign -- and for many who weren't paying attention back then, he will need to introduce himself.
Mike Lange was right when he responded with an upbeat note for the party:
It's encouraging from a party standpoint that folks might finally wake up to the fact that we can beat Max Baucus, despite a $6 million lead in money.
Sen. Baucus is far more vulnerable than he has been in years. We need to find out who is up to the challenge of opposing him. Lange isn't going to roll over and play dead, and neither, we suspect, will Keenan, once he is in.
Now, who else?
Political memories are short, though, so Keenan would do well to get on in and start raising money, making phone calls, and travelling around the state. A lot has happened since Keenan's primary challenge to Sen. Conrad Burns, and even more has happened since Keenan was Senate president.
He needs to remind Montanans of his leadership qualities and ability to mount a tough campaign -- and for many who weren't paying attention back then, he will need to introduce himself.
Mike Lange was right when he responded with an upbeat note for the party:
It's encouraging from a party standpoint that folks might finally wake up to the fact that we can beat Max Baucus, despite a $6 million lead in money.
Sen. Baucus is far more vulnerable than he has been in years. We need to find out who is up to the challenge of opposing him. Lange isn't going to roll over and play dead, and neither, we suspect, will Keenan, once he is in.
Now, who else?
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Lange strikes the right note, too
In our last episode, we noted that Montana GOP chairman Erik Iverson "struck exactly the right note when asked for a response" to the odd attack on Mike Lange by state Sen. Brueggeman of Polson.
Today, Lange himself handled the situation just about perfectly himself in an interview with the Gazette.
"The campaign has a long, long way to go. We hope we can get him to vote for me." Lange said he has always gotten along well with Brueggeman. "John's a very energetic legislator," Lange said. "He's worked hard for his district. It's like everything else. I've got to work to earn everyone's vote. I guess we'll see how that goes."
Again, Sen. Brueggeman should take notes on how all of this is done. It's really not that complicated.
Lange is exactly right that if he wants to be the GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, he will have some real convincing to do. In that light, Lange is wise to have started very early -- he will have to pound a lot of pavement, drive a lot of miles, shake a lot of hands, and answer a lot of questions if he wants to win the GOP primary.
It is refreshing (but not surprising, knowing what we've seen of Lange) that he is not playing "don't be unfair to poor me," but rather seems to be taking this head-on like a man:
Lange was undaunted, too, by the news reported by Roll Call that Republican leaders are trying to recruit former state Senate President Bob Keenan, R-Bigfork, to run for the Senate.
"The national committee would like to have the strongest possible candidate they can, and I believe that it's me," Lange said.
He said he's confident GOP party leaders will back him "once they see how we campaign and that we're going to be a very serious contender."
Montana Headlines remains doubtful that Lange will win the primary, and skeptical about his ability to be the best candidate to take on Sen. Baucus, but as we noted long ago, the idea of Lange as the GOP nominee is intriguing.
Part of what made the 2002 Mike Taylor campaign such a disaster was that Taylor, at least in the image he portrayed publicly, fell apart when he got hit -- hard and characteristically nasty -- by the Montana Democratic smear machine.
Whoever our candidate is this time will have to do better when the inevitable mud starts to fly -- and if Lange manages to prove that he has grace, toughness, and a sense of humor under fire, that will go far.
After all, how might that campaign have gone had Mike Taylor, say, gone on TV in a wild-looking leisure suit, shown everyone the famous video of his TV show where he was applying lotion to a man's face, and said:
Max, you and your buddies seem to be unnaturally interested in this video. Well, I checked in my garage,and I still have a couple of bottles of that facial stuff I made millions selling, and I'd like to invite you over to my house so you can give it a try. My wife and I can give you a two-for-the-price-of-one facial -- one for the face you wear in Washington and on K-Street, and one for the face you wear in Montana come election time. No hard feelings about your attack ad -- we'll put a pot of coffee on and wait up for you... "I'm Mike Taylor, and I sure as hell approved this ad."
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Brueggeman: "Somebody has to stop the bleeding" (MH: we're still waiting for that "somebody")
Montana Headlines has remained agnostic about the Lange Senate run. Frankly, the chances of Lange getting the nod to take on Baucus are so small that it hardly seems worth spending time worrying about it.
There are probably a dozen potential candidates that could be named right off the top of one's head who would be better. There are probably a dozen Republicans in the current state senate alone who would do a better job for the party in that race.
Of course, someone actually has to challenge Lange -- don't worry, at least one someone will, and that someone will almost certainly get the nomination. So one would think that cool heads would prevail and that party regulars would take a chill pill.
But apparently, not all heads are cool, and apparently all it takes to get a nice article in the Gazette these days is to be a GOP lawmaker sending an e-mail saying that he will vote for Baucus in the general election if Lange is the nominee.
And this is going to change the results of such an election exactly how? (That was a rhetorical question.)
What exactly Brueggeman was trying to accomplish isn't quite clear. How does this announcement "stop the bleeding?" If he explained it in his e-mail, the Gazette didn't share that bit with us, the humble readers.
Does he think that this will encourage a potentially "headlining" candidate (as he put it) to enter the race? Not really. Any potential candidate has to ask himself, "gee, am I a headlining kind of candidate?" Because if not, Brueggeman might send an e-mail to the Gazette to announce that he's still going to vote for Baucus -- not something that is going to inspire confidence.
Or what if potential candidate X gets the thumbs-up from Brueggeman? Will this endear him to party loyalists who have loyally slogged through campaign after frustrating campaign against Baucus?
Keep in mind that Brueggeman didn't say that he would write in another name, or that he would sit the Senate race out -- he actually said he would vote for the Democratic candidate.
Try to imagine any Montana Democrat of standing who would announce an intention to vote for a Republican -- no matter how bad the Democratic candidate. Green Party -- maybe. Republican? Nope.
Brueggeman is correct that the Montana GOP is "kind of on the rocks right now." Very insightful of him to notice.
There are probably ways to help the GOP in its current time of troubles, but announcing that if you don't get the nominee of your choice that you will pick up your toys and go play with the Democrats isn't perhaps one of the most helpful items on the list.
The new GOP state chairman Erik Iverson struck exactly the right note when asked for a response:
"Senator Brueggeman is a good senator and a sharp guy, and he's entitled to his own opinion," said Iverson, who took office last month.
"The Montana Republican Party is going to strongly support the Republican nominee in the general election, whoever that may be. Differences in the party are certainly welcome. I certainly respect Senator Brueggeman."
Sen. Brueggeman should take notes on how this is done. Even though Iverson probably wanted to swat Brueggeman on the head with a rolled up copy of the Gazette for his failure of nerve (or maybe MH is just projecting,) he said nice things about Brueggeman and stated that the party is a big tent with room for differences of opinion.
And he said that the Republican Party would support the nominee -- whoever it might be.
Even if the good Sen. Brueggeman was anxious to get his name in the paper and to express his disapproval of a Lange candidacy, he could perhaps have accomplished the same thing in a more constructive way by saying something like this:
The Montana GOP is having problems right now. One of the things we need to turn things around is a U.S. Senate candidate who will run a good, clean race against Sen. Baucus, and who will put our party's best foot forward.
While I respect the hard work that Mike Lange has done, and admire his willingness to take on the formidable task of running against Sen. Baucus, I do not believe that he is someone who should be a a leading face and voice of the Montana Republican party in 2008.
While I will support the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, whoever that may be, I and many other leading Montana Republicans feel that Mike Lange is not the best candidate for that race.
We urge other potential candidates to step forward -- we will support you. I look forward to a spirited and substantive primary campaign and to a Republican victory in November.
In fact -- maybe Montana Headlines should send such an e-mail to the Gazette. On a slow news day, perhaps they'd make an article out of it.
There are probably a dozen potential candidates that could be named right off the top of one's head who would be better. There are probably a dozen Republicans in the current state senate alone who would do a better job for the party in that race.
Of course, someone actually has to challenge Lange -- don't worry, at least one someone will, and that someone will almost certainly get the nomination. So one would think that cool heads would prevail and that party regulars would take a chill pill.
But apparently, not all heads are cool, and apparently all it takes to get a nice article in the Gazette these days is to be a GOP lawmaker sending an e-mail saying that he will vote for Baucus in the general election if Lange is the nominee.
And this is going to change the results of such an election exactly how? (That was a rhetorical question.)
What exactly Brueggeman was trying to accomplish isn't quite clear. How does this announcement "stop the bleeding?" If he explained it in his e-mail, the Gazette didn't share that bit with us, the humble readers.
Does he think that this will encourage a potentially "headlining" candidate (as he put it) to enter the race? Not really. Any potential candidate has to ask himself, "gee, am I a headlining kind of candidate?" Because if not, Brueggeman might send an e-mail to the Gazette to announce that he's still going to vote for Baucus -- not something that is going to inspire confidence.
Or what if potential candidate X gets the thumbs-up from Brueggeman? Will this endear him to party loyalists who have loyally slogged through campaign after frustrating campaign against Baucus?
Keep in mind that Brueggeman didn't say that he would write in another name, or that he would sit the Senate race out -- he actually said he would vote for the Democratic candidate.
Try to imagine any Montana Democrat of standing who would announce an intention to vote for a Republican -- no matter how bad the Democratic candidate. Green Party -- maybe. Republican? Nope.
Brueggeman is correct that the Montana GOP is "kind of on the rocks right now." Very insightful of him to notice.
There are probably ways to help the GOP in its current time of troubles, but announcing that if you don't get the nominee of your choice that you will pick up your toys and go play with the Democrats isn't perhaps one of the most helpful items on the list.
The new GOP state chairman Erik Iverson struck exactly the right note when asked for a response:
"Senator Brueggeman is a good senator and a sharp guy, and he's entitled to his own opinion," said Iverson, who took office last month.
"The Montana Republican Party is going to strongly support the Republican nominee in the general election, whoever that may be. Differences in the party are certainly welcome. I certainly respect Senator Brueggeman."
Sen. Brueggeman should take notes on how this is done. Even though Iverson probably wanted to swat Brueggeman on the head with a rolled up copy of the Gazette for his failure of nerve (or maybe MH is just projecting,) he said nice things about Brueggeman and stated that the party is a big tent with room for differences of opinion.
And he said that the Republican Party would support the nominee -- whoever it might be.
Even if the good Sen. Brueggeman was anxious to get his name in the paper and to express his disapproval of a Lange candidacy, he could perhaps have accomplished the same thing in a more constructive way by saying something like this:
The Montana GOP is having problems right now. One of the things we need to turn things around is a U.S. Senate candidate who will run a good, clean race against Sen. Baucus, and who will put our party's best foot forward.
While I respect the hard work that Mike Lange has done, and admire his willingness to take on the formidable task of running against Sen. Baucus, I do not believe that he is someone who should be a a leading face and voice of the Montana Republican party in 2008.
While I will support the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, whoever that may be, I and many other leading Montana Republicans feel that Mike Lange is not the best candidate for that race.
We urge other potential candidates to step forward -- we will support you. I look forward to a spirited and substantive primary campaign and to a Republican victory in November.
In fact -- maybe Montana Headlines should send such an e-mail to the Gazette. On a slow news day, perhaps they'd make an article out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)