Blog review

Back in the early days of Montana Headlines, I posted nearly every day -- sometimes more than once a day. In that atmosphere, I found myself frequently commenting on content found in other blogs -- both lefty and righty. Now that I have been sticking to a regular thrice-weekly posting schedule and maintaining topical consistency for the publication schedule, I rarely have space or opportunity to comment on the interesting blogs that I read.

The Montana blog that I visit the most often, hands-down, is Electric City Weblog, and for good reason. The triumvirate of writers -- Gregg Smith, Dave Budge, and Rob Natelson are as good as any around. Each has his area of interest and expertise, making for regular doses of something for everyone. In addition, their blog has made room for guest posters. Most recently, Electric City has given space to the woes of Benefis Hospital in Great Falls. While I haven't read all of those posts, as a health professional, I can guarantee that the public has been treated to inside views of the Great Falls health care scene that it would never get from the official media -- in no small part because of the economic power that large local hospitals have in Montana cities (i.e. they buy lots of advertising).

Astute readers will also have noted that Ed Kemmick's blog was recently added to the sidebar at the right. Longtime readers will recall that Kemmick's City Lights blog at the Billings Gazette was the key Montana blog as far as Montana Headlines was concerned. In addition, just as Montana Headlines has been a faithful critic of his employer, the Billings Gazette, Kemmick has been a faithful critic of Montana Headlines when I have deserved it (and even occasionally when I haven't.) Kemmick was never an enthusiastic commenter on things like politics in his blogposts and comments, but he did a most credible job of it in spite of such scruples. The advent of his current blog coincided with the appearance of his recent book (just buy it -- you won't be sorry) and has taken an interesting literary bent, with musings on books and literature taking the fore.

One blog I have mentioned a few times has been Million Dollar Way, the mother of all Bakken blogs. It is like drinking from a fire hydrant -- one is in awe at the output, which is so voluminous that one has to spend a fair amount of time just making sure that one has glanced over all of the posts since one last visited.

A new rightward Montana blog is Rockin' On the Right Side, with an interesting mixture of politics, pop culture, and music videos. A recent sampling includes a recent lineup of Chicago performing "Questions 67 and 68," Peter Gabriel doing "Big Time," BTO with "Takin Care of Business," and one of my favorites -- Huey Lewis. It's worth visiting just to see what classic rock videos are going to be posted.

What about the leftie blogs? Have to confess that I rarely look at them the way I used to, and thus have little worth saying about them.

There doesn't seem to be the kind of heated interplay between the leftward and rightward blogosphere in Montana -- and indeed, there aren't as many political blogs in Montana -- compared to my most active years of political blogging. Perhaps the world has moved on to other forms of communication, leaving blogs in the dust. Maybe we just aren't bothering to communicate at all. Maybe we're all too busy doing more important things. My vote -- or rather my hopes -- are with the latter.

I have the entire family home for the holidays, so my own blogging will be sparse until January.

Million Dollar Way and the Bakken

Happy Labor Day to all. Hope everyone is out laboring, making the engine of our economy hum. You can be sure that nothing is stopping in the oil fields of the Bakken today -- think good thoughts of gratitude about those hard-working guys while filling up your gas tank on your way to or from work (or recreation) today.

As I ease my way back into things after my surgeries, I want to use today's energy post to thank Bruce Oksol at Million Dollar Way for mentioning Montana Headlines. He had previously linked to my American Spectator piece on Montana and the Bakken, and recently caught the fact that I had linked to him.

Anyone who is interested in what is going on with oil production in the Bakken formation -- especially in North Dakota -- needs to browse through Bruce's blog from time to time. It is the gold standard for just getting lots of information out there.

Montana Headlines is really less a blog than it is a web publication where I put out three columns a week. Million Dollar Way is what a certain kind of blog can be -- multiple posts a day filled with raw information that simply isn't gathered elsewhere. And if the number of hits that arrived at this site within hours of Bruce's post are any indication, a lot of people are following his blog closely.

The material, furthermore, is assembled and aggregated by a thinking human being, and not by a computer program (we've all seen those useless aggregating sites.) So check it out.

I'll be back with more in-depth considerations of energy development in Montana next Monday.

Workers' Comp -- more than you might like to know

To check out what would appear to be the rather sorry state of the Worker's Compensation Program in Montana when compared to, well, just about any other state, go to Montana Main Street Blog to take the quiz.

The last question is the kicker: our state Supreme Court, unless it fails to be true to form, will probably put us in an even worse position in the national rankings. Cheery thoughts in a week filled with cheery events.

Wiki-wipe -- Or... remember when it wasn't acceptable to do politics using the state's equipment?

Remember when $50 worth of phone calls related to fundraising for a 527 group made by staffers from Gov. Martz's office was enough to cause a major upheaval that administration?

Well, then, you perhaps remember when the Montana press cared deeply about keeping the political operation separate from the governing side of the governor's office. And rightly so.

Montana Headlines quite agrees with Electric City that "outrage, OUTRAGE!" over relatively minor stuff is off-putting, so we won't express any.

But we also do agree with Electric City that it is at least worth taking note of the Wiki-wipe operation apparently being carried out on state-owned computers to keep any information about the governor's (joking?) boasts of election-day shenanigans off the Governor Brian Schweitzer Wikipedia entry.

A "high crime?" Hardly.

Part of a pattern of an operation that can't or won't acknowledge the difference between what belongs to the state and what should be done by political campaigns using their own time, money and equipment? It would seem reasonable to at least explore the concept.

Given that it was newsworthy when someone back in 2006 used a Senate computer to edit out a report of something embarrassing that Conrad Burns had said -- will it now be newsworthy to learn that someone in state government is using state-owned computers and servers to wipe Wikipedia of references to the governor saying that he used his power as governor to "turn some dials" to make Sen. Jon Tester's election happen?

Just curious -- we'll wait and see.

Election Day Shenanigans by the governor?

The governor apparently told a lot of east-coast trial lawyers with fat wallets that he used his authority as governor to grease the wheels on the Tester express.

Since the media is currently obsessed with questions about the activities of a certain Alaska governor, we can surely expect that the Montana press will listen to the recording of this speech and do some hard-nosed investigating of things of interest in their own backyard, right?

Maybe there's nothing to it -- or more specifically, nothing illegal to it, but we won't know until the press has thoroughly checked it out. It's not like this is an internet rumor -- the governor's words are on tape.

Have at it, Montana press. Good job to the Montana blogs that have been writing about it.

Bipartisan consensus -- or lack thereof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCain's YouTube dominance

Montana Headlines was recently taken gently to task over at Billings Blog for having acquired a taste for some of the more recent McCain ads mocking Obama's greatness and celebrity.

While Montana Headlines very often disagrees with David Crisp's opinions, they are always worthy of consideration and response.

To be sure, these recent McCain ads aren't on the artistic level of a Fassbinder trilogy, but then, they aren't supposed to be. Nor are they intended to be wonkish pieces with voices droning on about serious policy proposals.

John McCain is running against an opponent who has been basking in an aura that a very astute Obama campaign has assiduously worked to create. A big part of this has been the way that this aura is passed virally to susceptible hosts, as it were.

The job of a good political campaign faced with battling an opponent who floats in the clouds is to turn on a very strong fan an point it at said nebulous construction. And that is what the recent spate of McCain ads were intended to do. Hillary Clinton tried to pierce the Obama bubble, but unsuccessfully -- mainly because it was impossible for the Clintons to deal with such an upstart with a sense of humor. And it does take a sense of humor to deflate hubris of the Obama magnitude.

These niche videos were never to be broadcast on television to a broad audience -- they were intended to go viral, and that is exactly what they have done.

Mr. Crisp says that the McCain videos aren't particularly funny and are an "acquired taste," but it is apparently a taste increasingly shared by many:

Writing in the Washington Times, Stephan Dinan notes that McCain has solidly taken the lead in the YouTube wars.

Mr. McCain has pumped out a series of brutal yet entertaining attack ads and Web videos mocking the press and Mr. Obama, and the combination of wit and insult has pushed his YouTube channel to the sixth most watched on the site this week.

Mr. McCain has beat Mr. Obama's channel for seven straight days and 11 of the past 14 days, in a signal he intends to compete for the YouTube vote.

That is a giant reversal. Mr. Obama had been quadrupling Mr. McCain's YouTube views and beat him every day since February, according to TubeMogul, which tracks online video viewing.

Do we political types want to sit around and debate the finer points of policy? Absolutely. Has McCain sunk to a low level, as Mr. Crisp contends? Perhaps. But it is in the soothingly warm sunken jacuzzi of nebulous feel-good imagery that Sen. Obama has been basking during this campaign -- casually putting away a field of quite distinguished Democratic contenders, most of whom were superior to him in political and governmental experience.

Since then, he has been just patiently waiting, it seems, for the boring routine of having the people vote to annoint him President.

Willie Sutton famously answered the question of why he robbed banks with a simple answer: "because that's where the money is."

And in any war -- real or metaphorical -- at some point you have to chase down the opposition where it is living and destroy it. That's all that McCain is doing with ads like "Celebrity" and "The One."

The world of the internet video is not the only front in this campaign, but it is an essential one in 2008, one where until now Sen. Obama has had the field largely to himself, reaping huge benefits in the process. As a result, we now face the improbable situation of putting a man who only 4 years ago was an undistinguished Illinois state senator (and who has done little during 4 years in the U.S. Senate but run for President) into the most powerful elected position on the planet.

Oh yes, not only is it allowable for John McCain to enter this particular fray -- it is his duty.

Religious intolerance for Gov. Jindal?

Montana Headlines thought it a bit suspicious when a leftie dropped by on the last post, indicating agreement with our plug for Gov. Bobby Jindal as McCain's Veep choice.

But Wulfgar let the (black?) cat out of the bag: Dems apparently see Gov. Jindal, a devout convert to Catholicism, as being vulnerable because he witnessed an exorcism while in college and (gasp) prayed the "Hail Mary" while it was going on. He wrote an article about the experience in the New Oxford Review -- a journal that was started by Episcopalians of the Anglo-Catholic persuasion, but whose editors likewise converted to Catholicism subsequent to the theological and moral turmoil in their former denomination. And the article included a passage about the exorcism.

Whatever the phenomenon was that the youthful Jindal observed, the net effect was that it left him believing in "the reality of spirits, angels and other related phenomena..." Shocking, truly shocking, that any Christian might believe in the reality of the spirit world.

While the event Jindal relates appears to be from his early days of being a Catholic, and took place within the loose structure of a generic college Christian organization, it is worth noting that exorcisms are, unless things have changed recently, a standard part of every Catholic baptism. Pope John Paul II approved a specific rite for exorcisms in the late 1990's. A belief that there are demonic forces that can specifically oppress an individual, and that prayer has efficacy in dealing with it is not something that comes from the fringes of Christianity.

Anything that a politician has written in the past is, of course, fair game. What church a candidate chose to attend for decades is fair game. Pretty much everything is fair game in politics. Voters can and will decide whether something makes them more or less likely to support a candidate.

But what if Jindal were still a Hindu, and believed in reincarnation and karma? Or if he had dabbled in Buddhism in college rather than Catholicism? Or if he had smoked peyote as part of a spiritual search that included an exploration of Native American religion? Would he be just as scary and excrable as he apparently is for having been a part of an unusual prayer service held by a campus Christian organization at Brown University, back when Christianity was still a new thing for him? Would he be mocked for these experiences on leftie blogs?

But in a nation where 62% of Americans reportedly believe that there is such a thing as the devil, we're not sure how much ground will be gained by Democrats ridiculing Jindal about the fact that a very strange college experience convinced him that there is more to the spiritual world than meets the eye.

A recent Gallup poll indicates that nearly 3/4 of Americans believe in the reality of paranormal phenomenon (75% for Christians, 66% for non-Christians). For that matter, 64% of Americans believe that aliens have contacted humans and nearly half apparently believe that aliens have abducted humans... Now, just because 31% of Americans believe in telepathy doesn't mean that there is a 31% chance that it is true -- a majority of people can believe something and have it be wrong. But in America today, someone who doesn't believe that paranormal phenomena exist is actually the odd man out.

If Democrats decide to go down the road of religious ridicule toward Gov. Jindal, it will only reinforce the perception that their party is a hotbed of religious intolerance -- a party where it is acceptable (cool, even) to have dabbled in just about anything in college... other than Christianity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drill, drill, drill? We can only hope.

_______________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts on John McCain and bipartisanship

It was brought to our attention that Montana Headlines was linked to on the John McCain website (see below.) This is an honor, since MH quite a while ago came to the conclusion that John McCain was the logical nominee out of the choices available this year. (To anyone who didn't read our initial shot across the bow last December advocating a McCain nomination, don't click on the link expecting it to be a fluff piece made up of gushing talking points.)

But we would like to make some comments spurred by browsing around the blogging page at JohnMcCain.com -- we note that it includes links to some liberal blogs like the Daily Kos. Visiting the Obama website and browsing around a little, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent open-mindedness towards conservative websites on the part of the Obama campaign.

But then, that a part of what this campaign will demonstrate. For those who are concerned about the increasing divisiveness of politics in America, there is a clear choice this year.

On the one hand, we have in John McCain a Republican with a real record of reaching across party lines (even if MH wouldn't always agree with some of those bipartisan efforts.) Sometimes this has meant that Sen. McCain has earned the criticism of fellow Republicans, including MH.

On the other hand we have in Sen. Obama a Democrat who talks a good "transcending partisanship" game, but who is a conventional, down-the-line liberal without any record of transgressing even the most minor liberal dogmas.

He is, at present, trying to act like he is moving to the middle, but his past record and words militate against it being genuine. Where is Sen. Obama's record of liberals being unhappy with his votes because he reached across the aisle? It just isn't there.

Sen. Obama wants us all to get along and feel good -- but the terms of getting along seem to be that we who are a part of the center-right majority of Americans will need to strum guitars and learn the words to the old leftist songs. That's not the kind of bipartisanship that arouses much interest around here.

As Dick Morris pointed out in a sobering recent column, Obama will have no choice but to govern from the far left if he is elected President. Morris's arguments are compelling.

The far left is just not where America is -- and certainly not where we should want it to go. It's certainly not where Montana is.

Just one more reason that gives urgency to the importance of electing Sen. McCain this fall.

Montana Headlines is now a blog by the Billings Gazette

Don't believe MH that we are part of the Billings Gazette now? Well, just check out JohnMcCain.com, go to the conservative section of the "suggested blogs," and click on Montana Headlines. It's right there in black and white -- or rather blue and white: "A political blog by the Billings Gazette."

(We were gratified to see that are joined by Western Word, one of our favorite blogs, at the McCain site.)

We've notified the McCain campaign in the interest of accuracy, but for the moment, we'll enjoy being a part of the Billings Gazette family -- easily the most conservative and Republican-friendly part of it, we would imagine. The mixup is understandable, since commenting on the Billings Gazette is listed in our sub-heading part of our mission statement -- even if increasingly neglected in favor of broader commentary and reporting on Montana politics.

Get the real story on Obama in Butte

From Kate over at Big Sky Cairn. Great reporting and local color -- check it out.

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

Read Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

____________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, any final comments for MH readers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duane Grimes -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 2 of 3

Read Part 1 of the Montana Headlines interview with State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes here.

__________________________________________________


Part 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming attractions on Montana Headlines

Regular readers of Montana Headlines will notice that posting has been a little lighter of late.

But that doesn't mean that nothing is going on. There are two upcoming posts that readers won't want to miss. One is a guest editorial from our candidate for governor -- Sen. Roy Brown. The second is an on-line interview with State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes that will be posted over the course of several days in a series of posts.

We continue to have a commitment to providing information and commentary about politics at the state level here in Montana.

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.

More (if such were possible) about guns, religion, Obama, and Montana

David Crisp over at Billings Blog has a long and thoughtful post responding in part to MH musings on the "guns and religion" comments of Sen. Obama. It is worth reading, and there is too much to respond to each point, but some thoughts present themselves.

Before touching on some of the substance of the post, it is worth noting that Mr. Crisp offers his credentials of having lived for long periods in small towns and having grown up in a religious family.

This is not inconsequential. Mr. Crisp's writing do tend to reflect a generally fair treatment of the rural right. But the two do not necessarily go hand in hand.

One doesn't have to be from a big city liberal background to be condescending toward rural America and its cultural concerns. It is pretty commonplace for someone who grew up in a rural or small-town environment to move off to the big city and adopt both liberal ideas and airs of intellectual or moral superiority to those who stayed behind with their guns, gossip, and religion. Who is loudest in condemning the nastiness of smoking other than ex-smokers, after all?

Likewise, some of the most derogatory things you will hear about middle America come out of the mouths of those who are trying to distance themselves from their backgrounds. In the Montana Headlines experience, a reasonably good predictor of whether former small-town or rural dwellers retains sympathetic affinities to rural America in urban adulthood is the degree to which they hold conservative political views.

But to the Billings Blog post:

Montana Headlines cites George Packer, who says that Republicans have dominated presidential politics for most of the last half of the century because Democrats are blind to rural concerns. Packer's contention is dubious on multiple grounds.

For one thing, Republicans have held the presidency for 28 of the last 48 years. That's 58 percent of the time -- a nice margin but a bit short of dominant, especially when one considers that of the five Republicans who held the presidency during that period, one resigned in disgrace, two couldn't get re-elected and another not only lost the popular vote but may leave office as the most unpopular president in U.S. history.

First, a picky point. It really isn't accurate to say that President Ford couldn't get re-elected, since he was never elected in the first place. In fact, part of the reason why Ronald Reagan could run such a strong primary challenge to him was that Reagan had a nation-wide grass-roots base, while Ford didn't. He had never even run a state-wide election, let alone won a national one. (Note to John McCain -- if you want to win, don't even think about picking someone like Sec. State Rice for your Veep, who has never so much as run in a campaign for county commissioner.)

The only Republican President not to be re-elected since Hoover was Bush the elder, who lost in no small part because of one H. Ross Perot. What is amazing is that Bush won as many electoral votes as he did even with Perot siphoning off as much as 15 - 20% of the vote in some states.

Also, by choosing the last 48 years, Mr. Crisp's percentages are misleading, because by including the Kennedy-Johnson era, one is dipping back into a different time in American electoral politics. (In fairness, he could argue that starting with Nixon is cherry-picking, too, while someone else should argue for going back to 1952...)

But prior to 1968, populism of the right hadn't really yet come into its own, since in the 1960 and 1964 elections America really hadn't yet experienced any significant cultural changes since the revolution of the New Deal some 20 years prior. In the 40 years since the cultural upheaval that took place during Johnson's second term, by contrast, Democrats have held the Oval Office for exactly 12 years. This in spite of the fact that over most of that same period of time, Democrats held a substantial voter registration advantage over Republicans (they still have a registration advantage -- just not as large.)

And in only one of those three terms did a Democrat win a majority of the popular vote (in 1976 Jimmy Carter carried just under 51% of the vote.) In the other two Democratic victories, the majority of the popular vote was split between a mainstream Republican and what can best be described as a populist candidate of the right.

The fact that Republicans managed to win 7 of 10 Presidential elections over that period in spite of being in the minority and in spite of having flawed candidates like Nixon and W only makes the case stronger for the remarkable political power of the populism of the right.

And as has been pointed out on Montana Headlines, Democrats have risen to their current position of prominence in Montana in no small part because of a deliberate strategy of literally out-gunning the Republicans. The fact that Montana Democrats have been so eager to distance themselves from Obama's comments is far better evidence for the potential political negatives in those comments than is the shrill rhetoric of conservative talkers like Rush and Hannity.

MH readers may note that there has been a conspicuous absence of anything on this site about the Rev. Wright, Ayers and the Weather Underground, and other "guilt by association" attacks on Obama. It isn't that there aren't some troubling things about these associations, or that there might not end up being something there worthy of comment. But they remain only very indirect glimpses into how Obama thinks, and are thus limited in their usefulness. And people do want to know how he thinks and whether they trust him -- the very vagueness of his admittedly inspiring speeches and his lack of a track record as a public official mean that small things will receive disproportionate levels of attention. Someone with a lengthy record of public service of Sen. McCain or even Sen. Clinton is just not going to have tiny things scrutinized in the same way. There's more context.

Obama's potential for broad appeal is built on the idea that he can transcend the usual political divisions. His soaring rhetoric at the 2004 DNC about how "we serve a mighty God in the blue states," and his subsequent heavy use of religious imagery and preaching style in his speeches are sort of the equivalent of Montana's governor saying that he can talk about health care from the back of a horse or stressing the importance of making sure he is seen holding a gun, or pulling a rifle cartridge out of his pocket.

They are powerful visual and verbal images that are intended to tell religious and conservative rural America that "I understand you -- you can trust me -- I'm not Michael Dukakis or John Kerry."

But by channeling "What's the Matter with Kansas" in the cozy liberal confines of a San Francisco fundraiser, Sen. Obama was giving us another data point to consider and an alternative way to view him -- one that is more in keeping with how rural conservative folks are used to having their liberal betters talk about them. And with his Ivy League education, his aloof manner, and the obsequious behavior of his followers, it isn't hard to imagine him as one of our liberal betters.

As Packer pointed out in his New Yorker piece, the most common way that he had heard liberals defend Obama's comments was by saying that Obama was just saying out loud what everyone (i.e. every one of their fellow liberals) knows to be true.

So Obama's comments resonated deeply -- not so much because of the specifics of the comments, but because of the attitude that those kinds of comments represent to a lot of people out in the heartland. And one suspects that because of that, this episode will have legs.

Montana Headlines is in a fix, or rather -- The Fix

Courtesy of the sharp-eyed jhwygirl over at 4&20 Blackbirds, we learned that Montana Headlines made the list (along with 4&20 and LITW) over at Chris Cillizza's Washington Post blog, "The Fix."

Our thanks go out to whomever it was that put in a good word for MH. The political season is only just now starting to heat up, and there is a lot to talk about. So stay tuned...

But we just have to confess that we'd trade all of this glory for a mention by our favorite NR curmudgeon -- John Derbyshire. Good for you, Carol.

Speaking of which, is anyone else out there addicted to the Radio Derb podcasts?

No? Well you should be. Really -- where else today are you going to get that delicious old-fashioned conservative mix of sarcasm, misanthropy, sharp-tongued wit, and old-time religion? (Political religion that is, since Derb is an atheist -- nobody's perfect.)

And where else can one hear that great old conservative saying on a regular basis: "we are doomed, doomed..."

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.

Sen. Tester and earmarks

The ever-vigilant Western Word has told the story that amazingly enough (note: sarcasm alert) didn't get told in the Billings Gazette today.

The Gazette notes that Sen. Tester, like Sen. Baucus, voted against a moratorium on earmarks. Earmarks are a common way that pork-barrel projects get put through without debating the merits of the project.

There is a case to be made for earmarks, so the vote is not necessarily bad for Montana. The point, as Western Word notes, is that during the campaign, Tester used earmarks as a baseball bat to beat then Sen. Conrad Burns over the head.

Tester's spokespeople are now trying to say that he never opposed earmarks, unfortunately for them, Western Word has done the research:

That reply is not true. Not even partly true. During an October 9, 2006, PBS debate in Bozeman, Tester said, “I don’t support earmarks, period.” A few seconds later, he added, “I’m not for earmarks.”

A link is provided to check out the video of the debate.

So why isn't the vigilant Montana press doing this kind of homework, and asking hard questions of Sen. Tester? Why doesn't the Gazette article mention Tester's constant beating of the drum against earmarks in his campaign challenge to Burns?

There are a few options that Tester could say and be truthful, but one of those options would not appear to be the lie that he has chosen to use: that he was "never against earmarks."

So what could he say and be truthful and believable?

"Look, I was just clueless, and didn't know what I was talking about back then. I was wrong. I didn't know that earmarks were good for Montana -- or that they would be good for my later political posturing.

I just said what I needed to say to get elected."

Or...

"Look, I never thought there was anything wrong with earmarks, and I knew good and well that once I was Senator, I would earmark with the best of them in order to bring spending projects to Montana so I could get re-elected.

I just said what I need to say to get elected, and knew I would likely get a free ride from the press on the issue."

Montana Headlines has time and again pointed out that Tester has repeatedly failed to support real earmark reform -- and it's not because there haven't been any opportunities to sign on to meaningful legislation. There have been plenty. This is just one of many examples of where "squeaky clean" Sen. Tester campaigned one way and is playing the Washington game in quite another. Not that this should surprise anyone -- it certainly doesn't surprise us.

Too bad the Montana press, which rode to Sen. Tester's rescue in his campaign against Sen. Burns, isn't showing any signs of playing "watchdog" on any of these questions. That watchdog role doesn't seem nearly as important now that Gov. Martz and Sen. Burns have been dispensed with.