Coal state Democrats -- does Montana follow the pattern?

A lot of coal state Democrats are running from President Obama and his stances, which can only be reasonably described as hostile to the coal industry.

Some (but by no means all) high-profile Montana Democrats have not tended to follow that example. Gubernatorial candidate Steve Bullock has broken with his fellow Democrats on the land board on a number of occasions, voting against coal development. Senator Tester has likewise been pretty quiet about President Obama's EPA, and indeed has doubled down in defending EPA policies that other coal-state Democrats have condemned as unreasonable. As we noted before in our "between a frack and a hard place" piece, one plausible explanation for Montana Democrats being timid about going all out for coal is matter of just who is writing the checks to their campaigns.

As a Charles Johnson article noted today, Steve Bullock's lead in fundraising this cycle is completely a function of his high percentage of out-of-state donors. As always, Johnson's article is good, straight reporting. It is interesting that the Helena Independent Record's headline emphasizes Bullock's money lead, whereas the Billings Gazette headline emphasizes the fact that his lead results from out-of-state money. Given that the Gazette caused near-coronary events in Republican households across their readership area by endorsing Republican Rick Hill in Sunday's paper (is Hill poised for a more comfortable victory than we have been led to believe?), perhaps this headline is meant to give a little justification for that endorsement.

Getting back to money, Bullock's lead in fundraising demonstrates just how a dependence on out-of-state money puts Democrats in red states like Montana in a bind. Public sentiment is strongly in favor of natural resource development here in Montana -- and not just with Republicans.

And yet, when red state Democrats toe the environmentalist line insufficiently, they run the risk of losing all of that out-of-state money from liberal activists around the country who want some return on their investment.

Red state Republicans and blue state Democrats have no such conflict: any out-of-state conservative donor, for instance, will tend to have similar concerns as the average (right-of-center) Montanan on things like energy development.

More campaign finance silliness

Yes, it is a fact of political life that campaigns have to snipe at each other with accusations of political malpractice, of filing the required forms incorrectly, of failing to make the disclosures on yard signs large enough (hint: you still can’t read them from your car as you drive by even when they are the specified size), etc., etc. They have to -- it’s in the official “Campaign Operatives Handbook."

This sort of thing is why summer is called the “silly season” in political campaigns. The sad thing for the public is that as campaigns become interminable, the silly season gets longer and sillier.

Matt Gouras’s AP piece on the Montana GOP lawsuit against AG Steve Bullock lets us know just how turned around things can get during the silly season. It turns out that Bullock was raising money for an “unspecified office” for a long time (still deciding whether to run again for AG or to run for governor.) In fact his website allowed donors to give up to $1200 for 3 months prior to having declared for the governor’s race.

The significance there is that Bullock hadn’t declared for the governor’s race, and could reasonably be assumed to be seeking reelection as AG -- but $1200 is a gubernatorial campaign contribution limit and well above the amount allowed for contributions to an AG campaign. The numbers in the AP story aren’t quite self-explanatory -- the max donation this year for the governor’s race is only $630, which would translate into $1260 only if a candidate successfully wins the primary and can accept another $630 for the general election.

The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices already ruled against the protest, but the Montana GOP has taken the case to court. They have a point -- Dave Gallik, who was Commissioner at the time that the GOP filed their complaint with that office, was a contributor to Bullock’s AG campaign and can reasonably be assumed not to have been an unbiased participant. Adding to the difficulty of weeding this particular garden is the fact that the judges in Helena all know Bullock (Helena is a small town -- no surprise there), and so the case had to be moved to Lewistown, where Judge Wayne Phillips will hear the case.

As to things being turned on their head, Gouras points this out:

Bullock, who has fought in the other lawsuits for more transparency as he seeks to preserve Montana’s campaign finance laws, has argued he did not need to disclose which office he was seeking last year while he was raising hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Indeed, we have had to endure Bullock’s stentorian and moralizing pronouncements on electoral transparency, and now, he claims that the GOP protest has no validity. Silly.

Less convincingly, Gouras intimates that the GOP is also being hypocritical, since "Montana Republican Party attorney Jim Brown has argued in federal court that many Montana campaign finance laws are onerous and unconstitutional.” True enough, but the point that the Montana GOP has made in the past is that campaign finance rules are onerous and cumbersome. In this case, however, they are saying that if we are going to have these onerous rules on the books, then everyone needs to be held to the same standard.

Think of it like this: I often challenge my liberal friends who favor higher taxes to go ahead and pay more in taxes. There is nothing stopping them. You don’t even need to write an extra check. If all Democrats who want higher taxes simply don't claim the exemptions and deductions allowed to them by law, then presto -- they will all be paying the higher tax rates they say they want and the government will have more of the money they say it desperately needs to spend. After the sputtering ends, the reply usually boils down to this: the fact that they advocate higher tax rates for all doesn’t obligate them to pay more voluntarily in advance of such tax rates going into effect. Fair enough.

The same thing applies here. Just because the GOP believes that certain election laws are onerous doesn’t mean that Republicans are obligated to look the other way when Democrats skirt them. If Bullock and the Democrats believe there is nothing wrong with raising large amounts of money without the basic transparency of saying what you’re running for, they should lead the way to change the law.

As has been pointed out here at MH before, Montana’s contribution limits are antiquated and force candidates to spend inordinate amounts of time raising the amount of money that modern statewide races require. In other words, not only should Bullock (like every other candidate for statewide office) be able to raise money without declaring what office he is running for, he should be able to take in contributions as generous as someone is willing to give him. All of the filing and record-keeping absorb huge amounts of time and energy that candidates could better spend doing other things. Some campaign operatives skilled in such arcana might lose their jobs, but there is plenty of work to be had elsewhere. We hear they’re hiring for all sorts of jobs in the Bakken.

Best of all, we citizens would be spared having to hear the nit-picky campaign finance accusations that both parties dutifully hurl at each other during the interminable silly season.

Ted Washburn (or Clint Regenold) for HD 69

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday roundup and branding -- the Gazette, and beyond...

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Knowing a place: It isn't unusual to have someone in Montana claim to know a river or a piece of land well. Ranchers and farmers certainly tend to know every nook and cranny of their land, especially when they grew up there.

Ed Kemmick had a beautiful piece on a Columbus man who sets a high bar for knowing a river -- more particularly "his" 20-mile stretch:

Over the years, Ostwald has swum in it, waded it, inner-tubed on it, navigated it by canoe, raft and jet boat, walked up and down its banks.

He has fished every tributary in those 20 miles, investigated every ravine and gully. He has hunted game on its banks, run trap lines, explored its environs for human and natural artifacts.

Nine years ago, he was even married on it.

While the modern condition has introduced a level of nomadism of unprecedented scale, at the heart of a traditional life well-lived is being rooted in a place and knowing it well.

Thanks to Kemmick for giving us yet another living example of someone doing just that.

Rehberg on SCHIP: We're glad to see that in Rehberg's recently released editorial on SCHIP that he pointed out the inconvenient truth that it was a Republican Congress (of which he was a part) that created the program in the first place -- for children whose families made too much for Medicaid and not enough to afford private insurance or who had otherwise fallen through the cracks.

He points out what was wrong with the original House bill that he opposed, such as benefits for illegal aliens, inclusion of adults in a children's program, and robbing Medicare Advantage programs.

In short, he kept his promise to vote for a more reasonable bill -- and incidentally, it was a bill that does no less for children than did the original House bill for which Democrats and Montana editorial boards were beating the wearying "it's for the sake of the children!" scare-drum.

He calls on President Bush not to veto the bill, but truth to be told, a veto wouldn't be the worst thing for the legislation, since there are many more improvements that could be made. Rehberg himself alludes to one when he points out how many currently eligible children are not enrolled. These lowest-income families need the program the most, and more effort should be put into enrolling them, rather than trying to turn the program into a lower-middle-class entitlement program.

There are those who say, "If we can spend a gajillion dollars in Iraq we can...(insert favorite pet project.)" Not really -- someday we will be out of Iraq, and we are, after all spending half of what we used to spend on defense, as a percentage of our GDP. On the other hand, government entitlements are, as Ronald Reagan used to say, "the closest thing to eternal life you'll ever see on this earth," or something to that effect.

Since entitlements and vote-buying domestic spending are forever, it is worth grinding these bills down until they are the very best and careful legislation they can be.

Sens. Max Grassley and Charles Baucus: In a tribute to a Senator who "embodies the most ancient of conservative principles, a suspicion of institutional power," the New Republic reminds us of what a gem Sen. Charles Grassley is, and how utterly unappreciated he has been by most of the Republican Party over the last decade.

TNR notes that "it's incredible that Grassley has retained this disposition during the Bush years, when amassing institutional power became conservatives' reigning m.o."

Also making an appearance in the article is our Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who has taken a lot of heat from lefty Democrats for many things, including allowing Grassley to continue to set much of the agenda of the Senate Finance Committee, even though the Dems are now ruling supreme:

Losing his Senate Finance chairmanship in January, Grassley was himself to the end. When incoming Democratic chairman Max Baucus presented him with the parting gift of a wooden gavel, Grassley groused, "It probably cost more than it should, and more than I would have spent on somebody else." Luckily, his colleagues knew him well: Baucus assured him that the gavel was not a new purchase but Grassley's old one. "OK, so it's worn out," Grassley said. "Thank you very much."

An interesting bit of human interest, but what follows tells more of the real story, and it is a story that should remind Democrats that in Washington, what goes around eventually comes around -- and that this applies to good behavior, and not just bad:

Grassley's behavior when he was in the majority means that, in the minority, he retains more power than Republicans who screwed their opposition counterparts. Baucus has scolded officials who appear inclined to pay less attention to the demoted Grassley, telling them, "If Chuck asks you something, it's like I asked you for it."

Though Baucus is also worried about private equity, he's allowed Grassley to take as much--if not more--of the lead on the issue. It's a battle in which Grassley's passion for fair government can shine. His continued prominence also feels just because, out of all the Senate Republicans, he probably deserves the least blame for their 2006 catastrophe.

(...Grassley is) still stunned by what happened, and he even entertains the possibility that, via some convoluted mechanism, it might have been all his fault.

Though he noticed his colleagues running wild, "I stood by the sidelines," he says.

The hypothesis is unconvincing. It's hard to imagine other Republicans would have accepted behavioral advice from a guy like Grassley. But at least--unlike other Republicans--he's willing to say he's sorry.

Indeed -- of all the things that Republicans need to be doing right now, the most important thing is a little self-examination in the wake of the well-deserved 2006 blood-letting, and Grassley is one of the guys who can show us the way.

No men with boas in Montana? Say it isn't so! : From the Helena IR -- Women sported giant flashing glasses and pulled feather boas from around their necks to wave at the stage. Men, well, men didn’t.

You don't say.

Boas, glasses, whatever, Elton John is someone who took pop music to heights of genius -- and he still gives people their money's worth at age 60. And that's something that not every aging rocker can say.

One of the things that is worth taking note of with any strutting star is to take a look at the band. Davey Johnstone on guitar and drummer Nigel Olsson (who was the first major drummer to realize that headphones make a world of difference on-stage and not be embarassed to wear them) have been recording and touring with Elton John for most of what is now nearly 40 years -- something else that most aging rockers can't claim.

Missing is bassist Dee Murray, but he's dead, so he has an excuse. And while he's even older than the piano player, percussionist Ray Cooper should be mentioned, who recorded and toured with that lineup, and who also did some unique work when he and "Sir Elton" toured by themselves as a duo. And to think you used to have to prove yourself in battle to be made a knight... My but how England has changed.

And while we're at it, how about another one with Ray Cooper on percussion... plus Eric Clapton and his band doing backup. As we said, still giving folks their money's worth and even singing on pitch.

Look Right: This weekend, we made note of the new "Dextra Montana" wire that has been popping up on conservative blogs around Montana, including Montana Headlines (just look to the right side -- where else? --of this screen.) In a similar spirit, we'd like to link to Last Best Place, where one can find a nice summary of some recent conservative blog-entries from around the state. Check it out.

The Helena IR polls its readers on the immigration bill

Anyone who wonders why Sens. Baucus and Tester were exceeded in their zeal to oppose the recently defeated comprehensive immigration bill only by a couple of the most conservative Republican Senators need only look at the unscientific poll of Helena IR readers, where 80% of readers who responded opposed that bill.

One suspects that their mail and their switchboards were telling them the same impressive numbers, even taking into account the unscientific nature of such polls.

Incidentally, the wording of the question, "whether the U.S. Senate was right to kill the president’s immigration plan," shows how successful Democrats were in defining a bill that was largely crafted in Sen. Kennedy's offices as "the President's bill."