Gazette endorsement season ends with choice of Tester

Well, while my prediction that the Billings Gazette would endorse a Democrat in the governor's race was wrong, my prediction on what would happen in the most important race in Montana this election season wasn't.

It was an unsurprisingly full-throated endorsement, one that had some interesting features.

First of all, it was interesting that the same editorial board that had a lot of critical things to say about President Obama in its endorsement of Mitt Romney didn't at all address the fact that Sen. Tester has been a reliable, lockstep, vote for President Obama's policies.

Second, in its endorsement of Sen. Tester, there was this gratuitous swipe at the man the Gazette has endorsed in 5 consecutive Congressional races: "Sen. Jon Tester has accomplished more for Montana in his first term than Rep. Denny Rehberg has in twice that time." Um, maybe that is because Tester is one of 100 U.S. Senators, rather than one of 535 Congressmen? And did Sen. Tester accomplish more for Montana from 2006 to the present than did Sen. Conrad Burns, with his seniority and his seat on the Appropriations Committee, from 2000-2006? Somehow I doubt it. And yet that didn't keep the Gazette from endorsing an inexperienced challenger named Jon Tester in that race. There is a pattern here, and legislative results ain't it. You know your case is weak when you have to stoop to criticizing a Representative for not being as powerful as a Senator.

Third, there was no mention of Sen. Tester's deciding vote for Obamacare, the single most important piece of legislation that he encountered on his watch. If he did such a good job of "reaching across the aisle" and being a "moderate" as the editorial claims, one would think the editors would have to at least mention it and discuss why Sen. Tester's vote for Obamacare was representative of such qualities.

Fourth, there is not a single mention of traditional energy issues -- perhaps because Sen. Tester has been so ineffectual in persuading his own Democratic Party to adopt more moderate positions on oil, gas, and coal development. Forget working across the aisle -- Sen. Tester hasn't been able to provide leadership within his own party. This is no small matter, given that so much of Montana's reserve of energy lies under federal lands. Oil development has increased under Democratic rule, but only because it has taken place on privately owned land in North Dakota.

Fifth, there is no mention of Sen. Tester on the estate taxes that are about to take a bite out of Montana farming and ranching families, courtesy of Sen. Tester's party. This is probably because Sen. Tester's cynical introduction of a bill to prolong the Bush estate tax cuts was so, well, cynical. Please see the above reference to Sen. Tester being unable to provide leadership and exercise persuasion within his own party.

In summary, the Gazette's litany of reasons for voting for Sen. Tester seem to be little more than a list of minor pork projects and other votes that would be a no-brainer for any Montana Senator. Do the Gazette editors really believe that a Sen. Rehberg would have voted against small Montana banks, against Montana veterans, against small Montana agricultural producers, against wolf management, against saving small Montana post offices, etc.? Please.

And for a final thought: if this is the best that Sen. Tester can accomplish with his party in control of the U.S. Senate and the White House, what exactly will he get done if there is the President Mitt Romney that the Gazette editors claim to favor? What if the Republicans manage to take control of the Senate, as they have a good chance of doing? Will we see Sen. Tester "work across the aisle" and vote with Republicans to pass legislation, or will he be the same reliable Democratic vote he has been for the last 6 years, standing as part of a Democratic filibuster?

There may be valid reasons to choose to vote for Sen. Tester, but for the Gazette to cite an ability to work across the aisle as a closing argument for voting for a man who has voted 95% of the time with the most liberal Democratic President of the modern era seems disingenuous.

But then the Gazette's pattern of endorsements this season has seemed to defy reason -- and it's not just those of us on the right who think so.

Billings Gazette predicts big Steve Daines win -- (i.e. they endorsed him)

It was gratifying to read in the Billings Gazette that Steve Daines is headed for a lop-sided victory in the race for Montana’s lone seat in the U.S. Congress. Of course, it wasn’t worded in quite that way. What the Gazette editors actually did was to endorse Daines.

For those unfamiliar with how the Gazette operates when it comes to political endorsements, here is a quick summary:

1. The editors endorse Democrats in any competitive race that matters.

2. There will usually be one token Republican whom they endorse, just to give an appearance of fairness. That way, no one can justly say that they never endorse Republicans. They might even endorse two, if one of them involves only token Democratic opposition.

3. If a race is going to be close, the endorsement goes to the Democrat.

4. If a race is going to be a blowout, one way or the other (mainly if a Republican is going to blow out the Democrat), they will usually endorse the Republican -- after all, there is nothing at stake.

5. If a Republican is an incumbent and is likely to win, then that candidate has an especially good chance of getting to be the token Republican.

So far, the Gazette has endorsed the Democrat in Montana's Attorney General race, Secretary of State race, State Auditor race, and State Superintendent race. That’s four out of the 5 state Land Board seats. It is unthinkable that the Gazette would endorse anyone but Steve Bullock for governor, given how close that race is shaping up to be, so that means the Gazette will go five for five for Democrats on Land Board races. To direct a little extra kick in the Republican direction, the Gazette endorsed the Democrat in our region’s PSC race.

The editors chose to endorse Brad Johnson against Linda McCulloch 4 years ago but are endorsing McCulloch this time against Johnson. Fortunately, the Democrats gave them the talking points they needed for their switch. Granted, it wasn’t much of an endorsement for Johnson in 2008 -- here is how I described it 4 years ago:

...the Billings Gazette endorsed Democrats in 5 of the 6 competitive statewide races this election season, and saved its most tepid "well if we have to say it we suppose there's no real reason to vote against him so OK go ahead if you really feel you need to maybe" endorsement for the lone Republican they endorsed -- Brad Johnson... (Incidentally, I enjoyed the discussion after that post, in no small part because a commenter suggested that the Gazette hire me as their token local conservative columnist!)

In addition, it is unthinkable that the Gazette would do other than to endorse Jon Tester in the barnburner of a Senate race that we have here in Montana, especially since Democratic control of the U.S. Senate could be at stake.

So, Steve Daines was the last Republican standing, and thus got the Gazette’s endorsement. He, to recap the opening of this piece, was the logical candidate to be the token Republican, since he is likely to win the race handily. The Gazette really wouldn’t be able to change the trajectory of the race by endorsing his opponent, and furthermore since control of the House is comfortably in Republican hands, the only danger that Daines really poses to Democrats in Montana is that he will be virtually impossible to displace and will be a formidable future candidate for the Senate or the governorship.

It had to be painful for the editors to endorse a rising GOP star like Daines, but then, there is plenty of time to take him down in the future -- for now, he gets to be the Gazette’s token Republican for 2012. And it seems clear that he will be the lone Republican endorsed in the 8 major races in which Gazette readers will be voting. (The endorsement for U.S. President could possibly go to Romney -- again, since Romney will carry Montana handily, this would be a harmless GOP endorsement in a non-competitive race for the Gazette.)

Update: This post was written earlier and was scheduled to post in the wee hours this morning. And indeed, when I woke up this morning, there was a Romney endorsement in the Gazette.

Which brings us back to the Rehberg-Tester race. By my count, the Gazette editors have endorsed Rehberg in 5 consecutive Congressional races. Rehberg is furthermore a Billings guy. You’d think that would count for something at a paper called the Billings Gazette, but you should ask former Sen. Conrad Burns how that theory works out in practice once you are in a competitive race against a Democrat.

As we pointed out in a piece 5 years ago, Rehberg has indeed been endorsed repeatedly by the Gazette, but not when the race is competitive. His one competitive House race was in 2000, and that year, the Gazette endorsed his Democratic opponent.

Naturally.

And that is exactly what we should expect again this year.

The Missoulian and Rick Hill -- an old-fashioned "Montana headline"

Wouldn't it be nice if all headlines were either accurate -- or if not, at least unintentionally funny like the one at right? When I started Montana Headlines some years ago, I arrived at the name in part because I had been dismayed by some of the headlines that appeared in my local Billings Gazette. At times, I felt that even when a news article was fair and balanced (if I may use the term), the headline would often be skewed. This is important because it colors the way an article is read, and to someone taking a quick glance at the paper who doesn't have time to read the whole article, the headline is the takeaway message.

There was a doozy of an example in a recent Charles Johnson article posted at the Missoulian:

Rick Hill has been campaigning to be Montana's governor for years

When the editors write a blazing headline like that, I'm thinking that I'm going to learn that Hill has been on the road for at least the last 4 years. No, the truth is more prosaic than that. Johnson wrote this in the body of the article: "For nearly two years – since the Monday following the November 2010 election – Rick Hill has been running for governor"

Out of a lengthy, factual, and even-handed feature article (would we expect anything else from Johnson?) about Rick Hill, the editors came up with that headline? For starters, it isn't even true. Most reasonable people would expect at least two full years (i.e. more than one) to have gone by in order to claim that someone has been doing something "for years." Most reasonable people would in reality probably expect more than two, but we can give the benefit of the doubt.

Today, beginning the slog of fundraising and campaigning shortly after the last election is pretty standard for a major office like governor. It hasn't been common in Montana in the past, but we'd best get used to it, and it certainly isn't newsworthy.

This doesn't mean I like long campaigns, mind you. Here is what I wrote back in February of 2007:

Political Armageddon comes to Montana: Yes, it's true. Monica Lindeen has started campaigning for the State Auditor position 3 1/2 months after the last election. You heard it right -- State Auditor. Interminable campaigns are annoying enough when it is for offices like, well, the President of the United States of America. But are Montanans really going to have a stomach for this?

I don't recall who the Missoulian endorsed for State Auditor in 2008, but I'll bet that just like the Billings Gazette did, the Missoulian editors endorsed Lindeen. Were there articles in the Missoulian where the headlines screamed that Lindeen had been campaigning for State Auditor "for years?" Doubt it.

(Update: the headline online has changed to "Governor's race: Rick Hill seeks major economic, regulatory reforms.” I don’t know what the final print edition headline was. Maybe the headline I saw was just the temporary work of a lowly night-shift editor. But it was around long enough to be aggregated.)

Charles Johnson needs to pay a little more attention

We realize that all of the attention these days is on the Democratic Presidential primary, but allow us to suggest to the usually precise Charles Johnson of Lee Newspapers that if he is going to mention the Republican primary in the midst of the Democratic hoopla, he should get the story straight.

Here is his throwaway passage taking note of the Republican Presidential primary, only to dismiss it:

On the Republican side, the names of John McCain, the presumptive nominee, and Ron Paul, will appear on the ballot Tuesday, but the results are meaningless. The state Republican Party held a Feb. 5 caucus of 1,600 party and elected officials, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney winning the state's 25 delegate votes. He dropped out of the race shortly thereafter.

The results will be meaningless? One can admittedly make a case for it, but not for any of the reasons that Johnson includes in this passage. To the extent that the Montana Presidential primary can be said to be meaningless, it has nothing at all to do with the Montana GOP caucus. Why? Because the winner of that caucus, Mitt Romney, dropped out (as Johnson correctly notes.)

This means that every single one of Montana's Presidential delegates are again completely up for grabs.

There is a case to be made for the Montana GOP primary being meaningless. For instance, Sen. John McCain has had the Republican nomination sewn up for months. In that sense, Montana's primary will have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the nomination. Just like the Montana GOP primary in every other year.

One could also make the case that the primary is "meaningless" because the delegates themselves are actually selected at the state convention by delegates chosen at individual county conventions. Again -- just like always. Nothing new. The Montana presidential primary has always been a non-binding "beauty contest."

But on the other hand, one would be hard pressed to find an example where the majority of Montana's delegates to the RNC didn't go to the winner of the Montana presidential primary. So the primary has historically been pretty binding, as a practical matter. As Montana Headlines pointed out recently, from a historical standpoint, we should be able to feel pretty confident that Montana Republicans choosing between Sen. McCain and Congressman Ron Paul will indeed determine the makeup of the Montana delegation to the RNC convention in Minneapolis in September.

But Johnson doesn't make either of those legitimate cases for the GOP primary being "meaningless," but instead refers to the caucus, which has no bearing whatsoever on whether the 2008 Montana primary is meaningful or not.

Mr. Johnson has probably forgotten more about Montana politics than Montana Headlines will ever know, and he -- without question -- sets the bar for fair, solid political reporting in Montana. But in this case, he seems to have neglected to do something very basic -- fact-check. A simple call to the Montana GOP HQ asking them "is your June presidential primary meaningless because of the caucus?" would (we hope) have revealed something very different from what Mr. Johnson wrote.

And quite frankly, more interesting as well. A weak McCain showing in the primary against Ron Paul could, for instance, be a sign both to Obama and to the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr that Montana is a good place to expend resources in hopes of a repeat of 1992, when Bill Clinton stole the state with a narrow plurality when a Republican center-right candidate (Bush I) and an independent libertarian right-wing populist (Perot) split the remainder of the vote.

The Presidential primaries between John McCain and Ron Paul may be meaningless in other states, but with Montana's quirky political climate and large numbers of libertarian-leaning swing voters who are not given to reflexive loyalty to any party, June 3rd is going to give us plenty of tea-leaves to read. And the results will be meaningful.

Think about it: the Democrats seem to have nominated another George McGovern, while the Republicans can be fairly said to have nominated another Bob Dole. Now that will be a cage match for the ages -- especially in an unpredictable state like Montana, whose voters will likely have trouble getting excited about either of these candidates.

__________________________________________

Update: Carol, over at Missoulapolis, has already posted on this matter, graciously pointing out the Montana Headlines discussion on the very real relevancy of the Montana Presidential primary on the GOP side.

Her commentary is must reading -- especially the part where she tactfully implies what we will now state with brutal directness: the McCain campaign has been completely MIA in Montana. We had hoped that when Sen. Burns took titular control of the McCain campaign shortly before the caucus, that this would be the start of seeing some real organization in the state. We had hoped to see John McCain at our state convention or doing a short tour of Montana this spring or early summer, knowing that he will be tied up with bigger swing states later in the season.

Maybe something is going on behind the scenes, but if so, it is the ultimate stealth campaign. Bumper stickers for McCain are rare. Yard signs in Billings are non-existent -- probably because one would need to go to the McCain store and buy them for $20 a pop. Hello?

________________________


Addendum number 2: Someone in the Gazette comments section again mentions something that pops up wherever Ron Paul supporters are making their case. The individual claims that since Ron Paul came in second in the Montana caucus and since Romney dropped out, Paul should receive Montana's delegates.

Only one problem with that. Such a provision was never in the Montana GOP rules, and it would be quite surprising to learn that any state has any such rule. When someone drops out, rules usually either stipulate that the candidate dropping out can direct the delegates to the candidate of his choice -- or that they simply return to being uncommitted. In Montana's case, there is no provision for Romney to direct them to McCain, so the delegates are up for grabs.

What Paul did at the February caucus is irrelevant at this point -- after all, had Romney dropped out of the race prior to the Montana caucus, would any of Romney's votes in that caucus have gone to Ron Paul? Highly doubtful. The question is whether he can perform well enough in the Montana primary to justify giving him any delegates to the RNC this fall.

The governor -- feeling the heat, putting out fires at the Hardin Prison

Forget the over-confident talk from the sinister side of the political spectrum.

This governor's race is going to be very competitive and close. The governor's actions show that he is feeling the heat from a Roy Brown campaign that continues to build momentum in spite of the fact that it is the governor who has the big bucks.

Most recently, the governor was down in Hardin trying to bluster his way through the morass of the Hardin detention center. It is as clear as the summer sun that at the very least, the governor has been treating that situation with neglect. It just doesn't deserve the kind of attention that important things get. Like, say, a fundraiser at the Kentucky Derby or jetting to California to do the Daily Show. After all, it's just Eastern Montana.

Yet, he's complaining that he is being blamed for something he didn't do. Well, actually, in a sense that's right. He hasn't done anything. He hasn't, until now, even deigned to talk to the community of Hardin about their concerns, even when they made a much publicized trip to Helena to get his attention.

A glaring omission in the Gazette article is that the governor doesn't appear to have been asked "why not?"

The good people of Hardin have been trying to get a response from him or a meeting with him, and it has never happened. Why not?

What it took to get his attention was apparently having an angry Hardinite leave a banner up at the Capitol after a recent demonstration that said "We've been Schweitzerized. Was it as good for you governor as it was for us?"

Ed Kemmick rightly describes the governor's reaction as "thin-skinned." (He also correctly deducts style points from the sign-writer for not knowing where to use commas.) If the guv is truly surprised that the folks down in Bighorn County would be unhappy with him, then one wonders if he is really the highly skilled pol that he is made out to be. Let alone whether he has the right temperament for the job.

Of course, the important skill is in the ability to convey, via the media, a sense of righteous indignation. And there, too, things seemed to fall just a bit flat on the governor's visit to Hardin. Because there are just so many obvious questions that a single visit isn't going to fix.

The governor's statements basically amount to saying "I really wish this would all go away, and since I want it to all go away, that should show I care."

This isn't over by a long shot. Perhaps the real reason that the governor was down in Hardin (besides being personally miffed about the banner) is that the Republican Party down there is in a resurgence. They've got a newly revamped and energetic organization, and the community as a whole is really disinclined right now to be cutting slack to Democrats -- especially in the governor's race and AG race. The resentment at being cut out of the state prison business in favor of the for-profit prison in Shelby whose corporate executives have cut all of those checks to the governor's campaign -- well, it's not showing signs of going away.

This past weekend, Bighorn County Republicans had an unheard-of gathering of well over 100 people for their annual Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner. All of the statewide candidates were there, and energy levels were high, by all reports. Most people would be surprised to know that 100 active Republicans in Bighorn County even exist, so this is a sign of a fire having been lit down there.

And it is a fire that a quick visit and some glib talk and indignant posturing isn't going to put out any time soon. Maybe the governor will get serious about helping Hardin solve the problem that he and his Democratic friend, Attorney General McGrath helped create. Maybe it will happen even though he hasn't shown any signs of being interested in solving it prior to this election year.

A fix of some sort would be good for Hardin, and we'll be happy for them if it comes about. A healthy economy for Hardin is more important than scoring political points. But we'll still be asking why it took the pressures of an election year for the governor to focus on it, even though this train has been bearing down on Bighorn County for his entire term of office, headlight glaring and whistle blowing.

The fact that this meeting in Hardin happened at all is a testimony to the inroads that Roy Brown is making in the governor's race.

Thumbs down on the Gazette's coverage of tax rebates

The Billings Gazette editorial page rightly gives a "thumbs down" to the IRS sending out a postcard to tell everyone about the tax rebate they will be getting. Well, some people will be getting those checks, but not the people who pay most of the taxes -- but we won't get into that part of it. After all, as Sen. Baucus implies in his postcard, those who make more than a certain amount are "undeserving" of a tax rebate.

Which brings up a criticism of the Gazette. Surely, the Gazette editorial board members also received Sen. Baucus's post-card, crowing about the stimulus package checks that would be coming people's way. That, too, was at taxpayer expense.

So why the selective indignation? Why criticism of the IRS for sending out a postcard, but no criticism from the Gazette editorial board of Sen. Baucus's flagrant abuse of his franking privileges in an election year? Even some folks on the left noticed and were not amused by this waste of taxpayer money.

After all, it is arguably a part of the IRS's job description to inform taxpayers about changes in tax law. What is Sen. Baucus's excuse -- other than the fact that it is an election year, and he's running short on campaign cash (not)?

Sen. Baucus wasn't even a part of the loop in designing the stimulus package (so much for being the 4th most powerful Senator in Washington) and had to add some window-dressing to the legislation after the fact.

Montana Headlines has accepted that there will not be a viable challenge to Baucus this year, barring unforeseen circumstances (which can, of course, always arise.) But the way that the press takes it easy on Baucus is maddening, and it probably contributed to the unwillingness of any higher-profile Montana Republican to enter the race. That's no excuse -- the Montana GOP should have been able to prevail on someone to step up to the plate, regardless of the odds.

But every time we see the Montana press coddle Sen. Baucus like this, it becomes harder to blame the Republicans who chose not to challenge him.

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?