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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Liferope to the Stockgrowers?: The governor now has said that he isn't going to pursue a split-state solution to the brucellosis problem. Given the fact that the Board of Livestock that he has stacked over the last few years bowed to reality and voted overwhelmingly, as we discussed last week, to reject that "solution," this is a good idea.

He is still pretty unhappy that he was out-maneuvered by the Stockgrowers Association:

"We threw them a life rope," he said. "They said 'We don't want any life ropes.' That's what their position is."

Right. That's exactly what they said. We appreciate the governor trying so manfully to see the other point of view.

Errol Rice of the Stockgrowers Association was more measured in how he described the plan he and the Association opposed:

Rice said he didn't see the proposal as a lifeline, but rather as a step backward.

Now, the Board of Livestock needs to get after the job of putting pressure on the federal government to clean up the reservoir of infection in Yellowstone National Park.

The AP article states that "...another livestock group, the Montana Cattlemen's Association, had urged that Schweitzer's idea be pursued."

Well, yes, but as we have noted before, the governor, alone among major Democratic politicians in the state, has seemed to make a point of snubbing the Stockgrowers, failing to attend their last convention. And there is reason to wonder if the leadership of the MCA right now might be less interested in the cattle industry and its members than in supporting the Democratic party.

Sarpy Sam recently commented anecdotally about many MCA rank-and-file members he knows opposing the split-state plan. To be fair, the Stockgrowers probably had some members who were open to the split-state plan, but in our own informal survey of MSA members we know, we haven't encountered any.

That didn't take long, did it?: We stated yesterday that with Bill Kennedy dropping out of the House race, the Democratic party has a deep enough bench that we wouldn't need to worry about whether they would rapidly put someone into his place to run against Rep. Rehberg.

The ink was barely dry on Kennedy's letter to his supporters announcing his withdrawal from the race before state legislator Dave Wanzenried of Missoula was being discussed as a likely replacement -- along with other names.

One thing that none of the names discussed have, so far, is a Yellowstone County connection.

Kennedy did bring to the table the fact that he has won two county-wide races for County Commissioner in Yellowstone County, and thus might have been able to cut somewhat into the vote in Rehberg's hometown. He wouldn't have cut into it much, but if something unexpected happened to make the race a close one, it might have played a role.

Incendiary indeed, but she very much has a point: When the 4&20 BB post title calling Rep. Rick Jore a "panty sniffer" came up on the lefty blogwire, it got ignored around the MH office out of general principle. But when time came to make a comment on Rep. Rick Jore's proposed ballot initiative to declare personhood starting at fertilization, we thought we'd take a look.

Lo and behold, some of the very points we were going to make about that initiative had been written already -- albeit from, shall we say, a slightly different perspective.

Let us be clear -- MH is unapologetically pro-life or anti-abortion or whatever you want to call it. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, for those who want to follow it, has long been clear that abortion is wrong, and Western law has reflected the moral view of that tradition regarding abortion since the Roman Empire was Christianized.

Yes, abortion has always been practiced, but so has murder and theft, but that is no reason to take laws against such things off the books. It is a very recent legal phenomenon for abortion to be legal under any and all circumstances.

But the reality is that Rep. Jore's initiative, because of its wording and lack of exceptions, is vulnerable for precisely the reasons the 4&20 BB post points out. We make no claims to being developmental biologists around here, but as best we understand it, in certain circumstances, even "standard" birth-control pills can work by preventing implantation -- in other words, while BCP's usually work by preventing ovulation, sometimes ovulation can still happen, but even if it does, and even if fertilization takes place, the uterine environment is such that implantation can't take place.

Strictly speaking, a BCP can, therefore, act as an abortifacient -- and this isn't just talking about the "morning-after pill" or intentional oral abortifacients. Granted, this is not the intent of a BCP, and for most this would be a crucial distinction that would make them morally acceptable where procedures or agents that intend to destroy an embryo or fetus are not.

Still, the bottom line is that given the widespread use and acceptance of BCP's among most Montanans who oppose abortion, this could work against what Jore is trying to do, and it could do so on one of two levels.

One level would be a head-on campaign against the measure by abortion supporters by portraying it as a measure that would outlaw BCP's -- a sure-fire way to have it be defeated soundly.

Another approach would be to let it pass -- and then immediately file suit to have it struck down in the courts on the grounds that it would deny access to oral contraceptives.

In either case, wasted effort, distraction, and a political loss.

Jore would be better advised to propose an initiative similar to that proposed in neighboring South Dakota, specifically banning abortion procedures (and possibly intentional oral abortifacients,) and making specific exceptions for the life and physical health of the mother, etc.

No matter how one looks at it, this Jore ballot initiative has "fatally flawed" written all over it.

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

The Teamsters are very cost-efficient: Apparently only 1.7% of Teamsters' Union dues go to things other than collective bargaining -- i.e. political contributions and other political activities.

When a logging truck driver from Kalispell exercised his rights as a non-union member to pay reduced dues, his monthly dues were cut by a whopping 69 cents, from $39 to $38.31. In addition, he was forced to pay a $150 "objector fee."

We're no math whizzes around here, but by our calculations, that means that the poor guy would have to pay monthly union dues for 19 years before he broke even. Yes, that's right -- unless the guy drives truck for an outfit represented by the Teamsters for 20 years, he actually had his dues raised.

He was also told that if he didn't comply, the union would demand that he be fired. One hopes that the brakes on his logging truck don't have unexpected problems.

The ability to unionize is essential to the operation of a free economy, for reasons we have discussed on Montana Headlines before. Furthermore, it is only fair that non-union members be expected to pay their share for collective bargaining from which they benefit.

But workers should also have the right not to pay union dues that will go to political activities they object to.

And it should be pointed out that for the Teamsters' Union, this historically could just as easily have worked in the favor of Democrats, since that union endorsed Nixon, Reagan, and the first President Bush. (Their judgement has gotten poorer in recent years.)

The Montana Stockgrowers Association comes through: The deck had been getting stacked at the Board of Livestock with recent appointments, but once the Montana Stockgrowers and its members had a chance to weigh in, the Board backed off on its original proposal to divide Montana cattle producers through the so-called "split zone" strategy for dealing with brucellosis.

Montana's stockgrowers correctly stuck together, forcing the state to deal with the brucellosis problem head-on, rather than using a divide-and-conquer strategy that left cattle producers in areas around Yellowstone National Park to bear the brunt alone.

The Montana executive branch needs to be working to come up with solutions for how to deal with the reservoir of infection in the Park, which means taking on the feds and advocating for the Montana beef industry.

It is regrettable that the comments from the executive branch about this decision were so lacking in respect for Montana ranchers.

The governor blamed the lobbyist for the Stockgrowers, saying that he had misled the state's ranchers.

Are we to understand that the governor is implying that those country-bumpkin ranchers are just too stupid to be able to think for themselves and aren't bright enough to figure out whether a slick lobbyist is feeding them a line of, well, you know what?

Sounds like some folks in the executive branch need to get out more, and meet some real-life Montana ranchers.

We suspect that Gov. Roy Brown, in his recent journeys through rural Montana, is getting an earful about this subject. We also suspect that he would never have concocted a "split-zone" scheme to begin with, since he would likely have gotten the Stockgrowers Association input before deciding what to do.

Vote by mail: Vote by mail for all Montana elections is coming.

We've been learning of late that the only reason Republicans ask questions regarding potential for voter-fraud in any proposed voting measure is to suppress the vote and disenfranchise voters -- so it is best for Republicans not to discuss voter fraud aspects of vote-by-mail at all. We need just to trust that it will all be OK, and, truth to be told, it probably will be. So why rock the boat by asking questions?

There are other interesting conversations that have happened surrounding this issue, though. For instance, in a recent conversation with a Republican, we overheard it jokingly said that the price of a stamp was a poll tax. Given the price of gas these days, it was definitely a joke. The parties can hand out rolls of stamps with far less expense than driving voters to the polls the old-fashioned way.

The response was that we shouldn't say that too loudly, otherwise we would find proposals that the government pay for the postage, thus raising the cost of the election. No-one need have whispered, since exactly those proposals have been made in various Democratic corners since the most recent election day.

Interestingly, at least one Democrat -- a staffer for Sec. State candidate Linda McCulloch -- is now raising questions about the wisdom of mail-in ballots now that there are indications that that voter turn-out may actually be lower in Native American communities and other traditionally Democratic areas.

Another question that is more interesting is whether vote-by-mail is a ballot that is just as secret as is voting in person. One of the cornerstones of freedom in this country is the secrecy of one's ballot. It is pretty impossible for an individual ballot cast at a polling place (at least in the way it is done in Montana) to be linked to an individual person.

To link a ballot to an individual in mail-in voting would require a criminal act on the part of someone such as a postal worker or an election official, and/or a breakdown in strict procedures. But would it not be far more possible than with voting at polling places? We almost fear to ask the question in public, since behind the question there is probably a desire to disenfranchise someone lurking somewhere in our dark Republican heart. But there the question is, nonetheless.

Is wanting to have ballots secret just as bad as wanting to have them be valid and free of fraud? We'll find out soon enough.

All of the concerns about vote-by-mail need to be addressed. Thus the advice of Oregon's election administrator to take things slow (Oregon took 2 decades to work up gradually to all mail-in elections) is probably good advice.

Going on Safari: We are gratified to learn that the Safari Club International has weighed in on the question of removing the grizzly bear from the Endangered Species List.

Perhaps recent attacks on hunters by grizzly bears helped the Club make its case that the grizzly isn't terribly endangered right now. In any event, the courts have allowed them to participate in the case.

This group of lovers of the great outdoors is a good counter-balance to the lawsuits filed by conservation groups -- which so far have had the field to themselves when it comes to filing lawsuits relating to grizzlies.

The Safari Club is also a conservation group, of course -- you can't hunt game that doesn't exist, after all.

Let's hope that other hunting and sportsman organizations follow suit and help work to delist the decidedly unendangered species of grizzly and wolf.

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Best of the conservablogs: Again, Mike over at The Last Best Place has a roundup of highlights from the right-thinking Montana blogs. Think dextrous, not sinister -- please, for the sake of the children.

Montana educational suit-filers taking a fall break: Normally, at this time of year, the Montana Quality Education Association would already have a lawsuit working its way through the courts, suing the state of Montana for supposedly inadequate educational funding.

They are going to take a hiatus -- not because the 25% increase in funding in the last couple of legislative sessions is adequate, but because they want to work with the governor and the legislature. What a concept.

It probably helps that the governor is a Democrat and that the educational establishment is probably worried about doing anything to hurt the chances of Democratic legislators at the polls in 2008. Got to get those priorities straight -- there's apparently more to education than money. Except when Republicans are in charge. In which case, sue away!

Rehberg votes for Iraq withdrawal reports: Finally, a sensible bill requiring the President to report on withdrawal issues such as troop numbers and inventories. This is well within the role of Congress, since Congress needs such information in order to know how to fund the effort in Iraq that it has authorized the President to pursue.

There are no timetables for withdrawal -- and there shouldn't be. Rep. Rehberg's vote reflects an accurate assessment of what Congress's role should be in the Iraq war.

Huckabee strong in Iowa: Among likely Republican caucus-goers who have definitely made up their mind, Huckabee ranked #1 in a DeMoines Register poll. He ranked 3rd overall in the poll. So far, Huckabee has been running the kind of flawless stealth campaign that Fred Thompson's supporters hoped he would, and he is exhibiting an ability to communicate on the stump that only Rudy Giuliani can rival. Combine that with the bit of life breathed back into John McCain's campaign, and the GOP race just gets more interesting.

In a recent radio interview, former PA Senator Rick Santorum (rumored to be heading for a gubernatorial run) noted that something that was thought to be a relic of the past -- a brokered convention -- is actually a live possibility in 2008.

Ed Kemmick's City Lights: Praising the "Candidates Gone Wild" night recently held in Missoula, we learn that:

The soiree featured a DJ in an Afro wig spinning rap songs, a television meteorologist cracking jokes, one candidate singing a Bob Dylan song and all of the candidates doing a chicken dance. That and a full bar, too.

A cabaret troupe from Virginia City used song-and-dance numbers to provide biographical sketches of the candidates, and Justin Timberlake's "SexyBack" played every time the candidates got on or off the stage.

So might having a DJ in an Afro wig playing rap songs be the missing link that Republican gatherings have been looking for as we try to reverse our recent electoral disappointments? Can Kemmick promise good, positive press for the GOP if we do this? We're about ready to try anything. GOP leaders are eagerly awaiting further advice.

Kasparov out to check-mate Putin: In a somewhat overwrought New Yorker piece, we learn more of Garry Kasparov's attempt to politically take on Vladimir Putin. As much as anything, the piece is a reminder of just what impotent forces self-important intellectuals really are in the political sphere. Kasparov is a great chess player, perhaps the greatest of all time. And his innate intelligence is beyond question.

But his politics seem to be naive at best, and his manner seems to have divided the opposition more neatly than Putin could hope for.

After all of the lengthy analysis and inside baseball of the piece, it ends with quotations from Russians who reflect the clear majority opinion in that country right now -- namely that they want Putin to stay. He has brought a measure of economic and social stability to Russia that it hasn't experienced since the rape of the economy by the "free market" barons under Boris Yeltsin.

It is not the business of Americans to pick the leaders of other nations but rather to learn to deal with them, and the fact that many on the right are falling back into old Russo-phobias here in the U.S. is unfortunate.

More to the point, it is self-contradictory, since American conservatives seem convinced that the struggle against Islamic terrorism is the most important issue facing our nation.

One can see why Kasparov would cut a romantic figure for most New Yorker readers, fitting right in with retrospectives on Jack Kerouac such as the one found in the same issue.

But for the pragmatic, it is Putin himself who remains an untapped ally in a country that has faced a militant Islam along most of its vast southern border for centuries.

"We've been here before" -- Iran this time: It is truly amazing that there are those beating the drum for war against Iran just as America is trying to stabilize things in Iraq enough to make a face-saving withdrawal (does anyone thinks that Republicans who are not on the editorial staff of the Weekly Standard are hoping for anything more than a modicum of stability and an eventual quiet withdrawal?)

But here we go again. And again, there are few voices on the right that dare say anything too negative, although the demeanor of the GOP presidential candidates generally reflects a business-like "we need to clean up the mess" attitude.

The American Conservative is one of the few places to find openly non-interventionist foreign policy expositions coming from the right. Ben Stein at the American Spectator is another who favors acknowledging that our troops won the war in Iraq and bringing them home.

From the American Conservative:

After all, we’ve been here before. Asked about Iranian activity in Iraq, spokeswoman Maj. Alayne Conway conceded that the U.S. military has not captured any agents, but “just because we’re not finding them doesn’t mean they’re not there.” She might have been reading from the script Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used when he warned about Iraq’s phantom chemical and biological weapons: an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Eerie.

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.

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

"Costs of wildfires go to lawmakers": Or so reads the headline in the Gazette to Jennifer McKee's article. Hope springs eternal -- could it be that the tab for fighting wildfires was going to be split personally between Tester, Baucus, and Rehberg?

That might go a long ways towards explaining why Jon Tester is seen posing for photos in a nomex firefighting outfit as much as in a business suit lately.

But no, it is going to be us taxpayers footing the bill, after all.

More than that, the governor wants a bigger fund at his disposal and discretion. $16 million isn't enough, so he wants $25 million.

Let's hope Speaker Sales holds the line on that one.

Baucus votes to raise taxes on domestic oil production: Doug Mood of the Montana PSC, writing in the Missoulian, points out that Sen Baucus voted to raise taxes on domestic oil production. Such taxes raise the cost of gas at the pump (and for us to drive long distances regularly in Montana, this is no small matter,) raise the cost of doing business for those who use a lot of fuel (i.e. agriculture,) increase dependence on foreign oil (our domestic oil producers have to compete with foreign producers.)

Baucus was sticking it to domestic oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico, but indirectly this still hurts Montana's oil industry -- both production and refining.

Still waiting for a conservative "Golden Pen": This week's "Golden Pen" award from the Gazette editors goes to a writer who states that since the big tax surplus came from a strong economy rather than overtaxation, homeowners should donate their refund to charity. Nothing wrong with the exhortation to be charitable -- but we're waiting for a Golden Pen Award to go to someone who thinks Montana's taxes are too high. We'll be waiting, and waiting...

Montana is Canada's health-care backup system: In the AP article found in today's Gazette, a broad range of responses to the birth of Canadian quads in Great Falls due to health-care shortages in Canada are reported. There were some really interesting ones. Try this one, from Canada:

An official with the Calgary Health Region defends the move to send the Jepps to Great Falls.

"We did not have the capacity to take four new Level 3 babies, so the call goes to Edmonton and to Vancouver and across Western Canada to find out if there is bed space," explained Don Stewart. "We had found across Canada there were not four Level 3 beds available so that's when we looked to Montana, which is the closest facility to us with reasonable care and within a reasonable distance. That was only done after exhausting the options here at home.

"They (American critics) don't have all the facts and information, obviously," he added.

Stewart said there are 21 Level 3 incubators in Calgary, but a staffing shortage meant only 16 were in use when the Jepps were giving birth. Staffing levels will be increased by this fall, he added.

Um, actually we did have all the facts and information. The facts are that there are (as we pointed out) 7 cities in Alberta alone that are larger than Great Falls and that Calgary alone is larger than the entire state of Montana. The only additional information provided by this Canadian official is that the Canadian health-care system can't provide enough nurses to take care of those it is committed to helping.

Is this supposed to impress us with the superiority of Canadian health care?

And try this one from Jack Goldberg of "Friends of Medicare":

"It's clearly our view that the U.S. system is going to meet some demands better than ours, particularly for those who can pay the whole shot by themselves. But overall, the American system is far more expensive. And, of course, we all know it fails to insure some 50 million people," he noted.

"I think we need to appreciate that it's because of our publicly insured system that this couple was able to get access to a hugely expensive service in the United States that may very well be denied to tens of millions of Americans. So even what happened there is a point in favor of our system - that these people were able to get there," said Goldberg.

Let's get this straight. Is Goldberg implying that if a Great Falls couple without health insurance found themselves suddenly pregnant with quads -- they would have been sent to Canada for free health care, or that they would have been left to have their babies under a bridge?

One suspects that the quads would have been born right here in Montana, and that hospitals and doctors would have written off the costs that couldn't be met by state or federal assistance programs that might help.

In short, there are Canadians with health "insurance" who don't get treated, and Americans without health insurance who do get treated. Which is worse? How many Americans would want to suffer for months or even years on a waiting list for "elective" treatment like a hip replacement -- consoled by the fact that if they ever get it, it won't cost them anything?

Wyoming girl makes good: Incoming White House Press Secretary Dana Perino is an Evanston, WY native, and will be taking over for Tony Snow. This is a tough and thankless task, as Snow has discovered, and Perino is to be commended to stepping into those very big shoes.

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

More kindergarten smoke-blowing from the Gazette editors: One would think that proponents of full-day kindergarten in Montana such as the Billings Gazette editors would be content with the fact that the program was rammed through the 2007 legislature in spite of other, more pressing, educational spending needs in Montana, and in spite of a lack of evidence that full-day kindergarten increases long-term educational attainment.

Last week, Montana Headlines pointed out that Montana's ACT scores were above the national average, with only 13 states having higher average scores -- many of whom use the SAT as their primary exam for college-bound students, thus inflating ACT scores.

The Gazette editors, however, take that same information and make the case that since Montana's ACT scores didn't increase last year, that it was because Montana hasn't had full-day kindergarten.

In other words, since Montana students 13 years ago had half-day kindergarten rather than full-day kindergarten, their 2007 ACT scores were lower than they would otherwise have been.

Maybe, just maybe, the quality of post-kindergarten teaching has a little more to do with an 18 year old's ACT scores than does whether that student as a five-year-old had an extra 3 hours a day in kindergarten.

Beyond this, there are a couple of problems. As MH pointed out back in January when the kindergarten wars were raging in the legislature, a Kansas Dept. of Education study on full-day kindergarten revealed that in 2001, there were only 12 states nationwide that required that full-day kindergarten be offered. One presumes that 7 years earlier than that, when Montana's 2007 ACT-takers were suffering under the primitive conditions of half-day kindergarten, even fewer than 12 states required that full-day kindergarten be offered. Remember that only 13 states scored higher this year than Montana on the ACT. Do the math.

Add to this the fact that given the fact that 40% of Montana's population was born outside this state, at least a fair number of the students taking the ACT in Montana this year went to kindergarten in other states.

Advocates for choosing to spend millions of dollars on full-day kindergarten rather than on other educational needs are long on rhetoric and short on logic.

Some of them are charged with teaching our children to think logically.

Others, like the Gazette editors, are presuming to teach the general public.

As was pointed out at the beginning of this segment, one would think that they would be content with having won the legislative battle, and would leave the matter alone at this point.

Except that, as educators across the state know, the funding provided by the legislature is just startup money and part of the ongoing funding for a single biennium -- each district has to come up with its share of funding full-day kindergarten. Every year. On top of all other educational needs.

So advocates like the Gazette editors aren't particularly fond of information that indicates that Montana students are doing very well -- such as this year's ACT scores. Unfortunately, we won't know whether full-day kindergarten is going to help until 2020 -- if then.

In other vital Gazette editorializing: ... city officials are scolded for not changing light-bulbs on the "Welcome to Billings" sign, and tut-tutted for not cleaning our "defining element." Slow news week.

Shocking news about Montana's Washington delegation: They are trying to bring federal spending to Montana. Really? Too bad we don't have a Senator on the Appropriations Committee. Tester's win against Conrad Burns, with the assistance of all of Montana's newspapers, means that instead of having a senior Senator in the majority on the Appropriations committee -- we have no Senator on the Appropriations committee.

Interestingly, the biggest single request was an intelligent request from Rep. Denny Rehberg that addresses both the loss to the Great Falls economy of part of Malmstrom AFB's missile mission and the vital need to secure our borders:

...$150 million for P-3 acquisition, or unmanned aircraft to patrol the border, for the Northern Border Air Wing at Great Falls International Airport.

The Wall Street Journal is worried about Mike Huckabee: In what amounts to a hit piece on Gov. Mike Huckabee, whose surprisingly strong 2nd place showing in the Iowa straw poll has ignited his Presidential candidacy, Brian Carney criticizes Huckabee for (eghad!) speaking in political generalities rather than hyper-specific policy proposals.

But it is clear that what really worries the WSJ (a paper that MH generally likes very much) is that Huckabee has a populist appeal that doesn't bow down to Wall Street interests.

Mike Huckabee v. Fred Thompson: In the latest dead-tree edition of National Review, Byron York's cover article on Fred Thompson begins, interestingly, by telling the story of one of the first times that Thompson has shared a podium with another candidate, at the annual meeting of the American American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC.)

Ironically, that candidate was Mike Huckabee, whose suddenly flourishing campaign may pose one of the biggest challenges to Thompson's candidacy.

Huckabee is what is historically the most electable of candidates -- a governor, and a Southern governor at that. Since Thompson has been counting on wrapping up the Southern primary vote, this spells trouble for him.

As MH has said repeatedly, Republicans have looked at Giuliani, McCain, and Romney -- and indicated that they prefer "none of the above." Thompson's great appeal is that he theoretically has the tools to be "none of the above," but it has always been predicated on whether he can go from 0 to 70 in a very short period of time. In short, whether he has the stuff to be a presidential candidate -- not at all an easy task.

If some of his recent interviews are any indication, he is not as quick a study as had been hoped. His appearance following Huckabee was apparently more of the same:

(Huckabee is) in top shape, on his game. He gives a speech that is tight, well-constructed, and impassioned, all from one scribbled note-card. By the time he's finished, the ALEC members are on their feet.

After a break, Thompson enters to great applause; the crowd is clearly ready to love him. But this, as it turns out, is not his day.

York continues with more of the events, and concludes:

When it's all over, most observers agree that the former governor has run rings around the former senator. 'The consensus of the crowd was that Huckabee wowed 'em,' John Wiles, a state senator from Georgia, tells me. 'Thompson's speach was a disappointment.'

Another attendee said that "Huckabee is right on, has a great delivery, is very articulate -- all the things Thompson wasn't."

Not a good sign for Thompson, but it is a very good sign for conservatives that Thompson is not our only hope in the race for the GOP nomination.

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Sen. Tester wins the "Nomexed Ninny" award: Hat-tip to The Hardliner. Granted, after the way that his folks savaged Conrad Burns in the last election for blowing up at some firefighters, Tester has to act really interested, so what's a guy to do?

Romney underwhelming in Iowa straw-poll: Yes, he won it, and would probably have won it no matter what, but it is striking that after spending a gazillion dollars in Iowa, Mitt Romney didn't even manage to gain a third of the votes available -- with his three main competitors absent. His bid to gain the "conservative vote" is clearly coming up short.

The most important news of the day was that Mike Huckabee did three things: he came in a strong second, he confirmed his place in the national polls as being at the top of the "second-tier" (and perhaps deserving of a "first-tier" rating," and he came in ahead of Sam Brownback, who staked everything on this straw-poll.

At this point, Tommy Thompson has dropped out (finally!) and Duncan Hunter should shortly follow. Tancredo and Paul have niche constituencies that will keep them in the game. But Brownback, with neither a niche constituency nor a national following (he has trouble breaking into single digits in many national polls) by all rights should move out of the way as well.

Is the CIA any good?: OK, so the link is to a Billings Outpost movie review, but it has it right -- the latest Bourne film is the best of the three. It is one of those rare series where each has been better than the last. How often is it that II is better than I and III is better than II?

Christopher Abel asks a question that many viewers will be asking when they watch the film: “The CIA can’t really do that, can they?” -- which he answers by saying, "you probably don’t want to know the answer."

Actually, if Angelo Codevilla's review in the Claremont Review of Books is to be believed (and Codevilla is someone who knows a lot about intelligence from his years staffing for the Senate on intelligence oversight, and whose common-sense recommendations, if they had been followed, would have made for a far more effective Iraqi policy) -- then we don't have a lot to be worried about. Unfortunately, neither do our enemies.

Ed Kemmick's City Lights: ...makes an appeal for the addition of "emoticons" such as :-) or ;-) or maybe :-0 to the pro baseball record books. Well, maybe not, but really, why stop at an asterix?

Rehberg and CHIP redux: Having commented and then expounded on some of the ins and outs of CHIP (where "C" stands for "Children") as it relates to our Congressman, Denny Rehberg, there isn't a lot left to say.

But if Bill Kennedy's breathless editorial is a shape of things to come in the campaign ahead, then things are looking pretty good for Denny.

Kennedy opines: "SCHIP sought to help uninsured children, and Denny Rehberg voted no."

Of course, as has been pointed out before, Rehberg's votes had nothing to do with low-income children, and everything to do with all of the other things that were being tacked onto the bill.

Rehberg's vote, far from being a vote against low-income children, can be seen as a vote to help lower-cost private insurance plans survive rather than be swamped by government-sponsored competition. For instance, has Kennedy done any looking into the question of whether access is as good for kids on CHIP (which reimburses at a lower rate than private insurers) throughout the state as it is for kids with private insurance? In larger Montana cities like Billings where there is medical competition between different hospital systems, this isn't a problem, but in other communities with only one game in town, we suspect it is.

Until we hear Bill Kennedy talk about his plan to keep good private insurance plans from being undermined by government competition, we'll assume that he is to be numbered amongst those who want to eliminate private health insurance -- and we doubt that this will be the unqualified success that those on the left end of the Democratic party in this state think it will be.

Phi-Obama-jamma: My, but how things have changed in America. Barack Hussein Obama's biggest problem right now in his Presidential bid is that he is having trouble attracting "down-scale" voters. The elites love America's first serious African-American contender for the White House -- it's the guys carrying steel lunch-buckets and wearing hard-hats to work that he's having problems with, blacks no less than whites.

Just as Michael Dukakis had his "Belgian endive" moment in Iowa back in 1988, now Obama has had an "arugula moment."

Chalk one up on the education front -- many Iowa farmers now know what arugula is. And there is just something satisfying about living in an America where Obama is the one to do the teaching -- not that it helps his political aspirations.

But Obama has a problem:

According to the latest Cook Political Report survey, Hillary Clinton polls 12 points higher among voters who haven't graduated from college than those who have; Obama's numbers are reversed. His problem: only 34 percent of likely Democratic primary voters have college degrees.

But Obama should take heart, since most people with doctorates in things that you can't get real jobs with tend to vote Democrat -- and the more elitist-progressive the better. He most likely has the U. of Iowa creative writing department vote nailed down.

The Missoulian "reigns in" its copy editors: Our fondness for the Missoulian opinion page when compared to the Gazette's can't allow us to overlook this kind of assault on the English language. And in a state with more horses per capita than most, no less.

The answer is blowin' in the wind: Continuing its generally excellent coverage on wind-power issues, the Great Falls Tribune reports that opponents of the coal-burning electrical plant up in that neighborhood (for more information, once in a blue-moon the folks at Electric City talk about this issue -- drop by,) are proposing wind energy as an alternative.

Good idea. But as the article points out, wind-power needs to be supplemented by other sources, since it can't supply a steady source of power, or a "base-load."

And it appears that right now, wind-power generators in Montana are having to purchase their "firming power" from out-of-state. Which brings us back to traditional sources of generating power, questions about which ones are best (coal vs. gas,) and the perennial question of who builds what kind of gas-spewing smoke-stack where.

One thing that is unlikely to be the answer, if John Adams in the Missoula Independent is to be believed (and he probably is,) is our governor's "clean coal" solutions, which his own left flank hates, and which Republicans won't support just out of sheer cussedness (oh, and out of a better knowledge of how traditional energy works.)

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Mayor Tussing is confused: On whether he has a conflict of interest in Billings City Council discussions about the $1.3 million settlement against the city, that is.

For those who haven't been reading Montana Headlines for a couple of weeks, a Billings jury awarded about $300K in economic damages and tacked on $1 million of "pain and suffering" damages -- a million dollars, that is, that can only reasonably be seen as punitive damages by another name.

It should also be noted that since the city's insurance carrier won't cover civil rights violations, taxpayers in the city of Billings are going to have to come up with up to half of this sum themselves, unless the city is lucky enough to have a judge reduce the amount of the award.

Let's review the facts: as Ed Kemmick notes in the news article linked to above, Mayor Tussing was one of the individuals originally being personally sued by Steve Feuerstein, until this was thrown out by the court. What has been reported in other Gazette articles is that the court ruled that then Police Chief Tussing was acting as a city official, and thus couldn't be personally sued.

In addition, at least one juror stated that the testimony by the city's defense witnesses in general (and Mayor Tussing in particular) hurt the city's case and were in large part responsible for the verdict.

Another individual close to the trial told Montana Headlines that Tussing's testimony was "without question" the most damaging of the trial. Had the juror not essentially made the same comment to the press, we would have tucked that away as just one person's opinion. But the combination of the two led to our own review of Tussing's testimony, which was eye-opening.

Add to this the fact (as we have noted before) that this trial was specifically about retaliation and intimidation (including allegations of physical intimidation of Feuerstein by Tussing himself,) and it should be a no-brainer that Mayor Tussing should stay as far away from this discussion as possible.

And yet, here is Tussing's coy statement:

Tussing said Friday that he was aware there could be a conflict of interest if he got involved in the case as mayor, but he doesn't know yet whether he will have to excuse himself from further discussion of the lawsuit.

"Could be" a conflict? My, my.

Kemmick, incidentally, does an important service by reporting the proper procedure for handling conflicts of interest at the city level, soliciting opinions from people who should know:

(City Attorney Brent Brooks) said city ordinances touching on conflict of interest are self-executing, meaning it is generally up to the public official in question to disclose his own potential conflicts of interest and to make the decision on whether to get involved in a particular issue.

Former Mayor Chuck Tooley said much the same thing.

"You pretty much have to come to the judgment yourself, unless it's really obvious," he said.

Brooks and Volek said they can advise City Council members and the mayor on potential conflicts, but they have no authority to order them to recuse themselves from a specific vote or council deliberation.

In short, Mayor Tussing can't claim that "no one told me to recuse myself," since no-one has the standing to give him such an order. The law assumes that he will recognize the conflict of interest and remove himself voluntarily.

Somehow we doubt that Tussing will do so -- let alone resign, as he should.

To the victors go the spoils: Of electoral wars, that is. Yet another Democratic legislator has been appointed to a state job by the governor or his executive branch. This time, it is state Rep. Eve Franklin, D-Great Falls, who has been appointed "mental-health ombudsman."

Democrats continue to be mystified that anyone sees anything wrong with this practice, in spite of the fact that many states ban it -- and yes, most states have citizen legislatures just like ours. Yet somehow actively-serving legislators manage to put food on the table without being appointed to government jobs that could be perceived as political payoffs.

As the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations committee, Rep. Franklin was noted for leading her fellow Democratic committee-members in voting against every bill and amendment that came out of that Republican-controlled committee, regardless of merit -- including voting against amendments that would have directly benefited her city.

This was because she claimed the process was "tainted" (i.e. Republicans threw them a curve-ball that was entirely consistent with House rules -- but that they didn't like.) But to be sure, she was owed a reward.

She was also labelled a "rock star" by the governor, and if you don't award a government job to a rock star, to whom would you give it?

And then there's that intern -- but that is another story.

Ron Paul -- a man for the dawning of a century: The last century, that is. John Derbyshire, who is one of our very favorite National Review favorite writers (in spite of him being a confused atheist) has this to say to his fellow conservatives:

Go on, admit it: you have felt the Ron Paul temptation, haven’t you? And it’s not just the thrill of imagining another president named Ron, is it? Ron Paul believes a lot of what you believe, and what I believe. You don’t imagine he’s going to be the 44th POTUS, but you kind of hope he does well none the less.

Well, of course we've felt the temptation, and as stated before on these pages, we hope he stays in the GOP presidential race just to remind Republicans of some of the things our party used to stand for (including staying out of the foreign wars of which Democrats were so fond in the 20th c.)

As Derbyshire notes, after listing Paul's positions on many issues:

Unlike the product in that automobile commercial, this is your father’s conservatism — the Old-Time Religion. What is there among Ron Paul’s policy prescriptions that the young William F. Buckley would have disagreed with?

Indeed, indeed. But then Derbyshire comes down on us with a load of reality bricks -- and not just the electability ones:

If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance.

Washington’s not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.

The sleepy old boulevards of the 1920s are now shadowed between great glittering ziggurats of glass and marble, where millions of administrative assistants to the Department of Administrative Assistance toil away at sending memos to each other.

[ ]

Imagine, for example, President Ron II trying to push his bill to abolish the IRS through Congress. Congress! — whose members eat, drink, breathe and live for the wrinkles they can add to the tax code on behalf of their favored interest groups!

Or imagine him trying to kick the U.N. parasites out of our country. Think of the howls of outrage on behalf of suffering humanity from all the lefty academics, MSM bleeding hearts, love-the-world flower children, Eleanor Roosevelt worshippers, and bureaucratic globalizers!

Ain’t gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!

CHIP simplified: Sort of. Mike Dennison's Lee article explains the details of how CHIP would affect Montana, and does a good job of it.

He specifically notes the significant differences between the House bill and the Senate bill -- and that the final product (if Congress actually wants it to pass muster with the President) will have to resemble the Senate version far more closely than the House version.

At issue are things like whether adults should be covered under CHIP (House -- yes, Senate -- no) or whether money would be taken from programs currently used to help adults purchase private insurance in order to pay for expanded coverage (House -- yes, Senate -- probably not, President -- definitely not.)

What is missing in Dennison's piece is a little "connect the dots" that would help Montanans understand why the simplistic mantras of "Evil Republican Denny Rehberg voted against health care for kids" but "Saintly Sens. Tester and Baucus voted to help kids" are just that -- simplistic, not to mention misleading.

Rehberg is in the House. Had Rehberg been presented with a bill closer to what Sen. Baucus had the privilege of voting for, he could perhaps have supported it with some enthusiasm.

It is understandable why lefty bloggers would fail to note these points -- after all, Jay Stevens at Left in the West seems to be salivating in anticipation of the "political theater" that Democrats would be able to get out of a Bush veto of CHIP.

Will Democrats serve up a House-like bill just to draw a Bush veto that they can demagogue? Who knows? It appears that Sen. Baucus may be leaning toward political theater rather than toward bipartisan legislation.

But regarding the positions of our Montana delegation, one would hope for a little background perspective from Dennison, who is, in general, an admirable political reporter.

"How to win in Iraq": Wait! Don't scroll on past this. Please trust Montana Headlines not to be trotting out any triumphalistic head-in-the-sand neoconservative drivel on this subject.

The article we are linking to is one of the better pieces of genuinely conservative realism on the subject of Iraq, and where we go from here.

MH has been pretty clear that we opposed this expedition in the first place, but we have to admit to having sympathies in the direction of David Crisp, when he said that he was "very much of the Colin Powell if-you-break-it-you-own-it school."

And yet, we clearly need to get out.

William Lind is an interesting and sometimes controversial curmudgeon, but not one to be accused of thinking inside the box. Long a proponent of the "Fourth Generation Warfare" school of military thought, Lind makes the case that the only possible "successful" finish to this war for the U.S. is if we leave an Iraqi state behind -- any Iraqi state, even one hostile to us -- perhaps especially one hostile to us (since it would then have credibility in the region.)

This could be followed by bridge-building with Iran analogous to President Nixon's highly publicized and carefully orchestrated trip to China.

The whole article is worth reading, but this gives a taste:

To devise a successful strategy, we must begin by defining what we mean by winning. The Bush administration, consistent with its record of military incompetence, continues to pursue the folly of maximalist objectives.

It still defines victory as it did at the war’s outset: an Iraq that is an American satellite, friendly to Israel, happy to provide the U.S. with a limitless supply of oil and vast military bases from which American forces can dominate the region.

None of these objectives are now attainable. None were ever attainable, no matter what our troops did.

And as long as those objectives define victory, we are doomed to defeat.

Senator Tester's fake earmark reform: When "maverick" Senators like our Sen. Jon Tester headed for Washington, it was in part with the promise to do something meaningful about the process of earmarking -- a big reason for bloated budgets and "bridges to nowhere."

While we would strongly have preferred that Sen. Burns had won that election, and while we are appreciative of the federal money that he brought to Montana in general and Billings in particular, there is little question that a big part of the reason that Sen. Burns lost was that the more he talked about how much money he brought to Montana, the more Republicans were reminded of just why they were disgusted with the pork-laden, earmarking, out-of-control spending that Republicans were engaging in.

We have already written extensively on earmarks and on Sen. Tester's failure to back meaningful earmark reforms (Included in that discussion was acknowledgment of the valid case to be made for earmarking, or something like earmarking, where legislators rather than executive branch bureaucrats set spending priorities.)

Sen. Tester has rather chosen to go along with the Democratic Party's fake reforms, and again recently failed to come down on the side of those who wished to draw attention to the fact that these reforms aren't really meaningful reforms as long as things like earmarks aren't strictly reined in.

When running for office, Tester said that he would "work to end the anonymous ‘earmarks’ that allow a member of the Senate or the House to slip in a lobbyist’s favorite pork-barrel spending item without any accountability."

A good plan. But as Michael O'Brien points out, the Reid bill that Tester voted for was full of loopholes:

The DeMint Amendment (MH: which Tester hasn't supported since his highly publicized crossing of the aisle early on) did several things: it forbade trading earmarks with other members of Congress for votes, strengthened the ability to challenge earmarks added during conference of a bill, and required more disclosure as to whom an earmark financially benefits.

Sounds like something that candidate Tester would have promised to support. But O'Brien continues:

Of chief concern to the Senate Republicans was the change in the new bill that changes the authority to decide whether or not an earmark is considered out of order from the Senate parliamentarian to the Majority Leader (Reid), or the chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia).

Even if senators were to challenge an earmark Byrd or Reid had certified, the threshold needed to keep the earmark in place is considerably lower in the new version of the bill.

[ ]

“This is an unethical ethics bill,” DeMint said. “It pretends to do something that it does not,” he said, arguing that the earmark provisions in the bill considered by the Senate this morning were superficial at best.

Only a courageous few Republicans voted against the Reid bill, in spite of the fact that it firmly places control over earmarks and earmark disclosure in the hands of the highly politicized Senate Democratic leadership. Why? DeMint explains:

Despite the protests by Coburn and DeMint, many Senate Republicans voted for the legislation. Many worried about the weakened earmark portions of the bill, DeMint said at this morning’s press conference, but they feared even more the prospect of being pegged by Democrats as being against ethics and lobbying reform.

So, Sen. Tester gets it both ways. He gets to claim to have voted for ethical reform (the fact that 83 Senators were willing to vote for it is proof enough that it is toothless) and he gets to keep his Democratic taskmasters in Washington happy.

If Sen. Tester were truly a maverick and committed to earmark reform, he would have been a lone Democrat standing at that press conference with Republican Sens. DeMint, McCain, Coburn, Cornyn, et al. There is no doubt that he would have been welcome.

That would have been truly courageous, and it might have forced Democrats to take real earmark reform seriously, rather than merely paying it lip-service. Senator Tester missed his chance, and so did the country.

Sen. John McCain expressed his disappointment openly. “This was a great opportunity to fix…a process that has lurched out of control,” McCain said. Chances for true reform only occur every five to ten years, McCain said, “We’re missing this chance.”

Indeed.

Why President Bush is not a lame duck: One thing we rarely miss here at MH is Jay Cost's HorseRaceBlog over at RealClearPolitics. Most recently, Cost explains why, in the current situation, President Bush still holds most of the cards, specifically with regard to the Iraq War. Any President whose major policies were as unpopular as Bush's would normally be hamstrung, but in this specific situation, he is not. Cost explains why:

As commander in chief, Bush has the power to use whatever tactics he wishes to use in Iraq. Democrats can pass legislation to change those tactics. However, they require his signature, which of course will not be forthcoming. They can then try to override his veto - but ... legislative vetoes are ... hard to override.

On any controversial position, the minority-plus-the-president is usually large enough to block the majority. Bush will probably have 33% of at least one chamber on his side from now until the end of his term.

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

More Bohlinger convention goofiness: This time, our faux-Republican Lt. Gov's antics surround the Montana Democratic convention, where he will be appearing with his running-mate, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Bohlinger, reached as he was preparing to return to Montana from the National Lieutenant Governors Association meeting in Williamsburg, Va., said, "I didn't know that I'd been invited. I haven't had any plans of attending. You know, I am a Republican. I really appreciate the invitation."

Yeah, right. Quite a surprise.

Denny Rehberg votes against permanent bases in Iraq: The U.S. House bill also states that the U.S. is not to exert control over the oil industry in Iraq. Rehberg and most Republicans voted for this broadly bipartisan bill, as was appropriate.

Truth in editorializing at the Gazette: Pat Bellinghausen tells more about the process of writing editorials at the Billings Gazette. Given that unsigned "Gazette Opinion" editorials have a particular impact, coming across as the magisterial voice of an institution rather than the opinion of a particular writer, it is good to tell readers that she is primarily responsible for writing those editorials.

She also invites readers to contact her if there are columnists that they would or would not like to continue to see in the Gazette. Best nationally syndicated columnist printed in the Gazette right now: R.J. Samuelson. Worst: Ellen Goodman.

On the purely conservative side, we could probably do better than Cal Thomas -- it would be nice to see an opponent of the Iraq war from the right, with the two most prominent being Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak. Both are engaging writers and are good at stirring up controversy with both the right and the left (Novak is even still a registered Democrat.)

"Hillary the underestimated": Or so Rich Lowry of the National Review (one of the more mature of the former NR youngsters) calls her. Money quotation:

"Clinton has run a nearly flawless campaign and has done more than any other Democrat to show she’s ready to be president..."

Not a few thoughtful conservatives have come to the conclusion that if we have to have one of the top three Dems, Clinton would probably be preferable.

She knows how to triangulate -- which means that she will come up with policies more conservative than would either Edwards or Obama.

And her performance shows that maybe she wasn't just baking chocolate chip cookies and doing needlepoint during her years as first lady.

Her most recent coup has been to demonstrate that she knows how to handle the liberal netroots. She doesn't let them intimidate her and doesn't particularly care if they like her. But she has skilfully avoided having them turn on her and make a cause out of defeating her -- and that is really all she needs to do.

She knows in a general election campaign, she can count on their support for her being an automatic and unconditional "night of the long knives" against any Republican, and she also knows that cozying up to the netroots will cost her with the general electorate.

Smart lady.

The governor's "blue-collar getaway": He purchased the $2 million Georgetown Lake lot because it was a "blue-collar place," but according to a shocking story in the Great Falls Tribune:

"the Schweitzers' 4,000-square-foot cedar-and-sandstone mansion on a point jutting into the lake is anything but blue collar."

And there are some things that we just didn't need to know:

Four bedrooms plus an office. Six baths (a couple of them, Schweitzer took pains to show off, with urinals. "There's not going to be any discussion about toilet seats").

This is, of course, just the sort of things that sends Republicans. But, while Montana voters may take note and dock Schweitzer a few points for the sheer silliness of his "blue-collar neighborhood" claim, the GOP would do well not to try to make a direct campaign issue out of Schweitzer's new mansion. After all, we believe that people should have the right to make what they can and spend what they are able.

And what should the governor have done? Should he have failed to take advantage of the property exchange "tax loophole" that keeps him from having to pay capital gains on the ranch he sold?

The governor is in many ways his own worst enemy when it comes to this sort of thing -- and then the GOP comes riding to his rescue every time by attacking him loudly, making it look petty, and cancelling out any benefit that there might have been from his gaucherie.

Whoever runs against the governor needs to do it on policy and performance alone. And there's more than enough of that to debate.

Addendum:

Thanks to the anonymous commenter below, our attention was drawn to this letter (scroll down) in the Helena IR, which contains what may be the only "news report" about our Sen. Jon Tester voting against the so-called "John Doe" amendment -- a measure that would protect citizens from being sued for reporting activity that is suspicious for being possibly terrorist-related.

What was this highly dangerous amendment (SA 2340 -- submitted by that arch-conservative racist Republican Senator, Susan Collins of Maine) that Sen. Tester couldn't bring himself to vote for? Here's the meat of it:

(1) IN GENERAL.--Any person who, in good faith and based on objectively reasonable suspicion, makes, or causes to be made, a voluntary report of covered activity to an authorized official shall be immune from civil liability under Federal, State, and local law for such report.

And, with all due respect to those who are worried that this could be used as a pretext to hassle people without fear of consequence, we would suggest actually reading the next part of the amendment (we assume that the House language was pretty much identical):

(2) FALSE REPORTS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any report that the person knew to be false at the time that person made that report.

The roll-call vote can be found here -- note that the measure failed by 3 votes to hit the 60 vote mark. Every Republican voted for the measure.

Democrats who are facing elections where they need more than the MoveOn.org crowd to get elected (Sen. Clinton in the Presidential race, Sens. Baucus and Landrieu in their re-election bids in "red states," -- also North Dakota's two Democratic Senators, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, etc.) tended to vote for the measure, while those independent "mavericks" like Jon Tester and James Webb who don't face re-election until 2012 voted against it along with the main body of the liberal Dems.

It is interesting that given how much play this amendment got nationally, that the Montana press seems to have been silent on how our Senators voted.

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

Image Courtesy of www.old-picture.com

Carbon County Moos on the brucellosis affair: Over the last couple of days, Montana Headlines has been expressing opinions on the recent brucellosis happenings. We've referred readers to blogging rancher Sarpy Sam, and now want to do the same for Karbon Kounty Moos, whose story is a more up-front and personal one -- and should be read.

The Democrats are coming, the Democrats are coming!: To take over the intermountain West politically, that is. As Montana Headlines has pointed out before, the Democratic resurgence in this region is real, and has many causes.

One, of course, is that the West has never been as solidly Republican as is commonly assumed. Another is big-spending Republicans on the national stage and an ill-conceived (and then botched) war.

Yet another is the combination of Republicans getting lazy and flat-out beat on the ground in this region -- not having the imagination and creativity to deal with shifting demographics and issues of concern while still holding onto core principles.

And there is, of course, the fact that the Democratic party has finally figured out that in order to win in the West, they have to abandon -- or at least soft-pedal -- some of their liberal shibboleths (think Senator Tester on gun rights or illegal immigration.)

Having the opposition co-opt one's positions, of course, means that Republicans have won certain battles. It also means that Republicans have to be bright enough to realize that if they try to keep using the same old play-book, they're going to keep getting beat.

A Republican resurgence in the West will come -- the fundamentals are still stacked in our favor -- but we will need some good leaders.

Deployment limits: This past week, attempts were made in the Senate to place limits on the length of deployments to Iraq and to mandate periods of time at home between tours in Iraq. Both attempts failed to get the required 60 votes to move forward. Both Montana Senators voted for the limitations, and both Wyoming Senators voted against the limitations.

Here in the Montana blogosphere, reaction from the left included an R-r@ted one from Left in the West, and from somewhere in the general vicinity of the right, The Western Word likewise expressed disappointment that the bill didn't pass.

Having limitations on the length and number of overseas combat tours and on length of time between tours is nothing new. Many of the old-timers from WWII recall that the mindset at that time was that no-one came home until the war was won. That wasn't exactly true, since very late in the war, a Advanced Service Rating Score was initiated to help decide who got to go home first.

But this system was developed by the military itself -- they had a mission to accomplish, and after winning in Europe, they had an excess of troops overseas. They wanted an equitable way of determining who came home when.

In Vietnam, the idea of a one year tour of duty was developed -- again by the military itself. Its wisdom has been debated, but it is how things were done at that time. (In most wars, flight crews have often had their tours determined by the number of missions or sorties they are required to fly, rather than measuring the tour according to a certain length of time.)

Anyone who has served in the military knows exactly how long they could potentially be sent on an overseas TDY, and whether and for how long that tour could be extended -- again, all under military regulations for the particular branch of service at that time. There is nothing quite like getting on a military aircraft in time of conflict, not being exactly sure where you are going or when (or whether) you will be coming back. That is, however, an intrinsic part of military service.

The military itself has two competing interests that have to be taken into consideration in deciding how long tours are, who does them, and who has to return for further tours: First -- accomplishment of their assigned mission, and second, recruitment and retention. From the military's perspective, this is a balancing act, and it varies from service to service and from job to job within each branch of service.

Even when a draft is on, the balancing act continues with regard to "recruitment" and retention, since drafts are politically unpopular, and also because some draftees elected to extend their time in service voluntarily.

Ultimately, these decisions need to be made within the military itself. Congress has no role in making such decisions, and Sens. Tester and Baucus were wrong to vote for the Webb amendment.

Some felt that since Webb was a combat veteran, that he should have been heeded. In fact, as a combat veteran and former Secretary of the Navy, Webb knew better than to introduce this amendment. It was a politicized act meant to tie the President's hands in Iraq. In some cases it may have helped troops and the mission, and in other cases it would have hurt both. Regardless, it is not the job of Congress to decide.

As Montana Headlines has repeatedly stated, what Congress can do is to deauthorize a military action. To "undeclare war," so to speak. The proposed Byrd amendment sounds like an approach that is constitutional. Sen Tester has, incidentally, expressed his support for this amendment.

Granted, the Byrd amendment hasn't materialized yet, so we don't know exactly how it will be worded.

In general, Sen. Byrd has been a strong proponent of holding firmly to separation of powers -- which in recent years has meant holding firm against executive over-reach. He has also in the past spoken about "the pitfalls of usurping the Executive Branch’s role in an ongoing war," so one supposes the legislation will be carefully written to reflect that as well.

Lonely older women will hate Fred Thompson: According to Susan Estrich, that is. Keep in mind that Estrich is famous for her brilliant management of the Dukakis presidential campaign. But she is an entertaining political commentator.

The upshot of her recent commentary is that older single women are tired of seeing single guys their age date and marry younger women (a shocking recent trend,) and they will take it out on Fred Thompson by voting for the other guy (or gal,) since Thompson married a "trophy wife."

Sounds like Estrich is miffed that Thompson didn't chase her during nearly his two decades of being single.

Another liberated modern woman had the same first impression, but on looking at the situation again, realized that she was following the kinds of prejudices that she would condemn in others.

How will it all end up? Who knows? But early indications are interesting -- liberals have sniped at Thompson for being married to a 40 year old blonde who has the audacity to be sexy, smart, successful, and Republican (those danged liberated women -- gotta do something about 'em,) and they've even floated the rumor that Thompson is gay (and you can just hear them add, "not that there's anything wrong with that...")

Now where have we seen the homosexual-friendly Democratic Party indulge in gay-baiting before? Oh, yeah. Right here in Montana.

Anyway, it is interesting that Democrats seem to have directed more fire at the undeclared Thompson than they have on all of the other GOP candidates combined.

The Loonies are coming, the Loonies are coming!: The strong Canadian dollar has cash registers ka-chinging in northern Montana.

The taxability of the $400 election-year "check in every pot": We have already discussed the needlessly complicated means of getting that golden $400 check from the Montana government.

Now, we learn from the Missoula Independent that those who itemized deductions on their income-tax return in 2006 will have to declare the $400, while those who took the standard deduction in 2006 won't have to declare it as income.

According to H & R Block District Tax Specialist Nancy Eik, that’s because itemized returns allow for larger deductions, so “you already got a deduction for the $400 last year.”

Huh?

Let's try that another way: the purpose of a standard deduction is to eliminate the hassle and paperwork of itemized deductions, both for the majority of taxpayers and for the government.

The number is set at a level determined by the government to exceed the amount of deductions that most taxpayers would be able to take. Therefore, by definition, those who don't itemize are almost always getting a bigger deduction than they would otherwise be entitled to.

So this "tax specialist" has it exactly backwards, it would seem.

This little part of the bill would seem to be yet another bit of election-year pandering (should we be surprised, given that the entire schemata is designed around election-year pandering?)

Most Montanans presumably take a standard deduction rather than itemizing, so most Montanans won't have to declare the $400 check as income. And most of those who do have to declare it as income probably weren't going to vote Democrat in the first place.

You've gotta hand it to the Democratic strategists in Montana -- they're no amateurs.