PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar -- Montana Headlines interview (Part 2 of 2)

Read Part I here.

_____________________________


MH: Let's touch on a few specifics, starting with your public comments condemning the "right to work" plank inserted into the platform at the recent GOP convention. For the record, MH opposes such laws, too. What on earth happened up in Missoula that this plank got shoved into the party platform?

Brad Molnar: That is what happens when people do not pay attention. I was not on the floor when it took place and it is so cloaked that...well, it happened. True conservatives cannot accept government intervening in private sector contracts. Period.

MH: Agreed. How do PSC Commissioners affect the interests of labor union members, and what specifically have you done to look out for them while on the PSC?

Brad Molnar: As you know I was the first Republican in the history of Montana to represent Laurel in the legislature. Some said that the union influence made it impossible. I figured that railroaders did not have enough money to be liberal so talked about what we had in common (which is most things) and they kept me in till term limits.
I actually enjoy working with union guys. They are long on doing and short on pussy footing. But more directly, when the Judith Gap wind farm was being started they wanted to use out of state, non-union contractors. There are no in-state non-union contractors that could have built the project.

At the PSC level I made a motion to place in our docket that "Little Davis Bacon" would apply. Still not sure if it would have applied but I tried. Only got one vote, Raney's. The other D's took a powder.

MH: "Little Davis Bacon?"

Brad Molnar: State version of Federal "prevailing wage."

MH: Got it. So is it possible that Republicans, if they don't insist on blowing it, have the opportunity to win the support of traditional unions in Montana and elsewhere?

Brad Molnar: Of course. Under Jerry Driscoll the AFL-CIO dropped their participation in slime ball politics and focused on jobs for their people. Republicans tend to like that concept so it was symbiotic.

I have encountered a strong union sentiment to that in my PSC campaign. The trade unions pulled Tussing's endorsement to fight for me. (No resolution of that yet. Railroaders in Forsyth recognized me at a cafe, and walked up to offer their support).

Union workers are just individuals. Approach them as such and all things are possible. Don't attack their union. After all it is their union. Let them change its policies if they so desire. They vote on this stuff and their leaders. If you don't like it then join and vote.

How tough is this? It's called freedom. Not every fight requires war. I have noticed that Republicans that complain about union money and "bus loads" of volunteers have not donated a dime to local candidates or even a few afternoons stumping for a candidate.

If we are being out-organized, out-donated, and out-volunteered by a minority, why do we have the right to be critical of others for digging out their pocketbooks and getting off the couch?

MH: You’re preaching to the choir. No whining about unions allowed around here.

Next up is energy deregulation.

Brad Molnar: OH BOY!!!

MH: Well, you knew it was coming. Listening to your opposition, the evil state legislator Brad Molnar was single-handily responsible for deregulation, ensuing high energy prices, and general chaos, mayhem, and destruction. Did we leave anything out?

Brad Molnar: And I did it at the request of my corporate masters....

I was such a powerful legislator that Bob Gannon handpicked me. I didn't even have to show up at the hearings. If you have nothing to say, but an election to win...make it up.
Considering Tussing's history why would this surprise anyone?

MH: You’ve got a point there. But leaving aside the fact that this argument is so… so 1990, are we correct in suspecting that this is, just maybe, a bit of over-wrought election year shrillness?

Brad Molnar: Actually since they have decided that conservation efforts are the root of all evil they have pretty much left this cut and paste argument alone. But I'm sure we will see more of it.

It's really a stupid argument to raise. I'm the one that took my own time and money trying to sue to get it overturned. The D's on the Commission actually took a public vote to try and block the suit to keep the facts from coming to court.

The facts are clear. The PSC acted in collusion with MPC and PPL, and lied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to facilitate the sale of MPC generation assets as quickly as possible. They had to ignore a dozen brakes put on them by the legislature. The document they did this with is the first one under my pic on the PSC website.

Notice that they clearly state that the federal government does not allow states to deregulate –rather, only a Commission can request the state's generation be granted (EWG status.)

MH: Is there a "rest of the story?"

Brad Molnar: I was absolutely shocked when the Repub party did not even ask if they could help. I was shocked when the Demo party refused to even discuss how to reregulate and I was shocked when my fellow Commissioners ordered our legal staff to stand with the PPL attorney (He has donated to Tussing) and defend our deregulated status.

I never asked them to help or give money. Just stay out of the way. When Raney switched to oppose the reregulation effort he publicly stated it was for "partisan political considerations" from the bench. (last entry below my pic on the PSC website).

Not a word in the press. An unbiased study of the causations, the issue, the process are a gold mine on how to have a better future and not make the same mistakes again (state and federal) but alas, the issue is better political fodder. Geez, it even happened before Tussing moved to Montana to claim the title Most Failed Chief of Police/Mayor Billings Has Ever Known...but it seems to be the only thing he knows anything about.

MH: Let’s turn to some more dirty stuff. We've had an annoying commenter who periodically shows up on MH threads that deal either with you or Ron Tussing, saying that you were convicted of felony assault and battery.

Knowing how devoted Mayor Tussing's fawning admirers are, this sort of anonymous charge will probably continue to appear on various blogs and in the comments section of the Gazette during this campaign. Would you like to enlighten MH readers regarding your past felonious activities?

Brad Molnar: I would rather talk about my future felonious activities but my compatriots would prefer that I not. Such stories will probably continue to surface in the blogosphere but not on the editorial page because they would be actionable and could not muster a defense onnaconna taint true.

Actually a felony would preclude me from serving would it not?

MH: We tried making that logical point, along with pointing out the absence of anything in the press about it in the last election cycle, but some people are logically challenged.

Brad Molnar: Yes, I've had a few scrapes but never seen a judge... plainly self defense.

Sorry, but I can't match Tussing man-handling a reporter at his announcement for mayor when he dared ask why Tussing thought he could break the $160,000 settlement agreement. Apparently Tussing claimed self defense and said he was afraid the man was armed (he had a camera and is 1/3 the size of Tussing)

He has not assaulted anyone for carrying a camera before or since. Charges dropped. Had that been me I would still be in the clink. It amazes me when they know they are vulnerable yet go forward with their cowardly attacks. They don't even care if they hurt their own candidate. Very poorly thought out. Tussing should be avoiding these issues like sumac.

MH: Enough on that – if we continue, our readers will be forced to go take a shower and won’t be able to finish reading this most engaging interview.

Let’s talk some specifics of how the PSC works. How do PSC commissioners interact with the state legislature -- do you have an advisory role in the crafting of legislation?

Brad Molnar: We often craft our own. For example the PSC crafted the legislation to increase the USB (consumer tax) on natural gas by 300%. I was the only commissioner to oppose it.

MH: Do you testify before committees?

Brad Molnar: There is at least one Commissioner present for just about any piece of legislation that concerns what we do. Often just to answer technical questions. Just as often we offer pro and con positions as determined by our votes to support or oppose various pieces legislation.

For example Mood (the other R) and I have, for the past two sessions supported legislation to mandate that the PSC put together a "lowest cost possible" energy portfolio for utility customers with the option for "green power" aficionados to pay more for their chosen color of electrons.

The three Democrat commissioners have always stood with the enviro lobby and opposed same. All of us agreed that Gov. Schweitzer’s HB3 Special Session was patently illegal. Ergo none of the D's went to testify so they could not be questioned.

MH: Most interesting – we’ll have to pay attention in the next session to see who testifies and when.

Can you give examples of laws that have passed or nearly passed in the legislature in the last couple of sessions that were injurious to Montana citizens -- ones that a Republican legislature should overturn in the coming session?

Brad Molnar: Of course the aforementioned 300% increase in USB taxes (it was made far worse in committee at the request of MDU).

HB 25 has a moratorium on new coal-fired plants and created a new 3.5% tax on energy. If we repeal the Renewable Energy Portfolio (SB 415 Schweitzer/Tester) we could save about $50M immediately and millions more per year.

MH: How about any that need to be fought and kept from passing in the next legislative session?

Brad Molnar: Have been a little preoccupied with the next couple of months to worry about the next session but I assume that everyone agrees that the people of SE Mont would be represented very differently before legislative committees if Tussing should win.

MH: Fair enough, but still, is there legislation that you as a PSC Commissioner would like to see introduced and debated in the next legislative session?

Brad Molnar: Along with Rep Everett I tried to make fraud by, or before, the Commission the same as fraud anywhere (punishable up to two years after discovery) rather than you have thirty days after a ruling to file an action.

Only the three D's on the Commission and NWE opposed it in committee. It got clobbered in Committee and twice on the floor just to get a rehearing.

Listen to the tapes. Jergeson went berserk to kill it. Totally berserk. It was amazing. My jaw dropped. It would have allowed the Commission to be held responsible for the fraud and collusion they committed (and admitted to) when they asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate Montana Power and PPL.

Dems really hate the truth on this subject. I'll bet they quote Justice Nelson on this topic when they blog. Four justices refused to sign his dissent so they naturally quote him like he actually represented someone other than himself and his loathing for my conservative politics and our many years running feud over his judicial activism.

MH: Well, that spares us from having to ask for a comment or two about the role of the judiciary.


Next up, what kind of a grade would you give the current governor when it comes to the basic pocketbook issues of utility rates?

Brad Molnar: A+ for taking credit for the efforts of others.

D-minus for what he has done to consumers and the cost causers he has planted.

When I nailed him on imploring us to help low-income ratepayers with their increasing utility bills, when he promoted every cost causer in the legislature he said, "Yes, but my concern was for the jobs it creates."

Six months building wind mills and 20 years of higher rates. Make that an "F."

Same, exactly the same, answer from his transmission guy (Tuttle) at the Colstrip meeting of the interim ETIC when he was asked by Weisman (D-Great Falls) about the impact of the Montana Idaho Intertie.

So it is definitely Schweitzer’s policy to ignore costs if he gets a good headline about jobs. He is a very bright guy so I assume he knows he is guilty. It's just that the press prefers to not ask any follow up questions. Just quote the press agent...or they might not be invited to the next wine tasting.

Same thing when Barret told legislators to resist my amendment to HB 3 (special session) that would have saved consumers $38.85M on electricity bills (That reminds me. We should try that one again.)

ZERO dems voted for it. Why doesn't Schweitzer say what he has done to lower energy bills (not counting subsidizing the poor with other people’s money)...make that F-minus.

Republicans put price caps on the renewables in SB 415 2005 in House Committee. The amendments to pull off the consumer protections were called the governor’s Amendments...mainly because they were. Hell of a floor fight. Nothing in the press.

What is lower than F-minus? Add $10,000 to the war chest against me.

MH: Let us know if there is a spike in fundraising from Helena after this interview appears.
Let’s move on to a different intra-governmental relationship. How do PSC commissioners interact with the federal government?

Brad Molnar: Constantly. Directly via meetings with FERC and FCC top personnel at NARUC meetings and teleconferences and through regional stake holder issues (BPA) and transmission issues to the east. The commissioners you must work with are "no nonsense" professionals. They Googled me before I got there and judged if I had anything to add to the issue.

If not, you will just be a placeholder and cannot represent Montana. Very judgmental and very hard working group. They wouldn't let Tussing carry the donuts.

MH: As entertaining as it is to pull a visual of Mayor Tussing fetching donuts and coffee for the big boys, let’s hope we don’t have to deal with that. How has the change to Democratic control in the U.S. Congress affected things in the last couple of years?

Brad Molnar: It appears to me that the people voted to end the war. They still have the war but got stuck with a freshman congress controlled by a bunch of enviro zealots that simply refuse to have a holistic approach to energy and the environment.

I never thought that there would be a working majority in congress that was willing to perform great violence on families in the US via their utility bills (Cap and Trade/carbon tax) (a crafty tax hidden in utility bills that we will never get rid of.). I must now concede the possibility and work to mitigate the harm.

MH: Will the outcome of the Presidential race this year affect what you do at the PSC?

Brad Molnar: Both Obama and McCain have signaled that they will sign Cap and Trade. They are both willing to sell this country down the river for a sound bite.

Maybe Sarah can get McCain to moderate but I doubt it. Before it was Warner-Lieberman it was McCain-Lieberman. Either way we are screwed and, if I am in the majority, will write rules to mitigate the damage they will do.

If not in the majority I will use the position to inform consumers....actually a pretty good weapon....which is why I am so heavily targeted.

Add another $10,000 to Tussings war chest. I'm joking -- it will be independent expenditures.

MH: We’ll look forward to getting those mailers. Let's turn back to the specifics of energy for a final question. Is it safe to assume that we are in agreement that for now, drilling for more oil, building more oil refineries, and mining and using more coal are the irreducible minimum in relieving the burdensome cost of energy?

Brad Molnar: Those that argue against more drilling are just plain goofy....but may get elected president. It's a purist environmentalist argument..."No carbon at any cost -- but confuse the issue at every turn."

MH: And would we also be in agreement that the "all of the above" approach to attacking the energy supply issue on every front is essential to meeting our energy needs in the long run?

Brad Molnar: And the short run. Look how fast Bakken turned the argument. Even Tester is taking credit for it now.

MH: Moving on from that, what alternative energy source is the most promising for Montana -- and what makes it the most promising technology?

Brad Molnar: Wind, though not as a stand-alone generation. But wind with compressed air storage (still in R&D), tied to hydro, tied to EXISTING natural gas.

As a nation we have 205,000 megawatts of natural gas baseload. We would be generations tying it to wind and the results would be astoundingly good. Building gas generation to support wind....totally political and wildly anti-consumer.

And when you say "for Montana"...the only winners are those that sell wind power. That's why people have to be forced to buy it i.e. thru renewable energy portfolios etc and that's why they are forced to pay a $16 BILLION dollar subsidy. Montana is often called the Saudi Arabia of wind (so is No Dak. So Dak. Texas etc etc...it's what people say when they think a vacuous statement will work better than facts...usually on the 6 o'clock news).

Do the Arabs have to mandate the use of oil? Do Arabs subsidize its sales to help hide the true costs? If wind is mandated why subsidize it? The least complicated to authorize is "cogeneration" on a case by case basis as long as it is not a Qualified Facility. We have plenty of affordable/reliable energy in Montana. Why we are convincing ourselves that greater investment in subsidized/unreliable energy is a winning argument is beyond me. We have not and cannot curtail one megawatt of electricity from Colstrip since we built Judith Gap with its 135MW capacity. Know why?

MH: I think that is pretty obvious, and can be summarized in one word: demand -- which is only going up.

Brad Molnar: And you would be wrong. Have a nice day.

MH: That's a cliffhanger of a note to end on. We'll have to find the real answer to that one another time, then.

Commissioner Brad Molnar, thank you again for taking the time to talk with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in your campaign – and while we may regret this, you can have the last word.

Brad Molnar: Luck? I'm up against a discredited cop, that became a discredited mayor, that admits he would be a know-nothing Commissioner. How tough could it be.....INCOMING!!!!

___________________________

Tomorrow -- Full text of the entire interview for convenience in linking.

PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar -- Montana Headlines interview (Part 1 of 2)

MH: Commissioner Brad Molnar, welcome to Montana Headlines -- thanks for taking the time to do this interview.

First, we've got to ask this question: are you related to Thomas Molnar…

Brad Molnar: Yes. First cousin.

MH: Hold on, wait for the rest of the question. Thomas Molnar, the famous Hungarian conservative philosopher and historian/political theorist?

Brad Molnar: No. Wrong Hungarian, sorry. Cousin Tom runs a septic pumping service in South Bend, Ind. I don't think that he is very philosophical about it. Don't suppose he thinks it's a political statement either. I could be wrong about that though.

MH: Well, we’re off to quite a start, aren’t we? So let's start with a simple but crucial question: what exactly does a PSC Commissioner do?

Brad Molnar: All fifty states have some form of Commission. Fed regulators (FCC and FERC) share responsibilities with us. If state or federal legislation grants monopoly power we act as a brake to make sure the customer get the value as if there were competition. I'm pretty sure the brake is broke.

MH: Correct us if we're wrong, but you seem to enjoy your job as a PSC Commissioner immensely.

Brad Molnar: Yup.

MH: Put differently, a lot of public office holders enjoy the attention, the power, or the potential for future political ambitions that go with their jobs (yes, that was a little side-swipe at your opponent) -- but don't necessarily seem to enjoy the day to day grind of their lives in public service. You seem, more than most, to just plain enjoy doing what you do. Do we have that right, and is this typical for PSC Commissioners?

Brad Molnar: I truly enjoy the job. Like most before me I am amazed at how different it is from how it is perceived. I would say that all five of us are very dedicated to doing the job as best we can. Even Toole, which surprises me. But he is so political and infecting the Commission that he overshadows the good he can do. Raney and Jergeson have become far more political since Toole got elected.

MH: What is it that you find so enjoyable or satisfying about this job?

Brad Molnar: The total and ongoing exposure to new problems and various solutions in a room filled with very intelligent people and very different ideas. The fight for individual liberty and against runaway liberalism is fought here every day. But it’s not like in the legislature -- you can't go back to your caucus at the mid-day break or go home. You are in for four years. I've actually had to develop people skills...

OK "try" to develop people skills.

MH: We've heard it said that PSC Commissioners have a more direct impact on the daily lives of Montanans than do many state-wide positions that are higher profile. Is that true, and if so, could you explain?

Brad Molnar: We make the Appropriations Committee look like a bunch of panty-waists. Schweitzer talks (and talks and talks,) about energy but we analyze myriad proposals constantly. We recently implemented an additional 50 MW of QF wind (never mind the jargon just catch the drift.) If history holds that will cost consumers over a billion dollars more than the electricity is worth.

And we have zero capacity for ancillary services to firm it. NWE was against it. Montana Consumer Council was against it. I was the only no vote. The press never reported it (Who would write the story and who would understand it?). Only lobbyists and special interest liked it. By the time it kicks in no one will remember it and those that voted for it will be retiring from their new jobs as lobbyists for the same special interests. (Least ways that's my humble opinion)
On a 3-2 vote we OK'd sending 2,000,000 of NWE ratepayer dollars to Portland and Seattle to help spread the word about energy efficiency in the wood pulp industry. I'm sure that most of that money will find its way back to Montana via liberal PACS. Not one word in the daily press. TRY THAT in the legislature.

A rate increase of $15M got big press but the $60M "tracker" we passed several weeks later never got a mention. I was the only no vote and will soon show the world why. But the "why" is a twenty year deal. Legislative actions are only good for two years. Our mistakes can't be undone, are under analyzed, and in the billions of dollars. That is why we have more impact.
And the obvious. You get an energy bill every month. All business and government entities get a utility bill every month -- so you actually pay all three.

MH: Readers of Montana Headlines know that we find your opponent, Billings Mayor Ron Tussing, to be... well, let's not go there.

From a public-interest perspective, we were definitely rooting for Curry in the Democratic primary, but as we wrote in an earlier post, "From a punditry perspective, Molnar vs. Tussing would be a dream: sort of a to-the-death political cage match."

You don't seem like someone to back down from a fight, and you're certainly in one. We haven't seen a lot of fireworks yet -- when will it start, and what shape will it take?

Brad Molnar: It's definitely started. The state Demo party has filed grievances against me with the Office of Political Practices about the Billings Brownout. They were thrown out because Noonan tried twice to get the form right but couldn't quite grasp the concept. Mary Jo Fox (formerly with Raciciot then Martz -- now Tussing's campaign manager) has filed and amended several, also on the Billings Brownout, and of course the D's on the Commission have asked for a ruling from the AG also stemming from the Billings Brownout.

Plainly they feel the Billings Brownout is a good thing in need of attack to try to drown out Tussing's enormous negatives by creating some for me. Pretty stupid. EVERYbody I have talked to about it sees right through it. Does anybody think Tussing could even win Mayor again? The last three days of his campaign for Mayor were a gathering of some of the slimiest people in Montana politics. How they escaped prosecution I have no idea. I expect I'll get some on me as all the old ones are back plus a few new faces.

Because they are issueless they have really tied me up with all the work I have to do on their inane complaints. It is very consuming of emotional capital, money and time. IS this really the best way to form a new government every two years? The Tussing campaign (Led by Mary Jo Fox and Joe Gunthals) is the spiritless fate we must now suffer for failing to rein in crap-mongers during so many campaign cycles. Especially the last mayoral campaign in Billings and the Fox v Cooney for Senate. I fully expect a repeat of the final days of the mayor’s race with enough crap slung by "independent expenditures" to make me vote for Tussing. Tussing’s name is so negative that they can't raise him up. They need to try to bring me down.

MH: One war that you are definitely winning, from what our eastern Montana readers tell us, is the Burma-Shave sign war. Do you expect to maintain your commanding Burma-Shave lead over Tussing -- and so our readers who don’t make it onto the roads of PSC District 2 can know what on earth we're talking about, could you share a couple of your favorite Burma-Shave campaign sign sequences?

Brad Molnar: Displaying all the creativity and originality that Tussing can muster on energy and telecom issues ("I want to explore options and "look for"...never mind) -- Ron Tussing has copied my signs.

MH: Mayor Tussing really is shameless, isn’t he? But in all fairness, he did manage to compose a puerile ditty about the city administrator he was in a fight with -- readers can look that monumental act of creativity up in the MH archives (search for "The House that Ron Tussing Built") -- or in the court records from when the City of Billings was being taken to the cleaners for millions in no small part because of Tussing.

We digress shamelessly -- go on...

Brad Molnar: Of course I copied them from the Burma Shave idea but let’s admit that I took them to a new level in Montana politics. The people that have mentioned Tussing's signs, regardless of party leanings, all use the word "copy cat".

What else did he think people would feel? That he was clever? The rest of us learned in fourth grade that "copycats" were to be shunned on the playground. He has a right to do it but it's dumb and again raises all of his other myriad ethics issues.

But for the unenlightened they are signs with jingles on them rather like the old Burma Shave signs. Some are silly but all fit my theme.

Those Liberal Fellas / Sound Real Clever / Do their ideas work / Never Ever / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This is the only sign to be stolen so far; last cycle it was the only one to be driven over.)

Mine it now / Drill it now / Don't need Arabs / To show us how / Molnar for Public Service Commission – (This one is very popular. Got me labled a racist. Sheesh.)

When near a school / Drive real slow / Let those little / Voters grow / Molnar for Public Service Commission -- ( This is also a carryover from last cycle. Actually from an original.)

Can't make him run / Can't make him cry / Molnar is / A stand up guy / Molnar for PSC Molnar for PSC -- (In case they were wondering.)

MH: These are, of course, 5 separate signs in a row, and you have to wait a bit for the next line -- very effective. As noted before, you are crushing the opposition in the Burma-Shave wars. Turning to more serious topics on the campaign front, where is this election going to be fought and won?

Brad Molnar: I think that I have to play a heads up game but it is already decided. In redistricting my area was designed to be Republican and Jergeson’s was designed to be Dem. The others are plus or minus 6%.

But 140,000 of my 200,000 voters all live in Yellowstone County. Obama people are really registering a lot of people here but we don't know how many of those will actually vote. That and the Baucus money thing are the only two unknowns.

Other than that the Gazette is the paper of record for the district and everywhere I go people are well aware of Ron's reneging on the $160,000 pay to leave, shoving the reporter and claiming self defense, the law suits, the multiple ethics violations, voting money for his wife’s projects, subordination violations, lying under oath, being already bought and paid for by lobbyists, etc.

Getting yard or Burma sign locations is easy. I just have to say that Tussing is my opponent. I think that the majority of people have already made up their minds about us. If he is the kind of guy (with the kind of followers he has) they want on the PSC they can have him. But plainly even those that supported him for Mayor have come to see that the City Manager was right and Tussing had to go to protect the people of Billings and now they have buyer’s remorse.

I think the primary numbers show that. Curry's campaign was nonexistent (I saw just two yard signs). The Curry votes were not Pro Curry. They were anti-Tussing. No idea what that means in the general. People should wonder why the Dems and liberals are so willing to debase themselves to get Tussing on the PSC when they already have a majority and the odds of Repubs sweeping all three open seats are long.

MH: You mentioned the Gazette as the paper of record in your PSC district. Do you believe that the Montana press in general and the Billings Gazette in particular has given you fair and balanced coverage during your tenure as commissioner and during this campaign?

Brad Molnar: In general "no." But, in truth, I think it is improving. Dennison and I have a respect for each other and trade barbs without ongoing animosity. Actually a healthy reporter/reportee relationship.

I miss talking with Chuck Johnson. He was very unfair to Judy Martz but always fair with me. I think, and hope, that my chagrin with LEE lies with the editors. I know it is with AP. Gouras is OK. Hergenrider in Billings tries to be fair but Lutey is nothing but a partisan hack. The new Capitol Correspondent for the GF Tribune has definite Democrat leanings. Sometimes he overrides them sometimes not. The jury is still out on him.

What's her name, the old GF Capital correspondent, was great. Very unbiased writing but she went to work for Lee in Missoula. Lucky Missoula. AP should have picked her up for Helena. Assume I will have between 45 days and 4 years to regret these comments.

MH: How about being a little more specific and forthright in answering the rest of these questions!

Anyway, while we're on the press, tell us about your working relationship with the Billings Outpost and its editor, David Crisp. Crisp at Billings Blog and Montana Headlines are the totality of the political blogging scene here in this part of the state, so we take a keen interest in the success of the Outpost.

Brad Molnar: I have total respect for David as a person, for his intellect, his ethics, and his journalistic capacities.

MH: While he often describes himself as a conservative, it would seem that you and he would probably have slightly different conceptions of what that word exactly means.


Brad Molnar: I think that David is more like a European style "liberal/conservative" and I am perhaps "right" of that sniveling, teary eyed, limp wristed, panty-waist that wrote Genghis Khan’s prisoner policy.

Dave's and my differences are probably more specific – for example, where we might both agree that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution would require all states to recognize a gay marriage from any state, I would argue that it should not because of the 10th Amendment but he would challenge my conservative credentials for making such an interpretative argument after standing on fundamentalist interpretation ideals for so long. Hope that is not too obtuse; and that Dave concurs.

MH: I imagine that we’ll find out, since Billings Blog and MH regularly engage in good-natured, yet substantive disputes.

Anyway, in spite of your differences, your column was a staple at the Outpost for some time.

Brad Molnar: It was very popular. Even in Wyoming. But the #1 comment I got was from Dem's telling me how surprised they were that they actually agreed with me. Dave paid me $30 per column and never tried to censor me. People still tell me they miss it; but alas.

And I miss writing it. Actually the column appeared in several papers off and on.

____________________________

Tommorrow: Molnar on labor unions, energy deregulation, slimy campaigning, interactions with the federal government, the governor, and much more...

The one you've all been waiting for -- Brad Molnar's Montana Headlines interview starts tomorrow

Things have been a little quiet around MH, as readers may have noticed, but we've not been idle. We've still got some good interviews coming up, starting with PSC Commissioner Brad Molnar this week.

We hope that this coincides with one of Wulgar's periodic ratings sweeps-weeks for right-leaning Montana blogs, because traffic should be high...

And as anyone who knows Molnar might suspect, the interview has its -- shall we say -- candid moments. Join us.

Part 1 tomorrow: Molnar on the PSC, the state of the campaign, Burma-Shave, the press, and more...

McCain up big in new Montana poll

As Montana Headlines has pointed out, the selection of Sarah Palin for Veep should make Montana a wrap for Sen. McCain, even in a worst case scenario. The most recent Rasmussen poll shows McCain leading 53% to 42%

More importantly, 70% of McCain supporters in Montana say that they are enthusiastically voting for McCain, while only 28% say that they are primarily voting against Sen. Obama. This is quite comparable to the 79% and 18% numbers among Obama supporters in Montana -- the enthusiasm gap appears to have been largely erased. Based on anecdotal MH experience talking to Republicans, this is an accurate assessment of the right-leaning part of the Montana voting public. It is also a phenomenal turn-around for McCain, and has to be in large part attributed to Gov. Palin's addition to the ticket, not to mention the new general excitement around the McCain campaign.

With the addition of Ron Paul to the ballot, it is said that this could turn the state to Sen. Obama, but this is far from certain. The Montana GOP treated Ron Paul supporters very well, especially when compared to other state organizations. Several former Ron Paul supporters that MH has spoken to have made up their minds to vote for John McCain, in large part because he chose a conservative running mate. Is this representative? Only time will tell, but the wisdom that Erik Iverson showed in welcoming Paul supporters into the party and treating them warmly at the state convention should pay off by at least not having made them hostile to the party organization (other than the malcontents that tend to attach themselves to fringe movements of any kind, who are never satisfied.)

Not that Paulinistas are going to become raving McCainiacs -- but at the very least there isn't the animosity that would have come had Ron Paul's people not been allowed to have their say and to have a genuine, fair shot at nabbing Montana's delegates.

As the choice becomes clear on the differences between McCain and Obama, it would be suprising if Paul and Barr together break 5% in the final vote tally.

__________________

Update: We can perhaps expect the coming state-by-state polls in Western states to follow this trend. The grand "Western strategy" of the Obama campaign may be coming to an ignominious end. Or at least we can hope -- and continue to watch the polls.

Rich Lowry nails it regarding the left's reaction to Gov. Sarah Palin

Great article. Read it.

The virulence of the reaction of the left and the personal tone that the feeding frenzy has taken is indeed largely culturally-based. Even out here in fly-over land (Lowry notes that Palin is in a part of the U.S. so remote that it technically isn't even in fly-over country,) the criticism seems to reflect a desire to want to mimic the rhetoric of the coastal leftish political smart set.

All of this is irrelevant, though. Can Sarah Palin do the job of being Vice President, and President if need be? Absolutely. One need go no further back than the most recent Presidential election: she is far more ready than John Edwards was in 2004, a man who had one undistinguished term in the U.S. Senate and who hardly showed up for that job, since he was too busy running for President.

Now that we think about it, John Edwards in 2004 was more qualified to be President than Barack Obama is in 2008 -- he had spent 6 years in the Senate with his primary job being running for President, while Sen. Obama has only spent 3 1/2 years in the Senate with his primary job being running for President.

The real question is this, and Lowry is not alone in pointing it out: can Gov. Palin withstand the rigors of the campaign trail in a national campaign? No one knows, and there is no way that anyone can know, until we see how she performs. If she handles herself with poise and confidence and if the McCain staff does a good job of running her part of the campaign, then the McCain/Palin ticket has an excellent chance of winning the election.

If she tanks, they could be on the receiving end of a blowout. Montana Headlines, like conservatives across the country, is rooting for her, but sympathy isn't enough -- she will need to perform well. Somehow, we suspect that she will. Much is made of whether the McCain camp vetted Palin sufficiently. They did, and they knew exactly what they were getting. Taking a chance? Absolutely, but McCain's team was smart enough to know that they weren't going to win this election if they played things safe. Good for them.

Update: a commenter brought attention to this piece by Peggy Noonan, who likewise nails it. Out of many great passages in this piece, one of the best is this, where after listing many of her manifestly attractive qualities, Noonan continues:

...conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.

She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there.

Read the whole thing. Especially her plain-spoken words to those who are dragging Palin's daughter through the mud.

Gov. Palin understands federalism?

It's just a little thing, and perhaps we're reading too much into it, but browsing through old video clips of Gov. Sarah Palin, it caught our attention in this interview with Charlie Rose, that Gov. Palin twice used the phrase "these United States."

Again, it is just a small thing, it's just not a phrase that we commonly hear anymore. Sometimes, those who are attentive to the importance of decentralized government will occasionally refer to the United States in the plural -- something that was, in older (and to curmudgeons like MH, often better) days, more the rule than the exception. In fairness, it isn't just conservatives who use this older phrase, so it doesn't necessarily carry political connotations.

Still, as the idea that the federal government should be supreme and that the states should be little more than administrative units of that centralized government has slowly penetrated the American consciousness, we have come to say "the United States of America is," rather than "these United States of America are."

Yes, we're aware that the venerable Shelby Foote, among others, have stated that the Civil War was the watershed between "the United states is" and "the United States are" -- but there has been good documentation of extensive use across the political spectrum and across the country of use of the singular and plural both before and after the Civil War. So don't anybody get the idea of labeling Palin a neoconfederate or something like that -- although we'll doubtless have things much worse than that said about Palin from the left.

Much of the debate over the plural vs. singular usage regarding the United States has been grammatical -- especially since the Constitution refers to the United States, Congress, etc. in the plural.

Maybe it's an Alaska thing, but is it too much to hope that in Gov. Palin, a true believer in federalism has been vaulted to the center of the Republican party and the American political scene? Or maybe she's just a little schoolmarmish about her grammar and knows that the word "states" is a plural. After the way those of us who are particular about the niceties of language have suffered over the last 8 years, can even that be all bad?

Speaking of schoolmarmish, that reminds us of this classic Gov. Palin TV appearance with Craig Ferguson on the Late Late Show. (Yes, it will be coming out that Montana Headlines has been following Gov. Palin's career with interest for quite some time -- we just didn't think she had a real chance in the McCain Veepstakes.)

McCain - Palin ticket is a sure winner in Montana

While the Obama campaign doubtless still harbors dreams of a Montana upset, the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska should shatter them and cause them to move on to truly battleground states. We now better understand why the McCain campaign, in spite of the polls, has elected not to spend precious resources in Montana -- they have known for some time (unless Obama had surprised the world by choosing Sen. Clinton for his Veep) that the presence of Gov. Sarah Palin on the ticket would seal the deal in Montana.

Gov. Palin is from the northwest, hunts moose, yet probably knows better than to carry live ammunition around in her pocket as an attention-getting prop, has a husband who is a member of a steelworkers' union, hates pork-barrel spending, loves developing natural energy resources (i.e. oil) in an environmentally-sensitive way (and unlike our own governor, actually got infinitely more done in less than half the time,) and is in general a libertarian-minded conservative with a soft touch.

All we have to do is get Palin to Montana a time or two, and this state will be out-of-reach for Obama. She probably doesn't even need to show up. Although we want her to!

Yes, we realize that there are those who are concerned about putting a first-term governor "a heartbeat away from the Oval Office." And yet Dems. had serious talk about Gov. Kaine of Virginia, and even the Montana governor (first-termers, both) as legitimate VP contenders. Is the problem that Palin is a woman, while they are men? (We saw that ugly sexism rearing its head in the Obama campaign against Hillary, and it came pretty naturally to them, much to the dismay of many women.)

But more to the point, if one wants to fault McCain for choosing to put a first-term governor in the backup slot, then what on earth are we to think about the Dems putting someone of Obama's paper-thin qualifications in their first position? The election of McCain-Palin would indeed raise the theoretical possibility of McCain dying shortly after arriving in office, and having a relatively inexperienced person rise to the Presidency.

The election of Obama-Biden would bring the certainty of an immediate elevation to the Presidency of a man with neither the executive experience that Gov. Palin has nor the real Senate experience that McCain has (and, to be fair, that Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and even Mike Gravel had.) It will make certain putting a man into the Oval Office who won an essentially uncontested U.S. Senate election in an overwhelmingly blue state less than 4 years ago -- and who has spent all of those last 4 years running for President rather than tending to the business of learning how to be a good Senator.

As Kirsten Powers notes regarding those who are shrieking about McCain choosing a running mate who has been governor for two years:

Where were they when Obama, two years into the Senate, announced his candidacy for president?

Indeed. If we are to fear inexperience, then we should run, screaming in terror, from the thought of an Obama presidency. Obama's election would mean the election of a man who has neither extensive Washington experience as a Senator (such as McCain has) has nor executive experience at the state level (such as Palin has.)

This whole "experience" thing that Democrats are desperately trying to make stick will only backfire, since ultimately, people vote for the top of the ticket -- the more the Obama team highlights the issue of experience, the worse it is for them.

We believe that Montanans will take to heart the words of Sen. Hillary Clinton herself, waxing eloquent, " I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

_____________

Addendum: For those who haven't gotten enough of photos of Gov. Palin and her beautiful family, click through the Post's photo gallery.

It's official -- the governor broke the law

It shouldn't have taken the skills of a law professor, months of dragging things out, hours of testimony, and thousands in legal fees to know that the governor broke a law that he himself signed into law when he had state-funded employees using state-owned equipment make public service announcements that included his re-election campaign slogan of "Montana is on the Move."

But, even if the wheels of justice turn slowly, one hopes that they grind exceedingly fine, as the saying goes. And indeed the final judgment was against the governor and a fine was levied. He got off lucky, since he could have been fined $1000 per occurrence, and the ads were sent to multiple radio stations and presumably aired more than once.

The point was whether the governor was wrong -- and the official judgment is that he was. He of course knew he was, and yet he first attempted to bluster his way out of it, and then it appears that he tried some back-door communication with the Political Practices office to mitigate the disaster he saw coming. If so, those efforts may have been successful, since the final judgment was for a symbolic amount of money that will appear to many to be a mere slap on the wrist -- and since the final judgment includes language that refers to ambiguity in the law (although in the final analysis, the legislative intent was not found to be ambiguous.)

The governor gets some ammunition with which to blow more smoke screens to obfuscate the fact that he broke the law. As we have stated before, this could all have gone away with a little humility on the part of the governor and his staff, but they decided to go for broke -- which was a mistake. The worst part of this for the governor was not that he made the ads, it was rather that he attempted, in essence to cover it up by claiming that he really hadn't broken the law, even though the plain and obvious language of the law as interpreted by an ordinary non-lawyer was, well, plain and obvious.

This is the first time that the governor has not been able to skate smoothly around a controversy. This was never going to be a scandal that would break the governor's political fortunes, but it has put a little tarnish on his gleaming armor which had seemed so untouchable. Political death by a thousand cuts starts with a single nick...

Those big-money Democrats... again

In what is a very big surprise, Republicans are projecting that they will raise $400 million from all sources to support Sen. McCain in his run against Sen. Obama this fall.

This is a staggering figure, considering that McCain is a notoriously poor fundraiser -- and probably an optimistic figure. Still, Republicans are doubtless understanding that they are really up against the wall in this election. With no hope to regain control of even a single house of Congress, and smart money saying that we'll actually lose seats in both houses, all that stands between America and one-party Democratic rule in Washington is Sen. McCain, so it is time for Republicans to buck up. Literally.

Unfortunately, even if those cheerful Republican figures turn out to be true, Sen. Obama is projecting close to $500 million. What should be noted is that a $100 million dollar deficit in favor of Democrats is nothing new.

In 2004, we had an incumbent President and majorities in both House and Senate. And yet, here is what Karl Rove recently had to say:

While the GOP may be seen as the party of Big Money, recent presidential contests have shown that – taking unions, George Soros's wealth, and organizations like MoveOn.Org into consideration – Democrats have a large financial advantage.

In 2004, when each side's spending by candidates, national committees and third-party groups was totaled up, Democrats outspent Republicans in the presidential race by $119.4 million.

In other words, we were behind by more than $100 million in a good year -- a year when Sen. Zell Miller proclaimed that his Democratic Party was "A National Party No More."

The same is repeated here in Montana up and down the ticket this year and there doesn't appear to be an end in sight for the foreseeable future. We "fat-cat" Republicans had better get used to being outspent by the real big-money party.

Some thoughts on John McCain and bipartisanship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Montana Headlines is now a blog by the Billings Gazette

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

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

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

Good new McCain ad

Video and commentary from the NYT here.

Democratic Congress hits record approval rating

9%

Yup, you heard it right -- single digits for Congress. No matter how low Bush goes, Congress is always a step ahead.

Now exactly why is everyone planning to send even more Democrats to Washington?

Sigh.

Fox News Sunday -- forgetting Sen. Baucus exists

On Fox News Sunday's panel, Montana got mentioned because of us being targeted by the Obama campaign as a swing state. Fred Barnes advised the McCain campaign "not to worry" about Montana -- which is probably sound advice from a national perspective (if McCain loses Montana, it will be part of a national blow-out,) but not so good for our down-ticket races.

But the amusing part of the exchange was where Mort Kondracke stated that North Dakota has two Democratic Senators and Montana has a Democratic governor and one Democratic Senator. Since the memory of Sen. Tester's dramatic squeaker, giving control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, has to be still fresh in the minds of political junkies, the inescapable conclusion is that Kondracke has forgotten the existence of the "4th most powerful Senator" on Capitol Hill.

If only it were that easy for us.

Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 2 of 2

Read Part 1 of the interview here.

Part 2:

MH: The Secretary of State's office oversees a wide variety of governmental functions, all of which are important, but most of which are out of the view of the average Montanan. Could you, for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with what your office does, give an overview?

Brad Johnson: Elections are, of course, the one that everyone notices. But the Secretary of State's office also serves Montana's business community as a filing office. When a new business gets started, they register their name here so no one else in Montana can use it. Corporations and Limited Liability Companies file annual reports with us, so the public can be aware of contact information, who's on their board of directors, and more. After business filings, we also preserve records for the rest of the state, we publish that state's Administrative Rules, we oversee Notaries Public, and more. That's one of the reasons I like the Secretary of State's office: it's an office of government that does humble, quiet work. It really is a place to serve the people.

MH: You mention filing and reporting for corporations as being a role of the Secretary of State's office -- are there things under the purview of your office that you think could be changed in order to create a more business-friendly climate in Montana? Will you be advocating for any legislation in the upcoming session?

Brad Johnson: This office definitely improves the business climate in Montana. The first step has been to hold fees down. Not one business reporting fee has increased during my term. The second is to reduce paperwork, which we did by shifting to online annual reports and which we’ll continue doing by bringing more services online. We’re improving the methods by which we deliver information about administrative rules, which many businesses need to do their job. Those are just a few of the areas where I hope to make even more improvements over the coming years.

MH: Let's turn to politics. You are one of only two Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and the only one in Helena. This has thrust you into a high-profile leadership role in the state party that you probably didn't anticipate having 4 years ago when you defeated Bill Kennedy for the Secretary of State position.

What has that been like, and what are your thoughts as a leader about what we Republicans will need to do in order to recover from the losses we have sustained in the last couple of election cycles?

Brad Johnson: I wholeheartedly believe that the excited, committed crop of Republicans we have this year is ready to come roaring back in 2008. We've got so much excitement at the grass roots, it's really moving. I try to think of myself as a resource to them. I believe there's an understanding out there among the activists that it was never offices or numbers or majorities that made this party great -- it was our beliefs. Our beliefs will make us great again.

We don't need to think about being in power; we need to think about being in the right. As long as we are, and we stay that way, we will be a great political party. Fiscal conservatism, the values of the American family, a strong nation with a strong defense, liberty and individualism -- we stood for those things once, and we were great. If we stand for them again, we will be great again.

MH: Speaking of your new high-profile role, part of the package deal is that you've drawn fire from the left here in Montana -- we've certainly seen it in the blogosphere. You've also had to have felt a bit isolated as the sole Republican member of the state land board. We're not giving away any big secrets here when we say that you are being targeted by the Democrats in this election. How does this affect day-to-day life in doing your job as Secretary of State?

Brad Johnson: I've had my share of criticism from the Democrat party, that's true. But I just don't let it affect the job. While I'm there, the Secretary of State's office will not descend into partisanship. I've actually got an elected Democrat serving as my elections deputy -- Lisa Kimmet, former Clerk and Recorder for Prairie County. Many people don't know that, but to me, it's a guarantee of high quality elections for everyone. We have a Republican Secretary of State and a Democrat who's working right alongside me to make sure Montana's elections remain among the cleanest, fairest in the country.

MH: Funny thing -- one struggles to think of examples where the leftward bloggers in Montana, let alone the mainstream press, commends you for having hired a Democrat as your elections deputy.

Brad Johnson: I admit it’s a bit frustrating. People on the other side of the aisle line up to sing Schweitzer’s praises for having “Republican” John Bohlinger in his administration, but they’re dead silent when our side does something similar. But I try not to let those frustrations come up too often. The truth of the matter is, you don’t do the right thing for credit, you do the right thing because it’s the right thing. And an election that both sides can trust is absolutely the right thing.

MH: One more question on attacks from the left: we've heard stories about a nationwide effort on the part of Democrats specifically to take over Secretary of State offices at the individual state level, presumably to have more control over the election process. Have you had evidence that you are being targeted on a national level?

Brad Johnson: We’ve had some interaction with the national Democrat and left-leaning organizations. Their “Secretary of State Project” wrote about my race once, and have been said to have an interest in it. We encountered MoveOn.org, too, believe it or not. They sent us a bunch of petitions urging Montana to move to paper ballots. Of course, we passed that law in 2005…

MH: Yes, that was an amusing illustration of how out-of-touch MoveOn.org is, once they get away from the coasts.

One more political question -- you were an early supporter of Gov. Mitt Romney, who was successful in winning the Montana Republican Presidential Caucus. Have you been asked to be involved in Sen. McCain's presidential campaign here in Montana -- and regardless of whether you will be actively involved, how would you suggest that the Montana Republican Party can transfer some of that Romney grassroots energy to John McCain?

Brad Johnson: I've already been advocating the importance of electing John McCain to the White House. I haven't been involved in the campaign yet, but I'm spreading the word on a personal level as much as I can. As far as transferring some of the Romney enthusiasm to McCain, I think there's a relatively simple formula that will work: Romney earned a lot of his support simply by showing up. He came here, he listened to Montanans, and he treated us like we mattered.

Frankly, we saw the same thing in the supporters of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Those two were here a lot, and their supporters were very enthusiastic for that reason. That's what the party and the McCain campaign need to do to transfer the Romney enthusiasm. Treat individual voters with respect. Listen to their ideas. And give them some time. They will respond. Chairman Iverson is already doing this at the party level; I have every confidence that we're going to see it from the McCain campaign as well.

MH: Let's leave politics and for the final question go back to the job you've been doing as Secretary of State. You've overseen a major modernization of the Secretary of State's office during your 4 years. Tell us a little about some of the things happening behind the scenes in your office that might not be making front page news.

Brad Johnson: When I ran for this office, I committed to bringing the Secretary of State's office into the 21st century. It's going well. We've got online candidate filing now, a statewide voter registration database, business annual reports are mostly online, we've just upgraded our Administrative Rules system into an easily searchable online database, we've established a steering committee to guide statewide policy on electronic records and information management, and more.

Right now we're in the middle of a project to completely revamp the office's computer system, with an end goal of making all our records available electronically, and all our reports submittable electronically. We've saved over a hundred thousand dollars with the online annual reporting. Electronic services cut down on paperwork and time for the citizen and the fee-paying business, and they're cheaper for the state to provide. It's a win win situation for everyone.

MH: A "win-win" situation is a good note to end on. Secretary Johnson, thank you very much for spending time with us here at Montana Headlines. Good luck in the campaign.

Sec. State Brad Johnson -- Montana Headlines interview, Part 1 of 2

Note to readers: please see our introductory comments on method and ground-rules that we published with our interview with Republican State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes.

____________________________________________

MH: Secretary Johnson, first of all welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you for agreeing to do this interview.

To start off, Montanans read in the newspapers last month that you just finished visiting the election offices in all 56 Montana counties in your capacity at the chief election administrator of the state. That was quite an undertaking.

Share with us, if you will, some of your impressions about the state of elections in Montana. What are we doing well, and what are some of the challenges that we face in what promises to be one of the biggest primary and general elections that Montana has seen in quite some years?

Brad Johnson: Montana's elections are some of the cleanest and fairest in the country. When I meet with other Secretaries of State from around the nation, they're always envious of how smoothly elections proceed here. One of the first reasons for that is our paper ballot requirement. While other states around the country are dealing with all the security risks of electronic voting machines, every single vote in Montana is on paper where we can count it by hand if we need to. That was bipartisan legislation for which I was proud to be the first proponent.

Another reason Montana's elections work so well is our system of local control. County election officials make their own decisions about whether to count ballots by hand or using a machine. County Commissioners make their own decisions about ordering a hand recount if they believe there's a problem with the total. We have some of the best election administrators anywhere in the country, and I'm proud to call each and every one of them a colleague.

That was one of the best things accomplished by the tour. I had the chance for real face-to-face interaction with the people on the front lines of our electoral process. County election officials had the chance to tell me directly what they wanted form the state. When they asked for more training on the statewide voter registration database, they got it. When they asked for more communication, they got it.

There are still areas we can fine tune. In the last legislative session, my office worked with Rep. Brady Wiseman on legislation to require random audits of some counties vote counts after an election. That didn't pass, but we hope to return to that issue in the next session. Overall, we've got a great election system here -- one that other states look to as an example.

MH: How did the June primary go from your perspective, given the record turnouts, especially on the Democratic side?

Brad Johnson: There are a number of important points to observe about our primary election. The first is that, for the first time ever, Montana endured the rigors of full fledged modern Presidential campaign. The result? Short, well-managed lines, no challenges to the counts, and timely reporting of the results. In brief, this election proceeded nearly perfectly in process. I think a large share of the credit for that goes to the outstanding local election administrators, who trained hard, worked hard, and delivered results for the people of Montana.

Another important point that I’m happy about is that this year, for the first time ever, the Montana Secretary of State’s office delivered accurate, up-to-the minute results on election night. In years past, our “final unofficial count” has been available at some point the day after. But the simple fact of the matter is that the people demanded better. We delivered it, and I was pleased by that.

Voter turnout was great – just a percentage point or two shy of our office projection. And, I might add, the highest since Congress made changes in how we measure voter turnout.

I think every Republican has to look at the turnout figures on the Democrat side and say some version of, “It’s time to get to work. That’s a large number of people voting in the Democrat primary. Obviously the high visibility of the Obama vs. Clinton contest was driving that, combined with the McCain nomination being long-since settled, but even so, we have to look at those numbers and respond with more work and more ideas. We can take nothing for granted.

MH: Was there anything in the results in Bob Kelleher's win in the Republican Senate race or John Driscoll's race in the Democratic House race that raises any red flags for your office, given how unexpected these results were?

Brad Johnson: We certainly did have questions from some folks shortly after the primary. There were a few who wanted to blame the Kelleher situation on some problem with vote counting machines. But Montana has a number of counties that count their ballots by hand. The simple fact of the matter is that the results of the Senate primary in hand-count counties essentially mirrored those in the machine count counties. Kelleher won. Driscoll won. Figuring out why will be a great opportunity for professors and analysts. But they did win, and it was not a problem with the count.

I will take a moment here to say I believe that’s a trend which is highly destructive to democracy. On both sides – Republican and Democrat – when the results are not what we wanted, we blame the system rather than admit we could have lost. Democrats did it in 2004 in Ohio, a few Republicans have been doing it now in Montana… but what happens if those efforts succeed? What happens if the public comes to believe that the only legitimate election is one where your candidate wins? People will lose faith in the system of self government. That’s something I think we all want to prevent.

MH: You took some flack from the left during the last legislative session when you advocated for election workers and their reasonable proposal to close registration a mere two business days before the election. Did we see the kinds of backed up lines and overloaded staff on election day that we did in the fall of 2006? Will you be advocating for such legislation again, or do you think that we are just stuck with voter registration loading down our election offices on election day itself?

Brad Johnson: In the political world, we have a big debate going on about “everyone should be able to participate in an election, even if they forget to register up until the last minute” vs. “Voting is a responsibility, if you can’t be bothered to pay attention you should not take part.” I believe in voting as a responsibility, and I work every day toward increasing people’s informed, prepared participation. I also believe in increasing participation. That’s why I think HB281 in the 2007 session was such a good compromise. It still opened up the process much more – from 30 days before the election down to three. But it asked for just a little bit of prior preparation.

But none of that takes into account the technical part of election work. One thing that frustrates election workers everywhere is how little people outside the business understand what we do. The simple fact is that late registration is very, very hard for county election workers to implement in a way that preserves a smooth election process for the rest of the voters and also maintains the integrity of the process. But people outside don’t see that. They just see the “participation vs. responsibility” debate.

I have a responsibility to see the election workers’ perspective though. And their opinion was near-universal. 55 out of 56 county election administrators wanted to roll back the date of late registration. I won’t name names, but HIGHLY partisan Democrat election administrators wanted to see that deadline rolled back. On the other hand, relatively politically inactive Democrat election administrators also completely supported rolling back the date for late registration. As well, Republican election administrators supported rolling back the date. Election administrators of no party also supported it. Among the most highly-regarded election administrators in the state – of all political stripes – all said the deadline should be rolled back.

It’s not that I don’t understand the Democrats political position. What I don’t understand is why they were so unwilling to listen to a universal consensus from the people in the field.

And after all that, it absolutely must be said: we did far, far better this year. My office undertook a campaign of public service announcements – that never used my name, face or voice, I should add – encouraging voters to register early. As well, the major Presidential campaigns were all working on getting voters registered early. County election offices worked on getting voters registered early. And the team effort worked. Lines were shorter to non-existent in some counties. They moved faster. It was a good result. But we’d have an even better result if we closed registration on the Friday before the election.

MH: Some states are enacting measures to decrease the chances of voter fraud, such as photo ID's. Another concern in many states that isn't yet an issue in Montana but that may become one in the coming years is the possibility of illegal immigrants voting in our elections. Do you have any thoughts about these and other voter fraud concerns in Montana and how the legislature might take action? It is the position of Montana Headlines that every fraudulent ballot cast disenfranchises a voter who followed the rules. Any thoughts on that?

Brad Johnson: In the last legislative session, I testified on behalf of a bill that would have made it a felony to knowingly falsify information for the purpose of registering to vote. The Democrats killed it. That’s one step the legislature could take right away that would address many of the concerns you mentioned. I share your position that if voter fraud happens, it disenfranchises honest voters.

It should be pointed out that the non-partisan Legislative Audit Division identified instances of individuals who attempted to vote more than once, but those attempts were thwarted by the statewide voter registration database. The numbers of such attempts were small, but recent Montana elections often include very close races. Just this June, we had a House primary decided by one vote. Every attempt at violating election law is significant, and I would like to see the Legislature strengthen the penalties for it.

MH: A final election followup -- how far away are we from going to vote-by-mail in Montana? We've heard some pretty convincing arguments that fraud would actually be more difficult to perpetrate with an all-mail system as opposed to our current mix of absentee ballots, in-person voting at the precinct level, and early voting at election offices.

Brad Johnson: Montana’s local election officials tend to be strongly in favor of mail ballots. I think their arguments have merit – especially in regard to the savings to the taxpayer that could be realized. But I also think we don’t want to be too hasty about this. There are questions that need to be answered. Is the county paying for the return postage? Or the voter? If we make the voter pay for the stamp, is that the same thing as charging people money to vote? If not, then where does the money for postage come from? And does the expense of postage eat up the hoped-for savings?

More than all that, I’m not sure we can completely take away a traditional in-person polling place because it offers accommodations for Montanans with disabilities that simply can’t be offered with a mail ballot. And finally, there are just some folks like me who like doing things the old fashioned way, and voting in person.

So there are two sides to the story, and we don’t know the answer yet. I’d like to see us be quite thorough in studying the issue before making any decisions.

Read Part 2 of the interview with Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson here.

More on the governor's public service announcements

As we noted before elsewhere, it would have been a simple thing for the administration to say that the governor's public service announcements (PSA's) that appeared after the primary were the result of some sort of careless clerical error over dates. Looking at the timing of it, that would have been a plausible defense, and upon which we would hope that the response of the Montana GOP would have been to say "shame on you," and then drop it.

It would have been painful to drop it, since the PSA's were pretty blatant (they prominently featured the governor's voice saying that "Montana's on the move" -- which is his campaign slogan.) But it would have been right to drop it and just tuck it away as one more example of carelessness, born perhaps of overconfidence.

But instead, the governor's office and campaign has continued to try to insist that nothing was done wrong, since the state didn't pay for the radio air time (does the state commonly pay for public service announcements anyway?)

Leaving aside the fact that state employee time and equipment were used to make the ads, we wonder -- if the PSA's were so legal and everything, why hasn't the governor continued to do more of them? Will we continue to see them through the campaign season? But of course, Democrats know that the whole point to the law that the governor himself signed was precisely to keep elected officials running for re-election or for another office from using PSA's to raise their name recognition and favorable image during election season. And the governor is an elected official running for re-election who appeared in a public service announcement during campaign season.

Often, Montana Headlines is in the position of saying that the GOP state party office has over-reacted to this or that misdeed by the Democratic party or Democratic candidates. We believe that a disproportionate response can become a sort of "crying wolf" that makes the public less likely to listen to us in the future when we have more serious assertions to make.

The Montana GOP is right not to let go of this one, though -- precisely because the administration has not been forthcoming about what should have been a pretty straightforward response from the governor of "my bad -- won't happen again." Again, it is the obfuscating response that is far more disturbing than are the ads themselves.

__________________________

Update: Read the MT GOP's brief here. The governor has made a "motion to dismiss or for summary judgment," or put differently, a "please make this go away without my having to admit I did anything wrong" request. The MT GOP is correctly making a strong case that this would be the wrong thing for the commissioner of political practices to do.

The brief does have its amusing moments (such as when it refers to the governor's "maniacal insistence" that the case be dismissed summarily without the usual due processes of discovery and presenting evidence. And what exactly is "diaphanous conduct?" That one is a head-scratcher, unless it is legalese of some sort. But this is a typical Montana Headlines digression into wordsmithing.

The document is commendable for its clarity, restraint, and measured tone. The bottom line is that the governor put a campaign slogan into a PSA, and that the ad violates both the spirit and the letter of a law that the governor himself signed into law. We'll see what happens, but this round goes to the state GOP as far as we're concerned around MH.

Duane Grimes -- Montana Headlines interview reprise-- full text

In May, Montana Headlines ran a 3-part series with Republican State Auditor candidate Duane Grimes as the first of a planned set of interviews with the Montana Republican Party's major candidates for state-wide office. One of our intentions at the time was to put the entire interview into a single post for ease of linking to it -- here it is in that one-post format.

Coming up this week is the Montana Headlines interview with Secretary of State Brad Johnson. We have made arrangements for further interviews -- stay tuned.

______________________________________________

MH: First of all, welcome to Montana Headlines, and thank you very much for agreeing to do this interview.

Let's start with a basic question: What is a State Auditor, and why does Montana need one?

Duane Grimes: The State Auditor regulates the insurance and securities industries in the state of Montana. Every state has a similar position, though in many states it is called the Insurance Commissioner and is actually an appointed rather than an elected position. The responsibilities of the Auditor have everything to do with the affordability and accessibility of the things you depend on to protect your family, business and future. In election years, the race for Auditor often gets overshadowed by races ‘higher-up’ on the ballot such as U.S. Congress or Governor, which is unfortunate given that decisions made by the Auditor’s office affect the daily lives of nearly every Montanan.

My 9-year-old daughter earlier this year had to go to school and tell her teacher and classmates what the State Auditor did, so I had to boil it down. I told her that the Auditor "makes sure insurance companies keep their promises." She wrinkled up her nose because she didn't know what an ‘insurance company’ was. So I boiled it down even further, saying, "the Auditor helps people with some of the problems they have when they get in accidents or go to the hospital."

And that's what it is. Insurance is the promise of financial protection and allows us all to assume the inherent risks in life, anticipated or not, with some sort of safety net. The Auditor is your first line of protection to ‘insure’ that safety net is as promised. Most people I talk to say about the same thing, "When I needed the Auditor, I really needed help!"

Montana – and every state – needs some form of Insurance Commissioner to ensure that honest businesses can provide a variety of quality insurance options to consumers at reasonable prices, and that unscrupulous businesses are stopped and prosecuted.

MH: How many years has it been since Montana has had a Republican State Auditor? Why have Republicans not been as successful in recent years as Democrats in getting elected to this statewide office?

Duane Grimes: Well, it has been 16 years since we had Andrea Bennett, a Republican. She succeeded Sonny Omholt who had the job since before the 1972 Constitution. (As a matter of fact, some folks involved back then have told me it was Omholt's reputation and friendliness that caused the position of Auditor to be retained in the massive state government reorganization of the early 1970's.) Since term limits, for the last 16 years we have had Mark O’Keefe and John Morrison.

The candidate that initially ran against O’Keefe was an insurance agent and long time legislator from Stevensville, Fred Thomas, who was accused by O’Keefe of being the "fox in the henhouse," because of his insurance affiliation, and that is probably the reason Thomas lost. For his first term, Morrison ran against a Republican who didn't campaign at all, and then I lost to him in his reelection bid 4 years later in 2004. I later found out that no incumbent in a ‘mid-tier’ race like this has ever lost a re-election! Now the seat is open again in this 2008 race and I think I have a very good chance to win the race.

MH: So our Republican Sec. State Brad Johnson should be feeling pretty good right now, if no incumbent in a mid-tier has lost, historically?

Duane Grimes: Historically, sure, but I’m certainly not going to jinx Brad’s campaign by making any predictions! It also used to be true that you had to win Yellowstone County to win a statewide race: both Brad and Jon Tester broke that truism. The political landscape in Montana continues to change, and candidates can take nothing for granted.

MH: You are not an insurance agent, so you can't fairly be accused of partiality towards the insurance industry, but your reference to O'Keefe accusing Fred Thomas of being a "fox in the henhouse" just because of what he had done for a living is rather amusing.

This is not to make light of any unfair criticisms that Thomas had to endure. Rather, what is interesting is that Democratic candidates for Attorney General are often closely tied to the Montana Trial Lawyers Association -- and that Democratic candidates for State Superintendent routinely are very closely tied to the Montana Education Association. And yet, we don't tend to hear "fox in the henhouse" comments about those particular races. We are told that their opinion should have particular weight since lawyers understand the law and educators understand education. And yet if someone with experience in the insurance industry is interested in being what amounts to an insurance commissioner, it is automatically assumed that a nefarious scheme is afoot.

Don't worry -- you don't have to respond to that -- it's just some MH editorializing.

Getting back to your own situation, you clearly see the Auditor's role as being an advocate for Montana consumers of insurance and investment products -- and that is as it should be. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, aren't consumers best served by having a climate where insurance companies see Montana as a good place for them to do business? Most insurance companies seem to want clear ground rules that aren't going to turn into shifting sands, which includes a stable regulatory climate. If Montana is seen as a stable place for insurance companies to do business, won't there will be more of them competing to offer better products at lower prices?

Having a stable, open, and businesslike environment to encourage good insurance companies would seem to be important. You don't need to have a stance toward insurance and investment companies that is adversarial from the outset in order to do your job as Auditor to help Montana consumers, do you?

Duane Grimes: I believe that the best help an Auditor can bring consumers is by ensuring that there is a stable marketplace; the two go hand-in-hand. If honest businesses are able to operate in Montana and be successful, more businesses will open or move here and thus increase competition, ultimately making consumers the big winners.

Interestingly, my opponent has already begun to accuse me, in her words, of being “all too happy to carry the industry’s water,” in an attempt to portray me as ‘anti-consumer.’ I believe that an effective insurance commissioner should have open lines of communication with the small-business community rather than be reflexively combative from the start simply as political posturing. Arbitrarily treating small business – which is what most local insurance agents are – as the enemy is the wrong way to go about being a successful regulator and successful advocate for consumers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, any final comments for MH readers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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