If the "leak" of a memo based on internal polling was intended somehow to embarrass the Montana GOP, it is unlikely to have that effect.
The supposed "bombshell" of the memo was that GOP legislative candidates were advised not to attack the governor. Far from being some unusual recommendation, it is something that should be common sense -- and from reading Republican legislative candidate literature, it is something that at least in the Billings area, legislative candidates have already been doing for months.
As Chairman Erik Iverson pointed out, this polling data only confirms what has already been a change in direction for the Montana Republican Party, where in the past everyone's fortunes depended on the outcome of major statewide races such as a Presidential race or Senate race. It was never probably a very good strategy in a state like Montana, where voters are noted for their independence and cross-ticket voting. And in the current state of voter flux nationally, it makes even less sense now.
And again, this is a turn that the Montana GOP had already taken some time ago. The silly days of thinking that there were major political gains to be made by repeatedly calling the governor a "mint farmer" or by criticizing him for letting Jag climb on tables and chairs in the state Capitol are long gone.
To be sure, many of the governor's policies deserve criticism -- and alternative visions need to be presented. Some might interpret this as attacking the governor, but of course such straight-forward critiques and contrasts are the legitimate stuff of campaigns.
It is, however, the job of the Roy Brown campaign to do that, and the pollster was stating the obvious by noting that legislative and local candidates aren't going to gain any ground by personal attacks on the governor. The governor has a singular talent for getting under the skin of Republicans -- as we have noted before in these pages, the governor is very Clintonesque in that respect. But we must resist the urge to fire verbally at will, no matter how tempting and even pleasing the prospect might be at any given moment.
Montana Headlines has made these same points before, and while we don't shy away from criticizing policies or actions of the governor, we try to do so on points of substance -- such as our continuing coverage of the governor's refusal to follow a rule that he himself signed into law, or our critiques of how the budget surplus was wasted.
If the memo wasn't intentionally leaked by the GOP (which we suspect it was,) it should have been, because it only serves to highlight for Montana voters the new direction of the Montana GOP, with its emphasis on having local and legislative candidates run their own campaigns on their own merits -- with the benefits percolating up to benefit statewide candidates. It is good long-term strategy, and will pay dividends. Kudos to Erik Iverson.
Showing posts with label Erik Iverson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Erik Iverson. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Ted Washburn (or Clint Regenold) for HD 69
In the past, Montana Headlines has asked liberals to define "wingnut" and other names they call conservatives here in Montana.
While most of the time such labels are loosely and unfairly applied, perhaps this is a good definition of wingnut mentality, if there ever was one.
We're all for principles, and for principled stands taken by politicians who go against the grain and are willing to stand alone. Every legislator ultimately has to vote his conscience, and occasionally that will clash with someone else's idea of practicality.
But Rep. Roger Koopman crossed a line when he created what amounts to an "enemies list" made up of his fellow legislators. It would be one thing if Koopman could rationally believe that conservative Republicans of his defined level of ideological purity could win a majority in the Montana House and Senate. But he knows good and well that they can't. Either that, or he is delusional.
This delusion was doubtless born of the Ron Paul performance in the recent limited Montana GOP caucus. Paul came in second, and a great number of his followers honestly (and incredibly) believe that Paul would have won in an open primary election. Given that Paul's best performance in a primary (as opposed to a caucus) rarely broke into double digits, this kind of self-delusion is truly breathtaking.
Proof of Ron Paul involvement in this project is the involvement of Dave Hart, Ron Paul's state director. During the caucus campaign, Hart and other Ron Paul supporters indicated that they were wanting to work within the party constructively.
If this is what they meant by working constructively within the party, then we'd like to see what they might mean by by destructive.
What really set the blood to boiling around Montana Headlines was the inclusion of Rep. Elsie Arnzten of Billings. We're not as familiar with the other Republicans on Koopman's list, but with all due disrespect to Rep. Koopman, he doesn't have to run in Arnzten's district, which leans heavily Democratic. Let's just say that Koopman would go down to spectacular defeat in this district where Arnzten wins handily.
And Koopman has the nerve to call the legislators on his list "socialists." This, after the Republican caucus in the House held together for one 51-49 party line vote after another throughout the last legislative session. Rest assured, given the fact that the more conservative wing of the Republican caucus narrowly won the leadership elections and set the agenda, the more moderate members of the caucus were undoubtedly the ones taking the biggest political risks in those votes of party loyalty -- not the Roger Koopmans in the House.
Koopman has called for "real conservatives" to challenge the legislators on his list. Of course, if any are fool-hardy enough to try, they will likely be trounced.
We, on the other hand, would like to see Rep. Koopman be successfully challenged by a "real Republican" -- i.e. one who understands what Ronald Reagan meant by the 11th commandment: Thou shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican.
Now we're just taking a wild stab here, and we in general don't like things that start with "What Ronald Reagan would do is...." But we imagine that Reagan would say that Koopman was most certainly "speaking ill" by calling his fellow conservative Republicans "socialists," just because they don't meet his standard of ideological purity. It is a disgrace even to allow Koopman to claim the mantle of "conservative." We're not sure what to call his kind of extreme approach, but it is anything but conservative.
One last thing -- we've seen things on blogs and comments that say that Koopman is speaking for or representative of "the Montana Republican Party."
The truth is that Koopman is speaking for a distinct minority of the Republican Party. Maybe 10% at most -- albeit a very vocal 10%. It isn't that we don't accept that 10% in the Montana GOP. We do and should, and we value the most right-leaning members of the party, and we should value anything truly conservative and Constitutional that they bring to the table. They are a part of the "big tent" every bit as much as moderate to liberal Republicans are.
But the real voice of the overwhelming majority of Montana Republicans is reflected not by Koopman, but rather by GOP Chairman Erik Iverson's comments:
Asked if he agreed with Koopman’s labeling of the 14 targeted Republicans as “socialist incumbent ‘Republicans,’ ” Iverson said, “I refer to them as Republicans. We’re a big-tent party. We’ve got room for all Republicans of all types of ideologies.”
Good for Iverson -- we couldn't agree more. Don't get us wrong -- we are fine with having Roger Koopmans in the party and in the legislature if they can get elected and represent their constituencies. That's not why we are endorsing his opponents. It is not right to purge people of Koopman's ideology or voting record any more than it is right to purge moderates from the party.
But it is perfectly fine with us if the voters in HD 69 rid us of a Republican who isn't willing to work within the Republican coalition, but who seems bent on destroying it in favor of a permanent Republican minority. We know nothing about Washburn or Regenold -- but let's hope that one of them emerges as a consensus candidate of sane Republicanism in that district, and at the very least gives Koopman a taste of what he is advocating for the legislators on his enemies list.
While most of the time such labels are loosely and unfairly applied, perhaps this is a good definition of wingnut mentality, if there ever was one.
We're all for principles, and for principled stands taken by politicians who go against the grain and are willing to stand alone. Every legislator ultimately has to vote his conscience, and occasionally that will clash with someone else's idea of practicality.
But Rep. Roger Koopman crossed a line when he created what amounts to an "enemies list" made up of his fellow legislators. It would be one thing if Koopman could rationally believe that conservative Republicans of his defined level of ideological purity could win a majority in the Montana House and Senate. But he knows good and well that they can't. Either that, or he is delusional.
This delusion was doubtless born of the Ron Paul performance in the recent limited Montana GOP caucus. Paul came in second, and a great number of his followers honestly (and incredibly) believe that Paul would have won in an open primary election. Given that Paul's best performance in a primary (as opposed to a caucus) rarely broke into double digits, this kind of self-delusion is truly breathtaking.
Proof of Ron Paul involvement in this project is the involvement of Dave Hart, Ron Paul's state director. During the caucus campaign, Hart and other Ron Paul supporters indicated that they were wanting to work within the party constructively.
If this is what they meant by working constructively within the party, then we'd like to see what they might mean by by destructive.
What really set the blood to boiling around Montana Headlines was the inclusion of Rep. Elsie Arnzten of Billings. We're not as familiar with the other Republicans on Koopman's list, but with all due disrespect to Rep. Koopman, he doesn't have to run in Arnzten's district, which leans heavily Democratic. Let's just say that Koopman would go down to spectacular defeat in this district where Arnzten wins handily.
And Koopman has the nerve to call the legislators on his list "socialists." This, after the Republican caucus in the House held together for one 51-49 party line vote after another throughout the last legislative session. Rest assured, given the fact that the more conservative wing of the Republican caucus narrowly won the leadership elections and set the agenda, the more moderate members of the caucus were undoubtedly the ones taking the biggest political risks in those votes of party loyalty -- not the Roger Koopmans in the House.
Koopman has called for "real conservatives" to challenge the legislators on his list. Of course, if any are fool-hardy enough to try, they will likely be trounced.
We, on the other hand, would like to see Rep. Koopman be successfully challenged by a "real Republican" -- i.e. one who understands what Ronald Reagan meant by the 11th commandment: Thou shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican.
Now we're just taking a wild stab here, and we in general don't like things that start with "What Ronald Reagan would do is...." But we imagine that Reagan would say that Koopman was most certainly "speaking ill" by calling his fellow conservative Republicans "socialists," just because they don't meet his standard of ideological purity. It is a disgrace even to allow Koopman to claim the mantle of "conservative." We're not sure what to call his kind of extreme approach, but it is anything but conservative.
One last thing -- we've seen things on blogs and comments that say that Koopman is speaking for or representative of "the Montana Republican Party."
The truth is that Koopman is speaking for a distinct minority of the Republican Party. Maybe 10% at most -- albeit a very vocal 10%. It isn't that we don't accept that 10% in the Montana GOP. We do and should, and we value the most right-leaning members of the party, and we should value anything truly conservative and Constitutional that they bring to the table. They are a part of the "big tent" every bit as much as moderate to liberal Republicans are.
But the real voice of the overwhelming majority of Montana Republicans is reflected not by Koopman, but rather by GOP Chairman Erik Iverson's comments:
Asked if he agreed with Koopman’s labeling of the 14 targeted Republicans as “socialist incumbent ‘Republicans,’ ” Iverson said, “I refer to them as Republicans. We’re a big-tent party. We’ve got room for all Republicans of all types of ideologies.”
Good for Iverson -- we couldn't agree more. Don't get us wrong -- we are fine with having Roger Koopmans in the party and in the legislature if they can get elected and represent their constituencies. That's not why we are endorsing his opponents. It is not right to purge people of Koopman's ideology or voting record any more than it is right to purge moderates from the party.
But it is perfectly fine with us if the voters in HD 69 rid us of a Republican who isn't willing to work within the Republican coalition, but who seems bent on destroying it in favor of a permanent Republican minority. We know nothing about Washburn or Regenold -- but let's hope that one of them emerges as a consensus candidate of sane Republicanism in that district, and at the very least gives Koopman a taste of what he is advocating for the legislators on his enemies list.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
More on L'Affaire Bohlinger
While it might seem that we have been generally criticizing Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger lately, the MH gripe with him has been a pretty narrowly directed one.
Namely, that he signed up to be Sen. John McCain's chairman in Montana -- and then didn't do a blessed thing for McCain. Didn't bother to learn the caucus rules, couldn't be bothered to contact and talk to the state GOP folks like every other campaign head in the state, didn't even bother to find out if he had a vote, and if not, how to get one.
Unless Lewis and Clark County is some gross anomaly (which we doubt,) Bohlinger was probably sitting right in a vacant precinct that he could have applied for. Did he ever contact the L&C County party to find out? Did he ever contact the state party to learn the caucus rules and whether he had a vote? We somehow doubt it.
Bohlinger not having a vote doesn't make him special, by the way. There are Supreme Court justices, district court justices, city council members and mayors and other non-partisan elected officials who probably consider themselves to be Republicans, but who weren't elected with an "R" beside their name on the ballot. And unlike the Lt. Gov., most of these folks in non-partisan offices who consider themselves to be Republicans have furthermore probably worked for and contributed to Republicans and have probably never worked to defeat Republicans at the ballot box. None of these elected officials get a vote in the GOP Presidential caucus, though, because they weren't elected as Republicans.
Do we wish that there were a way to have a larger group of caucus voters? Yes. But it is certainly understandable why the GOP arrived at the solution that they did. One way of putting it is that everyone in the state who is on record with the government as being Republican is going to vote in this caucus.
We hope that there will be changes made in the future -- for starters we'd like voter registration by party that would allow for a broader group of Republican caucus voters, or we could have an agreement with Democrats to caucus on the same night (so people would have to choose that night whether to be a Republican or a Democrat,) or we could pass the legislation proposed by Republicans in the last session to move up the Presidential primaries for both parties.
But ultimately, the rules for determining a political party's delegates are -- according to Montana law -- made by the parties themselves. Lt. Gov. Bohlinger of all people should have been sophisticated enough to find out what those rules were, especially if he aspired to lead a Presidential campaign effort in the state.
Bohlinger has announced that he plans to appear at his local caucus to make a speech for McCain and then make a stink about not getting to vote (does he want to make doubly sure that McCain doesn't get any votes? What does he have against poor Sen. McCain, anyway?)
He did this several days after the deadline had passed for certifying voters at the caucus -- which indicates either that someone in the governor's office knew exactly when the deadlines were that everyone else had to follow and then made a point of waiting until after they had passed, or it means that the Lt. Gov. couldn't be bothered with finding out the caucus rules.
GOP Chairman Erik Iverson handled the situation well by sending Bohlinger a letter that (much more diplomatically) explained the above to the Lt. Gov.
Iverson personally invited Bohlinger to come to the caucus in Helena and to speak on behalf of John McCain, although he pointed out that he couldn't give Bohlinger a vote without breaking rules that everyone else in the state GOP has had to follow and ignoring deadlines that everyone else in the state GOP had to meet.
Still, perhaps the Montana GOP could have been a little more proactive about dealing with Bohlinger and the GOP caucus. Couldn't we see this one coming from 10 miles away? This was a wedge tactic that one didn't need a crystal ball to see coming.
Someone at state party central could have written Bohlinger long ago, spelling out the process and offering to guide him through it. The party could have offered to show him how to sign up to being a precinct committeeman, a position where he could work for Republican victory and with which he could have a vote at the caucus.
Regular readers of MH will know that it is not a new opinion around here to advocate being more active and less reactive when it comes to the Lt. Gov.'s attempts to play the Republican game.
But again, Iverson responded politely and positively, inviting Bohlinger to work with him to elect Republicans here in Montana. No word yet on whether Bohlinger has offered to take Iverson up on his invitation.
Namely, that he signed up to be Sen. John McCain's chairman in Montana -- and then didn't do a blessed thing for McCain. Didn't bother to learn the caucus rules, couldn't be bothered to contact and talk to the state GOP folks like every other campaign head in the state, didn't even bother to find out if he had a vote, and if not, how to get one.
Unless Lewis and Clark County is some gross anomaly (which we doubt,) Bohlinger was probably sitting right in a vacant precinct that he could have applied for. Did he ever contact the L&C County party to find out? Did he ever contact the state party to learn the caucus rules and whether he had a vote? We somehow doubt it.
Bohlinger not having a vote doesn't make him special, by the way. There are Supreme Court justices, district court justices, city council members and mayors and other non-partisan elected officials who probably consider themselves to be Republicans, but who weren't elected with an "R" beside their name on the ballot. And unlike the Lt. Gov., most of these folks in non-partisan offices who consider themselves to be Republicans have furthermore probably worked for and contributed to Republicans and have probably never worked to defeat Republicans at the ballot box. None of these elected officials get a vote in the GOP Presidential caucus, though, because they weren't elected as Republicans.
Do we wish that there were a way to have a larger group of caucus voters? Yes. But it is certainly understandable why the GOP arrived at the solution that they did. One way of putting it is that everyone in the state who is on record with the government as being Republican is going to vote in this caucus.
We hope that there will be changes made in the future -- for starters we'd like voter registration by party that would allow for a broader group of Republican caucus voters, or we could have an agreement with Democrats to caucus on the same night (so people would have to choose that night whether to be a Republican or a Democrat,) or we could pass the legislation proposed by Republicans in the last session to move up the Presidential primaries for both parties.
But ultimately, the rules for determining a political party's delegates are -- according to Montana law -- made by the parties themselves. Lt. Gov. Bohlinger of all people should have been sophisticated enough to find out what those rules were, especially if he aspired to lead a Presidential campaign effort in the state.
Bohlinger has announced that he plans to appear at his local caucus to make a speech for McCain and then make a stink about not getting to vote (does he want to make doubly sure that McCain doesn't get any votes? What does he have against poor Sen. McCain, anyway?)
He did this several days after the deadline had passed for certifying voters at the caucus -- which indicates either that someone in the governor's office knew exactly when the deadlines were that everyone else had to follow and then made a point of waiting until after they had passed, or it means that the Lt. Gov. couldn't be bothered with finding out the caucus rules.
GOP Chairman Erik Iverson handled the situation well by sending Bohlinger a letter that (much more diplomatically) explained the above to the Lt. Gov.
Iverson personally invited Bohlinger to come to the caucus in Helena and to speak on behalf of John McCain, although he pointed out that he couldn't give Bohlinger a vote without breaking rules that everyone else in the state GOP has had to follow and ignoring deadlines that everyone else in the state GOP had to meet.
Still, perhaps the Montana GOP could have been a little more proactive about dealing with Bohlinger and the GOP caucus. Couldn't we see this one coming from 10 miles away? This was a wedge tactic that one didn't need a crystal ball to see coming.
Someone at state party central could have written Bohlinger long ago, spelling out the process and offering to guide him through it. The party could have offered to show him how to sign up to being a precinct committeeman, a position where he could work for Republican victory and with which he could have a vote at the caucus.
Regular readers of MH will know that it is not a new opinion around here to advocate being more active and less reactive when it comes to the Lt. Gov.'s attempts to play the Republican game.
But again, Iverson responded politely and positively, inviting Bohlinger to work with him to elect Republicans here in Montana. No word yet on whether Bohlinger has offered to take Iverson up on his invitation.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Promoting dialogue with Native Americans; Burns replaces Bohlinger on McCain campaign (finally); Iverson debates McDonald
Chairman James Steele, Jr. of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribal council gave a engaging address to gathered Republicans in Billings. Listening, it was hard not to get the sense that something historic was beginning.
He pointed out that in his search looking for Native Americans who have served in Congress, he found three names -- all of whom were Republicans, ranging from Herbert Hoover's Vice-President to Sen. Conrad Burns's Senate colleague Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado. He reminded the gathered Republicans that it was a Congressman from our party who introduced the bill that gave U.S. citizenship to Native Americans.
Not painting any rosy scenarios, Chairman Steele pointed out that the Montana Republican Party has a lot of ground to make up. But it is clear that we are entering a new era of Republicans engaging in dialogue with Indian Country in Montana.
Iverson could have invited a prominent Republican to give a red-meat rallying speech to the Winter Kickoff. That he did not, and instead invited his (and now our) friend Chairman Steele to keynote the meeting, is a testimony not only to Iverson's vision, but also to his serene confidence in a Montana Republican Party that needs no further energizing.
_______________________________
Some of the biggest cheers of the night at the final night of the Winter Kickoff came when Erik Iverson announced that Sen. John McCain's campaign had requested some equal time, introducing Sen. Conrad Burns as the new chairman of Sen. John McCain's campaign here in Montana. We appreciate the prompt response to the Montana Headlines appeal for a new McCain chairman.
There is a God.
Congratulations to Sen. McCain. We of course still want Lt. Gov. Bohlinger on the team, working to get Republicans elected, and as Chairman Iverson remarked tonight, while the Lt. Gov. couldn't make it to the Winter Kickoff to be with us this weekend, he will be invited to the summer convention and afforded the opportunity to speak and answer questions.
We'll look forward to it.
________________________________
Look tomorrow on KTVQ for a televised debate between Montana GOP chairman Erik Iverson and Democratic chairman Dennis McDonald. McDonald apparently heard that Republicans were in Billings having a good time and decided he wanted to get on Billings TV, so when Iverson caught wind of that, he challenged McDonald to a head-to-head interview.
It should appear on the KTVQ website soon.
Attendees were treated to a clip of the interview in which McDonald lamely tries to defend his previous press-release accusations that a Roy Brown contributor was a tax evader (false) and that Denny Rehberg's state director, Randy Vogel, was under federal investigation for involvement with Jack Abramoff (embarrassingly false -- even liberal bloggers apologized for buying into that one and ended up complimenting Vogel's handling of the situation.)
McDonald's response was blustering sound and fury, signifying nothing. And he maintained that both accusations were true at the time he made them. If McDonald thinks that his obfuscating non-answer will fly with Montana voters, he is gravely mistaken. This guy was a top-notch trial lawyer? Iverson had him for lunch.
Amusingly, McDonald showed up at the interview wearing a giant white cowboy hat.
Aptly, Erik Iverson pointed out to the assembled crowd that McDonald is a trial lawyer from southern California. Iverson, on the other hand, is a 5th generation Montanan who grew up on a ranch in the Sweetgrass Hills.
"If my grandmother were to catch me wearing a hat indoors anywhere -- let alone in a television studio," Iverson noted, "she would have bent me over her knee, even to this day."
It was the quotation of the night, and one that got a roar of laughter and applause from the gathered crowd at dinner, heavily leavened with good, solid, Republican ranchers. All of them were wearing their boots -- and all had a conspicuous absence of head-gear.
Playing rancher is a bit trickier than it looks.
Touché, Iverson.
He pointed out that in his search looking for Native Americans who have served in Congress, he found three names -- all of whom were Republicans, ranging from Herbert Hoover's Vice-President to Sen. Conrad Burns's Senate colleague Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Colorado. He reminded the gathered Republicans that it was a Congressman from our party who introduced the bill that gave U.S. citizenship to Native Americans.
Not painting any rosy scenarios, Chairman Steele pointed out that the Montana Republican Party has a lot of ground to make up. But it is clear that we are entering a new era of Republicans engaging in dialogue with Indian Country in Montana.
Iverson could have invited a prominent Republican to give a red-meat rallying speech to the Winter Kickoff. That he did not, and instead invited his (and now our) friend Chairman Steele to keynote the meeting, is a testimony not only to Iverson's vision, but also to his serene confidence in a Montana Republican Party that needs no further energizing.
_______________________________
Some of the biggest cheers of the night at the final night of the Winter Kickoff came when Erik Iverson announced that Sen. John McCain's campaign had requested some equal time, introducing Sen. Conrad Burns as the new chairman of Sen. John McCain's campaign here in Montana. We appreciate the prompt response to the Montana Headlines appeal for a new McCain chairman.
There is a God.
Congratulations to Sen. McCain. We of course still want Lt. Gov. Bohlinger on the team, working to get Republicans elected, and as Chairman Iverson remarked tonight, while the Lt. Gov. couldn't make it to the Winter Kickoff to be with us this weekend, he will be invited to the summer convention and afforded the opportunity to speak and answer questions.
We'll look forward to it.
________________________________
Look tomorrow on KTVQ for a televised debate between Montana GOP chairman Erik Iverson and Democratic chairman Dennis McDonald. McDonald apparently heard that Republicans were in Billings having a good time and decided he wanted to get on Billings TV, so when Iverson caught wind of that, he challenged McDonald to a head-to-head interview.
It should appear on the KTVQ website soon.
Attendees were treated to a clip of the interview in which McDonald lamely tries to defend his previous press-release accusations that a Roy Brown contributor was a tax evader (false) and that Denny Rehberg's state director, Randy Vogel, was under federal investigation for involvement with Jack Abramoff (embarrassingly false -- even liberal bloggers apologized for buying into that one and ended up complimenting Vogel's handling of the situation.)
McDonald's response was blustering sound and fury, signifying nothing. And he maintained that both accusations were true at the time he made them. If McDonald thinks that his obfuscating non-answer will fly with Montana voters, he is gravely mistaken. This guy was a top-notch trial lawyer? Iverson had him for lunch.
Amusingly, McDonald showed up at the interview wearing a giant white cowboy hat.
Aptly, Erik Iverson pointed out to the assembled crowd that McDonald is a trial lawyer from southern California. Iverson, on the other hand, is a 5th generation Montanan who grew up on a ranch in the Sweetgrass Hills.
"If my grandmother were to catch me wearing a hat indoors anywhere -- let alone in a television studio," Iverson noted, "she would have bent me over her knee, even to this day."
It was the quotation of the night, and one that got a roar of laughter and applause from the gathered crowd at dinner, heavily leavened with good, solid, Republican ranchers. All of them were wearing their boots -- and all had a conspicuous absence of head-gear.
Playing rancher is a bit trickier than it looks.
Touché, Iverson.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Bohl'ing them over -- Erik Iverson style
It seems that Erik Iverson is taking advice from Montana Headlines -- well, probably not, but perhaps great minds just think alike.
Back in the summer, when Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger wanted to attend the Republican state convention (the first that he would have attended in many years -- just happening to be the year before his re-election campaign with the Democratic governor,) we thought that the GOP made a mistake in not welcoming him with open arms, and had this to say:
So what should party central have done? Well, Lt. Gov. Bohlinger is one of a handful of Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and when he expressed a desire to attend the GOP convention, he could have been invited to come and give a major address to the convention.
...Bohlinger, as a self-described good Republican, would doubtless have been more than happy to get up and give a speech advocating the importance of gaining Republican majorities in the state House and Senate. He could have talked about the importance of defeating Sen. Baucus, and of keeping Rep. Rehberg and Sec. State Johnson in office. He could have publicly lamented the Tester Senate victory.
Bohlinger wants to be an active Republican again? Then for heaven's sake don't give him the cold shoulder. Tell him "welcome, back, John -- we're excited -- we need all the help we can get to get the governorship back!"
Give him a place of honor, publicize it widely that Lt.Gov. Bohlinger wants to help the GOP win elections. The prodigal son has come home -- so kill the fatted calf, put a ring on his finger, let the dancing begin. All the men could show up in bow-ties. All the ladies could wear vintage dresses from Aileen's.
Well, now the good Lt. Guv has his opportunity -- but it seems that he's not able to take advantage of it due to being on his honeymoon in China.
Too bad, because Chairman Erik Iverson not only was inviting Bohlinger to attend, but to be a major speaker.
Iverson wrote to Bohlinger that he was offering him --
...the opportunity to hold a ninety minute "Question and Answer" session with the Republican delegates in attendance. This session will be a great opportunity for you to reconnect with members of the Montana Republican Party.
Reconnect, indeed. We had the opportunity to hear Bohlinger some time ago on YPR -- when he articulated what it meant to him to be a Republican, it was pretty much straight Democratic talking points, and nothing that anyone from any of the various wings of the GOP would recognize as Republican.
But perhaps the most important thing about being a member of a political party -- particularly a leader in a political party -- is loyalty to that party.
Like all Republicans, we know people of a variety of persuasions within the GOP who feel that the party mainstream has left them behind. That is part of the reality of large coalition parties such as our two major parties in this two country.
One can have one of several responses to feeling left by one's party -- one can switch to another party (and unlike Lt. Gov. Bohlinger, be a man about it and admit it,) one can decide to remain nominally in the party but withdraw from active political involvement until such time as one can support it again, or one can remain active in the party and remain loyal to the ticket, while hoping and working to change the party to become more to one's liking.
All of these are honorable responses. It would have been nice if Lt. Gov. Bohlinger could have come to the GOP's winter meeting here in Billings -- his home town, no less -- to talk to the GOP party faithful about why a path that seems dishonorable to most Republicans is honorable in his eyes. Or even better -- maybe we would see a new John Bohlinger, one that was rooting for Republican victories in legislative races and statewide races.
Now that would be news -- and it would solidify Bohlinger's claims to be a Republican.
In his letter, Erik Iverson reminded Bohlinger of his own words -- Bohlinger said he wanted to attend the GOP state convention last summer because "it would be very important to certify my Republican credentials..."
But do not fear that all is lost because Bohlinger is out of town for this big GOP meeting -- there will be more opportunities for him to "certify his Republican credentials." Many more.
As campaign season heats up, we hope that Bohlinger will be invited to Republican fundraisers and rallies all over the state. In fact, all Republican candidates should make a point of sending him a fundraising letter asking for contributions -- starting with Roy Brown.
As a good Republican who can afford to honeymoon overseas, we expect he will gladly write checks to help Republican candidates in close races against Democrats. And our biggest race this year is Sen. Brown's race, so since Bohlinger is a good Republican, we expect that he will dash off a $500 check to Roy, and encourage his wife to do the same.
He should be invited to every Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner in the state and asked to help rally the troops to win victory for the GOP in the fall. He should be invited to speak at those dinners, and be told that he will be expected to comport himself as a good Republican, urging people to contribute to the Republican party, volunteer to work for Republican candidates, and vote for Republicans. We, after all, want to help him "certify his Republican credentials."
We look forward to seeing him in the audience at the Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner in Billings, rising with the rest of the Republicans in attendance to give Roy Brown a standing ovation -- cheering him on to victory in the governor's race. It will be great -- and the cameras will be there to catch Bohlinger's smiling face and enthusiastic expression as he applauds Roy.
And if he shows up and advises the attendees to vote Democratic or implies that they should -- well, now, that will be quite the "certification of his Republican credentials," won't it?
Back in the summer, when Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger wanted to attend the Republican state convention (the first that he would have attended in many years -- just happening to be the year before his re-election campaign with the Democratic governor,) we thought that the GOP made a mistake in not welcoming him with open arms, and had this to say:
So what should party central have done? Well, Lt. Gov. Bohlinger is one of a handful of Republicans holding state-wide office right now, and when he expressed a desire to attend the GOP convention, he could have been invited to come and give a major address to the convention.
...Bohlinger, as a self-described good Republican, would doubtless have been more than happy to get up and give a speech advocating the importance of gaining Republican majorities in the state House and Senate. He could have talked about the importance of defeating Sen. Baucus, and of keeping Rep. Rehberg and Sec. State Johnson in office. He could have publicly lamented the Tester Senate victory.
Bohlinger wants to be an active Republican again? Then for heaven's sake don't give him the cold shoulder. Tell him "welcome, back, John -- we're excited -- we need all the help we can get to get the governorship back!"
Give him a place of honor, publicize it widely that Lt.Gov. Bohlinger wants to help the GOP win elections. The prodigal son has come home -- so kill the fatted calf, put a ring on his finger, let the dancing begin. All the men could show up in bow-ties. All the ladies could wear vintage dresses from Aileen's.
Well, now the good Lt. Guv has his opportunity -- but it seems that he's not able to take advantage of it due to being on his honeymoon in China.
Too bad, because Chairman Erik Iverson not only was inviting Bohlinger to attend, but to be a major speaker.
Iverson wrote to Bohlinger that he was offering him --
...the opportunity to hold a ninety minute "Question and Answer" session with the Republican delegates in attendance. This session will be a great opportunity for you to reconnect with members of the Montana Republican Party.
Reconnect, indeed. We had the opportunity to hear Bohlinger some time ago on YPR -- when he articulated what it meant to him to be a Republican, it was pretty much straight Democratic talking points, and nothing that anyone from any of the various wings of the GOP would recognize as Republican.
But perhaps the most important thing about being a member of a political party -- particularly a leader in a political party -- is loyalty to that party.
Like all Republicans, we know people of a variety of persuasions within the GOP who feel that the party mainstream has left them behind. That is part of the reality of large coalition parties such as our two major parties in this two country.
One can have one of several responses to feeling left by one's party -- one can switch to another party (and unlike Lt. Gov. Bohlinger, be a man about it and admit it,) one can decide to remain nominally in the party but withdraw from active political involvement until such time as one can support it again, or one can remain active in the party and remain loyal to the ticket, while hoping and working to change the party to become more to one's liking.
All of these are honorable responses. It would have been nice if Lt. Gov. Bohlinger could have come to the GOP's winter meeting here in Billings -- his home town, no less -- to talk to the GOP party faithful about why a path that seems dishonorable to most Republicans is honorable in his eyes. Or even better -- maybe we would see a new John Bohlinger, one that was rooting for Republican victories in legislative races and statewide races.
Now that would be news -- and it would solidify Bohlinger's claims to be a Republican.
In his letter, Erik Iverson reminded Bohlinger of his own words -- Bohlinger said he wanted to attend the GOP state convention last summer because "it would be very important to certify my Republican credentials..."
But do not fear that all is lost because Bohlinger is out of town for this big GOP meeting -- there will be more opportunities for him to "certify his Republican credentials." Many more.
As campaign season heats up, we hope that Bohlinger will be invited to Republican fundraisers and rallies all over the state. In fact, all Republican candidates should make a point of sending him a fundraising letter asking for contributions -- starting with Roy Brown.
As a good Republican who can afford to honeymoon overseas, we expect he will gladly write checks to help Republican candidates in close races against Democrats. And our biggest race this year is Sen. Brown's race, so since Bohlinger is a good Republican, we expect that he will dash off a $500 check to Roy, and encourage his wife to do the same.
He should be invited to every Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner in the state and asked to help rally the troops to win victory for the GOP in the fall. He should be invited to speak at those dinners, and be told that he will be expected to comport himself as a good Republican, urging people to contribute to the Republican party, volunteer to work for Republican candidates, and vote for Republicans. We, after all, want to help him "certify his Republican credentials."
We look forward to seeing him in the audience at the Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner in Billings, rising with the rest of the Republicans in attendance to give Roy Brown a standing ovation -- cheering him on to victory in the governor's race. It will be great -- and the cameras will be there to catch Bohlinger's smiling face and enthusiastic expression as he applauds Roy.
And if he shows up and advises the attendees to vote Democratic or implies that they should -- well, now, that will be quite the "certification of his Republican credentials," won't it?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Montana GOP February caucus is a good idea
While attempts to move Montana's presidential primary from June to February failed (and rightly so, given the price tag,) the Montana GOP's idea of having a caucus in February is a good idea.
Instead of a meaningless primary in June, when the Presidential nominee will have long been decided, a caucus would be a good middle-ground. The state GOP would foot the (very small) bill, and Montana Republicans would have more of a say in who gets the nomination.
Yes, there are those who will grouse about the fact that the rules changes propose limiting participation to those active in party politics, but keep in mind that those active in party politics all have many people that they are answerable to in the party rank-and-file.
In days of yore, these things were decided at party conventions -- which were even more limited affairs, since delegates had to travel to a central location to vote. And somehow, our democratic republic survived.
There are other good reasons for holding such caucuses -- it will give even greater meaning and import to being a "precinct person" in the GOP. All too many precincts either don't have precinct people assigned, or the people who hold those positions don't take them seriously and don't do the work that the job demands.
Bottom line -- this is an internal matter for the Montana GOP. Let's hear the input and complaining, but pay attention only when it comes from Republicans.
Let's hope that Erik Iverson makes this happen.
Instead of a meaningless primary in June, when the Presidential nominee will have long been decided, a caucus would be a good middle-ground. The state GOP would foot the (very small) bill, and Montana Republicans would have more of a say in who gets the nomination.
Yes, there are those who will grouse about the fact that the rules changes propose limiting participation to those active in party politics, but keep in mind that those active in party politics all have many people that they are answerable to in the party rank-and-file.
In days of yore, these things were decided at party conventions -- which were even more limited affairs, since delegates had to travel to a central location to vote. And somehow, our democratic republic survived.
There are other good reasons for holding such caucuses -- it will give even greater meaning and import to being a "precinct person" in the GOP. All too many precincts either don't have precinct people assigned, or the people who hold those positions don't take them seriously and don't do the work that the job demands.
Bottom line -- this is an internal matter for the Montana GOP. Let's hear the input and complaining, but pay attention only when it comes from Republicans.
Let's hope that Erik Iverson makes this happen.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Brueggeman: "Somebody has to stop the bleeding" (MH: we're still waiting for that "somebody")
Montana Headlines has remained agnostic about the Lange Senate run. Frankly, the chances of Lange getting the nod to take on Baucus are so small that it hardly seems worth spending time worrying about it.
There are probably a dozen potential candidates that could be named right off the top of one's head who would be better. There are probably a dozen Republicans in the current state senate alone who would do a better job for the party in that race.
Of course, someone actually has to challenge Lange -- don't worry, at least one someone will, and that someone will almost certainly get the nomination. So one would think that cool heads would prevail and that party regulars would take a chill pill.
But apparently, not all heads are cool, and apparently all it takes to get a nice article in the Gazette these days is to be a GOP lawmaker sending an e-mail saying that he will vote for Baucus in the general election if Lange is the nominee.
And this is going to change the results of such an election exactly how? (That was a rhetorical question.)
What exactly Brueggeman was trying to accomplish isn't quite clear. How does this announcement "stop the bleeding?" If he explained it in his e-mail, the Gazette didn't share that bit with us, the humble readers.
Does he think that this will encourage a potentially "headlining" candidate (as he put it) to enter the race? Not really. Any potential candidate has to ask himself, "gee, am I a headlining kind of candidate?" Because if not, Brueggeman might send an e-mail to the Gazette to announce that he's still going to vote for Baucus -- not something that is going to inspire confidence.
Or what if potential candidate X gets the thumbs-up from Brueggeman? Will this endear him to party loyalists who have loyally slogged through campaign after frustrating campaign against Baucus?
Keep in mind that Brueggeman didn't say that he would write in another name, or that he would sit the Senate race out -- he actually said he would vote for the Democratic candidate.
Try to imagine any Montana Democrat of standing who would announce an intention to vote for a Republican -- no matter how bad the Democratic candidate. Green Party -- maybe. Republican? Nope.
Brueggeman is correct that the Montana GOP is "kind of on the rocks right now." Very insightful of him to notice.
There are probably ways to help the GOP in its current time of troubles, but announcing that if you don't get the nominee of your choice that you will pick up your toys and go play with the Democrats isn't perhaps one of the most helpful items on the list.
The new GOP state chairman Erik Iverson struck exactly the right note when asked for a response:
"Senator Brueggeman is a good senator and a sharp guy, and he's entitled to his own opinion," said Iverson, who took office last month.
"The Montana Republican Party is going to strongly support the Republican nominee in the general election, whoever that may be. Differences in the party are certainly welcome. I certainly respect Senator Brueggeman."
Sen. Brueggeman should take notes on how this is done. Even though Iverson probably wanted to swat Brueggeman on the head with a rolled up copy of the Gazette for his failure of nerve (or maybe MH is just projecting,) he said nice things about Brueggeman and stated that the party is a big tent with room for differences of opinion.
And he said that the Republican Party would support the nominee -- whoever it might be.
Even if the good Sen. Brueggeman was anxious to get his name in the paper and to express his disapproval of a Lange candidacy, he could perhaps have accomplished the same thing in a more constructive way by saying something like this:
The Montana GOP is having problems right now. One of the things we need to turn things around is a U.S. Senate candidate who will run a good, clean race against Sen. Baucus, and who will put our party's best foot forward.
While I respect the hard work that Mike Lange has done, and admire his willingness to take on the formidable task of running against Sen. Baucus, I do not believe that he is someone who should be a a leading face and voice of the Montana Republican party in 2008.
While I will support the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, whoever that may be, I and many other leading Montana Republicans feel that Mike Lange is not the best candidate for that race.
We urge other potential candidates to step forward -- we will support you. I look forward to a spirited and substantive primary campaign and to a Republican victory in November.
In fact -- maybe Montana Headlines should send such an e-mail to the Gazette. On a slow news day, perhaps they'd make an article out of it.
There are probably a dozen potential candidates that could be named right off the top of one's head who would be better. There are probably a dozen Republicans in the current state senate alone who would do a better job for the party in that race.
Of course, someone actually has to challenge Lange -- don't worry, at least one someone will, and that someone will almost certainly get the nomination. So one would think that cool heads would prevail and that party regulars would take a chill pill.
But apparently, not all heads are cool, and apparently all it takes to get a nice article in the Gazette these days is to be a GOP lawmaker sending an e-mail saying that he will vote for Baucus in the general election if Lange is the nominee.
And this is going to change the results of such an election exactly how? (That was a rhetorical question.)
What exactly Brueggeman was trying to accomplish isn't quite clear. How does this announcement "stop the bleeding?" If he explained it in his e-mail, the Gazette didn't share that bit with us, the humble readers.
Does he think that this will encourage a potentially "headlining" candidate (as he put it) to enter the race? Not really. Any potential candidate has to ask himself, "gee, am I a headlining kind of candidate?" Because if not, Brueggeman might send an e-mail to the Gazette to announce that he's still going to vote for Baucus -- not something that is going to inspire confidence.
Or what if potential candidate X gets the thumbs-up from Brueggeman? Will this endear him to party loyalists who have loyally slogged through campaign after frustrating campaign against Baucus?
Keep in mind that Brueggeman didn't say that he would write in another name, or that he would sit the Senate race out -- he actually said he would vote for the Democratic candidate.
Try to imagine any Montana Democrat of standing who would announce an intention to vote for a Republican -- no matter how bad the Democratic candidate. Green Party -- maybe. Republican? Nope.
Brueggeman is correct that the Montana GOP is "kind of on the rocks right now." Very insightful of him to notice.
There are probably ways to help the GOP in its current time of troubles, but announcing that if you don't get the nominee of your choice that you will pick up your toys and go play with the Democrats isn't perhaps one of the most helpful items on the list.
The new GOP state chairman Erik Iverson struck exactly the right note when asked for a response:
"Senator Brueggeman is a good senator and a sharp guy, and he's entitled to his own opinion," said Iverson, who took office last month.
"The Montana Republican Party is going to strongly support the Republican nominee in the general election, whoever that may be. Differences in the party are certainly welcome. I certainly respect Senator Brueggeman."
Sen. Brueggeman should take notes on how this is done. Even though Iverson probably wanted to swat Brueggeman on the head with a rolled up copy of the Gazette for his failure of nerve (or maybe MH is just projecting,) he said nice things about Brueggeman and stated that the party is a big tent with room for differences of opinion.
And he said that the Republican Party would support the nominee -- whoever it might be.
Even if the good Sen. Brueggeman was anxious to get his name in the paper and to express his disapproval of a Lange candidacy, he could perhaps have accomplished the same thing in a more constructive way by saying something like this:
The Montana GOP is having problems right now. One of the things we need to turn things around is a U.S. Senate candidate who will run a good, clean race against Sen. Baucus, and who will put our party's best foot forward.
While I respect the hard work that Mike Lange has done, and admire his willingness to take on the formidable task of running against Sen. Baucus, I do not believe that he is someone who should be a a leading face and voice of the Montana Republican party in 2008.
While I will support the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, whoever that may be, I and many other leading Montana Republicans feel that Mike Lange is not the best candidate for that race.
We urge other potential candidates to step forward -- we will support you. I look forward to a spirited and substantive primary campaign and to a Republican victory in November.
In fact -- maybe Montana Headlines should send such an e-mail to the Gazette. On a slow news day, perhaps they'd make an article out of it.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Rehberg ends all doubts -- no Senate run
Congressman Denny Rehberg today announced that he would neither be running for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Max Baucus nor challenging Gov. Brian Schweitzer in the latter's re-election bid.
He states that "speculation to the contrary only serves as a distraction from the strong candidates that Montana Republicans will field for each of these important races."
Rehberg is the only candidate with certain potential for giving a serious challenge in either race. Neither Baucus nor Schweitzer are unbeatable given the right candidate or circumstances. For instance, Rehberg was found to be in a statistical tie with Baucus in a hypothetical matchup last December.
Rehberg could defeat Baucus, no doubt about it, but were he to lose, the risks to his career and to the state party at this point in time are just too high. Rehberg is making the right decision, even though it is painful to contemplate that we may be allowing Baucus yet another bye.
With perfect hindsight, the state (and national) party should have insisted that Conrad Burns step aside, allowing Rehberg to run against Tester -- a race he would almost certainly have won. Rehberg was poised to run for that Senate seat in 2006, having delayed until practically the last minute to file for re-election to his Congressional seat -- hoping, one presumes, that Conrad would step aside and give him the nod.
But Burns was convinced he could win -- and frankly many of us thought he could as well. And of course, he almost did -- not that that counts for much of anything.
With Burns as the titular head of the Montana GOP it would have been difficult to get him to step aside, but the Montana GOP needs exactly the sort of robust leadership that can speak plainly to candidates who need to step aside.
With the election last month as state GOP chairman of Erik Iverson, who took over the Burns campaign in the closing weeks and almost pulled off a win against all odds, we hope that he will be able to coordinate that kind of robust leadership.
While the emphasis in the 2008 elections has to be on winning back the state Senate and on expanding the GOP's razor-thin edge in the House, Iverson's leadership will be tested by how he works behind the scenes to recruit and promote good candidates to challenge Baucus and Schweitzer -- candidates who, even if they lose, will make the Democrats work hard for those wins , and who will gain state-wide name recognition that will allow them to turn around and run again.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Romney comes to Montana
GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is coming to Montana for the state GOP convention. Regular readers of Montana Headlines will know that we are less than enthused about the possibility of having Romney as the GOP presidential nominee.
The sentiment is shared by many Montana Republicans. At the annual Lincoln-Reagan day dinner in Billings earlier this year, which was very well-attended, a grand total of two people apparently raised their hands for Romney when keynote speaker Stephen Moore did a straw poll of attendees about support for the various leading GOP contenders.
He appears to be a good family man, and has favorably impressed GOP audiences in primary states in that regard, especially when compared to Guiliani, McCain, and Gingrich. It is telling that this year, even someone like Fred Thompson, who was divorced and remained single for 20 years before remarrying a few years ago, is a regular pillar of respectability compared to those three.
He also has a strong managerial background. If the Presidency were determined by a resume review, Romney would be selected by the board of directors as America's CEO. But he doesn't stand a chance against any of the leading Democratic contenders.
As the Gazette article points out, Montana won't have any effect on the nomination this season, but it is of course always good to have a presidential nominee bring some political attention to Montana. For that, Romney is to be commended.
Based on at least one on-line straw poll broken down by state, Fred Thompson has the strongest support in Montana of the leading contenders -- and based on general tendencies of Montana Republican voting, that is probably correct.
Romney has been good-natured about Thompson's entry into the race and has avoided giving any appearance of desperation, but he is the candidate most likely to be immediately put out of business by Thompson's entry into the race. Romney has been courting the GOP base, which hasn't been enthused about any of the candidates -- but the move has already been swift toward Thompson.
After it became clear that Thompson was getting in, there have reportedly been quiet expressions of buyer's regret by some GOP elected officials and party leaders who had already declared support for Romney.
But getting back to the Montana convention, the most important speaker at the conference is not going to be Romney. It is going to be Erik Iverson, the only announced candidate for state chairman. The party needs a fresh tone and a winning direction -- the basically conservative but quiet majority of the party is going to be quite interested in the tone Iverson sets and in the course he charts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)