Showing posts with label Tim Fox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Fox. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Don't like Obamacare? Fire Senator Jon Tester



Update: Read this piece at "The Fix" at the Washington Post, in which Sen. Tester is prominently featured. It seems that Sen. Tester is quite aware of the unpopularity of his vote for Obamacare and is trying carefully to thread the needle.

________

It's Wednesday, and time for a little Montana politics to celebrate Independence Day.

There is a lot to dislike about the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, and since this is a blog that sticks to Montana politics, the urge to wax overly eloquent will be resisted. A couple of things stand out, however:

First, one is liable to get whiplash from following liberal opinion about the Supreme Court. Prior to the ruling, the left was preparing to discount the very legitimacy of the Court -- thinking it was going to rule against the constitutionality of Obamacare. Now, they are back to having the Supreme Court as bosom buddies, and the once-hated Chief Justice Roberts is now an exceedingly wise rock star -- Confucius meets Bono. Go figure.

On a related point, one notices that the left is accusing the right of being whiners and crybabies. Some expressions of outrage have perhaps been unseemly, but how would the left be acting right now had Roberts voted the other way? We got a pretty good preview from the full-court press bombarding the Court from Democrats and the mainstream media prior to the decision. Chief Justice Roberts was about to experience his own high-tech lynching had he decided otherwise, and he knew it.

But really, that isn't the proper analogy, is it? No, the proper analogy would be this: imagine that Justice Roberts voted exactly as he did, but that Justice Sotomayor had a last-minute change of heart, voting with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.

That's the real analogy. Think about it -- has there ever been a single major case in which a justice appointed by a Democratic President has broken ranks and cast a deciding vote with a conservative bloc on a hot-button issue? Once? Ever? I’ve been Court-watching for decades and can't think of an example. Were it ever to happen, the wrath from the left against that traitorous Justice would make current conservative hand-wringing pale by comparison. For if there is one thing we know, it is this: Republican-appointed Justices break ranks, evolve, whatever... Democratic appointees never do. Democrats know exactly what they are getting in their Supreme Court picks -- Republicans just have to hope.

George Will , Charles Krauthammer, et al, are wrong that Chief Justice Roberts somehow slyly stole a march on the left by voting as he did (you know, limiting the commerce clause, giving the political fervor to Romney rather than Obama, neutralizing liberal claims of a politicized court, gaining cover for future groundbreaking decisions, yada, yada...) One can't blame them for looking for a silver lining, but it is a joke to consider this as anything but a disaster for traditional conceptions of what the Constitution is supposed to do -- namely to limit the power and reach of the federal government. Roberts has instead given the federal government a roadmap for doing basically anything it wants to do -- just incorporate a tax into anything you want to do, and you'll have his vote and that of the 4 liberal Justices. (Unless he plans to go into even greater contortions next time to undo his thinking.)

Let's be generous to Chief Justice Roberts and assume that he is playing at a high-level chess game, of which this move is 6 steps ahead on a long-term strategy. If so, Roberts is trying to be too clever by half, and it won't work. Leaving aside the fact that his legal contortions are underwhelming, he is forgetting the real point to being a Supreme Court Justice: to protect and defend the Constitution. He didn't do that, and let's not pretend that he did, even if we can come up with some theoretical short-term advantages to be gained from all of this.

The true silver lining, such as it is, is this (and here, we return at long last to Montana politics): the Supreme Court didn't mandate Obamacare. Hence this decision in no way ranks with the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time -- this ruling doesn't create law out of whole cloth in the manner of many earlier Court decisions, but rather allowed a law passed by Congress and signed by the President to stand.

Which means that the law can be (and must be) repealed and/or gutted by the same democratic process. Chief Justice Roberts said, in effect, "you elected these jokers, you get to clean up the mess or live with the consequences." For Montanans, that means a number of things:

1. Montana needs to do its part in retaking control of the U.S. Senate, firing Sen. Tester, who voted for this monstrosity and would be a reliable vote to uphold it. He would be a vote against conservative judges and justices or for liberal ones (depending on the outcome of the Presidential election.) There are a number of paths to taking control of the Senate, but most involve Congressman Rehberg winning this race. We just need to get it done.

2. We need to elect Steve Daines as Montana's U.S. Congresman. While control of the House is not in immediate jeopardy, every hand is needed on deck to keep the GOP majority a comfortable one with plenty of breathing room. He will vote to repeal Obamacare, and his opponent would vote to keep it.

3. We need to elect Rick Hill as governor. States will have some discretion in implementing provisions of Obamacare, and we need someone who will stand strong with a conservative Republican legislature. We know from the fact that AG Steve Bullock refused to participate in the lawsuit against Obamacare that he supports it. We just don't need any more of that in the governor's office.

4. We need to elect Tim Fox as Montana Attorney General. Republicans and conservative-leaning independents in this state have for too long had a tendency to treat the AG office as a "gimme" for the Democrats, who always want it more badly than we do. There may not be more lawsuits challenging this or that aspect of Obamacare (and other items of federal overreach,) but if they do happen, I want Montana's AG being a part of it. (Living mentally in the 19th century and pretending that the Copper Kings are still running Montana doesn't count.)

In short, we just have to win this fall, here in Montana and all across the country. Elections have consequences.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Tim Fox charges ahead

It’s Wednesday, and time for a little Montana politics.

We were happy to see Tim Fox win the GOP primary for state Attorney General. He made a strong run against Steve Bullock in the last election, something that may have gone largely unnoticed, given that 2008 was a blood-bath for Republicans up and down the ticket. It’s pretty common for candidates to have to make a couple of runs at an office before winning, and we’re glad that Fox took the plunge again, putting to use everything he learned in that last race, building on his grass-roots organization from four years ago.

What a difference just two years makes, though. Had Fox run in 2010 rather than 2008, he might very well have been won the election, with political winds at his back rather than in his face. That is, of course, in the realm of the unknowable. What can be discerned, however, is that 2012 promises to be another good year for the GOP if the primary vote was any measure of enthusiasm.

It may not be as difficult for Republicans as getting elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, but the Montana Attorney General position is a tough nut for the GOP to crack. Every AG candidate knows that the last person to win from the GOP was none other than some guy named Marc Racicot (and does even he really count -- wasn’t he a Democrat before that run?)

There are a couple of reasons why Republicans have such a hard time getting elected to the AG position. One reason is just statistics: the AG has to be an attorney (probably isn’t legally required to be, but who would vote for one who wasn’t?) And since there are only 13 Republican lawyers in Montana, the bench is a little thin for our side. The same goes for the Superintendent position -- generally has to be an educator, and there are, at last count, only 73 Montana educators (home-schooling moms don’t count) who are Republicans, and only half of them will admit to it.

Reason two is that the Montana lawyers who are Democrats (2,945 of them, I believe -- bet you didn’t know that we have one active lawyer for every 338 residents, did you?) have a keen interest in who the AG will be, just as they care more than anyone who is elected to Montana Supreme Court positions. So Democratic candidates have a much easier time raising money for their races than do Republicans. If there were "State Rancher General" with a seat on the Land Board, you can be sure that the Montana Stockgrowers would weigh in pretty heavily on that race. And really, why not? The lawyers get a seat and the teachers get a seat, which means that in most years the GOP has to run the table on the governor, Secretary of State, and State Auditor positions in order to win a majority. Why not a seat for the ranchers, and another one called "State Driller and/or Miner General" for those poor fossil fuels guys (excuse me, Big Oil and Big Coal.) But, as usual, we digress.

The GOP has a great candidate running in Tim Fox, and we wish him all the best. He is playing some smart cards so far, highlighting the fact that AG Steve Bullock refused to have Montana join the suit against Obamacare, in spite of the law’s deep unpopularity in Montana. He also is drawing attention to the role of the AG on the 5 member state Land Board, and the role it plays in developing Montana’s natural resources and thus in our state’s economic development.

As the race develops, there will doubtless be more coverage here on Montana Headlines. Until then, a warm good luck to Mr. Fox.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Tim Fox calls out Bullock -- and makes news at Politico

Republicans are serious about winning the Montana Attorney General race, and in Tim Fox we have a candidate who can make it happen.

Things like the recent Heller SCOTUS decision will help highlight the issues at stake in the AG race -- check out Jonathan Martin's blog at Politico.