Yes, it's been awhile since I've posted. But it's summer, darn it. Time for vacations, baseball, enjoying the pre-forest fire season heat and the long days. Definitely NOT time for partisan politics. Nonetheless, there are some things worth mentioning, if for no other reason that they're so...well...amusing.
"JOHNNY NO-COAL"
Democrat John Driscoll, who faces incumbent U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg in November, told fellow Dems at last weekend's platform convention in Miles City that he'd pull the plug on coal if elected. Not exactly the thing to say in coal country, or to an audience that has hopped on Gov. Schweitzer's coal train. But could it win votes from the global warming crowd? It certainly got him quite a bit of free media. (The only kind he's willing to get.)
It's really too bad Driscoll isn't campaigning more. Is he eccentric? Sure. Impolitic? Absolutely. I don't always understand whence his views come. But he's still one of the most interesting politicos I've ever met.
CRYING FOUL
Republican Senate also-ran Patty Lovaas of Missoula continues to rail at the admittedly unexplainable victory of Bob "Eyebrows" Kelleher in the GOP's June Senate primary. (Can't we just do the obvious and question the intellect and political knowledge of this year's GOP voters?)
Lovaas believes Kelleher won by fraud, based on her empirical observation that she hasn't met a single person who voted for him. Under the law, Lovaas (or anyone) can go to court to challenge an election, as long as it's filed within one year. So far she hasn't done that, but she has asked the Secretary of State for an audit comparing voter registration records with polling place logs.
Lovaas says she never met a Kelleher voter during her petition campaign to put herself on the November ballot as an independent. That effort also has gone nowhere, since state law doesn't provide for it. Now, Lovaas is banking on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and a federal ballot access lawsuit by Montana environmentalist Steve Kelly.
Put simply, Lovaas' name is becoming a household word at the Secretary of State's office, where she's taking the "gadfly" role to a whole new level.
RALPH'S BACK!
As in Nader. Yes, The Man Who Gave Us Bush is back on the ballot in Montana in the race for President. What's more remarkable is his organization claimed to have gathered twice as many petition signatures as they needed to put him on the ballot. Maybe they signed up all the Ron Paul voters who had nowhere else to go.
GUNS VS. DRUGS
Democratic nominee for Attorney General Steve Bullock should write a really nice thank-you card to the Missoulian for its recent series on prescription drug abuse. That subject is a centerpiece of Bullock's campaign. It's always nice for a candidate when a major newspaper decides your issue is relevant and compelling. Meanwhile, Bullock's opponent, Republican Tim Fox, was recently in the Missoulian, too. With an Op-Ed advocating guns in national parks. I don't think I've ever met a statewide candidate who has made Second Amendment issues such a hallmark of his campaign.
With August heat still ahead and the national Presidential conventions a month away, I hope the only political stories I see in the next 30 days are amusing ones. Summer just ain't the time to be serious about anything except pennant races and forest fires.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
GOP CONVENTION--READING BETWEEN THE LINES
I spent part of the morning at the Republican state convention in Missoula, talking with statewide candidates and other GOP leaders. One of the things I wanted to know was what party leaders think of the idea that some candidates--from John McCain on down to GOP state legislators--aren't "Republican" enough.
On the subject of the presidential race, former U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (wearing a McCain button) only said that both the Democratic and Republican parties had "the most diverse groups of people running...than we've seen in many, many years. People coming from different positions and taking different positions." In other words, diversity is good. (Even if Republicans have to hold their nose when they vote.) Then, without mentioning McCain, he said the next president will be a Republican who will follow the party platform and "stay within the Republican bounds." One wonders if there will be an effort to force McCain either to step to the right or else yield to someone else who will.
In the race for U.S. Senate, GOP primary winner Bob Kelleher was relegated to a meeting room for an hour Friday afternoon, while second-place finisher Mike Lange was given a table and wall space in the lobby to promote his write-in campaign. That's a pretty clear message.
Finally, I asked House Speaker Scott Sales (R-Bozeman) if he was taking a position on fellow Bozeman Republican Roger Koopman's successful efforts to unseat a trio of GOP legislators considered too liberal. Sales said "absolutely not" and said the party has always had people who fit on different parts of the political spectrum. But when I asked about the need to groom new leaders in the legislature, he specifically mentioned two of the GOP challengers who unseated the "liberal" incumbents, saying they had potential for leadership.
On the subject of the presidential race, former U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (wearing a McCain button) only said that both the Democratic and Republican parties had "the most diverse groups of people running...than we've seen in many, many years. People coming from different positions and taking different positions." In other words, diversity is good. (Even if Republicans have to hold their nose when they vote.) Then, without mentioning McCain, he said the next president will be a Republican who will follow the party platform and "stay within the Republican bounds." One wonders if there will be an effort to force McCain either to step to the right or else yield to someone else who will.
In the race for U.S. Senate, GOP primary winner Bob Kelleher was relegated to a meeting room for an hour Friday afternoon, while second-place finisher Mike Lange was given a table and wall space in the lobby to promote his write-in campaign. That's a pretty clear message.
Finally, I asked House Speaker Scott Sales (R-Bozeman) if he was taking a position on fellow Bozeman Republican Roger Koopman's successful efforts to unseat a trio of GOP legislators considered too liberal. Sales said "absolutely not" and said the party has always had people who fit on different parts of the political spectrum. But when I asked about the need to groom new leaders in the legislature, he specifically mentioned two of the GOP challengers who unseated the "liberal" incumbents, saying they had potential for leadership.
Friday, June 13, 2008
SAY WHAT?
Just whose fault is it that Bob Kelleher and John Driscoll are their party's nominees for U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative, respectively? Following the concept that the simplest explanation is probably the right one, voters simply didn't pay attention to who was running in those primary races and did what voters often do when they have no idea: they voted for the names they recognized from past campaigns or past news stories.
On the Democratic side, Driscoll won the right to face Denny Rehberg with a non-campaign that practically was strenuous in its inactivity. Driscoll has vowed to do the same in the general election season--he will raise no money, will do no self-promotion and make no campaign trips. The only thing he hasn't said is that, if elected, he'll refuse to serve. (Now THAT actually could be a vote-getter in Montana.)
Ironically, we may actually see a debate between Driscoll and Rehberg, but only because organizers are working to schedule the debate at a time and place convenient for the candidate's summer trip into the Bob Marshall wilderness. Even if we only get one Rehberg-Driscoll debate, that may be one more than we get in the U.S. Senate race.
Driscoll's win was a slap in the face to Jim Hunt, the Democrats' presumptive nominee. But Hunt has taken the disappointment, at least publicly, with class. He's not claiming dirty tricks or hoping to somehow salvage a spot on the ballot for November.
Compare that response with Republican U.S. Senate also-rans Patty Lovaas and Mike Lange. One week after the votes were counted, Lovaas announced that she'll gather petition signatures to endorse her candidacy as an independent. The only problem with that is that state law doesn't provide for anyone to petition themselves onto a ballot once the March filing deadline has closed. Lovaas considers that unfair and illegal. So, assuming she gets any signatures and turns them into the Secretary of State, she'll be refused, leaving her with two choices: go to court or ask to the 2009 legislature to change the law.
In making her argument, Lovaas essentially told me that Democrats had crossed over in the primary to hand the GOP race to Kelleher, who has switched party affiliations more than once in recent years just to get attention. The result, she says, is that Republicans didn't get a Republican candidate and deserve another choice on the November ballot. To illustrate her argument, she points to Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who lost the 2006 Democratic primary (because of his support of the Iraq war) and then was able to get on the November ballot as an independent and win, thus keeping his Senate seat.
Lovaas told me she's taking on this fight because the other Republicans in the race have too much baggage. Meanwhile, the guy with the most luggage of all, Mike Lange, says he may mount a write-in campaign for November. That kind of effort doesn't involve the legal issues that Lovaas' does, but it also won't do much to unseat incumbent Democrat Max Baucus. All it would do is give Lange a soapbox (a small one) he could drag around the state in one last attempt to be relevant. The question for journalists is what to do if Lange shows up at their door asking for coverage. Those with a highly developed sense of fairness (or a slow news day) may give Lange another 15 seconds of fame. Others may well say they're limiting coverage to candidates who actually are on the ballot (and actually won a race) and put the onus on Lange to promote himself.
On the Democratic side, Driscoll won the right to face Denny Rehberg with a non-campaign that practically was strenuous in its inactivity. Driscoll has vowed to do the same in the general election season--he will raise no money, will do no self-promotion and make no campaign trips. The only thing he hasn't said is that, if elected, he'll refuse to serve. (Now THAT actually could be a vote-getter in Montana.)
Ironically, we may actually see a debate between Driscoll and Rehberg, but only because organizers are working to schedule the debate at a time and place convenient for the candidate's summer trip into the Bob Marshall wilderness. Even if we only get one Rehberg-Driscoll debate, that may be one more than we get in the U.S. Senate race.
Driscoll's win was a slap in the face to Jim Hunt, the Democrats' presumptive nominee. But Hunt has taken the disappointment, at least publicly, with class. He's not claiming dirty tricks or hoping to somehow salvage a spot on the ballot for November.
Compare that response with Republican U.S. Senate also-rans Patty Lovaas and Mike Lange. One week after the votes were counted, Lovaas announced that she'll gather petition signatures to endorse her candidacy as an independent. The only problem with that is that state law doesn't provide for anyone to petition themselves onto a ballot once the March filing deadline has closed. Lovaas considers that unfair and illegal. So, assuming she gets any signatures and turns them into the Secretary of State, she'll be refused, leaving her with two choices: go to court or ask to the 2009 legislature to change the law.
In making her argument, Lovaas essentially told me that Democrats had crossed over in the primary to hand the GOP race to Kelleher, who has switched party affiliations more than once in recent years just to get attention. The result, she says, is that Republicans didn't get a Republican candidate and deserve another choice on the November ballot. To illustrate her argument, she points to Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who lost the 2006 Democratic primary (because of his support of the Iraq war) and then was able to get on the November ballot as an independent and win, thus keeping his Senate seat.
Lovaas told me she's taking on this fight because the other Republicans in the race have too much baggage. Meanwhile, the guy with the most luggage of all, Mike Lange, says he may mount a write-in campaign for November. That kind of effort doesn't involve the legal issues that Lovaas' does, but it also won't do much to unseat incumbent Democrat Max Baucus. All it would do is give Lange a soapbox (a small one) he could drag around the state in one last attempt to be relevant. The question for journalists is what to do if Lange shows up at their door asking for coverage. Those with a highly developed sense of fairness (or a slow news day) may give Lange another 15 seconds of fame. Others may well say they're limiting coverage to candidates who actually are on the ballot (and actually won a race) and put the onus on Lange to promote himself.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
SURPRISES AND SPECULATIONS
Do Montana voters have a sense of humor or what? Bob Kelleher as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate? John Driscoll for Congress? What a slap in the face of the major parties' leading candidates for those offices. Democrat Jim Hunt must hurt terribly that an eccentric former Public Service Commissioner beat him in the Congressional primary without lifting a finger to campaign. And what does political journeyman Bob Kelleher's victory in the Republican Senate opener mean for the state GOP? For one thing, it may lead to deafening silence from Mike Lange. Can you spell "repudiation"? It also may mean that the state party has to start grooming statewide candidates immediately.
Then again, Tuesday's results may only mean that, without overwhelming advertising, Montanans will vote for names they know over names they don't know. Say what you will about Driscoll and Kelleher, but they've on the ballot enough times over the years that voters without other frames of reference will mark the names they recognize.
WHAT NOW, BARACK?
Now that Barack Obama is headed for coronation at the Democrats' national convention in Denver, who will be his choice for V.P.? And what will that person bring to the ticket? Could Hillary be his choice, with her 18 million voters? (And would she settle for #2?) How about Bill Richardson, who would appeal to the Hispanic voters who turned out for Clinton in droves? Even Brian Schweitzer's name has come up, although I doubt the party would ask him to give up his own race for governor, considering his popularity and his value as the "blue governor in a red state." I think Schweitzer would be more valuable as an Obama campaigner in the midwest and Rocky Mountain states. (I've also talked with fellow observers about Schweitzer getting a Cabinet post in an Obama administration. It sounds plausible on the surface, but would the national party be willing to elevate John Bohlinger to governor? I doubt it.)
It seems to me that Obama's first and biggest task between now and the convention is to reach out to women--a contituency that is hurt, angry and wondering what they have to do to get a female nominee. Naming Clinton as V.P. is not necessarily the answer. While she brings voters, she also brings the family baggage and triggers blind rage in many Republican and independent circles, incuding those who set their political compass by talk radio. Obama doesn't need to wave more red flags in front of those bulls.
What he needs is a woman with national credibility and name recognition who brings something to the electoral map. How about Dianne Feinstein? As senior senator from California and former mayor of San Francisco, she has the pedigree, the legislative experience and could put the ticket over the top in Electoral State #1.
Meanwhile, John McCain also should consider choosing a woman for V.P. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine would be an attractive choice. I've known women (especially minority women) who are smitten with Condoleeza Rice.
Half the country is waiting.
Then again, Tuesday's results may only mean that, without overwhelming advertising, Montanans will vote for names they know over names they don't know. Say what you will about Driscoll and Kelleher, but they've on the ballot enough times over the years that voters without other frames of reference will mark the names they recognize.
WHAT NOW, BARACK?
Now that Barack Obama is headed for coronation at the Democrats' national convention in Denver, who will be his choice for V.P.? And what will that person bring to the ticket? Could Hillary be his choice, with her 18 million voters? (And would she settle for #2?) How about Bill Richardson, who would appeal to the Hispanic voters who turned out for Clinton in droves? Even Brian Schweitzer's name has come up, although I doubt the party would ask him to give up his own race for governor, considering his popularity and his value as the "blue governor in a red state." I think Schweitzer would be more valuable as an Obama campaigner in the midwest and Rocky Mountain states. (I've also talked with fellow observers about Schweitzer getting a Cabinet post in an Obama administration. It sounds plausible on the surface, but would the national party be willing to elevate John Bohlinger to governor? I doubt it.)
It seems to me that Obama's first and biggest task between now and the convention is to reach out to women--a contituency that is hurt, angry and wondering what they have to do to get a female nominee. Naming Clinton as V.P. is not necessarily the answer. While she brings voters, she also brings the family baggage and triggers blind rage in many Republican and independent circles, incuding those who set their political compass by talk radio. Obama doesn't need to wave more red flags in front of those bulls.
What he needs is a woman with national credibility and name recognition who brings something to the electoral map. How about Dianne Feinstein? As senior senator from California and former mayor of San Francisco, she has the pedigree, the legislative experience and could put the ticket over the top in Electoral State #1.
Meanwhile, John McCain also should consider choosing a woman for V.P. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine would be an attractive choice. I've known women (especially minority women) who are smitten with Condoleeza Rice.
Half the country is waiting.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Chairmen, The Mayor and Being On Time
I had the chance last week to sit down with the chairs of Montana's two major political parties. Much of what they said was not a surprise, but some was. To wit:
THE CHAIRS:
*Democratic Party Chair Dennis McDonald admitted he didn't know much about some of his party's lesser candidates--namely, those ostensibly hoping to upset either Brian Schweitzer for governor or Jim Hunt in the primary for U.S. Representative. Sure, Don Pogreba, William Fischer, Robert Candee and John Driscoll essentially have wasted their filing fees by not mounting actual campaigns, I'd have thought that McDonald could have said something constructive about their presence on the ballot.
*In contrast, Republican Party Chair Erik Iverson said he was pleased at the variety of GOP candidates vying for the right to challenge U.S. Senator Max Baucus in the fall. One presumes that Mike Lange of Billings will earn the right to face Baucus, but anything is possible. Iverson also acknowledged that while GOP candidate for governor Larry Steele will not win the nomination, he is "a serious guy." At least he threw him a bone on behalf of the party.
*McDonald also offered a surprising opinion regarding Libertarian Stan Jones' place in the fall campaign for governor. When I asked him what we can expect from Schweitzer and Roy Brown in debates after June 3, McDonald added Jones' name to the mix, saying he will play a Ron Paul-type role and take votes away from Brown. The new Lee Newspapers poll seems to contradict that idea, giving Schweitzer a comfortable lead and giving Jones a very small per centage.
*Along with predicting victory for his ballot-toppers, Iverson also spoke candidly about why Denny Rehberg must win his bid for a sixth term in Congress. Essentially, the party needs him to carry down-ticket candidates on his coattails. Translation: as Rehberg goes, so will the party. Meanwhile, when I asked Rehberg recently about being the titular head of the party, he was hardly enthusiastic, as if it were just one more item on a long list of responsibilities.
THE MAYOR:
When is the last time the mayor of a Montana city has played a significant role as endorser for statewide candidates? Especially a mayor who technically is a non-partisan office-holder? Missoula's John Engen not only helped introduce Barack Obama in Missoula in April, he's in Attorney General candidate Steve Bullock's television commercials. Meanwhile, his support of county commissioner hopeful Dennis Daneke has spawned a contretemps with Daneke's Democratic rival Jeff Patterson over campaign signs in a construction zone.
If Engen's endorsement really is important (even if only in Missoula) then could it be the state party has its eye on him for bigger things? The elections of Schweitzer and Jon Tester certainly have altered the image of what Montanans think a successful candidate looks like; perhaps Engen's sizable good humor and his obvious enjoyment of being a very public mayor would overcome any negative first impression from non-Missoulians over his girth and goatee.
(Random thought--speaking of facial hair, when is the last time two candidates for statewide office both had it? Between Denny Rehberg's black mustache and Jim Hunt's white beard, Montanans haven't had so much razor-free space in a big race in probably 80 years or more.)
BEING ON TIME:
What a spring it's been for Montana Democrats. But beyond the euphoria at having honest-to-goodness presidential candidates in the state on multiple occasions, should voters be upset at Hillary Clinton (and her husband, Bill) for being chronically late? The Senator kept her Missoula and Pablo rally audiences waiting for the better part of an hour; Bill did the same in his Missoula appearance. By contrast, Barack Obama's Missoula appearance was right on time, with better warm-up. So far, I haven't spoken with anyone who is making his or her choice based on timeliness and event organization but, as someone whose life revolves around being on time and making deadlines, I'm irked when political events start late.
Note to candidates: You may still win my vote with substance, but please try to respect my time.
THE CHAIRS:
*Democratic Party Chair Dennis McDonald admitted he didn't know much about some of his party's lesser candidates--namely, those ostensibly hoping to upset either Brian Schweitzer for governor or Jim Hunt in the primary for U.S. Representative. Sure, Don Pogreba, William Fischer, Robert Candee and John Driscoll essentially have wasted their filing fees by not mounting actual campaigns, I'd have thought that McDonald could have said something constructive about their presence on the ballot.
*In contrast, Republican Party Chair Erik Iverson said he was pleased at the variety of GOP candidates vying for the right to challenge U.S. Senator Max Baucus in the fall. One presumes that Mike Lange of Billings will earn the right to face Baucus, but anything is possible. Iverson also acknowledged that while GOP candidate for governor Larry Steele will not win the nomination, he is "a serious guy." At least he threw him a bone on behalf of the party.
*McDonald also offered a surprising opinion regarding Libertarian Stan Jones' place in the fall campaign for governor. When I asked him what we can expect from Schweitzer and Roy Brown in debates after June 3, McDonald added Jones' name to the mix, saying he will play a Ron Paul-type role and take votes away from Brown. The new Lee Newspapers poll seems to contradict that idea, giving Schweitzer a comfortable lead and giving Jones a very small per centage.
*Along with predicting victory for his ballot-toppers, Iverson also spoke candidly about why Denny Rehberg must win his bid for a sixth term in Congress. Essentially, the party needs him to carry down-ticket candidates on his coattails. Translation: as Rehberg goes, so will the party. Meanwhile, when I asked Rehberg recently about being the titular head of the party, he was hardly enthusiastic, as if it were just one more item on a long list of responsibilities.
THE MAYOR:
When is the last time the mayor of a Montana city has played a significant role as endorser for statewide candidates? Especially a mayor who technically is a non-partisan office-holder? Missoula's John Engen not only helped introduce Barack Obama in Missoula in April, he's in Attorney General candidate Steve Bullock's television commercials. Meanwhile, his support of county commissioner hopeful Dennis Daneke has spawned a contretemps with Daneke's Democratic rival Jeff Patterson over campaign signs in a construction zone.
If Engen's endorsement really is important (even if only in Missoula) then could it be the state party has its eye on him for bigger things? The elections of Schweitzer and Jon Tester certainly have altered the image of what Montanans think a successful candidate looks like; perhaps Engen's sizable good humor and his obvious enjoyment of being a very public mayor would overcome any negative first impression from non-Missoulians over his girth and goatee.
(Random thought--speaking of facial hair, when is the last time two candidates for statewide office both had it? Between Denny Rehberg's black mustache and Jim Hunt's white beard, Montanans haven't had so much razor-free space in a big race in probably 80 years or more.)
BEING ON TIME:
What a spring it's been for Montana Democrats. But beyond the euphoria at having honest-to-goodness presidential candidates in the state on multiple occasions, should voters be upset at Hillary Clinton (and her husband, Bill) for being chronically late? The Senator kept her Missoula and Pablo rally audiences waiting for the better part of an hour; Bill did the same in his Missoula appearance. By contrast, Barack Obama's Missoula appearance was right on time, with better warm-up. So far, I haven't spoken with anyone who is making his or her choice based on timeliness and event organization but, as someone whose life revolves around being on time and making deadlines, I'm irked when political events start late.
Note to candidates: You may still win my vote with substance, but please try to respect my time.
Friday, May 16, 2008
RACE TRUMPS GENDER; HEART TRUMPS HEAD
After Bill Clinton's Missoula visit this week, I heard one Hillary Clinton supporter describe Barack Obama's apparent march to the nomination as a triumph of emotion over intellect--that voters are making their choice with their hearts instead of their heads. Translation: Hillary has the intellect, experience, competence and guts to make a very good president. But America wants to be inspired and is willing to take a chance on someone whose credentials and policy positions aren't quite as impressive.
I've also read a lot during this campaign about how race and gender are impacting the Democrats' race for the nomination. It's dangerous to read too much into primary election results, but I now believe that Obama's triumph means that Democratic voters--by a narrow margin--are saying that healing racial divisions is more important than healing those between men and women. In other words, we need a minority president more than we need a female president. Obama already has broad support among African-American and Native Americans. If he can make that idea resonate among Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Arab-Americans, he could get the mandate he needs.
I've also read a lot during this campaign about how race and gender are impacting the Democrats' race for the nomination. It's dangerous to read too much into primary election results, but I now believe that Obama's triumph means that Democratic voters--by a narrow margin--are saying that healing racial divisions is more important than healing those between men and women. In other words, we need a minority president more than we need a female president. Obama already has broad support among African-American and Native Americans. If he can make that idea resonate among Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Arab-Americans, he could get the mandate he needs.
Monday, May 5, 2008
QUESTIONS WITH NO ANSWERS--YET
With less than a month to go before the June primary, here are some questions that won't be answered until June 3--or even November 4.
*WILL REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HILLARY?
As speculated here earlier, the call has gone out to Republicans in the remaining "open" primary states to cross party lines, choose Democratic ballots and vote for Hillary Clinton in the presidential preference race, thus giving the GOP an opponent that will enrage the party's base enough that those voters will ignore John McCain's policy shortcomings and flock to the polls in November to vote against Clinton.
In Montana, the temptation for Republicans to try to swing the Democrats' presidential race would seem to be strong, since the winners in the GOP's big primary races are more or less pre-ordained or, as in the case of Attorney General, one candidate appears as good as the other. Plus, once a Republican has voted for Hillary, he or she could vote for one of Brian Schweitzer's Democratic opponents and hope the numbers add up enough at least to be mildly embarrassing.
*HOW MUCH DO MONTANA VOTERS CARE ABOUT COAL?
Republican candidates for statewide office are talking a lot about developing natural resources, especially coal. Even more specifically, coal from the Otter Creek tracts the state owns. Assuming high gasoline prices remain in place, will all the talk about coal resonate with Montana voters, especially those in populous urban areas? Also, will GOP candidates combine their pro-coal message with a public statement that global warming is not an issue?
*THE RACE FOR A.G., CHIEF JUSTICE AND CI-100.
Let's postulate that Constitutional Initiative 100--the "Montana Personhood Amendment" (read "human rights begin at conception") championed by outgoing state representative and Constitution Party standard-bearer Rick Jore--gets on the November ballot and passes. Now let's postulate that someone--the ACLU perhaps--files suit to overturn the voters' will on constitutional grounds. Will Montana's next Attorney General defend the initiative or seek to have it thrown out? That issue also would involve the new Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. So, how would either Mike McGrath or Ron Waterman approach that issue? The judicial candidates probably won't want to show a prejudicial view either way, reserving judgment for when a case actually is before them. But the question is worth posing to both the C.J. and A.G. candidates.
*A LITTLE CIVICS EDUCATION, ANYONE?
This morning, I heard a Missoula radio personality shill for Barack Obama in the guise of telling listeners to register to vote on this, the last day of "normal" registration before the June 3 primary. ("Normal" meaning that once you register, you can vote at your normal polling place. As opposed to "late" registration, under which you can vote in person only at the county courthouse.)
What bothered me was not that a non-news radio announcer was injecting a personal endorsement onto the airwaves (I'll let the FCC deal with that one) but that the pitch contained some incredibly uneducated statements, including:
*The June primary was only for Democrats and that Republicans were not having one. (Wrong on every level imaginable.)
*Voter registration today is only for the June primary and not for the November general election. (False--your registration is good for both.)
Both the radio station and Obama's Missoula office should be appalled at the lack of knowledge and judgment these statements reflect onto their organizations.
*WILL REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HILLARY?
As speculated here earlier, the call has gone out to Republicans in the remaining "open" primary states to cross party lines, choose Democratic ballots and vote for Hillary Clinton in the presidential preference race, thus giving the GOP an opponent that will enrage the party's base enough that those voters will ignore John McCain's policy shortcomings and flock to the polls in November to vote against Clinton.
In Montana, the temptation for Republicans to try to swing the Democrats' presidential race would seem to be strong, since the winners in the GOP's big primary races are more or less pre-ordained or, as in the case of Attorney General, one candidate appears as good as the other. Plus, once a Republican has voted for Hillary, he or she could vote for one of Brian Schweitzer's Democratic opponents and hope the numbers add up enough at least to be mildly embarrassing.
*HOW MUCH DO MONTANA VOTERS CARE ABOUT COAL?
Republican candidates for statewide office are talking a lot about developing natural resources, especially coal. Even more specifically, coal from the Otter Creek tracts the state owns. Assuming high gasoline prices remain in place, will all the talk about coal resonate with Montana voters, especially those in populous urban areas? Also, will GOP candidates combine their pro-coal message with a public statement that global warming is not an issue?
*THE RACE FOR A.G., CHIEF JUSTICE AND CI-100.
Let's postulate that Constitutional Initiative 100--the "Montana Personhood Amendment" (read "human rights begin at conception") championed by outgoing state representative and Constitution Party standard-bearer Rick Jore--gets on the November ballot and passes. Now let's postulate that someone--the ACLU perhaps--files suit to overturn the voters' will on constitutional grounds. Will Montana's next Attorney General defend the initiative or seek to have it thrown out? That issue also would involve the new Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. So, how would either Mike McGrath or Ron Waterman approach that issue? The judicial candidates probably won't want to show a prejudicial view either way, reserving judgment for when a case actually is before them. But the question is worth posing to both the C.J. and A.G. candidates.
*A LITTLE CIVICS EDUCATION, ANYONE?
This morning, I heard a Missoula radio personality shill for Barack Obama in the guise of telling listeners to register to vote on this, the last day of "normal" registration before the June 3 primary. ("Normal" meaning that once you register, you can vote at your normal polling place. As opposed to "late" registration, under which you can vote in person only at the county courthouse.)
What bothered me was not that a non-news radio announcer was injecting a personal endorsement onto the airwaves (I'll let the FCC deal with that one) but that the pitch contained some incredibly uneducated statements, including:
*The June primary was only for Democrats and that Republicans were not having one. (Wrong on every level imaginable.)
*Voter registration today is only for the June primary and not for the November general election. (False--your registration is good for both.)
Both the radio station and Obama's Missoula office should be appalled at the lack of knowledge and judgment these statements reflect onto their organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
