I wonder if the individuals who packed the UC Ballroom last Monday truly appreciated the diversity of the crowd around them. This may have been the largest–and most varied--assemblage of one-issue true believers.
Just walking past the long line of Paulistas en route to the press conference in the opposite part of the UC, I noted advocates of absolute gun rights and absolute parental rights along with those who want to end both the war in Iraq and the war on drugs. I saw pro-home school, anti-abortion, pro-hard money, anti-Federal Reserve, pro-isolationism, anti-foreign aid, and other kinds of folks there. The far left and the far right standing together.
My question is: have all of these folks looked at the Paul platform in its totality? Or is his agreement with their individual issues enough? I get the point that "freedom" is an issue that touches all parts of the political spectrum and that Paul fans can say (with some legitimacy) that he’s the one candidate who can truly bring together people of diverse viewpoints. However, I must wonder how that would translate when the time came to actually govern?
Paul’s press conference (and I use that term loosely) also was unusual. How many times does the Missoulian not get a single question in because Paul advocates hogged the floor, asking multiple questions to "Doctor Paul"?
I admit that Paul fanciers have a right to establish their own alternative, advocacy, media efforts (largely on-line and through distribution of DVDs) but I felt like an observer watching disciples asking the master to affirm specific articles of dogma they’ve already heard a jillion times. As a result, I learned less about the leader and more about the followers.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
On Film Incentives and Death Sentences
Two unexpected and unrelated pieces of news have come in this week that could--and should--generate attention in Montana politics, both in the race for governor and in legislative races.
First, Missoula played host this week to John Villarino, who supervises the construction of sets for Hollywood movies by the likes of Steven Spielberg. While Villarino didn't come to Missoula specifically to talk movies (he came to share his collection of Rembrandt etchings) I spent some time with him discussing Montana's efforts to get back in the movie game.
Three years ago, Gov. Brian Schweitzer and the legislature created the "Big Sky on the Big Screen Act" which gave movie companies tax rebates of up to 12% on up to $1 million in in-state expenditures. Last year, the legislature increased the top rebate to 14% (on labor costs) and removed the expense ceiling. In the months that followed, the state announced that a couple of smaller features would film in the state. Good news, right?
It turns out Montana's incentives pale in comparison to what other states are doing. Villarino specifically mentioned Michigan, which just last week announced an expansion of its tax rebate program for the film industry. Now, Michigan will rebate 40% of taxes levied on movie companies. Villarino told me (and Michigan media reports confirm) that Hollywood interest in that state has increased multi-fold. New Orleans also has eased the tax burden on movie-makers, to its benefit.
Villarino says Hollywood "can shoot anything" in Montana and bring considerable economic activity to the state each time it does. But Montana politicians may have to open the door a lot wider.
***
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld lethal injection as a Constitutional form of capital punishment, will the death penalty become a larger issue in the 2008 Montana elections? Last year, the state Senate passed a bill abolishing the death penalty, only to see it fail in a House committee.
Among the Senators who voted for the bill--Republican Roy Brown, currently hoping to oust Schweitzer from the governor's office in November. Brown said at the time that his opposition to abortion led him to oppose the death penalty as well. His campaign website describes him as "a very pro-life Catholic who believes in cherishing life at all costs." Meanwhile, his primary opponent, Larry Steele of Great Falls, favored the death penalty when he ran for the legislature two years ago.
On the Democratic Party side, Schweitzer favors the death penalty ("strongly favors", according to one political issues site) while one of his two primary challengers, Helena school teacher Don Pogreba, had made abolition of the death penalty a priority even before the Supremes issued their opinion.
Elsewhere, Libertarian Stan Jones says capital punishment is OK, which means that, barring a huge primary upset, Brown will be the only opponent of capital punishment in the governor's race in the fall.
First, Missoula played host this week to John Villarino, who supervises the construction of sets for Hollywood movies by the likes of Steven Spielberg. While Villarino didn't come to Missoula specifically to talk movies (he came to share his collection of Rembrandt etchings) I spent some time with him discussing Montana's efforts to get back in the movie game.
Three years ago, Gov. Brian Schweitzer and the legislature created the "Big Sky on the Big Screen Act" which gave movie companies tax rebates of up to 12% on up to $1 million in in-state expenditures. Last year, the legislature increased the top rebate to 14% (on labor costs) and removed the expense ceiling. In the months that followed, the state announced that a couple of smaller features would film in the state. Good news, right?
It turns out Montana's incentives pale in comparison to what other states are doing. Villarino specifically mentioned Michigan, which just last week announced an expansion of its tax rebate program for the film industry. Now, Michigan will rebate 40% of taxes levied on movie companies. Villarino told me (and Michigan media reports confirm) that Hollywood interest in that state has increased multi-fold. New Orleans also has eased the tax burden on movie-makers, to its benefit.
Villarino says Hollywood "can shoot anything" in Montana and bring considerable economic activity to the state each time it does. But Montana politicians may have to open the door a lot wider.
***
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld lethal injection as a Constitutional form of capital punishment, will the death penalty become a larger issue in the 2008 Montana elections? Last year, the state Senate passed a bill abolishing the death penalty, only to see it fail in a House committee.
Among the Senators who voted for the bill--Republican Roy Brown, currently hoping to oust Schweitzer from the governor's office in November. Brown said at the time that his opposition to abortion led him to oppose the death penalty as well. His campaign website describes him as "a very pro-life Catholic who believes in cherishing life at all costs." Meanwhile, his primary opponent, Larry Steele of Great Falls, favored the death penalty when he ran for the legislature two years ago.
On the Democratic Party side, Schweitzer favors the death penalty ("strongly favors", according to one political issues site) while one of his two primary challengers, Helena school teacher Don Pogreba, had made abolition of the death penalty a priority even before the Supremes issued their opinion.
Elsewhere, Libertarian Stan Jones says capital punishment is OK, which means that, barring a huge primary upset, Brown will be the only opponent of capital punishment in the governor's race in the fall.
Monday, April 14, 2008
HOPE, FAITH AND PUNCTUALITY
Now that the glow has faded a bit from Montana's historic presidential "wannabe weekend," some quick thoughts about that remarkable 48 hours--and a couple of more recent developments.
First, does punctuality count when choosing a candidate? If it does, then Barack Obama gets extra points. His Adams Center appearance on April 5 was right on time. Also, virtually all of the media people I know gave the Obama campaign good marks for organization. Translation: he didn't waste our time or the time of the audience. Plus, his staff warmed up the audience with a pre-speech undercard of campaign information, typically witty remarks by Mayor John Engen and that amazing "Yes We Can" music video.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, kept her public rally audience waiting for 40 minutes. There was virtually no attempt to engage the audience before the speech and the opening remarks by Carol Williams and Missoula County Commissioner Jean Curtiss added little to the event. Clinton's staff also left some media folks grumbling about lack of communication. To her credit, however, Clinton spent longer on stage, spoke more specifically about her agenda, took questions from the audience, answered them forthrightly and, in my interview with her, was both charming and informative.
Both of the candidates' appearances focused on hope. Obama has made it a watchword, while Clinton is more subtle. In the last 24 hours, though, the story of the Clinton-Obama race has focused on faith. Personally, I'm troubled that a candidate's church-going habits and profession of faith have become so prominent in national campaigns. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution specifically states that "no religious Test shall ever by required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Yes, I understand the sentence refers to a government test and that the United States has no law requiring a candidate to adhere to a particular religion (or even have faith at all.) Yet the language of Article VI seems lost on the public and on the major political parties, especially the Republican.
I asked ACLU legal director Steve Shapiro about this when he came to Missoula in February. His take was that the First Amendment is the bottom line here--that the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion empowers citizens to talk about faith and query their candidates about it. I accept that but, personally, I'd prefer the candidates answer questions on personal and professional ethics and morality. If they choose to reference faith and religious beliefs to answer those questions, fine. But for Americans to choose a leader based on a particular spiritual approach seems antithetical to what the founders intended.
One final thought. My daughter recently attended her first Bruce Springsteen concert and, not surprisingly, was swept off her feet. Her descriptions brought back my own memories of Bruce's 2000 show in Tacoma. Which made me think of last fall's Elton John show in Missoula.
Springsteen and Obama seem to have similar approaches--lifting their audiences en masse to create a unified whole with strength, hope and the belief that, together, we'll all get through whatever trials life brings. (For me, in that pre-9/11 year, the ultimate expression of that was "Land of Hope and Dreams"; for my kid, it was "The Rising.")
Elton and Clinton focus on personal connections. When Elton sang "Your Song" last September, I felt he was singing it to me. (Although my wife swears he sang it to her.) It wouldn't surprise me if everyone in the Adams Center came away with a similar thought. That seems to be Clinton's approach--that if she can make individuals believe in her, she can build on the strength of those bonds.
We'll know in the coming weeks which approach is the more successful.
First, does punctuality count when choosing a candidate? If it does, then Barack Obama gets extra points. His Adams Center appearance on April 5 was right on time. Also, virtually all of the media people I know gave the Obama campaign good marks for organization. Translation: he didn't waste our time or the time of the audience. Plus, his staff warmed up the audience with a pre-speech undercard of campaign information, typically witty remarks by Mayor John Engen and that amazing "Yes We Can" music video.
Hillary Clinton, by contrast, kept her public rally audience waiting for 40 minutes. There was virtually no attempt to engage the audience before the speech and the opening remarks by Carol Williams and Missoula County Commissioner Jean Curtiss added little to the event. Clinton's staff also left some media folks grumbling about lack of communication. To her credit, however, Clinton spent longer on stage, spoke more specifically about her agenda, took questions from the audience, answered them forthrightly and, in my interview with her, was both charming and informative.
Both of the candidates' appearances focused on hope. Obama has made it a watchword, while Clinton is more subtle. In the last 24 hours, though, the story of the Clinton-Obama race has focused on faith. Personally, I'm troubled that a candidate's church-going habits and profession of faith have become so prominent in national campaigns. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution specifically states that "no religious Test shall ever by required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Yes, I understand the sentence refers to a government test and that the United States has no law requiring a candidate to adhere to a particular religion (or even have faith at all.) Yet the language of Article VI seems lost on the public and on the major political parties, especially the Republican.
I asked ACLU legal director Steve Shapiro about this when he came to Missoula in February. His take was that the First Amendment is the bottom line here--that the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion empowers citizens to talk about faith and query their candidates about it. I accept that but, personally, I'd prefer the candidates answer questions on personal and professional ethics and morality. If they choose to reference faith and religious beliefs to answer those questions, fine. But for Americans to choose a leader based on a particular spiritual approach seems antithetical to what the founders intended.
One final thought. My daughter recently attended her first Bruce Springsteen concert and, not surprisingly, was swept off her feet. Her descriptions brought back my own memories of Bruce's 2000 show in Tacoma. Which made me think of last fall's Elton John show in Missoula.
Springsteen and Obama seem to have similar approaches--lifting their audiences en masse to create a unified whole with strength, hope and the belief that, together, we'll all get through whatever trials life brings. (For me, in that pre-9/11 year, the ultimate expression of that was "Land of Hope and Dreams"; for my kid, it was "The Rising.")
Elton and Clinton focus on personal connections. When Elton sang "Your Song" last September, I felt he was singing it to me. (Although my wife swears he sang it to her.) It wouldn't surprise me if everyone in the Adams Center came away with a similar thought. That seems to be Clinton's approach--that if she can make individuals believe in her, she can build on the strength of those bonds.
We'll know in the coming weeks which approach is the more successful.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
AND, IN OTHER NEWS...
Sure, the visits by Bill, Hillary and Obama are the big political news of the week (and rightly so.) But there are other things going on.
Tonight (April 3) I'll moderate
Seriously, though, organizers have had this on the calendar since October and may have been wise to schedule it so early in the season, since it may be the most attention this race gets all spring. Five of the six candidates (four Democrats, one Libertarian) will be there. Only the Republican will be missing. (She's traveling.)
There aren't many issues on the agenda--the continuing legal arguments over school funding, No Child Left Behind and the usual "Why should we vote for you?" But the Libertarian's answers might be interesting. Have we ever hand a candidate to head to OPI whose mission would be to dismantle the office?
***
Among the last-minute filings for the legislature on March 20, an intriguing entry for the state House. James Steele, who serves as chair of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Indian Reservation, is among three Democrats running to succeed Rep. Rick Jore of the Constitution Party. Steele officially is from Arlee but, because of the creative way Jore's district is mapped, Steele will be running against Democrats from Ronan (understandable) and Heart Butte (hundreds of miles away across the Continental Divide on the Blackfeet Reservation.)
With Jore not running and with no Republican in the race, the primary winner will earn the seat, barring a write-in campaign in November. If elected, Steele would not be the first tribal council member to simultaneously serve in the legislature, but I'd be very surprised if a council chairman has done so.
Also, the fact that Jore will not return to the legislature makes the race for control of the House even more interesting, since Republican flame-throwers Mike Lange, Roger Koopman and John Sinrud won't be back, either.
***
One final note--in my last post, I shared the story about
Thursday, March 20, 2008
FROM GOD'S CHOSEN TO ELECTION TOILET PAPER
Spring is here and so is the filing deadline for Montana's 2008 election. Once again, the final days have brought surprises. Missoula accountant Patty Lovaas filed as a Republican for U.S. Senate, something I had told you two weeks ago.
But no one expected a 34-year-old Billings truck driver and former restaurant worker Shay Joshua Garnett to plunk down the filing fee for the same race. Garnett left only a post office box and an e-mail with the Secretary of State's office. And when I and others sent him a message asking for some basic information, his lengthy response could almost be called a manifesto. Long story short: he's God's chosen one who has been unappreciated, despite his lofty destiny to raise up nations.
Among his personality traits: dedication, aggressiveness, anger and tendencies toward both anti-social behavior and the use of swear words in conversation when he gets worked up. For my money, the Republican Senate primary could be the best--and most unpredictable--show of the primary season.
Garnett has expressed a severe dislike for Max Baucus. Which brings me to John Driscoll, the former Montana Public Service Commissioner who has joined the race for Denny Rehberg's seat in the U.S. House. Driscoll is one of those Democrats who dislikes Baucus intensely. (There are a few of them.)
He ran against him in 1978, giving up the chance for a repeat term as Speaker of the House in the state legislature, then did it again in 1990. Ten years later, he lost to Brian Schweitzer in the race to challenge then-Sen. Conrad Burns and has been on the sidelines since. This year, he's decided to change focus and go for Rehberg's House seat.
Make no mistake--Driscoll is no Bob Kelleher or Curly Thornton. He's not a one-issue guy or a Bible-toting moralist. I've always enjoyed my conversations with him. He's intelligent and articulate; he's just considered something of a flake. However, his name recognition might make his primary race against Jim Hunt a bit more interesting. Plus, if he wins, he could be just annoying enough to Rehberg to make the race worth following.
Speaking of interesting races, the battle for Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court is worth following closely. Attorney General Mike McGrath (who is term limited) had the field to himself for months but now has an opponent in Helena attorney Ron Waterman. McGrath has been a career public sector lawyer, first as Lewis & Clark County Attorney, then as AG.
Waterman has spent his career in the private sector, although he's been involved with enough high-profile litigation that people may recognize the name. It also won't hurt that his wife, Mignon, was a well-known state senator for many years.
In judicial races, candidates generally won't say what they'll do if elected, but McGrath can point to his many years as a law enforcer, his support as AG for gun ownership rights before the U.S. Supreme Court and the successful and historic negotations with ARCO on Clark Fork River Superfund sites. It's also worth noting that it was McGrath who successfully argued to make more of ARCO's settlement money available for river restoration projects last fall.
Waterman, meanwhile, can show a resume that shows a lot of high-profile litigation on all parts of the political spectrum. He's represented a despised mining company and fought the death penalty. He's done work for the ACLU and has been the attorney for the Montana Freedom of Information Hotline. He also has the support of retired Helena district judge Gordon Bennett and former Associated Press bureau chief John Kuglin, two of the state's open government heroes.
Watch this race, especially when questions arise about opening court deliberations to the media and the public.
Finally, the best political image I've seen this year comes from Montana's sister state of Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan, where voters will elect a new governor and legislature March 23. It's--get ready for it--election day toilet paper. According to Mako Sakaguchi, Montana's representative in Kumamoto, the prefectural government has been distributing the paper in public places (presumably shopping arcades and other popular spots) to encourage people to vote. Assuming people actually use the paper for its intended purpose, it will be viewed regularly in the days prior to the vote. And after all, advertising depends on multiple impressions to work.
So, here's my message to Secretary of State Brad Johnson: In an election universe where electronics and computers play an ever-larger role, here's how to really make your mark as Montana's chief elections officer--with the ultimate paper ballot.
Just imagine the campaign slogan.
Happy spring.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Year of the Crossover?
What would it take for a Republican to vote for Hillary Clinton? Or for a Democrat to vote for a Republican for U.S. Senate? Answer: when your vote would help embarrass the opposing party without causing any real damage to your own.
With that as prelude, consider this scenario: It's June 3 and the polls are about to open for the statewide primary election. On the national scene, Clinton and Barack Obama remain locked in a desperate struggle for presidential convention delegates and, incredibly, Montana's could make the difference. Down the ballot, Democrats and Republicans alike have only a couple of contested statewide races to worry about and, on the Republican side, whoever wins the nomination for November's U.S. Senate race has a very uphill battle ahead.
So, why not vote on the other side and commit a bit of political sabotage? Since Montana is an "open primary" state, you can walk in and request either a Republican or Democratic party ballot. So, there's nothing to prevent voters on either side from crossing over in the hope of undermining a strong opponent or creating a victory for someone who would be an embarrassment to the opposing party.
Montana's Republican Party director Erik Iverson already has told me that if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Montana Republicans will flock to the polls in November to vote against her. That, he told me, could be bad news for Senator Max Baucus. Assuming the vote in the Democratic presidential preference primary will be close, would it be in Republicans' interest to cross over and vote for Clinton, as a way to encourage November turnout? Plus, if Clinton wins, Republicans will find any way possible to link Baucus with her.
Meanwhile, Democrats already know that Baucus and Governor Brian Schweitzer are unopposed in June. So is Jim Hunt, who will challenge U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg in the fall. Sure, there are contested races down the ballot, but the marquee races have no drama. So, why not try to influence who will challenge Baucus in the fall? A Bob Kelleher upset primary win, for instance, would be a poke in the eye of the GOP.
Admittedly, Democrats may look forward to the Clinton-Obama race so much that the idea of crossing over will not be attractive enough. And there may be enough party loyalty and interest in local and lesser statewide races that voters of both parties will stay true to their default leanings. But if Hollywood can imagine elections turning on more fanciful plots, and if Ron Paul supporters can stack some local Republican presidential caucuses, is some cross-party electoral sabotage unthinkable?
With that as prelude, consider this scenario: It's June 3 and the polls are about to open for the statewide primary election. On the national scene, Clinton and Barack Obama remain locked in a desperate struggle for presidential convention delegates and, incredibly, Montana's could make the difference. Down the ballot, Democrats and Republicans alike have only a couple of contested statewide races to worry about and, on the Republican side, whoever wins the nomination for November's U.S. Senate race has a very uphill battle ahead.
So, why not vote on the other side and commit a bit of political sabotage? Since Montana is an "open primary" state, you can walk in and request either a Republican or Democratic party ballot. So, there's nothing to prevent voters on either side from crossing over in the hope of undermining a strong opponent or creating a victory for someone who would be an embarrassment to the opposing party.
Montana's Republican Party director Erik Iverson already has told me that if Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, Montana Republicans will flock to the polls in November to vote against her. That, he told me, could be bad news for Senator Max Baucus. Assuming the vote in the Democratic presidential preference primary will be close, would it be in Republicans' interest to cross over and vote for Clinton, as a way to encourage November turnout? Plus, if Clinton wins, Republicans will find any way possible to link Baucus with her.
Meanwhile, Democrats already know that Baucus and Governor Brian Schweitzer are unopposed in June. So is Jim Hunt, who will challenge U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg in the fall. Sure, there are contested races down the ballot, but the marquee races have no drama. So, why not try to influence who will challenge Baucus in the fall? A Bob Kelleher upset primary win, for instance, would be a poke in the eye of the GOP.
Admittedly, Democrats may look forward to the Clinton-Obama race so much that the idea of crossing over will not be attractive enough. And there may be enough party loyalty and interest in local and lesser statewide races that voters of both parties will stay true to their default leanings. But if Hollywood can imagine elections turning on more fanciful plots, and if Ron Paul supporters can stack some local Republican presidential caucuses, is some cross-party electoral sabotage unthinkable?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Candidate Who?
Max Baucus must be chuckling to himself. As the leading man of the Montana Democratic Party, with a multi-million dollar campaign war chest, and the title of Chairman of the Most Powerful Committee in the History of the American Congress (at least it seems that way sometimes) he must look at the roster of Republicans lining up for the June primary and think, “This is too easy.”
State Rep. Mike Lange of Billings, the only recognizable GOP hopeful so far, gave Baucus a ready-made television spot with the now-legendary obscenity-laced end-of-the-session rant in the House Republican Caucus last April. Six years ago, the Baucus campaign drove Mike Taylor right out of the race with footage Taylor probably thought he never would see again. This time, the Senator’s opposition research guys only have to go to YouTube to get Lange’s most embarrassing moment.
Meanwhile, the other three announced GOP candidates are political unknowns from the small business community, including the latest entrant, Missoula small business accountant Patty Lovaas. I spoke with her Thursday about why she’s running. “I don’t like what I see going on,” she said, pointing to concerns over small business, taxes, and the amount of money “out of state special interests” have contributed to the Baucus campaign.
Her written statement, which she intends to release when she files on St. Patrick’s Day, finishes with the following message for Baucus: “You have become a victim of the ‘political machine,’ she writes. “You have been bought by special interest groups and have lost sight of what and who you are representing. My message to you is Montana is not for sale.”
Having unknowns try to jump from private business into high office in Montana’s isn’t unusual. Over the years, I’ve found some of them to be interesting and engaging people. And frankly, I’ll take the “citizen candidate” to the Stan Jones “perpetual candidate” any day.
State Rep. Mike Lange of Billings, the only recognizable GOP hopeful so far, gave Baucus a ready-made television spot with the now-legendary obscenity-laced end-of-the-session rant in the House Republican Caucus last April. Six years ago, the Baucus campaign drove Mike Taylor right out of the race with footage Taylor probably thought he never would see again. This time, the Senator’s opposition research guys only have to go to YouTube to get Lange’s most embarrassing moment.
Meanwhile, the other three announced GOP candidates are political unknowns from the small business community, including the latest entrant, Missoula small business accountant Patty Lovaas. I spoke with her Thursday about why she’s running. “I don’t like what I see going on,” she said, pointing to concerns over small business, taxes, and the amount of money “out of state special interests” have contributed to the Baucus campaign.
Her written statement, which she intends to release when she files on St. Patrick’s Day, finishes with the following message for Baucus: “You have become a victim of the ‘political machine,’ she writes. “You have been bought by special interest groups and have lost sight of what and who you are representing. My message to you is Montana is not for sale.”
Having unknowns try to jump from private business into high office in Montana’s isn’t unusual. Over the years, I’ve found some of them to be interesting and engaging people. And frankly, I’ll take the “citizen candidate” to the Stan Jones “perpetual candidate” any day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
