Montana
The Case for Brian Schweitzer
Here at Western Democrat, we have previously made the case for Bill Richardson for President or Vice President. But consider another prominent Western Democrat for the currently open position of Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency, namely Brian Schweitzer, Governor of Montana.
The vice presidential nominee has four roles: to help the ticket win in November, to serve as a loyal part of the new administration, to assume the presidency should disaster strike, and, under happy circumstances, to lead the party eight years hence. Governor Schweitzer is an attractive candidate for all four tasks.
Governor Schweitzer would be a great candidate. He is the popular Democratic governor of a red to purple state who knows how to appeal to Republicans and Independents. He would reinforce the Obama message of turning the page on the red/blue divide of the last decade. He has a natural, folksy charm that would play well on the national stage. He is from way outside Washington in a year when voters are hungry for change in Washington. He does not play into the GOP stereotype of an out of touch Eastern liberal, yet he effectively champions Democratic issues such as education and healthcare. He does not have a trail of potentially controversial votes on wedge issues in the Senate. He is old enough to be successful and experienced both in the private and public sectors, including international experience, while young enough to be a vigorous campaigner. He understands national issues that are particularly important to the West such as energy and water, the West being rich in energy, but chronically short of water. He could help swing crucial states in the West. Montana has only three electoral votes, but he would automatically put his state in play. Neighboring North Dakota is potentially swingable and has three electoral votes. In the rest of the West, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, with a combined nineteen electoral votes, will be critical battlegrounds, and having a Westerner on the ticket would help. The sum total is the equivalent of swinging one big state, which is about the best that a vice presidential nominee can hope to do. Moreover, Governor Schweitzer would be a reassuring choice for a number of wavering constituencies all across the country that the party needs in November.
Governor Schweitzer could serve in an Obama administration without carrying any baggage from the long contest for the nomination. He would bring executive experience to the new administration. He could represent Western and rural constituencies inside a White House with an urban and Midwestern President. And though his easy and down-to-earth demeanor tends to hide it, his successes in life and politics are the natural product of a first-rate mind. Of course, only Senator Obama can tell us if their two personalities are a good working fit.
Given all these assets, I would feel very comfortable with a President Schweitzer should he ascend to the nation’s highest office, ideally eight and a half years hence, after having served President Obama loyally and well.
Leo Brown | June 5, 2008 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
It ends with Montana
The networks have called Montana for Obama, and enough superdelegates have declared to make Senator Obama the nominee.
Barack did well in the Intermountain West all this primary season. The Rockies are not Appalachia.
It is an historic night but important tasks lie ahead this summer: uniting the party and selecting a vice president.
Leo Brown | June 3, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Meanwhile back at the ranch: Gubernatorial Edition
Gubernatorial is a wonderful word meaning pertaining to governors. Governors do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to good government, though they generally get less press these days than senators and, of course, presidents, unless they are very good or very bad.
While the Senate contests in the West this year offer excitement and good pickup opportunities, the gubernatorial elections present a much more settled picture, with one notable exception.
Nationally 28 Democrats and 22 Republicans hold governorships. In the West the totals are seven for the Democrats (AZ, CO, MT, NM, OR, WA, WY) and six for the GOP. Nationally, there will be eleven gubernatorial contests on November 4, 2008. Six of those seats are currently held by Democrats and five by Republicans. Three of those eleven contests are in the West, namely in Montana (D), Utah (R), and Washington (D).
In Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, a star among Western Democrats, is looking strong. When Time magazine did a lengthy piece on The Democrats’ New Western Stars (Jan. 19, 2007), it was Governor Schweitzer’s photo they led with. Click here to watch Governor Schweitzer explain how elections are won in Montana.
In Utah, the GOP has held the governorship for 24 years, and Republican Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. will be hard to beat.
In Washington, however, the contest promises to be exciting, because Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire won a squeaker in 2004, complete with recounts and a court case.
Washington is a fairly Blue State. Though potentially a swing state, it has put its electoral votes in the D column in the last five presidential contests and is represented in the Senate by two Democratic Senators. Six of the nine House members from Washington are Democrats. In addition to the governorship, both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by Democrats. All politics is local, as the saying goes, but national trends--war, recession and an unpopular Republican in the White House--will be important, too. Click here for Governor Gregoire’s own website.
Leo Brown | April 27, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Every State Counts, Every Voter Counts
If you were tired of a few voters in a handful of states determining the nominee, this is your year. If you are told only the big states count, don’t believe it. Every state counts, and every voter counts. In the West the remaining contests are
Wyoming March 8 (caucus)
Oregon May 20 (primary)
Montana June 3 (primary)
Montana and South Dakota (also on June 3 and partly in the West) will be the last contests before the convention, unless a couple of states that jumped the gun earlier in the year have a “do over.”
Democracy may be messy, but I prefer it to the alternatives.
Leo Brown | March 6, 2008 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Obama Richardson
Over a year ago, we speculated on a Richardson Obama or an Obama Richardson ticket. What I wrote then still looks good to me. Of course, it has been clear for some time that Richardson would not be at the top of the ticket. The Richardson campaign never caught fire, and Governor Richardson wisely ended his campaign. Obama-Richardson could still be a viable ticket in the West and Midwest, but will it happen?
What concerns me and what should concern a lot of Western Democrats is that the GOP may be poised to nominate a Western candidate who can reach across party lines (McCain), while the Democratic Party may be poised to nominate (again) an uncharismatic Easterner who would have difficulty reaching across party lines and who has little appeal in much of the purple West (Clinton). Hillary is a known quantity, and her negative numbers in the West will be very hard to change.
Montana 61% said they would not consider voting for her.
Recent polls in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona have found similar distaste for Clinton.
She's carrying huge negatives out here," said Floyd Ciruli, an independent Colorado pollster who said Democratic congressional candidates would have to highlight their differences with the national party to be successful next year. "It's that liberal East Coast image that is so hard to sell in the West."
One key advisor to a prominent Democratic congressional candidate, who asked not be to identified discussing tensions within the party, went even further. "It's a disaster for Western Democrats," he said. "It keeps me up at night."
Leo Brown | January 20, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
What elected Tester? (how to win in the West)
Jay over at 4&20 blackbirds points to a Hill article that gets into the ongoing debate (which we all for sure wish would stop) of who can really take credit for the Democratic win in the Senate, especially for Tester winning in Montana.
Of course, Sen. Schumer of New York is saying that it was the great database they helped build, but Jay has other thoughts:
Here’s what I know. I wouldn’t have joined the Missoula Democrats, volunteered for Tester, or started blogging without Dean’s infrastructure.The voter lists were nice… but about a gazillion organizations had similar lists. How many of you Democratic-leaning Montana voters received phone calls this election, raise your hands! And how many of you received like a gajillion phone calls?
...
Jon won that race. Montanans won that race. Thanks for all the money, though.
There's something to be said for DC based power types taking too much credit for wins in the West. Conrad Burns would still be a Senator had not Tester decided to run (at least I'm convinced of that). Tester was the right guy at the right time, and no amount of really great data would have put a bad candidate over the top.
If anyone is going to take credit, the organization that put the race in the well trained hands of Montanan Democrats deserves some credit. But, Montanans deserve the most.
Emmett O'Connell | May 12, 2007 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Montana to move primary election?
According to the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Utah, Montana is expected to consider moving their primary election from June 3 to February 5 - joining Western states Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (plus Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, and North Carolina). Prior to February 5, elections will be held in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
From the CPPA newsletter:
It is very likely that Montana’s legislature will introduce a Western States Primary Election bill when its session begins on January 3. Legislation could move Montana’s presidential primary election from June to February for the 2008 election – and in line with primaries in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. Although a 2005 bill died in the Montana Senate, legislation this year appears to have stronger bipartisan support, including that of Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer and Republican Secretary of State Brad Johnson.
A full Democratic primary calendar is available at Wikipedia.
Kari Chisholm | December 26, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The New West Project
This is wonderful:
The New West Project, headquartered in Denver, will conduct research and develop strategies to secure and exploit recent Democratic gains in the Western states, party sources said.At least four Western governors - Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Bill Ritter, Colorado's governor-elect - are expected to lead the group's advisory council, the sources said. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado and other members of Congress will provide "strategic guidance."
Reid confirmed the creation of the new organization, which he said would "build upon the leadership of people such as governors Napolitano, Richardson and Schweitzer" and "work to focus attention on the West."
This is a high level group. Consider the Western Strategy in play, my friends. It is wonderful to see this sort of institutional arrangement that will only benefit our local, state and national candidates long term. It looks like part think tank, part strategy firm, part communications development - all aspects that will be welcome by the plethora of candidates that will be running these next few cycles to take advantage of our our new promise out here in the west.
The best part of the article? The quote from an unnamed "Western Democrat":
As an example of what the new organization may do, the Western Democrat said that political professionals would analyze such questions as "the difference between first- and second-generation Hispanic voters, ... what motivates them and how we communicate with them," as well as "why a recent transplant from California, who has voted Republican all her life, is now voting for Democrats."
Good question, "Western Democrat" - it just leaves me amazed to see our namesake invoked so strikingly in an article. Methinks the author of the article, John Aloysius Farrell , might just be an reader of our humble site. If so, thanks for the article John - we'll be watching for you in the future.
It's great to have a new project designed for this express purpose and examining the multitude of new questions that are arising from the new political climate in the West. Now, if any of those people involved in the project are paying attention it would behoove them greatly to include netroots and blog outreach as an element of the project. You see, since major political focus has been absent from the West for awhile the netroots and blogosphere have been proliferating and recruiting top candidates all over the place. It would be an essential element of any plan that you should put together.
I'm excited.
Here's the The New West Project!
Landon Mascareñaz | December 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Post-Election Statehouse Roundup
To quote Buffalo Springfield, "there's something happening here". Post-election, Western Democrats have made great gains in the states, building strong majorities in the legislatures and taking or retaining several governorships. Here's a look at the numbers, courtesy of NCSL.
Senate 12-18 Republican majority
House 21-39 Republican majorityPost-Election
Senate 12-18 Republican majority
House 28-32 Republican majorityPickups
Senate – stays the same
House - +7 seats
Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano was overwhelmingly re-elected.
Pre-election
Senate 25-15 Democratic majority
Assembly 47-32-1 (Senate 25-15 Democratic majority
Assembly 48-32 Democratic majority
Pickups
Senate – stays the same
Assembly - +1 seat
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was re-elected.
Pre-Election
Senate 18-17 Democratic majority
House 35-30 Democratic majority
Post-Election
Senate 20-15 Democratic majority
House 39-26 Democratic majority
Pickups
Senate – +2 seat
House - +4 seats
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter was elected Governor.
Pre-Election
House 13-57 Republican majority
Post-Election
Senate 7-28 Republican majority
House 19-51 Republican majority
Pickups
Senate – stays the same
House - +6 seats
Republican gubernatorial candidate C.L. “Butch” Otter was elected.
Pre-Election
Senate 27-23 Democratic majority
House 50-50
Post-Election
Senate 26-24 Democratic majority
House 50-49-1 (
Pickups
Senate – -1 Seat
House – stays the same
Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer is up for re-election in 2008.
Pre-Election
House 26-16 Democratic majority
Post-Election
House 27-15 Democratic majority
Pickups
Senate – +1 seat
House - +1 seat
Pre-Election
Senate 24-18 Democratic majorityHouse 42-28-2(
Post-Election
Senate 24-18 Democratic majority
House 42-28 Democratic majority
Pickups
Senate – stays the same
House – stays the same
Democratic Governor Bill Richardson was overwhelmingly re-elected.
Pre-Election
Senate 17-11-2(
House 27-33 Republican majority
Post-Election
Senate 17-11-2(
House 31-29 Democratic majority
Pickups
Senate – stays the same
House - +4 seats
Pre-Election
House 19-56 Republican majority
Post-Election
Senate 8-21 Republican majority
House 19-56 Republican majority
Senate – stays the same
House – stays the same
Republican Governor Jon Huntsman is up for re-election in 2008.
Pre-Election
Senate 26-23 Democratic majority
House 56-42 Democratic majority
Post-Election
Senate 32-17 Democratic majority (not since 1965)
House 63-35 Democratic majority
Senate – +6 seats
House - +7 seats
Pre-Election
Senate 7-23 Republican majority
House 14-46 Republican majority
Post-Election
Senate 7-23 Republican majority
House 17-43 Republican majority
Senate – stays the same
House - +3 seats
Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal was overwhelmingly re-elected.
kencamp | November 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Room to Grow in the West
Western Democrats did well in 2006. Here is a link to some helpful maps. Particularly noteworthy were pickups in Montana for the U.S. Senate and the Colorado for governorship, plus four pick-ups in the House of Representatives. And we won the office of Secretary of State in the swing states of New Mexico and Nevada. (Think Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 for the importance of this). But we could have done better, and in 2008 we can. For the Senate in 2008 think Colorado and New Mexico. There is still room to grow in the West.
But returning to 2006, Senate pickups in Arizona and Nevada were possible. Governor’s mansion pickups were possible in Alaska, Nevada and Idaho. Additional House pickups were possible in California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Washington, and Wyoming. And we didn’t win the election for Secretary of State in Colorado. These races were close enough to be considered competitive. Several of the competitive House districts in 2006 could be just as competitive in 2008.
So while we are still basking in the warm glow of victory, let us ask ourselves, what could we do better? Any campaign can be critiqued, but I think the biggest factor is that we were outspent. Jack Carter was outspent four to one in Nevada. The GOP and the Club for Growth poured a ton of money into ID-1. The national GOP was spending much more in CA-4 than the DCCC was. And so it went in many districts. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton spent $30 million defeating token opposition in New York. Now I understand that each candidate can raise his or her own funds, and the national committees carefully decide where to spend scarce resources, but more seed money in planting season and more money at harvest time would go a long way in the West. Something to think about for 2008.
Leo Brown | November 21, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Advice for our favorite governors
Over at Bill Richardson for America, I just posted the following comment under What advice do you have for the Governor? The context is the presidential campaign of 2008. This advice would also work for Brian Schweitzer.
Decide if you are going to run for president in 2008.
If the answer is yes, plan to raise serious money every month starting in December. Do this painful chore honestly and carefully. If the answer is no, be thankful you don’t have to do this and can concentrate on other important things.
Lose some weight. It is easy to gain weight during a campaign. This goes for most Americans and most candidates, but Harry Reid and Barack Obama are thin enough already. Look fit, tanned, and relaxed over the holidays.
If you decide to run, throw your hat in the ring fairly early, perhaps in January or February. Those leading the pack right now have the luxury of waiting. Have a gracious exit strategy if your campaign doesn’t take off. Being governor is a lot more fun than being president anyway.
Remember, America is tired of red vs. blue and wants someone who can bridge divides. If you are so fortunate as to be elected, you should govern from the center. This means not only the center of the political spectrum; it means the center of American values. In the cliché it means truth, justice, and the American way. You have to articulate what that means to you in your own words. When America has lost its way at home and in the world, we need to return to the wisdom of the founding fathers and other Americans, great and small, who have preceded us. Study their words of wisdom and weave them into your own story. Have faith, have humility, and be yourself. This is good advice whether you run or not.
Leo Brown | November 11, 2006 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Checklist for Tuesday
CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) created a go-to guide on corruption in Congress to expose and hold accountable members of Congress for their questionable conduct. The list was updated in September to reflect the latest information and the resignation from Congress of three former members of the list, Congressmen Cunningham, Ney, and DeLay.
Here are members of CREW’s list in the West. Note that a Democrat made the list.
Senate:
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Members of the House:
Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Richard Pombo (R-CA)
John Doolittle (R-CA)
Rick Renzi (R-AZ)
Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Gary Miller (R-CA)
Those of you living in Montana, Colorado, and Arizona are watching these races closely.
Unfortunately, some districts have been so gerrymandered that it may take more than one election cycle clean house via the electoral process. The last California redistricting was designed to protect incumbents, which may be why so many Californians are on the list. At least two of these Californians, however, are in tight races.
For Charlie Brown vs. John Doolittle, check out this conclusion from an editorial from the Tahoe Daily Tribune:
Despite the glib picture Mr. Doolittle likes to paint out of desperation, this Congressional race is not between liberals and conservatives. In fact, politics isn't really what's at stake. This election is about right vs. wrong, abuse of power, leading with integrity, protecting the earth, protecting the country and living within our means. For that Charlie Brown has our vote on Nov. 7.
For Jerry McNerney vs. Richard Pombo, check out this conclusion from an editorial in the Modesto Bee:
If you prefer the politics of extremes; if you're OK with selling off national parks; if backroom dealmaking and tainted money suit you; if you embrace out-of-balance budgets and the concentration of wealth — Pombo's your man. But he's no longer ours.Law enforcement has already taken its toll on CREW’s list.
Let’s see how many the voters will remove tomorrow.
Leo Brown | November 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
George Will Discovers the West
In today's "election scorecard" column from conservative commentator George Will:
Four years ago all eight Mountain West states -- Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming -- had Republican governors. If Democrat Bill Ritter wins Colorado's governorship, Democrats will hold five of eight governorships in the Mountain West, which in the 1990s was even more reliably Republican than the South. In 2004 a change of a total of 63,508 votes in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico would have given those states' 19 electoral votes and the presidency to John Kerry. No wonder the Democrats' 2008 convention will probably be in Denver.
Bring it on home, folks. Bring it on home.
Kari Chisholm | November 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Tonight's Radio Open Source show (on NPR) to feature Montana Senate race
At 4 p.m. Pacific, the syndicated NPR show Radio Open Source will feature the Tester/Burns race for a full hour.
Just how liberal is Tester, really? He’s pro-choice and pro-environment, but he’s also pro-gun. Definitely not East Coast liberal. But are he and Schweitzer a new breed — “Western Democrats” — or are they just dyed-in-the-wool Montanans? In other words: populists, because Montana Democrats were born in opposition to the the Anaconda Copper Company that controlled Montana — its newspapers, its politics, its industry — for years; and libertarian, because although Montana’s no longer a frontier, it’s still faaaaar away from any kind of big city? You could also imagine, though, that Tester and Schweitzer are bellwethers for the “purpling” of other Western states (the result of big demographic changes).
At about 4:40 p.m. Pacific, I'll join the show to expand the conversation from Montana to talk about how Western Democrats are taking over the West, and what that means for 2006, 2008, and beyond.
More about today's show here - and listen live via WGBH here.
Kari Chisholm | November 1, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Radio Open Source on Tester v. Burns
My favorite radio show (though I listen to it as a podcast) is featuring the Montana Senate race. Radio Open Source is a different type of show, in that it uses its blog to develop a scope for how their show will run.
In addition to their listener suggested format, they also regularly interview bloggers who have an expertise in whatever. topic. So get on over there and tell them what's going on in the West and Montana. I've already suggested Matt Singer as one of their guests.
Emmett O'Connell | October 30, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
A Western Democrat on the Patriot Act
Over at Gather.com, Jay Stevens has great coverage of the Patriot Act in the Tester/Burns race.
The West contains a strong libertarian streak: Westerners value self-reliance and resent unwanted intrusion of government in their lives. They value common sense, hard work, and practical solutions. ...In the Senate debate in Butte, Senator Burns accused the Big Sandy farmer of wanting to revise the Patriot Act. "I don't want to revise the Patriot Act," responded Tester, "I want to repeal it." Later in the same debate, Tester answered sharply to a question on gun control with a statement that was considered quintessential Western Democrat: "With things like the Patriot Act, we'd damn well better keep our guns."
While Bush and allies like Conrad Burns continue to tout the administration's unconstitutional extension of executive power, Westerners are increasingly resentful of a government that's reaching into their personal lives and threatening their basic liberties. ...
In the larger sense, the Republicans are becoming the party of big government, wayward spending, and indiscriminate intrusion, while the Democrats are lining up to define themselves as the protectors of Americans' basic freedoms, including the right to bear arms. Tester is definitely capitalizing on Burns' clumsy and stubborn insistence to defend the President's intrusive and extra-legal terrorist programs in a state where a jealous regard for individualism is a virtue.
Here's to Jon Tester -- not afraid of the righties, even on the Patriot Act. Here's the lesson: Don't be afraid of speaking powerfully to your position; even if it runs against the Beltway conventional wisdom. (Maybe even, because it runs against CW!)
Kari Chisholm | October 29, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Invest in the West
With only a few weeks before Election Day the papers, airwaves, and blogs are filled with the latest polls pointing to strong gains for the Democratic Party all across the country. At Western Democrat, we are cheered by the party’s prospects in the East, South, and Midwest, as well as by our growing strength in the West. The rest of the country, in turn, is taking notice of developments in the West.
Ryan Sager tells the story once again, this time in Dallas Morning News.
He begins
There's even more for Republicans to be blue about. Folks in the usually solid red states of the interior West aren't high on big government or meddling social policies. That's bad news for today's GOP and good news for Democrats.
And concludes
If the political center of the GOP continues to drift southward, the party risks catalyzing another geographic realignment on a par with that which brought it to power — starting up in Montana and running south. Many of the West’s mountains are already turning purple. They may yet turn blue.
Ronald Brownstein tells of our prospects in Colorado, this time in the Baltimore Sun:
The colors are changing this autumn in Colorado - from solid Republican red to something approaching a strong tint of Democrat blue. A GOP stronghold from the mid-1990s through President Bush's first term, Colorado has emerged as one of the Democrats' principal prospects for gains in this year's elections. Polls show Democrats holding an edge in most of the state's key contests, including an open House seat and the battle between Democrat Bill Ritter and Republican Rep. Bob Beauprez for the governorship.So with the tide running our way in all sections of the country, why should the national party spend extra time and attention on the interior West? Because as Kari pointed out recently on Air America, an investment in the smaller states of the West goes farther. The media markets are less expensive and the number of voters to contact is smaller, but the number of senators is still two per state. That arithmetic also figures into the Electoral College. Moreover, the Southwest is growing rapidly with new residents establishing voting patterns that could last for decades.
Leo Brown | October 16, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The View from Big Sky Country
Montana has had a prominent place in Western Democrat since its beginning. So how do things look there now a month before the mid-term elections? According to a poll reported in the Helena Independent Record, voters in Big Sky Country think their state is doing just fine, thank you, but are not so happy with President Bush, the war in Iraq, and the country in general.
A new poll finds a majority of likely Montana voters disapprove of how President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, and only a third think "things in the country are on the right track."The respondents overwhelmingly say the state is on the right track, according to the Lee Newspapers telephone poll conducted last Tuesday through Thursday by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. The poll's margin of error is 4 percentage points.
Pollsters questioned 625 registered Montana voters, all of whom said they regularly vote in state elections.
Disapproval of Bush's handling of Iraq reached 54 percent among the respondents, while 39 percent said they approved and 7 percent were undecided. The approval rating is the lowest since pollsters for Lee started asking the question in 2003.
A third of the respondents said the country is on the right track. Fifty percent said it is on the wrong track and 17 percent were not sure.
The voters like what they see in the state, however.
A third of the respondents said the country is on the right track. Fifty percent said it is on the wrong track and 17 percent were not sure.
The voters like what they see in the state, however. The state was viewed as on the right track by 69 percent. Seventeen percent said the state is on the wrong track, and 14 percent were not sure.
Montanans have generally been optimistic about the direction the state is heading for at least the last year or so, according to past results of Lee polls.
Leo Brown | October 8, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
The West is not the South: Burns and the PATRIOT Act edition
In some parts of the country, you could get away with demonizing a Democrat by saying he'd want to repeal the PATRIOT Act, but in Montana things are different. When Sen. Conrad Burns claimed recently that Jon Tester wanted to "weaken" the Patriot Act, Tester kept on going:
Burns said he also supported programs monitoring international telephone calls against those suspected of terrorism."He wants to weaken the Patriot Act," he said of Tester.
Tester sought to clarify:
"I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it. What it does, it takes away your freedom ... and when you take away our freedoms, the terrorists have won," Tester said.
You see, the West in not the South. In the South they care more about things like secruity over freedom, but in the West, the libertarian tradition is strong. One could say that there is a war within the Republican Party over this West vs. South thingie:
As the Republican Party tilts on its South-West axis, increasingly favoring southern values (religion, morality, tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, privacy), the Democrats have been presented with a tremendous opportunity. If the Republican Party doesn't want to lose its hold over all of the West, as it lost hold of once-reliable California more than a decade ago, its leaders are going to have to rethink their embrace of big-government, big-religion conservatism.
What does it tell you about the South winning the soul of the Republican Party when it is a Democrat in Montana saying that freedom is the most important issue?
Here are a few more good links on this, including Testers' ad on the issue (here) and a post from Left in the West that got me going on this (here ).
Emmett O'Connell | September 30, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
There He Goes Again
Montana GOP Senator Conrad Burns is at it again. I could link to a bunch of posts on his bad behavior and persistent case of diarrhea of the mouth, but you'd be here all day looking at it. Just take my word for it: Conrad Burns is a bigot.
From the Billings Gazette:
Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, who has gotten into hot water before for comments seen as disparaging various groups, joshingly remarked Thursday on the number of Italian-Americans at the Federal Aviation Administration.We all know that Burns is bought and paid for by the special interests, but with each racist remark he makes, it makes you wonder whether those special interests dress in white sheets and pointy hats.
The Montana senator, facing a tough re-election fight against Democrat Jon Tester, was heading an aviation subcommittee
hearing of the Commerce Committee when two FAA officials, Michael Cirillo and Nicholas Sabatini, introduced themselves as witnesses.
"I'm wondering if that's all they're hiring," Burns said of the federal agency.
[...]
Also during Thursday's hearing, Burns asked witness Matt Andersson, senior aviation consultant for CRA International, about the spelling of his name. Andersson said it's the Swedish spelling.
"Oh, ja," Burns replied in a mock Swedish accent.
It's time to bring some decency back to Montana and the United States. Support Jon Tester for Senate.
kencamp | September 28, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Oregon Democrats take a page from Brian Schweitzer
The Democratic Party of Oregon has approved a Gun Owners Caucus. Alt-weekly paper Willamette Week has the story:
Oregon Democrats are borrowing a page this election from party colleagues in gun-friendly states like Montana, where Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer—a bolo-tie-wearing former mint farmer—has said his idea of gun control is, "You control your gun, and I'll control mine." At a recent Democratic Party of Oregon meeting, state leaders voted to approve the formation of the party's Gun Owners Caucus , which joins the party's Faith Caucus and Motorcycle Caucus, among others.
Over at BlueOregon, Zak Johnson - one of the Gun Owners Caucus co-founders - explains:
As Democrats, we OWN the civil rights issue. The Bush administration daily violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments (unless you consider confessions under torture not to be self-incrimination). Tom Delay's cronies continue to violate the 13th amendment in the U.S. Mariannas. It has never been clearer that the Democratic Party is the nation's primary defender of the Constitution. This is an unequivocal, easy-to-understand position that resonates with voters. It's a uniting position as well, one that should attract patriots to the Democratic banner.But to promote that message requires consistency on the whole Constitution. Frankly, the Party's reputation on the 2nd Amendment is, as Montana Democratic Chairman Bob Ream has said, that people think we want to take their guns away. ...
The perception that Democrats are anti-gun also hurts the party badly among our natural constituencies like hunters, most of whom consider themselves environmentalists, and rural residents in general.
Kari Chisholm | September 23, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Are the netroots liberal? Or just partisan?
Over at the National Journal, John Mercurio shares a comment he got from Western Democrat's own Jonathan Singer. Here's the comment, since archives are subscriber-only:
You write, "Liberal bloggers, who, much like the Club for Growth, encourage ideological purity over party loyalty, cheered Chafee's victory."I really don't believe that the top issue for the progressive netroots is "ideological purity." In some ways, I think you may have it backwards. The concerted netroots effort to go after Lieberman started when he went on FOX News to bash Democrats over the war, not because of his stance on the war (which was longstanding).
The netroots have supported a number of non-doctrinaire Dems who are willing to stand up for the party, most recently with Jim Webb. Brian Schweitzer, a favorite of many, certainly isn't in line with the left of the party on the issues of coal or guns, but he remains extremely popular. Other Western Dems -- Trauner in WY, Grant in ID, and Fawcett in CO -- show up on the Daily Kos/MyDD/Swing State Project ActBlue page even though they are not hard-core liberals.
Taking a look at unscientific approval ratings from Daily Kos readers, more moderate/conservative Democrat Harry Reid has a significantly higher approval rating (70 percent) than more progressive/liberal Nancy Pelosi (36 percent).
There are certainly issues upon which the netroots look for politicians to fall in line. Social Security, Iraq and Net Neutrality come to mind. But the netroots does not take the same tack as groups like Club for Growth on these issues. There was no challenge -- not even talk of challenging Ben Nelson, for instance. He may not agree with us on all of the issues, but he doesn't go on national television to denigrate his party, either.
Good stuff, JS.
Kari Chisholm | September 21, 2006 | Comment on This Post (11 so far) |
What I Did On My Summer Vacation By Conrad Burns
The Tester Campaign should run this on the Montana air waves over and over again.
kencamp | September 13, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Schweitzer Challenges NY Millionaire to Debate (video!)
Updated below: We've now got video! See below...
Montana, like many other states, is facing a "TABOR" measure that would decimate public services. The TABOR measures are funded largely by a reclusive New York millionaire named Howie Rich.
So, our man Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) has challenged Howie Rich to a debate in Montana. From his statement:
“Out of state millionaires have no businesses imposing their will on the hard working people of Montana,” said Governor Schweitzer. “Howard Rich and his wealthy buddies won’t even reveal who is funding their campaign. I invite them to come to Montana, tell us who they are and what their shady initiative is all about.”Governor Schweitzer continued, “Mr. Rich has clearly seen Manhattan, New York – maybe he should meet me in Manhattan, Montana. As a rich world traveler he has probably seen the Kremlin, maybe it is time for him to meet the folks of Kremlin, Montana. It is appalling that big money fat cats would use our state as a testing ground for their ridiculous agenda. They need to stop hiding behind their money and be straight with the people of Montana.”
Nice work, Brian. Keep us posted.
There's more coverage from the Billings Gazette.
Update - the video
Video from Howie Rich Exposed. Hat tip to Loaded Orygun.
Kari Chisholm | September 13, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Three Senate races, the difference between Tester, Carter and Pederson
Jon Tester is giving Sen. Conrad Burns a run for his money. Actually, I don't think anyone would be surprised come November if Burns was beaten by Tester.
Jack Carter in Nevada is starting to run even with Sen. John Ensign. Carter came into this race somewhat late, had a weird start with a smoking pot confession, and despite not being a politician, is turning up the heat in Nevada.
John Pederson, on the other hand, is still running in double digits behind Jon Kyl, the not so special junior Senator from Arizona. Kyl is certainly no Sen. John McCain in terms of being a maverick and is almost the poster child for the stalled immigration reform package. He's the harsh kind of partisan that you would think a smart Western Dem would have a good chance against.
Also President Bush's support in Arizona is soft, and while Kyl's poll numbers have never been super, they have pulled up significantly as the election approaches. Actually, his worst performance was during the months of the immigration debate.
So, what are Tester and Carter doing well why is Pederson not getting any traction?
My main thought has to do with whether each candidate is an outsider. Tester fits the bill. Despite being a state legislator and a legislative leader, he had a primary race against a popular statewide elected.
Carter, on the other hand, is the true outsider. He really has nothing to lose and is running like it. He came from private industry, convinced by Katrina a year ago that public service was where he needed to go.
Pederson as the former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party is, probably safe to say, the most insider of the three. This probably changes his style a bit, while Tester and Carter can feel free to take chances, Pederson takes the well trodden road of candidates past. Historically, though, unless an incumbent falls down the stairs, they keep their office.
So, what are the other differences between these three? Or is Arizona a different place than Nevada and Montana, so you can't expect the same thing in three Western states?
Emmett O'Connell | September 1, 2006 | Comment on This Post (10 so far) |
My evening with Jon Tester
Jon Tester was in Seattle yesterday, and last night I attended a fundraiser for him. With Congress in the middle of its August recess, Jon was joined by Senators Maria Cantwell and Max Baucus, and Congressman Jim McDermott (who welcomed Jon to his district), who were there offering their support. Senator Cantwell introduced Senator Baucus, who introduced Jon, who started off his remarks by joking that he's been to Seattle several times in the past couple of years and every time he's here it's sunny and warm. You see, we were on the 10th floor balcony of an office building overlooking Lake Union on a picture perfect day.
Jon started off his remarks talking about why he's running. Now, most people would say something bad about their opponent or cite some issue as a reason for why they are running for a particular office. Not Jon Tester. Jon talked about his farm, a place that his grandfather homesteaded in order to give his family a better life. He talked about the legacy and responsibility that previous generations have left to us, that in this land of opportunity, we must make the most of our opportunity to leave a better world for our children and grandchildren. Jon has a 2 year old granddaughter and, proud grandfather that he is, said he's very worried that the current state of affairs in Washington, D.C. will negatively impact her future. He repeatedly said that it's time to change the way the federal government is handling our affairs.
Jon explained that his opponent, Senator Conrad Burns, has taken more money from convicted felon Jack Abramoff, than any other member of Congress. He also noted that Conrad is bought and paid for by the special interests. In making his fundraising pitch, Jon noted that this campaign is going to take a lot hard work and money. He said he's working hard to reach out to Montanans, and noted that the Montana Coordinated campaign along with his campaign are knocking on 5,000 doors a day in Montana. Jon also said that if he ever had a day where he had a problem working hard (which I seriously doubt he's ever had, after all he's a farmer), he's got his wife Sharla and Max Baucus to kick him and get him going. As for the money, Tester impressed upon us that his campaign is about us, the "real people", and with our support we could help him make a change.
Jon closed things out by taking questions from the audience, and even though he said he had to leave after answering the questions, he graciously stayed and talked with individuals for at least another 20-30 minutes. Senator Baucus also drove the point home about the differences between Conrard Burns and Jon Tester. With some members of the audience probably not too familiar with Conrad Burns, Baucus explained that Conrad is a "Dick Cheney Republican", and said that he and Jon Tester couldn't be any different. He laid out their differences in policy regarding immigration, Iraq and other areas, and talked a lot about Jon being a real person as opposed to Conrad Burns who lost touch with the people early on in his tenure (something Jon referred to last year as "Potomac fever").
Jon also stressed to the crowd of Washingtonians that while it is important for him to get elected, we can't take back the Senate unless Senator Cantwell is re-elected.
Now for my own two cents. I'd only met Jon once before at a fundraiser he held last August in Seattle, when it was still very early on. So I was pleasantly surprised when he remembered who I was when I talked with him last night. If you know nothing else about Jon Tester, you should know that he is genuine, good man, what you see is what you get, and he means what he says. As a farmer he knows the value of hard work. He's been harvesting his crops to keep the farm going and campaiging in recent weeks. When he gets to Washington, I have no doubt he'll follow through and represent our interests.
Now I ask you to give what you can to Jon. Every little bit helps. Whether it's $5, $15, $50 or $100, anything you can give to Jon will help us take back our country.
kencamp | August 29, 2006 | Comment on This Post (6 so far) |
Where does Conrad Burns Get His Money?
Is it from defrauded Montanans?
When it rains, it pours, and the good news is raining down on Conrad Burns:
I guess these corrupt types travel in packs. Conrad Burns took a significant amount of money from his buddy Jack Abramoff, and hired an alleged con-man to fundraise for him. I hope Jon Tester or the DSCC have some folks looking into every donation made to Burns, because there could be some fraud or illegal donations there. There used to be a low for corruption in politics, and his name was Richard Nixon. Guys like Conrad Burns take it to a new level.Montana officials have accused a recently-departed fundraising chief for Sen. Conrad Burns' (R-MT) re-election campaign with securities fraud, according to a press release.
State Auditor John Morrison says Pat Davison defrauded two families of $1.2 million. Morrison said Davison convinced them to withdraw the money from investment accounts so he could put them in "fake" investments, including a bond issue from a local school trust.
Officials from the school "confirmed that no such trust exists and they do not issue bonds," the release states. Morrison has referred the matter to the state attorney general for possible prosecution.
Burns named Davison his state finance director in January. According to Burns spokesman Jason Klindt, Davison left the campaign last month. "Pat Davison resigned on July 27th. He is not Burns’ finance chief," he said in a message. However, a search of the campaign's Web site turns up no press release announcing the departure, and a search of the Nexis database results in no articles mentioning the split.
If you want honesty and integrity in the political process (it's arguable whether or not Burns ever had it), throw some money at Jon Tester and help fund Conrad Burns' retirement party.
kencamp | August 25, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Down ballot races
We don’t want to neglect the down ballot contests. Good government requires good people at all levels. The contests are too many to catalog here, and as the saying goes, all politics is local.
CQ Politics highlights the following legislative battlegrounds that should be of interest to our readers:
Colorado (House and Senate). Democrats presently hold a 35-30 advantage in the House and an 18-17 lead in the Senate. They would like to expand those majorities in November and also install Democrat Bill Ritter as governor. Ritter, a former Denver district attorney, is polling well against Republican Rep. Bob Beauprez.Montana (House). The state House is split 50-50 (but has a Democratic Speaker because Montana law requires the Speaker to be of the same party as Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer).
Oregon (House). Democrats, who control the governorship and the Senate, are seeking to erase the GOP’s 33-27 majority in the House.
The article suggests that Democratic prospects are good for these and similar elections this November.
USA Today highlights the Secretary of State contests in Colorado, Nevada, California, and New Mexico, among others.
Winning at the local level is a precursor to winning nationally, but prosaic as it may be, the most important thing is to have good people in public offices--honest, hardworking, intelligent, and pragmatic people, men and women who can get things done for the common good. Of course, since the Secretary of State counts the votes, honesty and fairness are paramount qualifications for that position. The Secretary of State, governor, and the legislature can assure that we have clean elections with a verifiable paper trail, or, if the offices fall into the wrong hands, they can corrupt the very foundations of democracy.
Leo Brown | August 24, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Western Dems Net 3 Governors in Top 10
Survey USA released its polling numbers for all 50 Governors earlier in the week, and those of us here at Western Democrat were not surprised to see 3 of our favorite governors in the top 10.
Climbing the ranks to #2 was Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana, with a 76%/18% (approve/disapprove) rating. Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming came in at #8, with a 66%/27% rating. Finally, cracking the top 10 at #10 was Governor Bill Richardson, chair of the Democratic Governors' Association, with a rating of 65%/32%.
An added bonus this week was Alaska's Republican governor finishing third in a primary, hopefully leaving such a putrid legacy that former Governor Tony Knowles will be able to reclaim his seat.
kencamp | August 24, 2006 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Gas and Property Rights and fishermen
Now here's an interesting mix of issues. On one side you have the current gas and oil boom across the west that is pitting not only ranchers and small property owners against big Oil and Gas, their state governments and the BLM, but also (as pointed out here by the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel), hunters and anglers (thanks Coyote Gulch).
On the other side, you have a somewhat under the radar, astro-turf, sagebrush rebellion sweeping the West with five eminent domain initiatives.
One of the key pieces to the entire Western Democrat theme is the connection of the bullets and bait folks to the Democratic Party. Once they feel that we have their interests in heart (like protecting stream access in Montana for Schweitzer), they'll forget about voting for a Republican.
Anyway, here is a good part of the Daily Sentinal piece, leaves you thinking how to bring the bullets and bait crowd into the property rights fight:
Alliances among groups who once considered themselves at odds with popular environmentalism are occurring throughout the West, and they’re being noticed by politicians, chief among whom are Colorado’s gubernatorial candidates.“It feels like a natural alliance, a coming-together of common interests to fight forces that are threatening our outdoors,” said Evan Dreyer, spokesman for Democrat Bill Ritter’s gubernatorial campaign. “I think that for a very long time, this was something that was fought on the fringes, the environmentalists on the far left and the hunters’ groups on the far right. I think there is an agreement that they can be more effective by coming together and finding that middle ground.”
Emmett O'Connell | August 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Burned
The news is all over, but I might as well post it here. The story of how Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) blasted firefighters and had to eat his words is in the local press here and here, dailykos, huffpost, CBS, even Fox and Drudge. Also here and here at Left in the West.
Our man in the Senate race with Burns, Jon Tester, praised the firefighters without mentioning Burns.
Leo Brown | August 1, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Mayor Hickenlooper asks Western governors to raise money for Denver DNC Convention
The Denver Post reports today that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has started raising money so that the city can host the 2008 Democratic Convention without using taxpayer dollars.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is asking governors of four other Western states to raise millions of dollars to bring the Democratic National Convention to Denver. .."What I said to John (Hickenlooper) is, 'Giddy-up, I'm in,"' Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said. "It's high time that Democrats across America see the kind of Democrats that we have in the West." ...
He told City Council members Tuesday that he has spoken to the governors of Arizona, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming and hopes to bring them to Denver next month.
"This is not just about Denver," Hickenlooper told council members. "It's really about Colorado, and it's actually about the Rocky Mountain West." ...
"It isn't just about fundraising for the convention. It's about a vision of a convention that represents not just Colorado but the entire Rocky Mountain West," [Hickenlooper spokeswoman Lindy Eichenbaum] Lent said. "It's a platform to build more collaborative dialogues and efforts among the Western states."
Here's the rest. Hat tip to Coyote Gulch.
Kari Chisholm | July 12, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Western Blogs: Flip Flopping Republicans, etc...
This is something I've been meaning to do for awhile, but there are tons of great blogs being written across the West. I read a good portion of them, and every once in awhile, I'll do a basic post like this linking to notable posts.
From Square State (Colorado): Both Ways Bob Beauprez takes a belly flop on a ballot initiative that would have given citizens greater access to local government:
So let's get this straight: Holtzman is in the primary, Both Ways supports Amendment 38. Holtzman drops out, Both Ways is against it.
Left in the West (Montana): What if Tester-like style, not just Tester, Western Democratic politics, made it back east?
And, Spidelblog (Arizona): The Democratic Arizona AG takes on Walmart.