How will A.G. candidates beat Tim Fox???

Lynn... (0.00 / 0)

.. are you Mike Wheat? I seem to remember something similar in the opening lines of your commercial: "But Mike Wheat has spent his life in Montana representing individuals...people who have been harmed by another individual, by an employer, or by a corporation.  And because of this, I have full confidence that he will represent and protect all Montanans against those interests who may not have our own best interest at heart."  

All joking and rhetorical similarities aside, I think you bring up a valid point about considering who is best poised to win in the fall. That said, barely winning a state senate seat against a republican doesn't mean you're going to win a statewide race. And pretending that Jon Tester has endorsed you won't help you with Tim Fox's crowd in the general.

I really hate these politics where a candidate gets smeared for having lived out of state or working for a big law firm. Lots of political figures, from Eliot Spitzer to the founder of the Oregon Bus Project, Forward Montana's sister organization in Oregon, have worked at big corporate law firms. Does this threaten their viability as candidates? I should hope not.

If we're worried about employment credentials, we should look to Mike Lange's employment by Exxon - not litigation records at firms whose websites have an indexing of different industries.

Mike Wheat is a good Democrat, but he's not the only Democrat running, and not the only Democrat that will win. Parker and Bullock have both demonstrated their ability to raise healthy amounts of campaign money (Parker in state, Bullock out of state), and both have some statewide support drawing from their political experiences - Bullock with Raise Montana and Parker with his role as House Democratic Leader (which has given him deep ties to legislators and organizations throughout the state).

At the end of the day I break for Parker. He's got the most experience as a prosecutor and crime-fighter, by far, and that will matter in the general. He's got the support of Democratic and progressive circles throughout the state, and with his endorsement by a large chunk of the legislature, he can capitalize on their existing grassroots organizing efforts, both in the primary and the general. And, on a more personal note, it really encourages me to see a new generation of Montana leaders take shape. JP is a formative part of that new generation, and I think it fits with the values of our 1972 constitution to have younger candidates running for high profile seats. The writers of that document, along with another young candidate from the 1970s, Max Sieben Baucus, I think would be proud.

---

by: Rafiki @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 20:36:24 PM UTC

Eliot Spitzer? (0.00 / 0)

Seriously, you couldn't have thought of a better person for the point you were trying to make?

---

by: jhwygirl @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't go there. (0.00 / 0)

Do not - repeat - do not get in a 'who is more moral with their clients' debate with Bullock. (he represents unions - led the RaiseMontana push - etc.)

And don't hold up Wheat's record of making an extremely nice nest-egg as 'representing individuals'.  He more often than not represents Plaintiffs, but he's a trial attorney, and he's represented businesses in less-than-progressive positions for years.  I know, and you know, that a client's position is not that of their attorneys, but really, you do not want to wade into that debate on Mike's behalf.

Bullock is poised to spend the prime earning years of his professional life representing Montana.  Parker gives his law degree a workout every day in the public sector.

Wheat is a wealthy trial attorney who is nabbing a random photo with Sen. Tester and trying to make folks think he's endorsing him.  

"Natural Resources representation really bothers me."  Really?  Move somewhere else other than Montana, then, NIMBY.  And while you pack, have a conversation with Bullock, and discover that his position on environmental protection is spotless.

How will the other Democrats beat Tim Fox?  By the sort of above-board campaigning that is making Montana love them, that's how.  Tim Fox is smarmy, and Tim Fox will remain smarmy after the primary.  If Steve Bullock wins, I know Parker will be the first to stand up in support of him.  If Parker wins, Bullock will do the same.

I've known Wheat for longer than you have, sister, and believe me, he's quite warm and personable when he's being watched.  In my opinion, one's character comes through when you think you're not being watched.

---

by: Blue.Byooshian @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 22:00:54 PM UTC

Chill out. (4.00 / 1)

I think your best move, bar none, is to quit telling other people what they can and cannot do.  And can it with the sexist diminuatives.  Lynn ain't your 'sister', and none of us have reason to 'believe' you when you aggressively slam her as such.  I think we're all trying to be friendlies here, right?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 22:11:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hypocrite, much? (1.00 / 1)

"quit telling other people what they can and cannot do"

"Chill out"

"Can it"

And how do you know I'm not female?  Take a look in the mirror when you accuse others of being sexist.

I don't consider it 'friendly' when someone misrepresents a candidate to the point of vilifying someone's professional past.  

But thanks for the scolding and hand-slap, oh watcher of all things decent on the net.  I've seen some of the vitriol you've spewed, and you're hardly a model.

---

by: Blue.Byooshian @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 22:16:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bit touchy, ain'tcha? (0.00 / 0)

And how do you know I'm not female?

Did I say anything referencing your gender?  Hmmm, no I didn't.  You sure as the frack did, though.  So do tell, are you female, and should anybody give a shit either way?

There's a significant difference between telling someone to "chill out" and demanding of someone "DON"T GO THERE".  The good part is this:  you've encouraged me to go there.  I'm starting to take a good look at where these guys get their money, and things aren't so pretty for Mr. Bullock, are they?  I'm sure I'll be posting about it later.

As for the personal attacks, let's just say that some people deserve the vitriol, like the Republicants I spew mine on.  Lynn didn't.  I didn't.  But you're just begging for it, aren't you?   Are you a Republicant hoping for an easy victory?  Is that your problem?  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 22:48:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The flailing is funny... (0.00 / 0)

...no.  No Repub here.  And I am far from beholden to you to trot out my credentials to speak credibly on the candidates.

Simply because I disagree with you and Lynn does not make me non-Dem.  

(and why is it when I advise, it's 'demanding', and when you advise, it's 'just telling'?  An example, I would assume, of mis-read tone given that volume and inflection are lacking in the typed word.)

I warned Lynn not to attack Bullock's clients, as the fella she's stumping for has a few skeletons in his closet.  I consider that far from an attack. I've posted before about why Wheat is not the guy for me, and I consider personal interactions with a candidate very fair game for decision making.  If I want to persuade others based upon my personal experience, how does that make me different than anyone else bobbing around on this net?

"If Steve Bullock wins, I know Parker will be the first to stand up in support of him.  If Parker wins, Bullock will do the same."  That to me says party unity - something I'm all about.  So far, from Wheat's mouth and from the fingers of his supporters, most of his campaign is to say how poorly his opponents would perform in the general.  If that's not negativity, what is?

Dig away - I couldn't care less - but I would encourage you to also dig into some of the claims that Wheat has made, some of the bills he's opposed, and some of the friends he's claiming.  

Peace, brother (said in the we-are-all-in-this-together tone and not the gender-angst tone, for clarification)

---

by: Blue.Byooshian @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 23:14:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The really funny part is this: (0.00 / 0)

And I am far from beholden to you to trot out my credentials to speak credibly on the candidates.

You imagine your own credibility.  You have none beyond your words on this website.  You are not beholden to me, or anyone else.  Yet you blatantly demand that others are.  That's kind of sad, really.

Simply because I disagree with you and Lynn does not make me non-Dem.

 

You have no idea whether or not you disagree with me, because I've never stated a preference for the AG.  You simply assumed.  That makes an 'ass' out of you and 'umed'.  You don't like Wheat?  Fair enough. You derided another for not being privy to your 'special knowledge'.  That pissed me off.  What I think?  None of your faruking business, until you ask it or I post it.

the fella she's stumping for has a few skeletons in his closet.  I consider that far from an attack.

Kinda an idiot, ain't ya'?  Of course its a fracking attack.  Have the nads to stand up for your view, and quit weakly chiding others for having the courage you don't possess.  You're engaging in Repulithink.  Please don't do that.

Dig away - I couldn't care less - but I would encourage you to also dig into some of the claims that Wheat has made, some of the bills he's opposed, and some of the friends he's claiming.

 

Now see, that would be something worth posting a diary about.  But as long as you feel fit to attack those willing to support their choice, while not supporting your own, I'm among several who will have a hard time accepting your pronouncements as worthy.

And yes, the onus for making "peace" is on you, not me.  I didn't attack your person.  I critiqued your behavior (The Horror!)  You responded with BS.  I don't tend to take that lightly.  Perhaps you'll argue why I should.  Or ... you could just recognize that you went over the line.  The choice is yours.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 23:55:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Take your own advice (0.00 / 0)

Chill a bit.

You're hurling insults, and turning this ad hominem.  I really don't think you need to be all that nasty about things.  Have a pint on me - if a pint's to your liking.

"Now see, that would be something worth posting a diary about."

Nah - I'm going to use that time to actually change some undecided minds, to work for some good progressives campaigning, and to knock some doors for a few candidates and causes in which I believe.  

Just because one can does not mean one should, my ma always said.

You're making it out to seem like I'm going all batshit crazy calling people idiots and whatnot.  Not my style.  I'm simply pointing out a few glaring errors in logic and tactic.  Ain't no thing but a chicken wing, friend.

---

by: Blue.Byooshian @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 00:14:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

to be fair... (0.00 / 0)

...this is the second time Lynn has hinted that Bullock's funding would compromise him as AG, yet, as MinerWidow reminded us in another post, all three candidates have ties and endorsements to labor, and he was prominently involved in the recent minimum wage increase.

That said, I think it's fair to scrutinize the money of all the candidates. Did anyone check Wheat's and Parker's funding and clients, etc & co?

As far as I can tell, tho', none of the Dems have gone so far as Brunner, and said they'd use their office to protect their clients...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 23:27:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I HAVE NO TIME! (0.00 / 0)

Shakes fist futily

I am looking into the funding of the AG candidates, but I want to be as fair as possible.  It might take a while.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 23:59:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True that... (0.00 / 0)

...Bruner is a pill to be reckoned with.  It's just nutty the reasons he's running - nutty.

---

by: Blue.Byooshian @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 00:15:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So he's a pretty nice guy too and (0.00 / 0)

Of the three Democratic candidates for attorney general, Steve Bullock is not only the best one for the job, but offers the best chance for the Dems to hold onto this vital office and seat on the land board.

Steve has four years in the AG office under Joe Mazurek, where he defended Montana's stream access laws, served as the Legislative Director, and came to understand the structure and dynamics of the agency. That kind of experience, combined with his years in private practice taking on such clients as AARP, labor unions, peace officers and consumer groups, makes Steve the man I want out in front representing the people of the state of Montana.

How will he beat the Republican nominee - presumably Tim Fox? To start with, Steve took his passion for the working people of the state and led the Raise Montana campaign in 2006 which earned 73% of the vote. Not only do folks respect him for taking that on, but it shows he can build a broad coalition of support in Montana. He's proven he can raise the money that it will take to win in November. Also, the progressive 21st Century Democrats endorsed Steve, committing a team of organizers, training, and resources when he wins the primary.

From the top of the ticket this year on down, the grassroots are mobilizing - especially younger voters. Steve is just the candidate to attract this crowd and get them excited about an office that is extremely important, even though it's labeled as second tier. He's young and relates well to those voters, and, from personal experience, they like what he has to say about the office. He has said many times throughout this race that there is great potential for the AG not only to protect the citizens of the state from criminals, but also to be an advocate for consumer rights, promoter of internet safety, and protector of Montana's natural beauty and heritage.

Steve is an incredibly friendly and charismatic guy and he has a history of public service and a commitment to Montana. He's my choice to win this primary, not only because he has the best shot in November, but also because he's the best person for the job.

---

by: natedogchunkystyle @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:38:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Three good candidates (0.00 / 0)

I totally disagree with you electability argument. First, while Wheat did win in a tough district, the fact Wells is batshit insane played a critical role in Wheat's victory. Second, Parker's record as a prosecutor easily trumps the baggage both other candidates face with what they've done with their law degrees. Third, I still remember the look in Parker's eyes the night he lost the primary in '98 -- I trust he will work his ass off to ensure he's not in that situation again. Fourth, this is the perfect year for a former College Dem president to run.

For these reasons and many more, John Parker is the best candidate to win in November. He will make us proud.  

---

by: Headwaters @ Mon May 12, 2008 at 23:39:53 PM UTC

Wow.. (4.00 / 1)

...it can be a cold, cruel world here at LITW.  Tomorrow night there is an AG candidate forum in Missoula.  While I appreciate you do not all live in Missoula, I would be happy to spend some time afterwards discussing who/what Steptoe is, what work I did while I was there, what work I did not do while I was there, why I was there in the first place, and what decisions I made when I left.  I would also be happy to discuss any other matters I have worked on as a lawyer.  Finally, we can also talk about contributors, specifically or as a group.  Thanks for your interest in the race.  

---

by: Steve Bullock @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 00:37:05 AM UTC

I also wrote a Diary... (0.00 / 0)

...explaining why I think Steve Bullock is the most electable Democrat for Attorney General, which I posted above, but I believe in all fairness it should be made into it's own Topic like Wheat got his own, that decision is up to the LiTW gods and admins though...

---

by: natedogchunkystyle @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:48:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

dang (0.00 / 0)

I'm just glad other people are writing diaries for a change...

: )

Seriously, thanks for the post.

Now if only we can find a pro-Parker poster.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]