| Less government, but lots of guns.
No abortion and homosexuals.
Starve public education and then drown its emaciated form in the bathtub.
God should be acknowledged everywhere, all the time.
(Tolerance, you ask? Perhaps the good thing about a political party with all of the answers is that it saves you the trouble of having to think and pose questions.)
Lower taxes, but feed the war machine.
Less is better, except when it comes to the wealthy and astronomical profits of unregulated business.
They extol Reagan and seemingly yearn to return to the days of Coolidge and Hoover. "The business of government is business."
The urgency associated with health care reform is to urge sick people to go to an emergency room.
Two parents (married and opposite sex, of course) in every household.
Climate change? Sunspot activity.
Judges should dispense justice, not invent it. (Although the 'right' kind of judicial activism is acceptable.)
Labor unions are bad.
At least one car, no matter what the EPA mpg rating, in every garage.
It's easy to understand why an aspiring politico in Montana might want to be a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). The health care, climate change, financial institution and labor law reform debates provide a medium for them to shine.
Some observers suggest that Max Baucus is a DINO. Based on recent events (public option; tax health care benefits), yeah, probably. Based on the total body of his work though, more likely not. He's been around forever and has cast thousands of votes. You pick and choose and decide.
But, whatever he has done, it's worked. Until his recent votes on public option in particular, he appeared invincible. And, was. Remember, he's not up until 2014. That's five years. As one for run scared in better times, Max and his staff have shifted the fundraising juggernaut into full gear.
The legislature has its DINOS: aka - Blue Dogs: McChesney; Getz; Mehlhoff. The first two come from red country. Mehlhoff doesn't.
Not many dare to be a RINO. Look around. There ain't many of 'em.
Those who do cannot survive the rigors of the natural selection process, a sort of political cleansing. Montana R's excel at keeping the party RINO free. They are abundantly confident they can take out misfits and still hold the seat no matter who the D's run.
Self-anointed gods, like Roger Koopman, select the targets, affixes the crosshairs and a willing electorate delivers the killing shot.
There's a long history.
Stories of right-wing whackos bullying moderates in the R legislative caucuses are abundant: John Bohlinger; Sam Kitzenberg. In 2004, it sent legions of regressives to Glasgow to campaign against Sam, a decent, moderate R. He won the primary anyway, returned to Helena and then withstood unrelenting insults and threats during the 2005 legislature from his leadership. For some reason, the R's were shocked when he changed parties after the 2006 election. (No matter how ugly the tactics, it worked. John Brendan, a right-winger, won the seat for the R's in 2008.)
In 2006, it was Mark Noenig and Bernie Olsen, each a moderate incumbent who was knocked out in an R primary.
In 2008, it was Carol Lambert, Bruce Malcolm and John Ward.
And, their replacements? In each case, certifiably regressive.
In 2010? Some suggest Dave Lewis, but who would want to run in a primary in a district that stretches from Ryegate to Deer Lodge? And, against an incumbent who has already raised a ton of money?
John Brueggeman is another R on some target lists; but, he is not up for election in 2010 and, then, is termed. Dennis Himmelberger, who led the quiet riot in the R House caucus in the 2009 session, is termed.
You pick the others and pay attention.
Regardless, these legislators are/were marginally progressive at best. Their voting records would not rank very them high as progressives on social and environmental issues. On fiscal and tax proposals, they largely followed the leadership.
Some bucked the R line at inappropriate times. In some cases, they worked with the other side (read D's) or espoused moderation and later paid for it.
Their selection as targets stems from a failing on their parts to unquestioningly follow the cult-like personalities of the R "leaders," clearly right-wing fringe lawmakers, some elected as leaders, others not: McGee, Balyeat, Barkus, Sales, McGillvray.
Then, there is Bill Nooney, the master straddler. Armed with a hard R (stands for regressive) voting record, he beams a straight face, publicly proclaims to be a moderate and somehow survives deep in the heart of the Peoples Republic.
The R's don't couch their behavior in high falutin' rhetoric. They're very frontal and visceral: If you don't fit, you're out.
If the D's are concerned about DINO's, they tend to suffer quietly and never take on an incumbent publicly. After all, they might lose the seat. This behavior, while laudable at one level, tends enable regression with the D ranks and give the R's the votes they need on critical votes and produce a regressive image to the legislature.
To its credit, the Montana R's manage themselves in the same way that Bush II conducted foreign policy: mean-spirited, simplistically and aggressively.
If you want to close down abortion clinics, hound gays and lesbians, close the borders to immigrants, eviscerate programs for the needy, keep it simple.
You don't even have to pay attention to get it. |
