First, as the word early in the campaign claimed -- that the Republican party would be working hard to win this race -- has come to pass. The state GOP has sunk $388K into Tim Fox.
But to what avail?
The Billings Gazetteendorsed Steve Bullock, largely on the "depth and breadth" of his experience. Also, Bullock's campaign was about his "vision" for the office:
Bullock's campaign to date has focused on a broader vision of the attorney general's job. He wants to beef up law enforcement resources for preventing Internet crimes. He supports enforcing Montana's seat belt law as a "primary" offense, just like any other traffic law. He wants to ensure that all felony DUI offenders get effective treatment and favors intervening before the fourth offense - the point at which Montana law now mandates treatment. Bullock said he wants to expand the attorney general's efforts to protect Montana consumers, particularly in preventing fraud against senior citizens.
The Gazette noted, as has been noted here numerous times, Tim Fox' campaign seems to solely centered on "sex offenders who prey on children." And it's not like Bullock promises to go soft on child molesters.
The Great Falls Tribuneendorsed Steve Bullock, also on Bullock's experience. Additionally, the GFT was turned off by Fox' negative campaigning:
We're inclined toward Bullock based on his background, his positions on a few issues and on some of Fox's advertising claims, parts of which are misleading and play the xenophobe card a little too coyly.
On that last point, we'd say only that we don't view spending six years of a 15-year career practicing law back East as a detriment for a Montana native who also worked as a private attorney in Montana and as an assistant attorney general under Joe Mazurek.
To the contrary, it gives Bullock a broader experience that should serve Montanans well as attorney general.
And if we can make a side point here: We're growing tired of the you're-not-from-Montana-unless-you-were-born-here-and-never-left attacks in politics. Not only is Bullock from Montana, but he has worked here most of his life.
The implication in other ads that Bullock might be soft on sex crimes or on gun rights also are misleading.
Who said negative campaigning doesn't have consequences? And I've argued this before, Tim Fox had an opportunity to discuss law-enforcement issues and philosophy, something Bullock was eager to do. Such a campaign would have benefitted everybody in the state, liberals and conservatives alike. Instead we were treated to a dog-and-pony show that didn't tell us anything about Tom Fox' views on the law.
Sure the MSU-B poll showed a Bullock lead in this campaign, but it also showed Obama with a 4-point edge, when Montana's stalwart pollster, Mason-Dixon, had McCain by 4. One thing's for certain in this race: it'll be decided at the ballot box, and the Montana GOP is throwing everything they've got at Steve Bullock, including that %$#!@ ad that uses this blog as a source for false information...
Yesterday, the Helena IRendorsed Steve Bullock for state attorney general. It came down to two things: experience, and Fox' campaign tactics:
That's why we're endorsing Bullock, a candidate who has represented the people of Montana before the Montana Supreme Court about three times as often as his opponent, has handled a great variety of legal issues for the Justice Department and in private practice, and has prepared attorney general's opinions that have the force of law unless overturned by the courts.
We also were disappointed to see that a recent television ad for Fox, who had told us he wouldn't run a partisan campaign for what is essentially a nonpartisan office. The ad was worded in such a way as to falsely imply that Bullock was from out of state, did not back Second Amendment right, and is against the death penalty.
Heck, Fox' general election campaign has been a joke, a two-note tuba blurting "kiddie sex" and "guns" at anyone who can bear listening. The television ad was just Fox' campaign made manifest.
Incidentally, Bullock's second ad went right after Fox:
I have to say, the Democratic primary for this race was fantastic. It was a good, clean race with three qualified and worthy candidates discussing issues, experience, and ideas. It's a shame that spirit of debate couldn't translate to the general election, where Tim Fox polluted the political debate with a campaign alternating between lying and preying on voters' fears.
Only Steve Bullock has bothered to explain himself, his background, and his vision for the office, if elected. And only Bullock should be getting your vote.
D*mn it. Matt beat me by about 5 minutes posting about the Gazette article on Tim Fox' attack ad on Steve Bullock using our blog as a source. Ugh.
The ad is posted below the fold.
Anyhow, in the piece, the state GOP's Bridger Pierce justified the claim saying Bullock's interview showed Bullock has a "personal and moral problem with the death penalty."
Way to go, Pierce. Take a thoughtful reply about a serious and complex issue, bend it out of proportion, misconstrue it, and then use it in an attack ad. And quote this blog as your source. What's with state party staffers recently? Is there something in the water? Or is the organization taking its lead from the top?
During the primary season, I remember hearing Steve Bullock talk multiple times about the death penalty and generally sounding like someone who is OK with the death penalty in theory, occasionally has problems with it in practice, and gets nervous talking about it in a state with a pretty vocal abolition movement.
How did I spot that? Well, I fall in basically the same place.
How much did I think about this? Not a ton -- in large measure because as Bullock has emphasized repeatedly, the Attorney General is not a legislative actor, but an executive one. The AG manages an operation of limited resources to focus on different priorities. And Bullock has always been pretty clear that his interest is in managing the state's legal operation, not being a mini-Governor using the bully pulpit of the office to try to convince the legislature to act on his agenda.
Because of that -- and because of a thoughtful, nuanced interview he gave to Jay here at Left in the West -- he is being attacked in a dishonest ad. Jennifer McKee nicely summarizes just how dishonest it is:
Among other things, the ad claims Bullock, also a Helena lawyer, is "against the death penalty."
Bullock has been repeatedly quoted on the radio and in Montana newspapers as saying he supports the death penalty and would support it as attorney general.
In documentation supporting the ad, the GOP cites an interview Bullock gave with the blog, Left in the West. There, Bullock said several times that as attorney general he would support the law.
So where does the GOP argument come from? From stuff like this:
He also said that if anyone hurt his daughter he "would want to kill them but I'm not sure the state should." Elsewhere in the interview, Bullock said he would be neither surprised nor disappointed if the death penalty were overturned.
Hell, I'm in favor of the death penalty, just like Bullock, but I'd also be neither surprised nor disappointed if it was repealed.
Questions of life and death and the state are complicated. They can be complicated legally and are inevitably complicated morally. That's why a bunch of progressives are upset with John McCain's dismissiveness of a mother's health as a justification for late-term abortions. And that's why a lot of us who favor the death penalty in theory also wouldn't be super upset if the penalty went away.
In fact, I think it says a lot more about the Republican Party that they'd be so flippant about taking someone's life than it does about Bullock that he appreciates the import of that decision.
Sadly, though, despite pretty clear evidence that the Republicans aren't just distorting, but that they are outright lying, Montana media stations have yet to pull the ad. It's high-time they do so.
So both Steve Bullock and Tim Fox debuted new commercials. They're about what you'd expect: Bullock offers a positive message about himself, his record, and what he'd do as State Attorney General; Tim Fox talks guns and pederasts.
The interesting thing? Jennifer McKee did an analysis of the candidate's ads to parse the rhetoric and report on who's fibbing in their statements to Montana voters. Again, it's about what you'd expect: Bullock is straight up; Fox lies his *ss off:
"The assertion that Bullock doesn't think it's the 'attorney general's job to protect our gun rights' is misleading....
Both Bullock and Fox have come out strongly in favor of gun rights. In July, Fox released an 18-point plan outlining his stance on guns and challenging Bullock to respond. Bullock responded with a letter to Fox saying he agreed entirely with 13 of the points, found a few of Fox's points confusing and concluded that two of the points involved powers the attorney general does not have.
Bullock has never said he doesn't think it's the attorney general's job to protect gun rights, although he did state in his letter to Fox that most of Fox's proposals involved new laws and that the attorney general has no power to enact laws, only to lobby the Legislature.
The ad's statement that Bullock "opposes new laws to crack down on sexual predators" may be technically true, but is misleading in that it doesn't mention that Bullock, like Fox, has presented plans to protect children from predators.
In Bullock's plan, he says Montana doesn't need "new laws," but better ways of enforcing the ones already on the books....
Given that both men have these plans, the ad's statement that only Fox will "crack down on sex predators" is incorrect.
It kind of reminds you a little of the presidential campaign, where McCain -- apparently bankrupt for ideas -- substitutes low-road smear tactics for policy or issue debate. And in this race, Fox also substitutes good, relevant policy with lurid tales of child molestation and stokes fears for our guns.
Is this all you got, Tim? I mean, I'd love to write about this race, but only one man is actually campaigning, talking issues, and mulling the office. Seriously, this was supposed to be a marquee race, but frankly, I found even Conrad Burns' 2006 Senate campaign to be more substantive, and that's not saying a whole lot. This is an opportunity to discuss differing philosophies on the death penalty, drug policy, the use of the land board, the whole kebang. Instead, we got Tim Fox the carnival barker trying to lure us into the sideshow.
Okay, so, yes, the big news from last night was the gubernatorial debate. But what you may have missed was that the two Attorney General candidates -- Steve Bullock and Tim Fox -- had a little debate, too.
Fox, who's running on a campaign of guns and sex predators, went down his usual path and accused current AG Mike McGrath of not posting pictures of sex offenders on the state's website. "Sixty percent of the photographs are missing," Fox said. "That's something I want to fix."
Only...
Contacted by The Gazette to clarify the number of photos missing, the Department of Justice said of the 1,767 sex offenders listed on its Web site, four didn't have photographs.
Oops! Red alert! That's 0.2 percent not 60!
Caught in an "indiscretion," Fox later blustered his way around his...er, misstatement.
"It's obviously good news that the Department of Justice got that done, and I'm sorry it took the current attorney general eight years to get the photographs on the registry," Fox said later in the day. "On my watch, we won't let this kind of negligence occur."
Fox claims that his campaign staffers counted up the missing pics at the beginning of the year, and found 228 registries without photos. First, if that number is accurate, that's just under 13 percent of registries missing photos, not 60. Second...I dunno, folks. Fox hasn't showed himself to be trustworthy. How do we know he didn't pull the "228" out of his *ss?
Looks like Fox is following the lead of his party's presidential candidate and making sh*t up on the fly. I guess that's what you do if you don't have the qualifications or ideas that befit the office.
Oh, and you can drop a coin into Bullock's coffers while you're at it.
Montana Headlines gives us a glimpse at the type of politicking to expect out of Republicans this year - meaningless wedge issues intended to distract us away from serious problems. Gun control!
Yes, you, like I, assumed the recent SCOTUS decision on the DC gun ban has made this topic somewhat pointless - not that it's ever been relevant with any Montana Democrat candidate I know - but classy Tim Fox has added gun control to his other issue, sexual predators:
"Obama could be the next president of the United States, and he's way to the left of the mainstream on gun rights," the Republican, Tim Fox, said in a press release. "It should raise questions in all Montanans' minds about where, specifically, the candidates for attorney general stand on various aspects of their Second Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. It's important that Montana voters know what their candidates believe. I strongly believe in gun rights, and I call on Mr. Bullock to come out of the shadows and finally announce his position."
The irony here is that's Tim Fox who's spent his days in the "shadows," as it were. Who is he? What does he believe? He's offered voters nothing so far. Besides fear, divisiveness, and partisan rancor, I mean.
And you wonder why some folks are turned off by politics.
But that's the idea isn't it? Chasin' away the good folks from the polls...
Montana Attorney General Candidate Tim Fox says that Democratic operatives have used illegal and deceptive campaign practices.
Fox says voters have received automatic-dial messages that tout his opponent Lee Bruner in the primary.
Fox believes Democrats look at him as a stronger candidate, and want Bruner as the Republican nominee to make it easier to win in November. Fox says that the auto messages are illegal for campaigns in Montana.
Finally, Fox said, he would try to strike laws that don't work or are unenforceable, like the current law banning automated phone calls by political candidates. That law is routinely broken by candidates from both parties; violators often say the law is unconstitutional and little, if anything is ever done to enforce the law.
"Rather than having statutes being ignored," Fox said, "we should do something about it. We should either fix it or make it so it is no longer on the books."
Geez, between Rehberg and Fox, we could make a series out of "Then and Now" posts!
The State AG race is the hardest to pick. I would be gleeful to any one of them in the office next year. In my interviews with each, all of them were courteous to me -- a blogger hack -- and passionate about the law, the AG's office, and doing the best for Montana.
I've been wrestling whether I should even bother to endorse this race, for those reasons. Let people draw their own conclusions from the data that I have. But Mike Wheat and John Parker have been getting a lot of endorsements from, bothhere and from respected sources, and I thought I would pitch in my two cents' worth for the candidate I'm planning on voting for, Steve Bullock.
First, Steve's an excellent campaigner. He's raised a ton of cash. Of the three, he's done the best this race. Again, these are political positions, and we need to win the general. Republicans -- and their corporate handlers -- are desperate to win a majority on the State Land Board; there's going to be a lot of big money thrown at this race from industry's backers, we need our best campaigner in the field.
Second, both Mike Wheat and John Parker are running as lawyers, talking up their courtroom abilities. The fact is, the AG's role is an administrative one. Bullock's got the experience of working in the office already (and the endorsement of former AG, Joe Mazurek, who's Bullock's treasurer. And he's the only one who addressed creative ways for funding new mandates out of his office.
That's the thing for me, Bullock's vision for the AG office is more...well...visionary.
Take his plans for consumer protection. For Wheat and Parker, consumer protection largely meant protecting seniors from Internet and telemarketing scams -- yes, desperately needed -- but only Bullock included trust busting and protecting the consumers of health care, as well. To me, that shows that Bullock has a greater view of what a consumer is, and how an inequitable market affects not just seniors, but folks of all ages and income brackets, as well as small businesses, too.
Bullock's efforts for Raise Montana, stream access, unions, and affordable energy for seniors points to an earnest progressive belief system behind the man. While Ochenski supported Wheat largely on the strength of his feelings against the death penalty, it's important to note that only Bullock was the only candidate to propose any solutions -- the creation of a Helena-based capital sentence review team -- to possible local prejudices against defendants, ensuring a fairer enactment of that punishment.
And that's ultimately what kind of person I'd like to see fill the office of the State Attorney General and why I'm voting for Steve Bullock.
(A Mike Wheat supporter threw down the gauntlet and now a Bullock backer responds. One of Parker's peeps have his back? - promoted by Matt Singer)
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 man for the job.
Here's an interview I had with Montana state attorney general candidate, and Democrat, Steve Bullock.
This is a fly-by-night, seat-of-my-pants operation here, so keep that in mind when you listen to the sound quality of the interview, which takes place on the front lawn of the county courthouse. Many thanks to Steve Bullock for talking to me and agreeing to post this on LiTW.
For more information, check out Steve's website, and if you're so moved, you can help him out at his ActBlue page.
More interviews are coming, including one with Mike Wheat, which I should have up by tommorrow.
