Dem primary is about new energy vs. old ideas

by: John_Firehammer

Wed May 12, 2010 at 12:47:10 PM MST

Democrats have a stark choice in the June 8 primary. While one candidate has articulated a clear path toward the future by advocating the development of clean, sustainable energy, another has no new ideas.

Tyler Gernant believes Montana has the potential to be a leader in the development of wind, solar and bio-fuel energy. This will bring billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs to the state.

His opponent, Dennis McDonald, on the other hand, is beholden to coal -- to the extent that he actually advocates the construction of a coal-fed generating plant at Montana's Otter Creek.

It doesn't seem to matter to McDonald that area ranchers oppose and fear coal development at Otter Creek, or that more coal is not the answer to Montana's energy and economic woes.

McDonald is firm in his support of this outmoded, short-term industry, while offering nothing in terms of policy that would move us away from our dependence on coal and foreign oil.

In short, McDonald is trapped in the past, while Tyler Gernant is poised to lead us into the future. The choice June 8 is one between new energy and old ideas.

You can hear McDonald detail his bad, backwards thoughts on energy policy here.

Rehberg's Latest Lie Totally Exposed

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue May 11, 2010 at 19:47:05 PM MST

"The staff members "were not working."

Rehberg's hack "doesn't believe it" because it is a blatant lie.  

Some friends of mine from DC were in town this weekend visiting, and over dinner we were talking about local politics.  Both friends had worked for members of Congress in years past--one for more than 10 years.  They found the recent story about Rehberg, the accident and the alcohol issues "absolutely mind-blowingly ludacris."  
 
They filled me in on what it means to work for a member of Congress and why Rehberg's actions then and now are indefensible.  
 
The part of the latest Rehberg story infuriated them the most was the claim that the staff "weren't on the clock."  They told me that when they were staffing their "member," they were always on the clock - and not just because they are salaried. It was their job to stick to her or him like glue, no matter the time, place or situation.  That's they whole reason they were hired.
 
They said it doesn't matter whether or not it was a "working dinner."  When a staffer is with the "member" - s/he is working.  Reporters are welcome to ask this of any congressional staffer anywhere.  Apparently, this is how it is in every state.  Period. End of story.

Second, Rehberg has a responsibility for his staff, he shouldn't put them in dangerous situations where they really can't walk away.  He obviously doesn't want to admit his staffers were obviously staffing him, because according to the Department of Labor: 

"Employers also have a general duty under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to provide their employees with work and a workplace free from recognized, serious hazards."

What kind of choice were those two staffers offered?  Get in the boat being driven by a drunk, or abandon the Congressman, embarrassing him in front of Barkus, and then figure out how to get back to Bigfork on foot?  Risk their jobs?

Rehberg put his staff in serious danger and he has never taken responsibility for it. Apparently, in no other state would Rehberg have been allowed to get away with this.  But here in Montana, when you combine Rehberg's absurd sense of big-fish-in-a-small-pond entitlement, with a compliant editorial corps that wants its reporters to function as stenographers rather than journalists, you get a big ol' liar and the merry band of liars with whom he's chosen to surround himself.

Gernant Makes Coal a Primary Issue Against McDonald

by: Matt Singer

Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:48:59 AM MST

At a recent candidate forum at the University of Montana, McDonald said unequivocally that he supports coal mining in Montana's Otter Creek area, stating "I have been very much in favor of developing all of our resources; coal should be a big part of it." Gernant responded, "I thought I was in a Democratic primary, but it sounds like I'm running against Sarah Palin.  McDonald is using the same rhetoric to describe his energy policy that Sarah Palin used to describe her backward-thinking ideas for America's energy future."

The sad state of the Democratic House primary

by: Jay Stevens

Mon May 03, 2010 at 13:17:37 PM MST

Yeah, McDonald looked unready for this race. But then that video was shot on October 26, 2009, and I suspect that was the first he had ever encountered that line of attack. If this happened today - after McDonald had his say on the matter - I'd say the candidate McDonald was cooked.

Thoughts:

For starters, hand it to the GOP. It's sticking. It's got to the point that even Democratic challengers are piggybacking on it. And it's got to be considered in the "electable" arguments that always rear up this time of the primary race.

For another, it's interesting that Rehberg et al went after McDonald so soon. They've been building this narrative for months. Not sure what that means. Maybe they saw him as the biggest threat. Maybe they just slammed him as soon as they got the idea.

And lastly, it's a sad state of affairs when this is the biggest story of the primary so far. In the next couple of days, I'll investigate the candidates and report back...hopefully we can do something more substantial before the primary, too.

Have to say - I'm completely undecided on this race.

Which reminds me: in the past, we've had advocates for primary candidates write posts here on Left in the West. This year is no different. If you want to write something up about McDonald, or Gopher, or Gernant - or about any primary candidate - sign in, write a diary, and I'll promote it. If you have questions or want me to look over your post before you submit it, email me...

The curious case of AJ Otjen

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:41:49 AM MST

Otjen is a Republican who doesn't talk about tax cuts. In fact, she said tax cuts don't work to jump-start the economy and increase revenues in the long term.

"We've got the data that proves that," she said.

She doesn't talk about abortion, except to say she doesn't think it should be illegal. She thinks the words like "faith and family" that many Republicans use to describe themselves ignore the fact that Democrats love their families, too, and they go to church.

She is running to give voice to those traditional Republicans who do not define themselves by wedge social issues, which might rally the party base but, she says, do little to take on the nation's larger problems.

"I would like to go back to the days when social issues did not dominate the Republican Party," she said.

Likewise on Otjen's website (subtitled, "A Teddy Roosevelt Republican"), her issues page demonstrates how she's different than your typical contemporary Montana Republican: Pro-education. An opponent of "the War on Terror." A fierce advocate of privacy, from the bedroom to boardroom. Against across-the-board tax cuts. A supporter of a Green Economy, but through tax credits and incentives. She supports a tax on high fructose corn syrup. And so on.

A Republican friend noted on Facebook the other day that "Otjen diverges from the GOP on more than social issues - she's for higher taxes, she voted for Obama (and is still a supporter) and supports the recent healthcare bill that passed."

But that's ignoring Otjen's real conservative values. She's a true deficit hawk - you can't erase a deficit by cutting taxes. She favors market solutions to problems - tax incentives and credits to businesses who embrace green tech and reduce carbon, as opposed to a carbon tax. On social issues, it's more accurate to classify her as libertarian than liberal. And supporting the recent health care bill hardly makes you a liberal - the bill, after all, was pretty much written by the Heritage Foundation. Open the insurance market to competition and provide subsidies to those that can't afford premiums. Even the individual mandate is a conservative invention. And if you've been reading this blog and its comments for any length of time, you'll know that supporting Obama doesn't necessarily tarnish your conservative credentials.

In short, Otjen's is what a Republican would look like if a Republican laid aside partisanship and applied pragmatic, conservative values to the very real problems afflicting the nation. The opposite of, say, Dennis Rehberg, who's achieved next to nothing in Congress other than riding along on the wave of GOP support for the worst excesses of the Bush administration: deficit, economic collapse, war, torture.

Otjen is a moderate. And if you think there really is such a thing as the "radical center" just waiting to burst out and shuck off the manacles of party politics, then she should be the leading candidate in this race. But that she's an afterthought in this race, no more highly regarded than, say, Mark French (who wants the US government to run on "Biblical principles" as defined by Mark French), tells us a lot about the current state of Republican politics, which not only lacks for real solutions to global warming, joblessness, and the health care crisis, but fails to even acknowledge those problems exist.

The Republican party has devolved from a political party with policy goals to a group of people clinging onto echo-chamber sound bites, like Titanic survivors to a life raft. And Otjen, who doesn't kow-tow to the rhetoric, will be tossed off into the sea.

New Poll: Montana House Democratic primary

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 14:01:05 PM MST

So, go to the poll! Who are you voting for in the 2010 House Democratic primary?

Fundraising Analysis of the 2010 Democratic Congressional Primary Race

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sat Apr 24, 2010 at 17:46:10 PM MST

Here are the most recent Democratic congressional candidate fundraising totals based on the FEC reports as of April 24, 2010:

Dennis McDonald (D) $139,261
Tyler Gernant (D)  $103,014
Sam Rankin (D)  $8,639
Melinda Gopher (D) $ 0

Of the candidates, the top recipient of in-state contributions was Dennis McDonald, while the top recipient of out-of-state cash was Tyler Gernant, according to Open Secrets.

They report that McDonald raised twice as much in-state money as Gernant. That's more money from actual constituents who will be represented by the winner of this contest, people who care the most about its outcome.

It says something that McDonald has more money, but where the money comes from also speaks volumes.  

Red-Ink Rehberg's Duplicity Will Catch Him in the End

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 17:24:02 PM MST

As a multi-millionaire with a penchant for spending money like a drunken sailor in his personal and political life, Rehberg has always tried to find his pretend "conservativeness" by appealing to the outer limits of the political stratosphere.  Since he can't claim to be a fiscal conservative,  the fight is now on between Denny Rehberg and his primary opponent as to who is more of a right-wing nut job.

The fight started when a Paultard pretending to be Democrat (Dane Clark) was spotted distributing literature in support of Mark French, the Republican candidate for Congress challenging incumbent Rep. Denny Rehberg.

The Flathead Beacon picked up the story. What they didn't write, is that last year he ran as a Repub in the primary against Bruce Tutvedt
and has served as a contact on the Paultard forum DailyPaul.com.   As to why he is out to dupe voters by running as Democrat, Clark is silent.  But the fact that a Paultard was campaigning against Rehberg caused Rehberg to get defensive.

All of a sudden I look like the moderate and that never happens," Rehberg said. "I feel a little uncomfortable."

Rehberg got so nervous someone wouldn't think he was a nut-job that he sought the endorsement of Doctor Paul himself. Rehberg tweeted they are "working together."

Only a complete dimwit like Dennis Rehberg would think it was a good idea to pander to these extremes, and far as I am concerned, abject lunatics to try to cover for his reckless spending in Congress.  

Even if they don't find out about his duplicity now, Rehberg will pay a price for it in the general election and when he runs for Governor in 2012--when he'll have to answer to the great center of the state.

MT-AL: Gopher kicks primary to life

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 07:10:39 AM MST

Gopher accused McDonald of manipulating "state party strategy to position himself for this race"; suggested that he, as chair of the state Democratic party "underfunded" 2008 Democratic House candidate John Driscoll; that, although unpopular with rank-and-file Democrats, is receiving the "lion's share" of donations because of his "skin color and gender"; and said he's "unelectable" because of the GOP narrative around his legal work in California.

For me, Gopher jumped the shark on this post. For starters, it showed gross ignorance about state politics - how can you accuse Dennis McDonald of orchestrating a 2010 run at the House by denying state party funds to 2008 House Democratic candidate, John Driscoll, when Driscoll refused to take any money for his campaign? Or refused to campaign, for that matter? (And Gopher isn't even sure if Driscoll was a Republican or Democrat in that race.) Driscoll's leisurely run at Rehberg's seat was one of the most irresponsible campaigns I've ever witnessed, a wasted opportunity at extricating a do-nothing regressive Republican from Montana's sole House seat - but all of the blame lies on Driscoll, none on McDonald.

Sure, McDonald may have positioned himself for this race - but that's how you win party nominations. Working for the rank-and-file wins you support from the rank-and-file...and their donations. Race and gender may have played a part in fund-raising, but Denise Juneau showed you can raise money and win contentious primaries if you do the work and you're a quality candidate.

Yes, Ms. Gopher, wouldn't it be great if ideas were the only currency in an election? But until that day, you still need to do the groundwork to raise money and win votes. Otherwise your beautiful ideas will have to shine on the sidelines.

Whatever. Here's Pete Talbot's lovely summation of the three House candidates:

So who gets the nod? The inspirational, refreshing and candid Ojibwe woman [Melinda Gopher] - who's underfunded and not well-connected (outside of tribal politics) and is a party outsider? The other new face - the policy-smart, well-organized and politically savvy candidate with a potentially great future in Montana Democratic politics (but has a less than passionate campaign thus far) [Tyler Gernant]? Or the established, out front, Montana rancher who is the best known and may have the best demographic appeal but, is also considered a party insider (and has received the most press, both positive and negative)? [Dennis McDonald]

Yup. That's pretty much it.

The Rehberg Fundraising Puzzle

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 12:17:37 PM MST

He filed for reelection long ago, and had about $700K in the bank leftover from his previous campaign. Since then,  has raised $816k and spent $706k.  Worse, in the last calendar year, he's spent virtually every nickel that he has raised.  For example, his quarterly FEC report, filed last week, shows that in the last quarter he raised 153K and spent 160K. That pattern extends back through the last several quarters.  The expenditures are highly gratuitous--huge payments to consultants and operatives and media firms and mail houses and research firms--totally out of line with normal campaign expenditures you'd expect at this point in a campaign, showing absolutely no effort whatsoever to conserve funds.

A new candidate with great fundraising prowess but a poor understanding of how to manage a campaign's finances might engage in careless spending like this. In fact John McCain was bankrupt in late 2007 because he had pissed away money on staff and consultants unnecessarily. It happens.  But Rehberg is a veteran campaigner and has not done anything like this before.

It is even more peculiar when you consider that Rehberg is the presumptive challenger to Tester in 2012, and every nickel he can save in this year's race can, under federal law, be carried over to a Senate campaign.  Since he probably won't have to spend much against Gopher, McDonald or Gernant, (neither of which has any money in the bank), he would be saving every penny so he could start out against Tester with a giant war-chest.  

So why would he be burning through money like he is, with crazy line-items, paying $6K a month to his campaign manager (to a kid who'd probably do it for 2K), $4 grand a month to a media consultant, $6.5K a month to Erik Iverson's consulting firm, IS LLC, and tens of thousands in charges at resorts in Las Vegas and Big Sky and lots of other things like that?  

One explanation: He is going to run for Governor.

Under this theory, everything makes perfect sense. He cannot carry over money from a federal campaign to a state campaign. So, rather than hoard money that will not be usable in his next campaign, he's doing a shady, borderline-illegal, but clever thing: overpaying people, his consultants, his campaign staff, firms, etc., essentially using federal money to pre-pay for what he will need when he runs for Governor.  

All these people will give him a heavily discounted rate (wink) for their services in 2012, because they will have been previously and handsomely compensated. Heck, they might even work for free (wink) because they like him so much.

And remember, too, that a Gubernatorial candidate can only raise money in $600 increments (per-donor contribution limit), whereas a Congressional candidate can raise in $2300 increments. so to be able to off-load expenses with easy-to-come-by federal campaign cash is a luxury.  And yes, it's easy to come by.  As we all know, when you are an incumbent Congressman, special interests in DC write you checks even if you don't ask for them. You don't raise money--you simply collect.

So I'm putting down a bet at Ladbrokes. R nominee in 2012 for Gov is Denny Rehberg.

Congressman Rehberg Calls for Reducing Deficit by Increasing the Deficit

by: Matt Singer

Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 12:40:06 PM MST

Congressman Denny Rehberg
HAS A SOLUTION TO OUR DEBT PROBLEM:
STOP SPENDING AND BALANCE THE BUDGET!

Congress can decrease the deficit and decrease the debt by:

   * Freezing non-defense discretionary spending
   * Reforming "entitlement" spending
   * Increasing tax incentives for small businesses
   * Lowering taxes for hard-working Americans

Obviously, some practitioners of voodoo economics will argue that resulting improvements in economic growth will make up for any loss of revenue, but the math here is quite fuzzy and, at the tax rates currently levied in the United States, almost certainly inaccurate. There are policy arguments for cutting taxes and accepting the deficits, but we're almost certainly on the wrong stretch of the Laffer curve to have tax cuts actually increase revenue.

But let's look at the other two proposals, starting with the discretionary non-defense spending freeze. First, this is an Obama proposal. Second, in terms of the budget, it's virtually meaningless. Check out this interactive budget graphic from The New York Times. Look at the overall budget, then click on the "Hide Mandatory Spending" button. Now, pretend that the National Security and Veterans Benefits (I'm presuming Rehberg isn't advocating freezing spending on Veterans). Look at what a small share of the budget is left. Now remember that we're not slashing this, we're freezing its growth.

So, not really a big deal.

What's the last proposal? Entitlement reform.

Where to begin with this one? Entitlement reform is GOPese for "cutting Medicare and Social Security," often through privatization. Depending on the particular privatization scheme with Social Security, there's a good chance that Rehberg's proposal would actually increase costs.

But let's just keep in mind that any savings on the Social Security front are likely to be minimal. The real driver of costs within the long-term budget is Medicare (which is one of the big reasons I favor health care reform). Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Republicans' point person on the budget, solves this problem by voucherizing Medicare and freezing its spending, a proposal that has the virtue of balancing the budget solely through spending cuts. Of course, Rehberg has also played politics by pretending to oppose any reduction in Medicare services. Instead, he'll just destroy the program in wholesale fashion.

One last point, despite Paul Ryan's ability to balance the budget solely with spending cuts, it is worth knowing that he had to instruct the CBO to assume no revenue reductions, which means no tax cuts.

In short, Montana's Congressman is pushing fiscal snakeoil. No surprise there. As Tyler Gernant put it a few weeks ago:

While Rehberg claims that fiscal responsibility is at the core of his being, Gernant said he voted for "a massive tax cut for the wealthy that completely eliminates our budget surplus and returns us to deficits."

Gernant said Rehberg voted to put two wars on the country's credit cards and voted for a pharmaceutical drug plan that lets the big drug companies charge the U.S. government whatever they want.

Sadly, politicians rarely explain the federal budget to constituents. Neither, really, does anyone else. That means we're left with misleading crap like this being peddled instead.

Happy Valentine's Day!

Rehberg Gets Schooled by Tyler Gernant

by: Matt Singer

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 13:52:36 PM MST

Gernant said he wouldn't be running if the country was in the same shape it was in 2000, with a $200 billion budget surplus and a booming economy with increasing numbers of jobs.

[...]

While Rehberg claims that fiscal responsibility is at the core of his being, Gernant said he voted for "a massive tax cut for the wealthy that completely eliminates our budget surplus and returns us to deficits." Gernant said Rehberg voted to put two wars on the country's credit cards and voted for a pharmaceutical drug plan that lets the big pharmaceutical drug companies charge the U.S. government whatever they want.

Reward good behavior -- donate today.

McDonald Raised $17k, Spends $32k in Q4 of 2009

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:39:54 PM MST

	Column A This Period	Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
6. Net Contributions (other than loans)
(a) Total Contributions (other than loans)	17291.09	104164.95
(b) Total Contribution Refunds	40.00	40.00
(c) Net Contributions (6(a) - 6(b))	17251.09	104124.95
7. Net Operating Expenditures
(a) Total Operating Expenditures	32996.48	87004.79
(b) Total Offsets to Operating Expenditures	0.00	0.00
(c) Net Operating Expenditures	32996.48	87004.79
8. Cash on Hand at Close of Reporting Period	18120.16

Tyler Gernant hasn't reported yet. I don't believe Dennis Rehberg has either.