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I'm in favor of the death penalty, just like Bullock, but I'd also be neither surprised nor disappointed if it was repealed.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.
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.
The message says "paid for by Citizens for Strong Law Enforcement", a group that Republicans say does not exist.
Bruner told Fox he is not part of this group, and did not pay for the messages.
"This is a cowardly, irreprehensible attempt to manipulate the Republican primary for purposes of retaining a Republican nominee who is weaker in the general election," Fox said, "and who potentially would not be able to win against a Democrat nominee."
Whoever is behind these calls owes Tim Fox and Montana an apology, but Fox's response is really nothing short of hilarious, for two reasons.
Irreprehensible means not reprehensible -- another way of saying "not terrible." Check it out yourself.
A guy running for Attorney General is leveling accusations that he himself admits he has no evidence of. I know it's just before an election, but that's not responsible law enforcement.
Who is behind these calls? I have no idea. It could be a Democratic operative. It could be Lee Bruner (I don't think so, but it could be). It could be someone who just doesn't like Tim Fox. It could be someone ideologically aligned with Lee Bruner, but not Bruner himself. Who knows? I don't. Tim Fox doesn't either. He shouldn't point the finger unless he has really good reasons to believe he's right.
GOP AG Candidate Fox and MT GOP Chairman Iverson Denounce Dirty Campaigning
(Helena) - Republican candidate for Attorney General Tim Fox today denounced illegal and deceptive campaign techniques being employed by a few Democrat operatives in Montana. He specifically pointed to recent illegal auto-dial messages apparently paid for by a Democrat-affiliated group.
On Saturday, May 31, the Tim Fox campaign began fielding calls from supporters who had received recorded auto-dial messages that criticized Fox and urged voters to support Lee Bruner in the June 3rd Republican Primary Election. The auto-dials also contained the disclaimer language "Paid for by Citizens for Strong Law Enforcement." There is no record of such a group existing in Montana. The Bruner campaign also received calls from Montanans who decried the use of these false and illegal recorded phone calls.
"This is politics at its worst," said Fox. "This is the kind of mudslinging that has so many Americans turned off of the political process. I can tell you plainly that I will not participate in this kind of illegal and negative behavior during the General Election."
Montana campaign finance laws require any organization making expenditures in a political race to file campaign finance disclosure reports. Recorded auto-dial calls of this type are illegal under Montana law.
"Lee Bruner didn't have anything to do with this and obviously neither did Tim Fox. Which means its probably a group working to elect Democrats in Montana; and that's very disappointing," said Montana Republican Party Chairman Erik Iverson.
I was on Steve Bullock's website yesterday and came across a link to a fundraiser in Butte hosted by Don Peoples. I seem to remember Peoples as a big Burns supporter in '06.
A little research on opensecrets revealed that Peoples has given over $13,000 to Republicans in the last two election cycles alone. The search I did is here:
Peoples also wrote a letter to the editor of the Butte Standard on August 27, 2006 publicly opposing Tester and suggesting that he would be worse for the Butte economy than Burns.
He's spent a lot of money trying to defeat good Democrats. Why is Bullock even touching this guy?
Let me make it clear from the outset that any of the three Democratic contenders for Attorney General would undoubtedly do a great job. Bullock has been an assistant AG and has worked on the stream access issues that are near and dear to Montanans' hearts. Parker paid his dues in the horrendous last legislative session, battling headstrong Republicans through a vicious 90 days of party-line votes and ugly debate. Both men are young, smart and ambitious, so Montana can't really lose if either one of them winds up in the AG's office.
Those are pretty fair statements about Bullock and Parker coming from someone endorsing their opponent.
Ochenski's words on why Wheat:
Winnowing the chaff from the wheat, so to speak, isn't easy, but the reason Mike Wheat stands out is, simply put, his compassion. [...] Wheat, like Parker, was a county prosecutor in Butte many years back. But unlike Parker, his focus is not about what a tough prosecutor he's going to be-in fact, of the three candidates, Wheat is the only one who personally opposes the death penalty. In a recent interview on the blog Left in the West, (which has great interviews of all three candidates), [Hey, look, Jay -- we're famous!] Wheat put it this way: "We cannot, in our constitutional jurisprudence system, guarantee that the people we're killing for crimes actually committed the crime. And so, to me, it's very simple. If you can't guarantee that, then you're denying the constitutional rights to people who may be innocent."
That's also a great summation of one of the best arguments for backing Mike Wheat.
I think it is also tough to overstate the value of this in the race. Most papers won't endorse. The Independent gets pretty broad distribution in a big ol' Democratic stronghold. This could easily move a few thousand votes in a comparatively low-information race.
John Parker has been leading basically since the beginning, but after Wheat and Bullock started to close the gap, he has surged into a wider lead once again.
Parker now draws 38 votes and 47.5% of the three-way total.
We'll give him this one. And mix it up with a new poll for the OPI race.
Pick your person: Denise Juneau, Sam Kitzenberg, Claudette Morton, or Holly Raser.
I think it's great that we've got some lively discussions going on here around the Attorney General's race. Jay is set to interview John Parker today and will hopefully get that interview and transcript posted soon. Once that happens, I'll tinker with some way to have both the longer interviews and the endorsement posts located prominently on the site for the time leading up to the primary.
But let me also say this -- every once in a while, I read a comment from one or another candidate's backer that reminds me too much of the weird crap from the Presidential race. Frankly, all three of the Democratic candidates are extremely good candidates. Extremely good. Like extremely good to the point that the Democratic Party should be excited if even just one of the three had filed.
So we've got a wealth of riches.
And, unfortunately, I think a lot of voters are just now tuning into the race. So for supporters out there, here's my advice: stay positive. Let people know what's good about your own candidate. Especially in a three way race, when I see candidate X (or X's supporters) knocking candidate Y over something silly, I just become more inclined to either support candidate Y or Z.
Now, I've already cast my ballot (for Ron Paul, Bob Kelleher, and Tim Fox), but I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment.
This is also why I think this whole write up endorsement posts and get them promoted to the frontpage is cool, we won't be extending a similar offer to write up anti-endorsements and get them promoted to the frontpage.
One last thought -- there are also contested primaries for Governor, Superintendent, and a number of legislative races. Anyone want to take a side and make their case? Post away -- we'll give you the space.
(...and here's an argument made by someone who supports Parker... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
It's no accident why so many Democrats are unifying behind House Democratic Leader John Parker.
In all the time that I've known John, I have been continually impressed with his intelligence, his tenacity, and his core competence at any project he sets himself to.
We're all looking for the same thing here. We want a candidate who will win in November, someone who can take on anything an already weak and disheveled MT GOP has to throw at us. And yet, at the same time, we want someone whose principles mirror our own, a candidate proud of his progressive roots.
I chose John because with him I get both. Steve and Mike are good candidates with interesting life experiences that inform their respective candidacies. But, at the end of the day, it's Parker that I'm most confident in, it's Parker that encourages me the most, and it's Parker that drives my hopes for the future of the progressive movement in Montana.
At once, Parker's prosecutorial experience is a tremendous asset to him. Even though he's in his 30s, he's already prosectued hundreds of felony cases. Mike was a prosecutor for a few years, yes; Steve worked for Mazurek for a few years, yes; but John's been a hard-charging criminal prosecutor his entire career. He hasn't spent his time city-hopping or building a nest egg, he's been busy at work leading Democrats in the state legislature and putting criminals behind bars as a Deputy County Attorney in Great Falls.
Even as John can't SELF-finance his campaign (he's been busy), he has shown an impressive prowess at attracting money, and he's attracted money from inside Montana.
He is the only public employee in the race, and the only union member. He enjoys broad support across the state, from groups ranging from organized labor to law enforcement. And, John's candidacy has excited people.
For the first time in a long, long time we have a real chance at electing a qualified, progressive and young Democrat to a statewide post. I hate to say it, but look to their facebook groups and see who's generating excitement among young people in this race. Look to the candidate who has active student field reps at schools from UM to Carrol all the way to MSU and MSU-B.
Look to the candidate who has made meth and consumer protection a priority, and who has a legislative record to back it up. Remember when Steve, in the LITW interview, spoke about the Office of Consumer Protection was moved to the Attorney General's control? Know whose law that was? John's. Remember Montana's simultaneous toughening of meth-lab operation penalites and the laying of a legal framework for needed drug treatment courts? Those were John's laws too. John's interested in smart policy, and we know so because of his record in the past.
All told, this primary is a tough one for Democrats. It doesn't take more than a few minutes with John, though, to realize that he wants the AG job for what it is. He doesn't want it in order to be governor, he doesn't want it because he's retiring and needs a new hobby, and he doesn't feel entitled to it - John Parker wants to be Attorney General because he knows the importance of good law enforcement, sound environmental policy and plain old hard work.
John's put a lot of sweat equity into this campaign, and yet some people remain unconvinced. They say he's too young. Well, as I've said before, I remember another smart, young Montana politician who was told the same story in 1974, and again in 1976, and again in 1978 when he ran for U.S. Senate. Today, I think Max Sieben Baucus has had the last laugh, and we as a state have been better off for it.
I support John Parker because he is the candidate of progressive change, and represents new leadership in Montana politics.
(Here's a post arguing for Mike Wheat as Montana AG. Please don't misconstrue this as an endorsement from LiTW; also, if you support another AG candidate and want to make a plea in his favor, feel free to post a diary as well.
Don't forget to check out the interviews with Steve Bullock and Mike Wheat. I'll be interviwing John Parker tomorrow... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
The interview of Mike Wheat by Jay Stevens was much appreciated as well as the other interviews.
I've known Mike Wheat for 8 years. Mike is a warm and personable guy. Having visited with him many times, I've observed that he likes to listen to people, likes to hear what they have to say and what their concerns are. He's a good listener. He has a wry sense of humor, and he has a great deal of empathy for the people of Montana who work hard to provide for their families.
I would like to know of the other Democratic candidates running to be Montana's next Attorney General: how will you beat Republican Tim Fox, the presumptive Republican winner based on the amount of money he's raised, in the November Primary
It has already been noted that the national Republican Party has targeted the Montana Attorney General's race as one in which they think they can win, and will pour in big money to do so. I don't think that John Parker or Steve Bullock can beat Tim Fox.
Mike has proven that he can beat a Republican challenger in a conservative district. He ran against Jack Wells in a conservative Senate District in Gallatin County in 2002 and beat him 52 to 48 percent.
Mike has worked his entire professional career in Montana. However, Steve Bullock worked at the international law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, based in Washington DC. Look at Steptoe & Johnson's clients on their website (http://www.steptoe.com/). This firm represents clients from the following sectors: "Aerospace & Defense", "Energy", "Food & Agriculture", "Insurance", "Manufacturing", "Natural Resources" (Mining & Extracting and Petroleum Refining & Marketing), "Real Estate", "Trade Associations", and so on and so on. The Natural Resources representation really bothers me.
These types of interests are on the other side of the fence, the side that an attorney general is usually suing, on behalf of Montanans.
All three candidates seem decent. 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.
Finally, we're about to see John Parker enter the fold. The Attorney General race has a bit more momentum and money than some of the other Montana races, but it's still fascinating watching this.
Maybe they'll start writing diaries and giving the community a chance to ask questions soon. That'd be cool.
Montana has a hell of a primary season coming up -- so I wanted to issue a call for info. The big benefit of the software that powers Left in the West is that anyone can contribute by writing diaries -- so feel free to register and start writing. Don't be surprised if your contributions show up on the frontpage (of course, if it gets to be super-intense, don't be offended if they don't).
Long story short, the current team here won't be able to do justice to all the races shaping up here in Montucky:
U.S. President: The Obama/Clinton showdown is coming to Montana. Who's up? Who's down? Who's got volunteers on the doors?
U.S. Senate: The Republicans have a four-way primary for U.S. Senate. In what is likely to be a low turnout primary (Presidential votes won't matter, none of the campaigns are running particularly hard), who will take the prize? It's hard to beat Mike Lange for name recognition. But he's got a problem: everyone associates him with his PLT. Will Bushman pull it off? Will one of the dark horse candidates squeak out an inexplicable victory? What are you seeing/hear?
Governor: It looks like Brian Schweitzer will face a primary. I'd be hard-pressed to call it a close contest, but that doesn't mean it couldn't create some interesting, um, spectacles -- not the least of which is the current poll on the righthand side.
Attorney General: Both the Ds and the Rs have primary fights for their parties' nods for the AG race. This is likely to be among the fiercest fights in the primary. And big turnout in the Presidential could render all the legwork here for naught.
Superintendent: The Ds have a 4-way race. Again, big turnout could make this a surprising race to watch.
State Legislature: In districts across the state, open seats are seeing primaries -- and if Koop-dog has his way, the GOP arena will be absolutely full of 'em.
County Commission: At least in Missoula, we've got a commission primary -- I'm sure similar stuff is happening elsewhere.
Now I'm sure some folks would rather not write full posts. Email always works -- and if you post something interesting in comments, we'll do our best to follow-up.
Bottom-line: no newspaper in this state is big enough or dedicates enough resources to adequately cover the kind of primary we're about to witness. Help us do what we can to fill the gaps.
Bush is once again tearing into Senate Democrats today for indicating they will not support Judge Michael Mukasey's confirmation for Attorney General unless he declares waterboarding illegal.
Mukasey's said reason for holding out, i.e. to protect interrogators, who are simply following orders, from prosecution under international law, I think makes some sense, but the Democrats are right to demand an answer. Senators McCain and Graham have stated that they'll vote to confirm if Mukasey issues a condemnation immediately after taking office, but honestly, given all we've been through, would you trust anybody these guys send us?
Mukasey, who seemed to be sailing along until several days ago, is yet another victim of the administration's illegal and failed policies. He's damned no matter what he says. Bush's assertion that Mukasey "hasn't been briefed" makes no difference. What is there to be briefed on? Either you do it or you don't.
This all goes back to what we learned in kindergarten, folks. Dubya must have been sick that day. Once you betray trust, it's pretty tough to get it back. If Bush really wants Mukasey to be confirmed and if Mukasey really is independent, then the administration will declare an end to waterboarding as an interrogation technique.
But that's not going to happen because apparently international law applies to everybody but us, even though we're the ones who helped write it.
A case worth at least hundreds of thousands of dollars is moving closer to final consideration, at least at the District Court level.
Right now, there are dams all over Montana that operate for private profit without compensating the state for their presence on public land. Following a suit filed by a private party, the State intervened to demand their rents. Unsurprisingly, PPL and Avista refused. But a third dam owning company decided to save the lawyers' fees and just start paying rent -- which may give a good indication of where this case is likely to end up.
The suit will move the proceeds into the school trust.
The judge has already basically ruled that the corporations can be charged rent. The question now is simply what that rent will be.
(Just to be clear, I'm still sitting out the '08 Attorney General race, but I want to highlight stuff so that people can start getting a feel for these candidates. -- Matt)
A very cool piece of email just landed in my inbox from the Steve Bullock for A.G. campaign. It's a story from Doug Mitchell about Steve Bullock coming into his office two years ago to start the campaign to raise the minimum wage.
I'm not sure how much money it will raise because I have no clue the size of their list. SteveBullock.com doesn't have an obvious way to sign-up for campaign updates, so their list is probably compiled from live events. But given what donate rates tend to be, I'd be surprised if they didn't raise something.
The campaign has the ability to track these donations, though, because the donations don't go through the generic campaign site but through a specific ActBlue page. They know whether the fundraising ask worked and whether it will work in the future.
Even if it doesn't raise money, it establishes good will. 75% of Montanans and 98% of Democratic primary voters like the hike in the minimum wage. Reminding us that Steve Bullock was instrumental in that fight is a way of reminding me that he doesn't just share my ideals, but my priorities. That's important in a race with a lot of great candidates.
Raising money online takes a big list, a good ask, and commitment. It's also very early in this cycle and people aren't paying real close attention to the Attorney General race.
Finally -- and this is a piece of advice for all candidates -- making it easier to sign up for your email lists is a real good idea. Properly managing an email list is an interesting task, but email is extremely useful. It's a way to keep your message and image in front of both swing voters and your supporters (the people most likely to persuade their undecided friends). It's a way to push back on unfair attacks in the waning days of a race. And it's a way to raise money in a pinch. But they don't grow on their own -- so make it easy for people to get on 'em. Bill Kennedy is doing this pretty well right now.
