(Here's the first of the community's endorsements. Keep 'em coming! - promoted by Jay Stevens)
I've been posting about the Attorney General's race for a few weeks now and I wanted to formally endorse John Parker.
Throughout the course of this campaign I have weighed who would be the best Attorney General for Montana. John has shown me through his stand on issues and actions on the campaign trail that he will not only unite Democrats after the primary but also beat Tim Fox in November.
First, as Montana's top law enforcement official John has worked in the trenches with both cops and victims. He knows what these guys are going through every single day. At one event, we had a long discussion about victim's rights and he understands the importance of making sure victims are taken care so they don't become tomorrow's offenders. Considering Montana perpetually fails on federal report cards for victim's rights, it is critical we have someone who understands what is going on. I mean the guy has been a prosecutor for his entire career. John Parker just gets it.
Second, Parker's experience as a legislator will serve Montanans well. He knows the ins and outs of getting legislation passed and signed by the Governor. This will be critical as we look at protecting seniors and kids. In fact, John has already worked to help draft legislation to make sure home health care workers have background checks. I looked at it on his website and it struck me as something that is long overdue. Also, I have kids and when I looked back at John's legislative record and when he says he'll fight to beat the meth problem, he means it. As someone who has seen the effects of this horribly addictive and destructive drug it is important to me I can find out what he has supported on that.
Oh yeah-he also went toe to toe with Roger Koopman during the last session. To me having someone stand up for being proud to be a Democrat is also important.
Finally, we're lucky to have such great candidates in this race. I've talked to all three of them, but John was the one who actually seemed to care about what I was saying and my concerns.
He wholeheartedly has my endorsement and I urge you to vote for him too on Tuesday.
At last! Here's the third and final interview with the Democratic state attorney general candidates. I sat down with John Parker the other day, and just managed to get the transcript done. Here's the interview.
I found a somewhat quiet place for the interview, but there's still a couple moments of weird sounds. Again, that's my bad; don't judge Parker's ability or his candidacy on his decision to sit down with an angry blogger and his digital recorder.
And, as you'll see from the interview, expect to hear a little more of John Parker a little later, after his tremendous showing in the LiTW online poll.
In the meantime, for more information on John and his candidacy, check out his website, or, if you're so moved, donate at his ActBlue page.
If you haven't heard the interviews with Steve Bullock and Mike Wheat yet, give 'em a listen.
(Interviews with our Superintendent of Public Instruction candidates are pending. I'm interviewing Denise Juneau tomorrow, and have already chatted with Sam Kitzenberg.)
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.
(AG candidates talk DNA evidence on video at a forum - promoted by Matt Singer)
Here's the first of some video footage taken last night at the Missoula County Democrats' Central Committee meeting- this one is a question about DNA evidence and whether a full investigation should be made into all criminal convictions- similar to legislation in Illinois. All three answer the question(s)-
IF ANYONE HAS SUGGESTIONS FOR BETTER TAGS, etc., GIVE A SHOUT OUT- fair and positive- Angela
UPDATED- here's a link to a story about the AG's race in this week's Missoula Independent- http://www.missoulanews.com/in... entitled, "Ochenski
Daily dose of compassion: Punitive attorney generals are a bust"
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.
Rep. John Parker (D-Great Falls) is running for Attorney General. He's also coming to Progressive Happy Hour on Monday at the Badlander from 5-7pm (hosted by Forward Montana) to talk about why he's running and answer questions from interested citizens. Come on down and find out what he'd do as the state's chief law enforcement officer. We'll have more candidates coming as time rolls on.
Democracy Corps has a new national poll of young voters out. Youth care more about economics than the war in Iraq (margin is even bigger if health insurance is rightly considered an economic issue). Also, young voters want a bigger, more activist government -- squarely at odds with far-right goals.
Brian Schweitzer has over $500,000 in the bank and over $600,000 raised (he raised about $1.5m in his successful '04 race). That's an intimidating number for potential opponents (and that's a great argument for clean election public financing alternatives). Back of the envelope calculations reveal that about .8% of the voters in the state have now contributed to his re-election campaign. By Election Day, expect that to be a much higher figure at his fundraising clip.
Steve Bullock's fundraising has continued at a monster clip, with his total being $77,500 and change raised ($12k online, good enough to make a top 10 list of state candidates on ActBlue). He's banked $65k of that. Mike Wheat is only down by about $500, but nearly half his money is self-financed. John Parker of Great Falls got a later start, but my understanding is he raised close to $30,000 this quarter (his numbers weren't available yesterday) -- an impressive showing. Meanwhile, the two Republicans running for AG are sitting about about $2k raised each. They both got a much later start, but are clearly behind in the money chase.
Monica Lindeen has $20k in the bank for her Auditor race -- formidable for this early with no opponent. Brad Johnson, by comparison, has $15k banked for his as yet uncontested re-election campaign for Secretary of State.
Denise Juneau has nearly $15k in the bank in her OPI bid. Holly Raser has raised a bit over $2k.
Democrats shot out of the gates faster and are raising far more money. Indication of things to come?
MT House Approves 02/05 Primary. If this measure gets a similar share of votes in the Montana Senate, it'll become law. February 5th is looking more and more like it'll be a national primary, at least for Democrats. I think California, Illinois, and a bunch of smaller states (including most of the Rocky Mountain West) will all vote that day. So Montana won't have a big voice, but it'll be bigger than our current primary -- held in early June -- affords us now. More importantly? Montana Voters will be participating early enough that they'll feel more empowered -- since their votes will actually impact the process (even if only slightly).
Mike Wheat is officially in the AG race.Full Gazette story. His website should be live soon. Story also mentions Steve Bullock and John Parker as sure bets to run. All three of 'em are good candidates and would be a good fit for the position. This will be one of the most interesting primaries in Montana next year, especially for the Democrats (since our top of the ticket is basically guaranteed to be a lock).
Voter fraud continues to be mythical. MSU Prof Jerry Calvert notes the use of fraud as an excuse by opponents of Election Day Registration -- and then notes the utter lack of evidence that any fraud occured. That is completely unsurprising. As two national election experts write today in the Washington Post, "Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike." This won't end the grousing on the right, no doubt. But it's relevant, especially because people continue to use this canard to attack voting rights for eligible Americans.
I noted before here the bill HB 29 -- a bill to put an end to predatory lending in Montana. I think it's a real strong proposal. Steve Doherty, former legislator and current co-chair of Progressive States, has an op-ed in the Gazettethis morning looking at the proposal.
Meanwhile, Forward Montana has launched a campaign for people to contact their legislators encouraging support for the measure.
The bill was tabled in House Committee, but it's not dead by a long shot. Taking action can help ensure passage. Please help out.
Rep. John Parker (D-Great Falls) and Attorney General Mike McGrath are partnering on a bill to rein in short-term loans -- payday loans and the like.
What's the cause for the regulation? In some cases, the effective APR on these loans is as high as 650%. Or as one client of a lender puts it:
Shawn White Wolf, 34, said he's paid more than $2,000 in interest on a $400 title loan in the past year. The Helena resident told the committee the businesses that offer title loans are preying on poor people.
"I hope you remember that the poor people, they need protecting, because they are the ones who are affected by this," he said.
$2,000 in interest on a $400 loan? That's insane. Unfortunately, former Senator (and fellow blogger) Jeff Mangan takes issue with the reforms:
But former lawmaker Jeff Mangan, who wrote similar legislation on short-term loans in 2001, said the right laws were already on the books and the new bill would go too far.
"What this law is trying to do is regulate consumers," Mangan said.
That's sort of true, in so far as the law has provisions from people with outstanding loans from seeking additional ones. That is a regulation on consumers, but it is one to prevent a cycle of debt and bankruptcy.
The line that Mangan "wrote similar legislation" six years ago is, well, misleading at best from what I can tell. Mangan did sponsor HB 138, which targeted deferred deposit lenders (he also had a bill aimed at title loans). HB 138 is not a very strict bill (as evidenced by the on-going 650% APRs).
This cycle of debt is bad for society. It's not much good except for the handful of loan sharks who trick people into owing them everything. Legislators would do well to step up on this issue. It's the right thing to do.
