The websites of Montana's two major parties are intriguing. (OK, so it's cold outside and the internet beckoned.) Neither is particularly current. Each has a sterile consistency.
On the Montana Republican Party website (aka: Republicans), the last post was on June 25, but the big news is the party's convention on June 11, 12 and 13 (2009). Don't miss it. The training sessions look good, especially the one called "Winning Pro-Life Strategies," including a thorough examination of the Personhood Initiative, hosted by Sen. Dan McGee and Rep. Wendy Warburton.
Scroll down on the home page and you find an array of selected articles, each receiving a five-star rating. Kinda wonder who at the party decides how many stars.
Evidently, nothing much about R's is newsworthy. D's, on the other hand, rule the site: Schweitzer; Lindeen; Laslovich; Villa.
Note this headline on June 19: "Republicans plan rival U.S. healthcare plan." So, what have the R's been doing since June, that is, besides tea-bagging? Working on that rival plan. Its exact status is remains unclear. Sort of a stealth plan.
Speaking of healthcare plans, another headline, this one about Max, dated June 16 caught my eye: "Insurance, health interests fill Baucus' coffers." That's news? And, by inference, the R's believe "insurance" and "health interests" are bad? Green with envy.
The "Events" calendar is vacant. No kidding. Preparing that rival plan is totally consuming the party.
Compared to being a Democrat, it seems quite simple to be an R. The R party is exceedingly adept at simplifying complexity. Distilling everything down into one sentence. Spinning catchy phrases and slogans.
"New Federalism." "Contract with America."
Hell, the R's connect with Joe Six Pack in one incomplete sentence more completely than D's do in one paragraph.
There is a bit of irony about all of this. Check out the Montana party platforms. Here's the Montana Republican Party Platform. It takes 10,852 words for the R's to tell us in writing what it stands for.
And the Montana Democratic Party Platform (pdf)? That's right: Only 1,347 words. The D's economized, using 9,500 fewer words than the R's to convey its positions.
The R's might just be cerebral after all. Deep thinkers in the R ranks invested untold energy on its platform and use the Reader's Digest condensed version to explain it. By comparison, in drafting its platform, the D's seemingly tamped down the diversity it claims to embrace and encourage, leaving candidates and party aficionados with the 9,000 words to explain their positions.
When it comes to laying it on the line, the R's synthesize the essence.
After all, when you're straining a family and putting food on the table, you don't' have time for a dissertation and twelve-point white papers. You prefer a tidy sound bite to help guide you through the maze of conflicting information.
New York Times report Timothy Egan was in town recently, and he had some ideas about Democratic successes in Montana:
Egan said Democrats' success in the West can largely be attributed to taking social wedge issues off the table, namely "gays, guns and God." Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer was the first Western Democrat to do that, Egan said, which has allowed him to start a political dialogue about important economic issues to which everyone can relate.
"The stereotype (about Democrats) is changing, finally," Egan said.
(By the way, Egan is a fantastic writer. His book on the dust bowl -- "The Worst Hard Time" -- is awesome, simply awesome. Go get it. Read it.)
Of course, Montana Democratic candidates are generally better -- you see it in the OPI race and the state attorney general race, for example, or in SD 7 that pits an experienced legislator -- Paul Clark -- against an ideologue touting an extremist interpretation of the Constitution more associated with survival bunkers than responsible government. Koopman's Kooks, et al., have driven independents and moderates from the party, leaving Democrats to forge broad coalitions that dote on governning well and pragmatically.
And let's not forget state GOP stunts like Eaton's folly.
That is, maybe the resurgence of Democrats in the state is just part of the "natural" ebb and flow of governance and reform in democratic politics.
Each morning, we can all get downtown via free shuttle buses being provided by the city for all delegates and press and people in limbo, like me. I still haven't written about yesterday's ride - but I thought I might write about today's.
I mentioned this morning, the delegates are getting pretty comfortable. Some of them are sharing rooms - and it all has the air of a college reunion. Not all are legislatures, so they don't all work together all the time, but it is clear that they know and like each other quite well.
And No - they aren't really wearing "regular old t-shirts" - I know I said that earlier - but I certainly don't want ya'all getting the impression they're down here on vacation. This stuff really is hard work. There's important stuff to do for the next 2 1/2 months...and you can tell they mean business.
I didn't get out of here until about 11 a.m. this morning - which put me on a shuttle with JP Pomnichowski, Michele Reinhart, Julie French and Anthony Jackson.
Michele is our local HD-97 state house representative - who is running for re-election, BTW. I find her to be very much keyed into understanding the how and why behind things. Hell, I almost feel like she's interviewing me at times. It's all good, and I don't mean that to sound bad - it isn't. She's my representative, and she's very interested in my perspective of things. How could an active voter not like that?
Julie French is really a firecracker. You get the sense, from the get-go, that this is a woman that does not take "no" for an answer. That people - men and women - kinda sit there and nod in agreement when she speaks, and that when she tells you that 'this is the way this is going to be,' then, that is the way it is going to be.
I won't tell you who told me, but I hear they call her Grandma. I assure you, it has nothing to do with her age.
Julie defined what a good legislator is - and she was clear to say that it didn't matter if it was a city council person, or a state legislator or someone in the federal level. A good legislator is a good listener. "They have to listen to people. They have to want to listen to people," she said. Julie then cited Jon Tester as an excellent example of someone who exemplifies a good legislator.
Those were former nine term Congressman Pat Williams' words this morning, when he, too, spoke about the importance of this upcoming presidential election. Pat followed Senator Baucus, who spoke extensively about the same, and time was running short, but those 10 words alone say so very much about not only the election, but the intent energy behind Montana's Democrats working for meaningful change. Behind all Democratic Party members. Positive change. A positive future.
"What you do will affect the other delegates and future delegates. When you nominate Barack Obama and we elect Barack Obama, what it will do is it will change the lives of children not yet born."
I think we all took a breath as Pat said that (I know I did) - but only long enough to give him a standing ovation.
Thanks, Pat Williams, for that.
Someone should put you on that podium down there in the Pepsi Center. With words like that, you'd have all of America spellbound.
Look for the Good Gov to speak tonight around 8:20 - 8:40. Following him will be Senator Hillary Clinton.
Jag, we hear, won't be there. He doesn't fly commercial.
Maybe our delegates should throw some stuffed animals up there on stage. If anything, Brian can take them back to Jag as a peace offering for being left out.
(Oops, I should have promoted this hours ago! Apologies to jhwygirl, who's kicking *ss. Yo, girl! I'm working on getting you frontpage status... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Well, if you read Jay's FUBAR post, you know I didn't get my Monday credentials to get onto the floor with Montana's fine delegates. I walked more than 35 city blocks yesterday in search of the darned thing - and now know that at one point I was in the right place but apparently the people I talked to weren't aware they were there. The free pedestrian shuttle would have saved all kinds of urban hiking (which can get pretty miserable when it's 85 degrees or more out, and you are carrying around 15 pounds of electronics), but that wasn't functioning very well either because protesters are everywhere - including McCain DRILL NOW folks.
Just came from breakfast with Montana's delegation, and they're getting comfortable. I saw some regular old t-shirts and tevas - frankly, it's just too darn hot and muggy for anything else.
Our wonderful Senator Max Baucus was the main speaker this morning, and he spoke quite passionately about the importance of the upcoming election. I have to say I honestly really like Max - he's really very down to earth - he's quick to pass credit to anyone he possibly can, including Dennis McDonald, our Montana Democratic Party Chair, this morning - and he seems genuinely taken aback at everyone's admiration for him. Not everyone likes to share the spotlight - Max never has it any other way. Really.
In speaking about the upcoming election, Max laid out the work that needs to be done: "...in 70 days and 12 hours, the polls will be closed. We have an obligation for our kids and our grand kids - the promise of change, or hope, of the future." He went on reiterating this very important mission several times. It is clear that Max sees the work that needs to be done in very far, generational terms, and he said in a very obviously heartfelt way: "Remember that it is our responsibility to do everything we possibly can to prevails. I do believe that we have a moral responsibility to leave this world a better place."
When I watched him say those words, I know he means it and that he believes it. It clearly is his mission.
There are important issues at stake in November, and he reminded us of them - Healthcare, Tax Policy, Foreign Policy. He pointed out - angrily is how I would describe it - that "McCain wants to lower taxes of the very rich. Lower them!"
He may be the longest sitting US Senator from Montana, and he may spend a hell of a lot of time in Washington, but he comes off as my neighbor.
Max spoke of the importance of other races and how a 60-seat majority in the Senate is what really needs to happen. How hard it is to eek out those extra 9 votes to get a filibuster proof bill passed - and even here he was quick to throw credit to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her work in the House.
He ran down a list of seats where he felt that Democrats have a good chance to make a difference - Mark Warner in Virginia and Jeanne Shaheen New Hampshire (he said he was sure that Sununu was out - and Jeanne looks to be 10 points ahead there!); Tom Udall of New Mexico; Mark Udall of Colorado (now up by 4 or 5 points); and Jeff Merkley of Oregon (fighting a tough race against lots of $).
He mentioned some others that he thought were possible: Al Franken in Minnesota and state Senator Kay Hagen in North Carolina (Hagen in a dead heat with Elizabeth Dole - tell me that aint' bad news for old Libby!); and Bruce Lunsford, facing a pretty uphill battle in Kentucky against Mitch McConnell.
"We'll pick up seats," he said. "4 will be OK - 6 would be a great night, and 8 would be fabulous." The room roared with that statement.
I'm getting long winded here, so I will save Max's Ted Kennedy story for another post.
But let me add just 2 more items....Max closed out by pouring more credit out there on Raph Graybill, Montana's youngest delegate (19). Raph is blogging the election for the Great Falls Tribune, BTW....and then Max went on to shower more credit and sunshine on Stephanie Sherrick, a Butte native who is running Al Franken's campaign (and who had worked her magic on our own Jon Tester's amazing win in 2006).
Finally - this: Congressman Pat Williams spoke this morning too, commenting on the historic events before us. He lead off with his first experiences with the national convention in Chicago 1968. It seemed maybe Dennis McDonald had been there with him (?) too - and for those of you who don't know (or don't remember), Chicago was a hell of a time with Mayor Richard Daly and the anti-war protests.
"These protesters don't know how to protest," he said (only jokingly). "I saw a whole bunch of them last night - lined up in a single line, wearing dark black hoods, looking very serious - holding things in their hands - and I saw them walk out of the convention area, walk down the street, and come to a red light. They stopped."
The room laughed.
"That wasn't Chicago!"
Later, in all seriousness, Carol Williams and Sara Pyfer closed out this morning's meeting reminding folks to be careful out there - police had to use pepper spray last night - that things were only going to get more active, and how the situation was very fluid....and that the police have a job to do out there and that we should all be aware that they need to be able to do it.
Ed Tinsley's blog is up at the Billings Gazette. If you forget that first link, go to the main page, search for that "blog" tab at the top of the page, the DNC will pop up when you get there, and there you go!
You'd think with Montana's delegates front and center for the DNC this year - they have floor seats 20 rows from the front - and with the Good Gov speaking on Tuesday (around 8 p.m., I'm told) - that the Gazette would put that in a much easier place to see like the front page?!
Come on over to 4&20 Ed! I'll put you on the front whenever you want!
JP Pomnichowski (HD-63) is blogging the convention too! You can see her stuff over at her blog, over at JP for Montana.
Well, I'm off to catch the shuttle. Hopefully I've not missed the first one - I'd like to score an interview with any one of our wonderful delegates - or even a guest....
(This week, jhwygirl will be posting her experiences in Denver on LiTW. I believe she's cross-posting on the b'birds...
Anyway...enjoy! - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Well, folks - made it here in one piece. Tired but happy, and well fed by a BBQ hosted by New Era Colorado, a mighty-fine progressive organization bringing politics to younger folks a la Forward Montana.
Jay, Matt, Dante and Bob Struckman (of NewWest) and I all drove to Twin Falls to meet up with the Oregon Bus Project, a fabulous group of 20 and 30 somethings doing wonderful things for progressive politics on the west coast. We had a bus of 37 (?) passengers, from California, Washington, and (mostly) Oregon. Ian and Lucy and Jeff and everyone else? KICK ASS! I never had a finer bus trip - and some of you might remember my thoughts on bus trips.
I did some "stunt" driving for Public Television France. Let's just say, when a cameraman wants to get the shot, he'll do just about whatever it takes....but more on that later. But if ya'all have DSL, and you find something over there with a bus driving down the interstate, with the city in the background, well....I had a hand in that. Or two and a foot - on the gas pedal.
From what I hear, protesters are lining the streets more than a mile and half outside of the convention center...It's hot, it's muggy, and several tornadoes are being shown live on TV right now. Looks to be a pretty action-filled week.
I've already shook hands with Carol Williams, Ed Tinsley and Art Noonan...all people I am HUGE fans of....also had introductions with Walter Schweitzer, and without the beard, I mighta guessed who he was.
Now, if I can get off this blog and hit the shower - I might be able to go down and meet some of the rest of our delegation.
Time's a wastin'
One more - Ed said that the Billings Gazette has asked them to post a blog of their experiences...he said he's sent them something, but it hasn't hit the web yet....so once I get a link for that, I'll give it to you all.
He also told me that he reads 4&20 and he agrees with it 99% of the time. I think we'll need to figure out that 1%, and try to find some common ground, and work toward solutions for all of us. Don't you think?
After all, that's what this blogging stuff is all about.
If 18-year-olds can join the military service, they ought to be allowed to legally drink alcoholic beverages before they turn 21, a divided Montana Democratic Party platform convention decided Saturday.
It took two tries, but Denver Henderson, a state party committeeman from Missoula, was able to pass a nonbinding resolution on the controversial issue. It passed 25-20 after a different version failed earlier.
Rader disagreed with Henderson's claim that if 18-year-olds can sign up to serve in the military that they should be able to legally drink alcoholic beverages. He said that is not supported by research.
"It's very different to say someone can fight a war at 18 than to say someone can legally drink and possibly get behind the wheel of a 2-ton machine putting innocent people to risk," Rader....
State Democratic Party officials continued to distance themselves from the platform convention's action on that issue and predicted the Legislature won't lower the drinking age.
"It's not going to happen for a variety of reasons," said Democratic Party spokesman Kevin O'Brien. "I think highway money is one of them. What is important is that everybody's voice is being heard, both in the party and in state government, and we take a look at all issues."
Wait, did Rader really say what he said? "It's different to say someone can fight a war at 18 than to say someone can legally drink and possibly get behind the wheel"? I mean...it's okay for 21-year-olds to drive drunk? You're okay with sending kids who aren't old enough to drink to war? What?
Okay, I'm not crazy about an 18-year-old drinking age, but if you think this is about the drinking age, you're missing the big picture. It's about trusting 18-year-olds with the obligations of citizenship - voting, jury duty, military service - but not trusting them with alcohol. It's about the societal double standards we've erected around young people.
And given Obama's support among young people, you've got to hand it to Henderson to generate a lot of buzz among young voters just in time for the election. If I were the Democratic party officials, I'd stop backtracking and start saying this thing should be wide open to discussion if the Democrats get a majority in the legislature. It's a brilliant gesture.
I was a Clinton delegate at Montana's state convention
How is this possible, you ask? Aren't I an Obama supporter? Haven't I written posts attacking Clinton's record on labor issues, her attachment to the DLC? Didn't Left in the West host some of the worst examples of sexist trash-talking found in progressive circles?
Well, yes.
It started out simply enough, an outing to the Missoula county convention last Thursday, where I thought it would be fun to hang out with a bunch of local leftys, cheer Obama's primary win, and send some people to Helena to elect state delegates to go to the National Convention in August. And while plenty of folks showed up to fill Missoula's 19 delegate spots representing - which required speeches and a vote on butcher-paper ballots, and resulted in 19 delegates and at least one alternate in tears - too few Clinton supporters showed up to fill the county's 10 delegate spots reserved for Senator Clinton.
So offered myself up, was duly elected, and sent to Helena on Sunday as a Missoula county representative of Hillary Clinton.
Is he really saying he doesn't believe in climate change...because Democrats do?
I think I get what Craig is hinting at: that climate change worry and policy is a liberal bugbear intended to...well...no one ever explains exactly why the left "invented" climate change. What possible reason do we have to go around intimidating and bribing the scientific community to manufacture evidence of humankind's contribution to the recent spike in global temperatures? (For the same reasons we staged the Apollo moon landings in a Hollywood studio, and scattered fossils around the globe?)
Oddly, in the same post, Craig defends Bozeman's PERC from calls to discount their work because of their funding from major corporations, including (drum roll) Exxon. And, yet, while lefty groups appear to have no other motivation than...well...halting or reversing climate change and reducing pollution...Exxon and Big Energy has a clear and present motivation in halting or slowing down legislation that would make burning fossil fuels anachronistic.
If presenting motivation isn't enough for you, then take a gander at this 1998 internal memo from Exxon, explaining just how they were planning on making "average citizens" and "media" "'understand'...uncertainties in climate science," and how to make those uncertainties "part of the 'conventional wisdom.'"
The plan included generating media coverage by:
-- "recruiting" and "training" scientists to "participate in media outreach"
--creating media kits; conducting "briefings by media-trained scientists"
--create a "steady stream" of op-ed pieces to newspapers
--"convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., JohnStossel) to produce a report..."
--organize "grassroots organizations" to conduct debates
Here's the money quote from the report:
Because the science underpinning the global climate change theory has not been challenged effectively in the media or through other vehicles reaching the American public, there is widespread ignorance, which works in favor of the Kyoto treaty and against the best interests of the United States.
Get it? Science needs to be fought with popular opinion. Thus, the media campaign. (And interesting that Exxon equates its profits with "the best interests of the United States.")
So not only does Exxon et al. have the motive to sow doubt, it had a plan.
So you see why we discount any groups taking money from Exxon or other big corporations with a vested interest in denying climate change? It's completely reasonable to do so.
But to Craig's credit, he has - perhaps unwittingly - demonstrated a policy failure in his post. Yes, it's mostly Democrats on the climate change panel and Republicans doffing tin foil hats. The shame here is that the Republican party has abandoned the issue, and made the existence of global warming - not policy solutions to combat it - a partisan issue.
I say "shame" because I truly believe that we need all of our brightest and best working on the problem, which should include a diversity of viewpoints to find the best solutions, whether it's through government policy or the free market, or a combination of the two.
Politically, of course, having the right take a hard-line climate change denier stance only benefits the Democratic party. Because when temperatures continue to increase, wildfires spin out of control and burn through taxpayer money, when the drought continues and crops wither even as prices climb, the public will naturally turn to those who have a plan to find alternative energy sources and a vision for the future.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of Montanans came up empty and unhappy Wednesday when they weren't able to buy tickets online to see presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at a state Democratic Party dinner in Butte April 5.
Most of the 2,400 bleacher seats available were sold out by 9:15 a.m., 15 minutes after they went on sale via the Internet. The tickets sold for $40 apiece.
I had heard that tickets were actually sold out in four minutes.
Considering that there were only 2,400 tickets available, it's hardly surprising that they sold out so quickly. Consider this: in Boise, just under 15,000 came to see Barack Obama. The Butte dinner features both Democratic candidates, one of them likely to be our next President.
That said, it would seem foolish if neither candidate made any other appearance in Montana. We're suckers for these kinds of visits, and if, say, Obama paraded down Missoula's Higgins street, he'd own this county in the primary and beyond. Rumor did have Obama making a Missoula appearance, but there's been a lot of cross talk since. Where would he speak? Is there a venue large enough that can be had that weekend?
I understand the frustration. It's inevitable. Tens of thousands of people want those tickets and they're in short supply. Technology isn't usually built to handle that kind of deluge happening instantly and only for a very short time.
Long story short: there was no way for this process to happen smoothly and seamlessly and with all interested parties getting their tickets. There may have been a way to do it -- have folks sign up for a lottery over a 48 hour period or something -- that could have reduced the tech issues. It still wouldn't have gotten tickets for everyone who wanted them and it would have been a different kind of logistical nightmare for the Democratic Party.
Fascinating thought, though: roughly as many people will see Obama and Clinton at the M-M dinner as had an opportunity to cast ballots in the entire Republican contest in Montana.
Here's another guess: M-M will not be either candidate's only appearance in this state, especially if it appears likely that the race continues on after PA, NC, and IN.
I know by the time June rolls around, I will be thoroughly sick of this campaign. My guess is I won't be alone.
High level Democratic Party sources told the Tribune on Friday morning that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama will announce plans later today to speak at the Mansfield-Metcalf dinner April 5.
Sources say Obama, who will to travel to the state after a visit to South Dakota on April 4, will make his first stop in Missoula for a rally at the University of Montana before moving on to Butte for the 30th Annual Mansfield-Metcalf dinner, the Montana Democratic Party's largest fundraiser.
A Missoula visit before the Butte dinner! Sweet! Sign me up...
I've got say I'm pleased to hear about Art Noonan's hiring as the new Executive Director of the Democratic Party. I can't profess to knowing Art super-well, but he strikes me as smart and also important in this business as a very decent man.
Now, I've got no doubt that anyone who rose in politics in Butte, America knows how to handle himself in a political bar brawl. But equally important, Noonan strikes me as the sort of guy who knows that the point isn't always to start a knife fight in order to pull a gun.
On September 11 this year, Democrats from Beaverhead county met and decided to call for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Members of the Beaverhead Democrats are drafting letters for our Congressional delegation - Rehberg, Baucus, and Tester - to that effect.
The discussion was heated. Many wanted to avoid making the statement, because they felt it would alienate voters in a conservative county where Democrats already have a hard time winning seats. Others felt like it would be a futile gesture. But no one claimed that our country's top officials weren't guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in the end, the call for impeachment won the day:
Following lengthy discussion, it was agreed in the meeting that emphasis in the letters should be on impeachment as a constitutional remedy to the dangerous excesses of the executive branch rather than a merely personal attack on Bush and Cheney.
"We're interested in preserving the Constitution not scoring political points," said one of the participants.
I got my hands on the draft of the letter Beaverhead Democrats are writing. In it, they present our delegation with a long list of offenses the president and his second-in-command have committed against the rule of law, international agreements, and the American people. Spying on Americans without a warrant. Misleading Congress in congressional investigations. Breaking Congressionally ratified international treaties by invading Iraq, torturing, suspending habeas corpus.
"In the conduct described above," write the authors, "George W. Bush and Richard Cheney have violated their constitutional oaths to faithfully execute their offices, and, to the best of their abilities, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. They have violated their constitutional duty to take care that laws be faithfully executed and have arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers."
