While there has been much speculation about the reasons for the resignation of Sarah Palin's top advisor, the departure of another of Montana's top Republican executives has gone relatively unremarked upon.
Yet another executive director of the increasingly unsuccessful Republican party has quietly bolted, leaving GOP legislators and Denny Rehberg without much-needed leadership or assistance as they navigate the 2010 election cycle.
Montana Republicans have had four different directors walk out in a period of a little over a year. Between Oct 2008 and February of this year Jake Eaton, Larry Grinde, Max Hunsaker, and now Gary Carlson have all fled the post.
GOP Chair Will Deschamps declined to discuss problems facing the party and would only say:
"He chose to pursue other interests," Deschamps said, declining to elaborate. Carlson, who ran for the U.S. House in 1984 in Montana, moved here from California to take over the executive director's job Jan. 11. His last day of work was Feb. 1.
The Helena IR reports today that Montana Republicans are having former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack speak to them tomorrow night:
Mack will speak at 6 p.m., and a private reception will follow at 7:15 p.m.
Tickets for the speech are $10, and $20 for the private reception that follows the speech. The cost for both events is $25.
Coincidentally, Mack was described the following way in this week's Missoula Independent:
He also rails against taxes and the Republican Party, and supports the constitutional right to form militias.
...
Mack's views connect with the ideology of extremist groups linked to the militia movement, such as the activity of radicals like the former Montana Freemen. Human rights organizations across the country also tie Mack to the white-supremacist Christian Identity movement.
So, the Montana Republicans (who control one of nine statewide offices) are going to rebuild by hosting a guy that "rails" against their Party, is connected to the Freeman and has ties to white-supremacist groups?
(A little dip through LiTW archives on Tim Fox should remind folks how he's the last guy who should be decrying mudslinging, unless it was part of an apology... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
I just came across a letter to the editor from Attorney General-wannabe Tim Fox about political campaigns and the "barnyard tactic of mudslinging."
After watching Fox's losing effort last November, I figured that this must be an apology for his ridiculous behavior and the negative campaign that he ran - one that was unprecedented in Montana history. I was wrong.
This guy - whose campaign was called "dishonest" and "misleading" by Montana newspapers - now has the audacity to wax poetically about the virtues of clean campaigns:
Having run for elected office myself, I am well aware of the reality that issues that should matter in a campaign tend to sometimes get overshadowed by issues that are of little substance to the office being contested.
...
There are consequences that come with making unfounded allegations about another person; a realization I came to not during the practice of law, but during the course of my upbringing in Montana.
Fox ran a despicable campaign - one that saw him lose by 25 thousand votes - and now he's the moral authority for our state? Good thing we saw through this guy.
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.
The other day, Matt set up the battle for the leadership of the Montana Republican party - essentially it was a fight between the "establishment" party represented by Will Deschamps, and the, well, the "outsiders" represented by Rick Breckenridge.
Hard-line conservatives seeking strict adherence to core principles lost their bid to put an ally in charge of the Montana Republican Party, as the GOP instead chose a candidate Friday who promised to appeal to a broader audience.
Man! Just think! The state Republican party could have had a fervent anti-gay, anti-abortion, tea-baggin', silver standard political agenda! That would have been polical gold! For the Democrats, that is.
Still, I'm glad state Republicans chose "moderation" over extremism. (Deschamps is hardly a "moderate," of course.) It's a nice sign from a party that's been backsliding steadily into the radical right that it may still have some useful ideas to contribute to the state...
(I had no idea the Montana secessionists were so serious...I mean, 50 votes in the House??? My thoughts, as always, to come... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
I can't remember the last time I did this, but the issue is important enough that I am cross-posting from 4&20blackbirds
I don't know how much people have heard or read about Wednesday's vote on HR3 (I ever-so-briefly mentioned it here), but as a result of the party-line 50-50 vote, Democrats are receiving nasty emails and death threats for their "no" vote.
The bill was sponsored by Rep. Michael More, of Gallatin Gateway. HB3 was a reintroduced version of HJ26 which failed in committee and a blast motion on to the floor.
HB3 was presented at a "state's rights" bill, but had overtones of secession and asserted that Montana was no subjected to the United States Constitution. James Conner, of Flathead Memo has a great piece up, history lesson and all, titled Will Montana fire on Fort Sumter? that should not be missed.
Conner also took the incentive to find out who the "horsetrading Democrat" was that let this thing ooze out of committee for the House floor vote: Great Falls' Rep. Deb Kottel, which, sadly, is of little surprise.
So the stimulus bill -- HB 645 -- sailed through the House yesterday, but "not without naysayers," as the headline on Mike Dennison's report declares. And whoever wrote the headline wasn't kidding.
Tom McGillvray: "I just have to make the point that this may be the beginning of the end of our society as we know it."
Joel Boniek: "I have a sense that we're presiding over the demise of the Republic."
But it's Michael More who earned the prize for the most amusing rhetoric in his outburst against the stimulus spending bill:
More rose to speak on the bill and began by saying a Judiciary Committee hearing that morning on a bill to define a person as beginning at human conception had been "cut short" by the call to begin House debate on HB645.
Committee members had been discussing issues of God and conception, yet then were called to the House "to the sound of money falling from the skies, for all of us to roll over in and lap up," More said. "I have to ask, what of this question of God? What God do we serve? Is this all pretense? The pledge of allegiance, the invocation, every time we come to the (House) floor?"
Two observations. First, those opposing the stimulus spending bill make no mention of our current economic crisis, offer no mention of economic policy or theory, offer no counter solution to the crisis, and seem to lack any coherent vision of how a viable system would operate. Instead we are treated to angry rhetoric and dumbed-down talking points from a now-defunct 1990s political movement.
There are real reasons to be concerned with the federal government's stimulus spending. There are real reasons to be concerned with a massive federal deficit. But this stimulus spending bill is the least offensive of the federal spending bills aimed at curbing the current recession. And the state legislature is hardly the place to change federal policy.
Second, while a number of House Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the stimulus spending bill, most did not. And given that the rhetoric of the Republican majority is apocalyptic (to say the least), I'm guessing we'll a lot more action by the radical element of the party to ditch its moderate wing. That won't be good for Montana -- we all saw the fruit of that strategy play out in the last legislative session with an angry, combative, and radical leadership among House Republicans driving the legislature almost to a standstill.
A key House committee made its initial moves Wednesday in piecing together the state budget, but it left unresolved one of the biggest issues dividing Democrats and Republicans: funding for an expanded health insurance program for Montana children....
[Rep. Penny Morgan (R-Billings)] offered an amendment that would increase state funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by $10 million over the next two years, to add thousands of children to the program and capture millions more in federal matching funds.
The panel's 10 Democrats, however, voted against the proposal, saying they would agree only to fully funding Healthy Montana Kids, which expands both CHIP and Medicaid, another government health insurance program.
"I think that this amendment takes us in the wrong direction of what Montana voters told us loud and clear last November," said Rep. Dan Villa, D-Anaconda.
Voters approved the expansion by passing Initiative 155 by a 70-30 margin. Fully funding I-155 would cost about $35 million in state money the next two years.
I do think House Democrats should compromise on this issue. They could, say, agree to the Republicans' choice for card stock of the paper on which the bill to fully fund CHIP is signed into law. But to back down an inch on the timing or funding for the program, as approved by 70 percent of Montanans? Not a chance. CHIP funding shouldn't even be accepted as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.
It's the duty of the legislature to fund the program. Anything less would be rightfully seen as the abrogation of the contract between the people and its representation.
When Matt first wrote about GOP legislators gutting CHIP, I didn't believe it. I mean, the initiative granting CHIP the extra funds passed by a 2-to-1 margin! Even Montana's Republicans wouldn't stoop so low, wouldn't wallow so overtly in the filthy muck of ideology, wouldn't so crassly display their subservience to big business, would they? Would they?
First, as the word early in the campaign claimed -- that the Republican party would be working hard to win this race -- has come to pass. The state GOP has sunk $388K into Tim Fox.
But to what avail?
The Billings Gazetteendorsed Steve Bullock, largely on the "depth and breadth" of his experience. Also, Bullock's campaign was about his "vision" for the office:
Bullock's campaign to date has focused on a broader vision of the attorney general's job. He wants to beef up law enforcement resources for preventing Internet crimes. He supports enforcing Montana's seat belt law as a "primary" offense, just like any other traffic law. He wants to ensure that all felony DUI offenders get effective treatment and favors intervening before the fourth offense - the point at which Montana law now mandates treatment. Bullock said he wants to expand the attorney general's efforts to protect Montana consumers, particularly in preventing fraud against senior citizens.
The Gazette noted, as has been noted here numerous times, Tim Fox' campaign seems to solely centered on "sex offenders who prey on children." And it's not like Bullock promises to go soft on child molesters.
The Great Falls Tribuneendorsed Steve Bullock, also on Bullock's experience. Additionally, the GFT was turned off by Fox' negative campaigning:
We're inclined toward Bullock based on his background, his positions on a few issues and on some of Fox's advertising claims, parts of which are misleading and play the xenophobe card a little too coyly.
On that last point, we'd say only that we don't view spending six years of a 15-year career practicing law back East as a detriment for a Montana native who also worked as a private attorney in Montana and as an assistant attorney general under Joe Mazurek.
To the contrary, it gives Bullock a broader experience that should serve Montanans well as attorney general.
And if we can make a side point here: We're growing tired of the you're-not-from-Montana-unless-you-were-born-here-and-never-left attacks in politics. Not only is Bullock from Montana, but he has worked here most of his life.
The implication in other ads that Bullock might be soft on sex crimes or on gun rights also are misleading.
Who said negative campaigning doesn't have consequences? And I've argued this before, Tim Fox had an opportunity to discuss law-enforcement issues and philosophy, something Bullock was eager to do. Such a campaign would have benefitted everybody in the state, liberals and conservatives alike. Instead we were treated to a dog-and-pony show that didn't tell us anything about Tom Fox' views on the law.
Sure the MSU-B poll showed a Bullock lead in this campaign, but it also showed Obama with a 4-point edge, when Montana's stalwart pollster, Mason-Dixon, had McCain by 4. One thing's for certain in this race: it'll be decided at the ballot box, and the Montana GOP is throwing everything they've got at Steve Bullock, including that %$#!@ ad that uses this blog as a source for false information...
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.
Okay, the more I think about the Tim Fox television ad, the more it bugs me. They're using our good name! As a source for a lie about a good candidate! Serioiusly, that's going to be the introduction to Left in the West to thousands of Montanans across the state as they watch this dog. That's just not right.
I'm going to get on the phone and call the television stations around the state and ask 'em to pull the ad. Doesn't it violate federal law, anyway?
In case you want to join me, here are the names and numbers of the relevant media companies for you to call:
Charlie Henrich
Eagle Communications
(KECI and other Montana NBC stations-Missoula, Bozeman and Butte)
406-731-2063
Bruce Cummings
Max Media Montana
(KULR 8 Billings and KFBB Great Falls/Helena)
406-655-8558
Monty Wallis
Montana's News Station
(CBS affiliates in every market-Glendive, Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Helena, Great Falls, Kalispell)
406-252-5611
Kathy Ernst
Beartooth Communications
(Beartooth NBC-Helena, Great Falls, Havre)
406-457-1212
D*mn it. Matt beat me by about 5 minutes posting about the Gazette article on Tim Fox' attack ad on Steve Bullock using our blog as a source. Ugh.
The ad is posted below the fold.
Anyhow, in the piece, the state GOP's Bridger Pierce justified the claim saying Bullock's interview showed Bullock has a "personal and moral problem with the death penalty."
Way to go, Pierce. Take a thoughtful reply about a serious and complex issue, bend it out of proportion, misconstrue it, and then use it in an attack ad. And quote this blog as your source. What's with state party staffers recently? Is there something in the water? Or is the organization taking its lead from the top?
You think maybe the Montana Republican party's efforts to challenge the rights of 6,000 Montanans to vote was part of a national Republican campaign to suppress Democrats this election? Well, the evidence looks good.
For one, the McCain campaign is now taking credit for the first, failed vote on the bailout bill. Never mind that McCain actually supported the first bill, and that if he had a hand in its demise, it's because he failed to provide leadership on the issue either way; the campaign is claiming "blew it up" over funding for ACORN, a group that registers low-income voters.
Now, I've been over this territory before on the blog, and Josh Marshall has an excellent and in-depth discussion of how Republicans have used ACORN to whip up its hysteria on voter fraud, but the shorter version is this: the partisan appointees in Bush's Department of Justice rushed indictments against ACORN members right before the 2006 elections, which were subsequently thrown out of court for being bogus. There have been successful prosecutions against ACORN workers for turning in forged registration forms; but they were paid registration gatherers who defrauded, and were turned in by, ACORN itself. In any case, those fake registration forms could not have been used to fradulently cast votes.
Got that? Regitration fraud was perpetrated against ACORN and would not lead to fraud at the ballot box.
So...the right whips up false fears about voter fraud, and the Republican party uses those manufactured fears to erase voters from the rolls. The New York Times:
Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law, according to a review of state records and Social Security data by The New York Times.
What's worse is that this kind of purging of the rolls aren't just to get eligible voters off the rolls, they're also intended to scare voters still on the rolls away from voting-day polling places.
Ask, and ye shall receive, eh? Yesterday I criticized Linda McCulloch for not stepping up and releasing a statement about Brad Johnson's involvement in Eaton's folly -- his and the state GOP's bald attempt to disenfranchise Western Montanans in the 2008 election.
Naturally I found a statement this morning in my email inbox. I've printed it in its entirety below the fold.
The statement is a couple days old, and doesn't reflect Molloy's suspicion that Johnson -- a Republican -- may have violated federal law by aiding Jake Eaton's "partisan ploy," as Molloy put it.
By the way, jhwygirl caught how wrong Jennifer McKee's claim was on Johnson's role in Eaton's folly -- McKee wrote Johnson "effectively alleviated a crisis that would have required a restraining order," when in fact he balked at the challenge, as Molloy also noted, only after a suit was filed listing out the laws he'd be breaking by allowing Eaton to challenge 6,000 without real cause, and for baldly partisan purposes.
It's true that Molloy said Johnson showed "an effort on his part to avoid partisan decision-making," but the Justice also lists in detail Johnson's confused directives and opened the possibility that he unwittingly violated federal protection laws for voters.
What's clear is that, when faced with the challenge, Johnson's immediate response was confused and compliant. He did not consider voters. He did not fight, as is his role, to protect our rights under Montana and federal law.
Along that line, McCulloch's press release also reminds us of Johnson's incompetence on election day 2006, as described in a legislative audit (pdf), finding, among other things:
"...very little uniformity in how poll workers had been instructed to deal with different (absentee) situations, suggesting there is considerable risk voters in different counties will receive different treatment at the polls and experience different outcomes in terms of the voting process."
And by the way, this is the second time this election cycle that Johnson has tried to carry the state GOP's water for partisan electioneering purposes. Remember his little complaint filed against Brian Schweitzer, for which, he admitted on Fox News, he had no evidence?
Update: You knew I'd try to raise funds over this issue, didn't you!
Apparently you're tapped out on the legislative races. Well, the legislature isn't the only game in town. If this voter suppression p*ssed you off, this is a great way to express your anger.
Update 2 (by Matt) -- In Johnson's defense, Molloy notes in a footnote after beating up on Eaton and the Montana Republican Party that, "Secretary of State Brad Johnson is not included in this reference. Review of the pleadings and attachments show an effort on his part to avoid partisan decision-making and a good faith attempt at complying with state law." The Secretary of State's office hasn't handled this situation exactly as I would have liked, but I think it is unfair to portray them as villains.
John Mudd's solid and well written complaint made it clear that Eaton lacked the proper evidence to purge the voter rolls of Democratic counties; I suspect the GOP retreated in part to avoid a decision issued by Justice Molloy. Why set a precedent and possibly be forced to ditch one of your best election tricks, when there might come a better time and a friendlier judge to legitimize voter suppression?
Obviously the public outcry had something to do with Eaton's retreat. That much is made obvious by Eaton's public fallback onto his military record. Like John McCain, Eaton seems to view his service as some "get out of jail free" card for all subsequent malicious behavior.
Attention, Jake Eaton: we thank you and admire you for your service, but you're still an *sshole.
Mike Dennison's got a report on the Democratic challenge against the GOP's voter suppression attempt in today's papers -- but check out Bob Gentry's post from last night for an analysis and to read the complaint yourself. Also check out Helena IR editorial from Sharid and Katherine Haque-Hausrath explaining succinctly why Jake Eaton's challenge fails to meet sufficient standards as defined by Montana law to challenge voters' right to vote.
But the big splash in the newspapers this morning is the Billings Gazette editorial. It labeled the GOP's challenge a "partisan political maneuver" and decried the effort.
In short, the Gazette's editorial board minced no words and called like it is. An attempt to swing elections in favor of the Republican party.
I've reprinted the Gazette editorial in its entirety below the fold.
As we've said before (Missoulian editorial, "Governor's remarks an insult to state," Sept. 14) we're no fans of Schweitzer's speech, but neither do we appreciate anything that makes it harder for people - of any political stripe - to exercise their right to vote. Nor do we want to see the already-busy elections office saddled with unnecessary work less than a month before a general election that has them bracing for record voter turnout.
Uh...great. Er, this is the paper that's serving the very community whose votes are challenged. Your readers' ability to have a say in the political process is being attacked...couldn't we see some old-fashioned outrage, like what was doled out in today's Gazette?
Update (by Matt): County election officials are tomorrow dealing with the close of voter registration, the first day of most absentee voting, and the first day of in-person early voting. If you want to call and check your registration status, hold off until at least mid-week please.
It's good to see at least two Republicans speak out against their state party's attempt to suppress votes in Democratic districts in Western Montana.
"This is a pretty key election and you have a lot of people who are taking an interest for the first time or getting interested again after sitting out a few years," Brueggeman said Saturday. "I don't know who is all on that list, but I'm guessing there are a lot of independents in there that, as a party, we're trying to court. I can't think we'll do anything but irreparable harm to our party with those voters."
Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger wrote an op-ed that's reprinted in its entirety below the fold. Read it.
Yesterday I promised you information on how you can find out if your registration is current. As hit_escape pointed out, the Obama campaign has an online tool you can use to check your current registration status.
Of course, the best place to confirm your registration status is with your county's election office. Here's the contact info of the counties affected by the GOP's challenge: (ed. note -- don't call these clerks for a few days, please -- this is an absolutely gonzo busy time for them)
I'm not entirely sure I've given you the correct contact information for Deerlodge, Hill, or Glacier counties. I'll confirm tomorrow. Or, if you know the correct number to call, leave a comment for everybody to see!
Here are your options for preserving your right to vote:
If you consider your voter registration address still to be your permanent residence and plan to vote in that precinct, you can ignore the letter and just show up to vote on Nov. 4, with a proof of ID.
If you already have an absentee ballot, you can just send it in.
If you consider your voter registration address still to be your permanent residence and plan to vote in that precinct, you also can confirm this fact by filling out the challenge form and returning it to the county election office.
Your signature on the form must be notarized, which can be done at a county courthouse.
Failing to return the affidavit won't jeopardize your right to vote in most cases. However, the secretary of state's office is recommending that you fill out the challenge affidavit, with a notarized signature, to foreclose any further challenges.
"It's better for everyone if you return the affidavit," said Bowen Greenwood, spokesman for the secretary of state. "That puts the lid on it."
If you have moved to a new address since you registered to vote and still live within the same county, you can go to your old precinct and vote one time. However, if you choose this option, you should send in the signed and notarized challenge form indicating your new address.
If you have moved to a new address outside the county where you originally registered, you can go to your county election office and re-register at your new address. Fill out the voter registration card in the letter and return it to the county election office where you live. A ballot will be provided at the office.
Bullsh*t. That's what Jake Eaton's excuse for challenging Western Montana voter registrations is. Here's his explanation to Dan Testa of why they're disenfranchising Montana voters in Democratic counties:
While many Democrats regard Schweitzer's remarks about tampering with 2006 U.S. Senate election results as jokes, Eaton said he has heard many anecdotes from that election night that match up "far too closely" with what the governor told the attorney's convention.
"I think there's a lot of truth to what (Schweitzer) said," Eaton added.
That the GOP is targeting voter registration in six traditionally Democratic-leaning counties is only because those are where Republicans found the greatest discrepancy in voter addresses, Eaton said, when comparing data from the statewide voter database with the National Change of Address database, a commercial software system for direct marketers.
Timing is everything, Eaton. If the Montana Republican party were truly concerned with the sancity of voter registrations, they'd have done these challenges a year ago, paid for the mailers sent to voters, and done everything to ensure that those voters impacted by their challenge would still be able to vote this year.
In this article, Eaton accuses the challenged voters of "voter fraud." Has he demonstrated that those he's challenging are malicious? Or voting illegally? Is there any evidence? Besides "anecdotes" from Republicans who were angry at the outcome of the 2006 election? Those second-hand anecdotes without any formal complaints, injured parties stepping forward, or first-hand accounts of fraud or poll watcher intimidation...?
This is a blatant attempt to confuse voters, maybe part a few thousand Democrats from their votes. Period.
Have you been targeted by the Montana Republian party? If so, leave your story in the comments or email me. Let Montana and the GOP hear how real people are affected by this...
