Montana GOP vies for the pedophile vote

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 19:01:48 PM MST

Ouch! Is the title of the post fair? It is if you approach issues like the Montana GOP, by taking things out of context and blowing them out of proportion and preying on the fears of everyday voters, it is. Like Breitbart!

So here the state Republican party goes after a sex-ed program in Helena that's not really very controversial -- its "sins" are that it teaches kids about different kinds of households, that there are proper words for genitals, and acknowledges that other kinds of sex, besides vaginal, exist. Obviously the problem here is that right-wingers are apoplectic that kids might learn gays exist and lead happy and productive lives (not to mention, have hot sex). Oh, and the sex ed program emphasizes abstinence...

Only in Fox-News-Speak, this is "graphic" or "explicit" sex! "Teaching kindergarteners graphically about sex"! And it's spreading! Across the state! And only with a majority of Republicans in the legislature can you and your children be protected from these sex-crazed libruls!

Except that, according to the Office of Public Instruction, the state constitution "forbids the Legislature from dictating the details of any kind of school curriculum statewide, leaving such choices to local school boards." So there's that.

If this sounds familiar to you political junkies, it should. Wa-a-a-a-y back in the 2008 presidential election, conservatives tried to make a fuss over Obama's support for a similar sex ed program in Illinois. Time's Ana Marie Cox then:

Obama has supported legislation to teach children about "inappropriate touching;" he's not for handing out cucumbers or bananas or probably even cheetos in show and tell. I imagine that the lessons would be short and involve pointing at a doll and in general be less explicit than a "Suite Life of Zach and Cody" episode.

She then noted that this kind of sex ed for kindergarten that Obama supported (and similar to Helena's) was similar to that of the United Church of Christ! Here's a snippet:

United Church Of Christ Promotes A Sexual Education Curriculum For Kindergartners That Focuses On Helping Children Identify and Avoid Sexual Abuse. "Our Whole Lives K-1 supports parents, teachers and pastors in educating children about birth and sexuality. The program affirms all kinds of families and helps children identify and avoid sexual abuse. Activities include stories, songs, arts and crafts."

So...if Republicans oppose giving kindergarten students the tools to battle sexual abuse...that means, of course, they favor pederasty!

Simple, isn't it?

Take the hate out of the GOP

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 10:54:17 AM MST

Really? Is this the will of the many reasonable Republicans in this state? Is this the will of Republicans who are gay (and, according to this platform plank, filled with self-loathing and irrational self-prejudice), of Republicans with LGBT family members and friends (who, according to this plank, really loathe and detest us and are really only being nice to us so they can take away our peaceful right to co-exist?), of Republicans who actually know better? Or is this the will of a cabal of unenlightened leaders who are looking to de-humanize a segment of the population?

I suspect the latter. I know many reasonable Montana Republicans- hell, I'm related to quite a few. I know that this is not their "clear will". I know it's not the will of my parents, my extended family, my friends and colleagues. Where did this come from? What is this "clear will" they're talking about? Whatever it is, it's wrong.

It's easy sometimes to brush off a whole chunk of the ideological spectrum when you read 18 words in a state party platform, but oftentimes these things are conjured up by a handful of folks with a particular ax to grind.

The question is, will Republicans and conservatives who oppose the criminalization of gay stand up and let the party know that this plank is unacceptable?

Greg has the links where you can express your opposition:

Do it here:

Montana Republican Party
PO Box 935
Helena, MT 59624
(406) 442-6469

Or, write on their Facebook Wall- suggested post: "take the ignorance and hate out of your platform!"

Coming soon to a bedroom near you: the Montana Republican party

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 09:12:00 AM MST

Homosexual Acts

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Igor Volsky:

But the Montana Supreme Court struck down the State's sodomy law in 1997 and ruled that the law violates the State constitutional right to privacy....

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court found in Lawrence v. Texas that Texas' "Homosexual Conduct" law - a measure outlawing oral and anal sex - unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Texas statute "making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause." (pdf) "The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons," the Court ruled in a 6-3 ruling.

Apparently, Montana Republicans want to strip the state's gays and lesbians of both their dignity and freedom. So much for the Constitution, and so much for liberty.

You know, when it's relatively harmless crazy stuff - like the obsession with the United Nations - it's fun and games. But this? Criminalizing private, intimate acts between consenting adults? Criminalizing sexual acts not pre-approved of by right-wing conservatives? You know where this is heading. Count me out.

Update: Just saw that jhwygirl wrote about this last night. What she said.

Republicans Out-Source Party Role to Rent-a-Groups

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 17:12:58 PM MST

Republicans have largely relinquished the party duties to a person named Chuck Denowh.  Denowh is a long-time right-wing Montana operative who has, over time, opened a series of rent-a-front organizations: PACs, astroturf issue groups, incidental ballot committees,  and other shell entities designed to appear like legitimate grassroots issue groups.  

Denowh, an urbane-looking fellow who runs around the Capitol in a suit and tie fighting his good fight, was among the crew of young geniuses that took the Republican Party from ruling status 6 years ago to the bottom of the toilet today. He forms these "issue" groups working in concert with other RAWNJs like former Representative Jon Sinrud (R-Belgrade), the Chamber, the Realtors, etc., He then sends mailings out in targeted races, decrying democrats as dangerous liberals, radicals, anti-business, radical environmentalists, and the usual minimalist attacks that rile up the ignorant, case-of-Coors-a-day, semi-literate mouth breathers that constitute the Montana far-right wing.  He cooks the spin right into the groups' names with lables like "Better Government PAC" or "Growth PAC" and other such innocuous names.  Then he raises cash from hard-core conservative donors, and moves the money to this PAC or the other (legally it appears).

The front-group mailer is a tactic that Republicans have long used. Dems seem to have had less success with it.  Here's how it works: A mailing shows up saying that "Democrat Candidate X supports the Radical Terrorist Agenda", or "Candidate X Voted For the Biggest Tax Increase In History" or "If You Can't Find A Job, Thank Candidate X for Shutting Down the Mill With Radical Environmental Regulation."  And there is a dubious citation in small print at the bottom with reference to some legislation that had nothing to do with anything, and a disclaimer that says "Paid for By Montanans for a Stronger Society" or "Montanans for More Jobs."  In the Flathead, a bunch of wing-nuts bounced Frank Sweeney from the City Council using these tactics.  In fact about nearly $40k was spent on the effort, a good third of it coming from Denowh's operation.

The state Republican Party used to do this, until the Republican brand went down the toilet with names like Martz, Bush, Brad Johnson, Greg Barkus, Jeff Krauss and many other debilitating figures who showed complete ineptitude.  Now a mailer that says "paid for by Republicans" loses its luster. This season, the right-wing hotheads are at an all time high blood-pressure now that we have a black president, and you will no doubt see many Denowh mailers to get the wingnuts to the polls.  We will see if they do the job.

Running against health care reform

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 06, 2010 at 08:02:34 AM MST

In Montana, the GOP hasn't fixed on any concrete electoral strategy around healthcare. The typical reaction is, as this AP report demonstrates, labeling it as "federal takeover" and "social engineering." A KFBB report hints at other rhetoric the GOP is trying out: that the bill is too expensive and doesn't do anything to reduce healthcare costs.

If the GOP this summer goes after health care in Beck-ian fashion, don't count on it to be a winning strategy. I don't know if I'll go as far as Baucus did in the AP report and claim that most will "like" the bill once its provisions go into effect and they'll see what we got, but it's clear they'll see that it's not the bogeyman bill that will mean the end to the country that righties have made it out to be. If you've been actually following the health care debate, it's entirely apparent this bill is hardly government takeover of health care. It's not socialism or social engineering, or really any kind of change at all: most people's health insurance won't be touched by this bill.

If on the other hand, the GOP goes after it in a more responsible manner - cooling the Teabagger extremist rhetoric and concentrating on budget deficits and cost control - they'll probably do much better. (After all, in Massachusetts - the insurance reform model for national healthcare reform - insurers are suing to raise insurance premiums as high as 32 percent.)

Whichever strategy the GOP chooses, figure on its summer plans to include health care. Kellyn Brown:

State GOP Executive Director Bowen Greenwood has maintained that health care reform would be a "winning issue" for his party in the upcoming elections. Most national polls that show a small uptick in support for the legislation still record the majority of people opposing the bill. I would guess it's even more unpopular in Libertarian-minded Montana. And even more so in the Flathead, still a conservative stronghold in the state.

How this sways the November election and thus the makeup of the 2011 state Legislature will be determined by how effective the GOP candidates are in keeping the issue alive.

And whatever Republicans say this summer, what's clear is that they'll use the next legislative session to try and block healthcare reform from coming to Montana. From Brown's post:

A GOP lawmaker told me weeks ago that, if health care reform was made federal law, her party planned on introducing legislation similar to that in Virginia, which exempts that state from certain aspects of reform and laid the groundwork for suing the federal government.

Was David Duke Busy?

by: I can't fight this feeling

Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 09:24:23 AM MST

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?

Arrogance

by: I can't fight this feeling

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 20:55:00 PM MST

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.

Where angels fear to tread

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 06:58:55 AM MST

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.

How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea?

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:23:52 AM MST

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 D's try. The R's are just better at it.

Deschamps, "establishment," win GOP chairmanship

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 15:41:26 PM MST

Deschamps won:

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...

Montana Dems Receiving Death Threats for No Vote on Secession Bill

by: jhwygirl

Fri Apr 24, 2009 at 17:26:16 PM MST

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.

Unhinged and at large: House Republican opposition to stimulus spending

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:28:00 AM MST

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.

Whee.

Dead party walking

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:25:23 AM MST

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.

My lyin' eyes

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:09:08 AM MST

Damn. They would.

This vote is a good argument for holding elections immediately after the legislative session.

The state of the attorney general race

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 13:04:44 PM MST

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 Gazette endorsed 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 Tribune endorsed 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...

Why the Democratic resurgence in Montana?

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 06:57:43 AM MST

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.)

David Sirota, on the other hand, believes the rise of the Western Democrat was in response to the rampant and unregulated exploitation of the West's open spaces by the extraction industry and their Republican allies.

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.

Or maybe it's just the buzz cuts and bolo ties.

What say you?

I'm not going to take it anymore!

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 05:54:55 AM MST

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

My two cents on the Fox ad

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 11:15:29 AM MST

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?

Montana GOP's efforts to suppress the vote part of a national trend

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:06:28 AM MST

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.

(Brad Friedman posted the video of CBS' two-minute report on the issue.)

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.

McCulloch on Brad Johnson's role in Eaton's folly

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:41:30 AM MST

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.