"...I might be concerned about how they might vote if they were actually allowed to do so."

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:39:05 AM MST

Thoughts:

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.

"...a last-minute scheme to discourage thousands of people from voting..."

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:06:27 AM MST

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.

It was a nice contrast to the Missoulian's tepid response yesterday:

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?  

Republicans on GOP voter suppression: "An utter disgrace."

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 18:02:47 PM MST

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.

State Senator John Brueggeman:

"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)

Missoula: website, email, 406-258-4751
Lewis and Clark: website, email, (406) 447-8338
Deerlodge: email, 406-563-4060
Glacier: email, 406-873-3609
Hill: email, 406-265-5481 x221

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!

And the Missoulian has some suggestions on what to do if your vote is challenged:

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.

The banality of Eaton

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 18:23:16 PM MST

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...

The latest target of GOP voter suppression: you

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM MST

This isn't a partisan issue, except insofar as it is a party doing this. The right to vote is fundamental in a democracy. People who mess with it need to be held accountable. We've launched an online petition at Forward Montana demanding the Montana Republicans stop  their voter suppression efforts. Please take a second to sign it.

Original Post by Jay: It seems like just yesterday I wrote about a perfidious Republican scheme to disenfranchise swing-state voters -- wait a minute! It was yesterday! Yesterday, it was Virginia college students. Today...it's you!

That's right. The Montana Republican party has decided to challenge the elibility of 6,000 Montana voters in Missoula, Butte-Silverbow, Lewis and Clark, Deerlodge, and Hill counties who filed a change-of-address form in the past 18 months.

Notice anything funny about the counties? They're all heavily Democratic!

Jake Eaton:

"The integrity of the voting process is something that has to be above reproach to have faith in the system....We aren't trying to prevent anyone from voting. We want people to register properly."

More than a third of the challenged voters are those whose change-of-address requests made for addresses within the same city or county lines as their registration address.

It's worth repeating: voting isn't an obligation or a responsibility or a privilege. It's a right. Anybody who seeks to seperate people from their votes without any evidence of malice of fraud, and with a prejudice based on partisanhip, race, or class is odious.

Nicholas Blackburn's warning is also worth repeating:

At some point though, the lights will go out. If we continue to ignore basic indecency, biased bureaucracy, and politically motivated disenfranchisement, then voter suppression will continue to become a more and more dominant campaign tactic. If we can buy a book with 1-click, then we ought to be able to vote the same way. Or -- at the very least -- instances of targeted vote suppression ought to be routinely punished with massive civil penalties.

In Eaton's case, I'd gladly consider criminal penalties, heh heh.

So...let me get this straight...the Good Guv makes a joke...so the state Republican party targets 6,000 voters as a response. Will we see the same institutional outrage, even as the GOP's response is overwhelmingly disproportionate and does real electoral damage in Montana communities?

Also, Republicans have traditionally targeted the poor and minorities. One wonders, now that overwhelmingly white and middle-class cities like Butte, Missoula, and Helena [not Whitefish; my bad - js] are being targeted -- will that spark some institutional outrage against the Republican practice of voter suppression?

So, Lee papers. What do you think? What's worse? A joke? Or an attempt to disenfranchse 6,000 of your readers?

Campaign rhetoric and the budget surplus

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:52:03 PM MST

Good news, right?

Well, not for our ever-dour friends on the right, who chide the Governor and state government for being so frugal:

Not surprisingly, Sen. Roy Brown had one of the most trenchant comments about the "underspending" by state government -- spun by the governor as intentional "belt-tightening." Yeah. Right.

Brown: "The fact that state agencies were unable to spend at least $14 million should tell Montanans just how bloated the last budget was. The budget is growing so fast that state agencies couldn't keep up and spend it all, and that's not something to be proud of."

The GOP answer to budget surpluses is permanent property-tax relief. But does that make sense?

Given that the GOP plan to reduce property taxes would give individual homeowners pennies, and big out-of-state corporations and seasonal McMansion owners dollars -- thousands of them -- while simultaneously weakening an already underfunded public school system....I say, no.

In short, following the Republican plan would be disastrous for most Montanans.

Or, as the Good Guv said, "For all the rhetoric of Republicans, it turns out they're not very good with money....They gave tax breaks to out-of-state corporations and made homeowners pay more and more."

The irony here is that Republicans are trying to attack Schweitzer on things that he does well -- producing state surpluses, say - instead of what he does poorly. Like, say, making sure the state's environmental agency is adequately overseeing business development.

But you won't see that in this election, because apparently state Republicans don't give a rat's *ss about the environment, or regulation, or your health or property.

What's good for the goose...

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 21:45:28 PM MST

Republican Party Executive Director Jake Eaton, an Army National Guard veteran of the Iraq War, leveled the charge against Hunt on Tuesday, saying Hunt's ad, campaign Web site and press releases violate a February 2008 directive from the U.S. Department of Defense.

The directive says any candidate who mentions his or her military rank or appears in uniform in political material must place a disclaimer on the material, saying neither the Department of Defense nor the branch of the military endorses the candidate.

Take a look at the website for the GOP candidate for SD2 (a battleground race!), Ryan Zinke. I don't see a disclaimer! Hey, Jake! What's your ruling on that?

...crickets...

Honestly, I thought it was a stupid, small thing back in May, and I don't give a rat's *ss if Zinke showers in his uniform now.

Still, wouldn't it be nice if the party hacks were in any way consistent in their outrage? Come on, Jake, if this was so important to you this spring, why lay off now? I'll answer for him: "Because I'm a paid political operator who manufactures outrage for a living, and you should never, ever believe a word I say."

Attention, media: can we have a moratorium on reporting what any paid spokesflack says, regardless of party? It's been a long and dreary election already...let's ignore these folks and enjoy the rest of our summer...

Rollin' out the un-welcome wagon...

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:25:27 AM MST

When Denton rancher Scott Seilstad challenged incumbent Republican state Rep. Ed Butcher in a primary contest this June, he had to tangle with something other than Butcher: campaign mailers and money from a bevy of obscure political groups bent on defeating him.

Seilstad, a pro-life Republican who signed a pledge against raising taxes, found himself accused of being soft on abortion, cozy with labor unions and supporting higher taxes.

"I don't mind a good, clean campaign on the issues," Seilstad said. "But this kind of deception of the voters the last few days of the election is sleazy campaigning."

Seilstad, who lost the House District 29 Republican primary to Butcher by 20 votes, wasn't the only legislative candidate targeted by last-minute, third-party campaign mailers during the June 3 primary.

The report only mentions 2 of the "10 or so groups responsible for the mailers": "Mothers Against Child Predators" and the "National Gun Alliance."  A quick Google search shows that the National Gun Alliance's President, Dennis Fusaro, was Ron Paul's national field director. Is this shadowy network of groups using lurid, false mailers the fruit of Paul's movement here in Montana?

Rebecca also reminded us that Ed Butcher - recipient of these groups' largesse - has ties to last election's terrible trio of ballot initiatives through his son, Trevis. That effort, too, was funded by mysterious out-of-state donors using less-than-honorable tactics to force extremist legislation on the state.

You can bet this won't be the last time we hear of these groups. I suspect we'll see some more mailers dropped in the general election.

Thoughts on the GOP state convention

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:42:00 AM MST

I thought I'd chip in a few thoughts...

*  *  *

Iverson's making guarantees:

There's always plenty of bravado at both parties' political conventions, but Iverson made a bold prediction in the governor's race that he repeated at least once.

"You heard it here first," Iverson said. "Roy Brown is going to beat Brian Schweitzer in November."

A bold prediction! This will be put in the time capsule until November, then we'll see if he got it right. And, yes, I know the party boss is supposed to be a cheerleader. Still, it's fun pestering Iverson with his mistakes.

*  *  *

Johnson brought up the story that Democrats Kevin O'Brien and Bryce Bennett were turned away from the convention by hotel staff and police. (Montana Headlines, for one, was quite passionately on the side of the Republican party.)

But what Johnson failed to mention was that it seems O'Brien and Bennett had the right to attend and film under Montana's sunshine laws. Apparently, anywhere at least half of a legislative caucus assembles is considered a public meeting, and open to reporters and members of the public - who may wield video cameras, if they choose.

Keeping O'Brien and Bennett out appears to have been in violation of the law. I'm sure they have a valid reason to take the hotel, policy, and MT GOP to court for violating their rights...

*  *  *

The biggest news, however, of the convention was this bit:

Public Service Commissioner Brad Molnar of Laurel was angry over what he said was a right-to-work provision added to the party's platform, but it wasn't debated on the floor.

It says: "We believe that work rules and membership in labor bargaining units must remain free and flexible."

Right-to-work laws ban so-called "closed shops," which make payment of union dues a condition of employment. Unions strongly oppose right-to-work laws.

"I think this was a severe breach of the peace we had with unions," Molnar said. "For 12 years, they thought Republican control (of the Legislature) would mean right to work. There still isn't enough votes to do it."

A union member himself, Molnar predicted this new platform language "will be a rallying point to hurt Republicans unnecessarily."

"We recognize the right to collective bargaining," he said, "and the government should not interfere in a contract between two entities."

The Republican party is now officially anti-labor and anti-union.

Montana's political sideshow

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 12:57:45 PM MST

Let's see. We have a candidate for the U.S. Senate whom we never wanted but who won fair and square. We can:

1. Give the guy the five minutes at the convention podium that he has earned and then let everybody have dessert.

2. Turn our dissatisfaction into a front-page news story that makes us look more divided and inept than ever.

(Iverson, on putting Kelleher into a side room: "We're not turning Bob Kelleher away. I'm going to come in and visit him." Golly, that's sure some consolation prize!)

To be fair to Iverson, Kelleher doesn't fit the mold of  a typical Montana Republican. On the other hand, 26,789 Montanans pulled for Kelleher in the Republican primary. Surely a few of them will hear of Iverson's clumsy treatment of Kelleher.

Frankly, the Republican Senate race is a mess. Electing Kelleher to challenge Baucus was bad enough. Now it looks like Lange's write-in candidacy and Patty Lovaas' legal challenge to allow her to run as an independent promise to keep this race in the headlines. (Check out MH's take on Lange's and Lovaas' challenges for a rightie's perspective.)

I'm sure Iverson would like to stick all of these folks in a side room, the electoral equivalent of the back table at a wedding, where you hide your embarrassing relatives.

We need leaders who know how to Google

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM MST

That's certainly the gist of a recent WSJ op-ed comparing Obama's and McCain's energy policies. Of course, the op-ed willfully ignored McCain's actual record on energy issues. He's advocated the federal gas tax holiday and using government money to build nuclear power plants.

As David Roberts writes over at Gristmill, McCain's "opposition to government interference in the market is selective at best, opportunistic at worst," and labels his energy policy as "a largely cinematic series of poses."

Framing the comparison as one between more or less government is a red herring. Governments are deeply and historically involved in energy markets. They set regulatory and legal parameters. They establish tax rates. They build infrastructure. They conduct diplomacy, negotiate treaties, and invade Middle Eastern countries.  

Governments always and already shape energy markets. The question is how to do it better. Obama has introduced a credible, detailed approach. He evinces commitment to thinking the problem through, interest in the details, and a level of seriousness that is nowhere evident in McCain. That's the relevant comparison.

And government already dedicates huge amounts of money to infrastructure - specifically, oil-economy-based infrastructure, like roads, signals, signs, curbs, gutters, parking spaces, parking garages, sidewalks, bridges, crosswalks, paint, police and ambulance service, rest stops, bike lanes, fencing, and on-  and off-ramps. And that's just a portion of the infrastructure we build to support our oil-burning economy. Oh, and toss on the economic and human costs of the Iraq war to that total.

The point here is that, yes, it will cost money. But it already costs money. The key is, how can we best spend it, in a way that decreases pollution, makes energy production sustainable, and consumption cheaper?

Chuck Denowh Jumping Into Democratic Primaries

by: Matt Singer

Tue May 27, 2008 at 20:49:36 PM MST

If this was a good faith effort, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And hell, I don't really know a thing about Judy Stang. But Stewart and Denowh getting involved in Democratic primary politics is even stranger than me getting involved in a Republican primary.

It's dirty as hell -- and a bad sign of things to come this year. Apparently, dirty tricks will be the name of the game.

When the going gets tough...

by: Jay Stevens

Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:59:01 AM MST

Rightie blogger, "Jack," over at TWW seems to be on a personal mission to prove that Jon Tester is as corrupt and hypocritical as...well...as a Republican....From this attack on Tester's integrity (largely unquestioned in political circles, by the way), we can see how righties are going to distort the debate on our new Senator's record.

Like I said back then, I welcome the scrutiny. Because, frankly, the more attention is paid to Montana Democrats' ethics, the more plain it will seem just how corrupt Conrad Burns and his Abramoff pals really were.  

GOP retreats from climate change

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 14:49:08 PM MST

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., John Stossel) 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.

And right now, that's not the Republican party.

The reek of fire and brimstone

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM MST

Rove was in Missoula on Wednesday for a private fundraiser at the DoubleTree Hotel to benefit the Montana Republican Party. The high-priced business-attire affair - which attracted a small group of protesters outside the hotel - began with a roundtable discussion with a small group of Republicans, and then followed with a reception where Rove delivered about a 20-minute talk reminiscing about his days in the White House and emphasizing the importance of upcoming national and local races, according to Will Deschamps, the Missoula County Republican Central Committee chairman, who attended.

The intimate event was not open to the public, including the media.

Apparently Rove was handing out advice on how to "revive the local party" and "engage in substantive political discussion."

Yes, the same Karl Rove who brought the electioneering tools of  bitter partisan divisiveness and fear to a new low, who had his hands in several ethics scandals - including the Plame affair and the prosecutor purge - and who's the genius responsible for the GOP 2006 midterms strategy and president's current 20-something-percent approval rating.  And Republicans had to pay -- as much as $500 - to hear him speak. Not sure how that will "energize the base."

So, on one hand, you've got one of the most despised and least successful political advisors in history speaking to a roomful of party apparatchiks behind closed doors; on the other, two major presidential candidates likely to speak before tens of thousands over the course of a weekend.

Gee, which base do you think is going to be energized?

Another look at Montana Republicans and climate change

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32:33 PM MST

Some say Republicans are opposed to dealing with-or even acknowledging-global warming impacts because they fear the associated costs. Unfortunately, fear gets us nowhere fast. What about the costs of not dealing with the problem-such as runaway firefighting budgets and lost crops? Don't those costs accrue to Montanans whether or not they accept the science of global warming? And how can Republicans fail to notice that new coal-fired power plants are on the rocks nationwide-not because of environmentalists or Democrats, but because financial institutions have decided that new coal plants are a losing proposition, owing to their greenhouse gas emissions and a future federal carbon tax? Contrary to Montana's Republican legislators, financial institutions are heading off foreseeable costs by simply refusing to make loans to polluting plants.

[snip]

Denial is not a river in Egypt-it is, apparently, a Republican state of mind in regard to global warming. But since recent statewide polls show 62 percent of Montanans are concerned about global warming impacts, perhaps there's something we can do. This summer, when you can't go into the forest because it's closed, when you can't go fishing because the rivers are dried up, when smoke fills the air and turns the sun to a red ball in the sky, remember it was the Republicans who turned aside opportunities to deal with global warming. Then, come November, you can thank them for their foresight by voting for someone else, thus bringing the "costs" Republicans profess to be concerned about home to roost, right where they belong.

Meanwhile, their party's presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, is off to Europe to discuss national security issues with heads of state there. Included in this topic is climate change. That's right, climate change is a security issue for this country, too.

And it's not only a security issue, but a spiritual issue, too.  While the Catholic church has gotten plenty of ink on its decision to add deliberate destruction of the environment to its mortal sins, overlooked was the Southern Baptist Church's recent entreaty to Christians to "become more active in preventing global climate change."  (So I guess when our Republican legislators open up today's Gazette and read Cal Thomas' editorial blaming us for Elliot Spitzer's illegal infidelities, they should add their callous disregard for climate change to the causes of societal moral degradation.)

Illogical, uneconomical, short-sighted, weak on security, and morally odious. I mean, does it get any worse?

The Cross of Cold

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 13:57:30 PM MST

You know, I have a lot to be thankful for, but this evening, I think I most thankful that the anti-rational zealots running the Republican Party weren't in power when scientists discovered that diseases could be controlled by the judicious use of vaccines or that water could contain deadly microbes and needed to be treated, or asbestos was dangerous for human...oh, wait, they still don't believe that, do they?

I don't have much to add here, other than all this talk reminds me of William Jennings Bryan's last lamentable days futilely campaigning against evolution. Take this anti-evolution pamphlet, for example, entitled "The Menace of Evolution," which is a several hundred word tirade accusing science of seeking to supplant Christianity as a new form of religion, or irreligion, or what-have-you. The short argument is this:

The right of the tax-payers to decide what shall be taught can hardly be disputed. Someone must decide. The hand that writes the pay-check rules the school; if not, to whom shall the right to decide such important matters be intrusted?

That is, reality should be determined by a democratic vote.  

Parsing the results of the Montana Republican caucus

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:55:52 AM MST

Alan Keyes: 2
Mike Huckabee: 245
John McCain: 358
Ron Paul: 400
Mitt Romney: 625

The caucus seemed to be won in the larger counties, which went strongly for Romney (and Paul, to a lesser degree), and not at all for McCain. To wit:

Yellowstone: Romney 47, Paul 36, McCain 12
Gallatin: Romney 47, Paul 28, McCain 14
Missoula: Romney 42, Paul 45, McCain 7
Lewis and Clark: Romney 36, Paul 16, McCain 15
Flathead: Romney 36, Paul 25, McCain 9
Ravalli: Romney 32, Paul 4, McCain 8
Lake: Romney 14, Paul 18, McCain 8

Of the five biggest counties, Romney won 44.5% of the votes, Paul 32.1%, and McCain 12.2%. Compare that to the rest of the state: Romney 35.9%, Paul 21.5%, McCain 25.9%. If you take out the sixth-largest county's -- Ravalli -- 32 votes for Romney, he pulled only 34.2% of the statewide vote.

What seems clear is that Romney won his votes from the larger, urban areas of the state; McCain from the rural counties. (Check out the Gazette's report on the Treasure county caucus for a color story on McCain's supporters.)

For its part, Romney's camp is attributing its win to its organizational efforts:

Romney's Montana state campaign director, Chuck Denowh, attributed the victory to a strong grass-roots effort and the former Massachusetts governor's compelling message.

"We worked here really hard to win Montana, and we didn't come in here two weeks ago and expect to win," Denowh said, referring to McCain's late bid. "We've been working for five months."

Given the demographics of the results, that sounds about right.

In an open election, turnout is indicative of a candidate's support among the general population. In a closed caucus of party stalwarts, it's a little hard to say. Do Romney's 36 (of 48) Ravalli county votes represent a deep passion for the Massachusetts governor south of Missoula?  Or does it represent the party machine quickly organizing its members? In a closed caucus, it's probably the latter, as Romney's camp is claiming.

John McCain performed well in a July 2007 poll, in which 62 percent of those polled said they would consider voting for him if he was his party's candidate. (Thirty-eight percent said they would not.) Romney finished behind Giuliani, Thompson, Obama, Richardson, Huckabee, Biden, Bloomberg, and Edwards with 49/51. A November 2007 MSU-B poll (of dubious accuracy) showed McCain with the best favorable/unfavorable rating among the general population at 44/40. Romney lagged far behind at 24/38.

So the general population of Montana obviously prefers McCain to all other candidates, Democratic or Republican, and definitely feels some antipathy for Romney. But how do they fare among Republicans?

A January 2008 poll showed that Huckabee led among self-described Republicans with 16 percent support from those polled, followed by Giuliani (15%), Romney (13%), Thompson (12%), McCain (5%), and Paul (4%). ("Not sure" won with 23%.) Still, McCain had the highest favorable rating among Republicans (40%).

Given the results of the January poll, then, Huckabee was the big loser in Montana's caucus. The top three winners of last night's contest - Romney, McCain, and Paul - were, as of a month ago - not the top choices of self-identified Republican voters.

So how does that inform our understanding of the caucus results? A good question. I'd posit that Romney's and Paul's votes were probably the result of their campaigns organizing followers to participate in the caucus. Romney's organization was probably top-down (Denowh, Romney's state chair, is the former head of the MT GOP), Paul's bottom-up (a result of the Paul-bearers' typical enthusiasm). McCain's votes likely came out of his broad base of support in the state. Where campaign organization is naturally less effective - in rural areas - McCain supporters filled the gaps. Huckabee was never present in Montana - maybe a mistake, given the pre-caucus poll results - which may explain his lackluster fourth-place finish.

Given McCain's front-runner status and likely nomination, Montana's caucus results in the end likely will be meaningless. General election voters will get their preferred candidate - despite the state GOP's efforts towards a different outcome - and the sting of getting shut out of the closed caucus will fade.

I also think it's unlikely the state party will see much help from Ron Paul's supporters in the general election: those that adore Paul's no-nonsense old-school conservatism will likely find it hard to swallow either McCain's neo-conservatism, or Romney's corporate conservatism and situational values. Paul's campaign represents a break with the big government/big business characteristics of contemporary conservatism; don't count on them choosing party over ideals, especially if that means fighting for a nominee that embodies the status quo.

This party's invite-only...

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 21:53:58 PM MST

Republicans say John McCain now has a better chance in Montana's unique GOP caucus - open to less than 2,000 party volunteers and officeholders - after getting rid of a state chairman many in that group saw as a traitor.

McCain dumped a maverick Montana Republican recently in favor of former U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, much more popular with GOP insiders despite losing his re-election bid in 2006 amid suspicions over connections to a Washington D.C. lobbying scandal.

When Bohlinger comes knocking, we sincerely hope the Montana Republican Party lets him in. They should be grateful they've got such a powerful person yearning to be included in their camp.

Meanwhile, we'd like to ask them a few questions of our own: What does it take to be a "true" Republican? Is there some sort of test? Do you have to toe the party line? Refuse to associate with Democrats? How about Independents? Are they off-limits?

If the Montana Republican Party wants to operate like some sort of exclusive club, they should at least be clear about their requirements. Otherwise, self-professed Republicans across the state are sure to start wondering: Am I a Democrat, too?

Deschamps suspects one of the 104 people voting in Missoula's caucus Tuesday is actually a Democrat.The names of new caucus members are checked against a national voter database operated by the Republican Party, Deschamps said. It shows which way a person tends to lean politically.
"I did the best I could," Deschamps said. "Maybe the person is a convert. These databases are not always 100 percent correct, by my inclination is that this guy is (a Democrat). With a gigantic influx of folks, you don't know who they all are."

Another suspected Democrat in Missoula applied to join the Republican ranks, but Deschamps said the person withdrew his name after he was confronted.

The Drunken Sailor: McCain's Montana albatross

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM MST

Two words: high comedy.

McCain, as you may remember, was one of the authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Conrad Burns' claim to fame is an all-too-cozy relationship to convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Burns also infamously changed his vote on a Marianas Islands labor bill that would have ended forced prostitution and slave labor, after a 15-minute meeting with a representative of the islands' garment industry and a $5K campaign donaton. (Which he apparently did out of principle.)

McCain, as you also may remember, was an outspoken critic of pork-barrel spending and a proponent of earmark reform. Conrad Burns, of course, was the drunken sailor of spending. In 2006, his campaign essentially consisted of him telling us we owed him our support for the pork and earmarks he brought to the state, never mind the tawdry methods by which the money was acquired.

In short, marrying Burns to McCain feels like a state GOP project to rehabilitate Conrad Burns' reputation in time for the 2012 election (when Dennis Rehberg will no doubt run on the platform that Tester "stole" his seat from the now "saintly" Burns). But I wonder how McCain feels about being tied to Conrad Burns?

Now, after the Florida primary, with McCain seizing the reigns of the primary race, the Montana GOP finds itself in a bind. After all, it certainly appears as if the state's Republican caucus was engineered to give establishment candidate Mitt Romney Montana's delegates. And now? What if the state's Republican voters want to vote for McCain - and Iverson et al gives them Romney? And McCain wins the nomination? The state GOP leadership would find itself defying both the party's nominee and its base.

But changing the caucus - as suggested by Montana Headlines - so that caucus goers vote for the winner of an open Republican primary would necessarily p*ss off the hundreds of folks who signed up to be party precinct captains so they could help pick the presidential nominee. So much for enthusiastic help next November, which seemed to be the other goal of a caucus.

In the end, of course, John McCain is the conservative apostate, and the state GOP probably can't stomach the thought of a McCain win of Montana 's Republican delegates. So the caucus will likely stay as it is, and Conrad Burns can continue to enjoy his retirement, unmolested.