The death of Cap and Trade

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 26, 2010 at 07:43:18 AM MST

In today's New York Times:

Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it "cap and tax," and Tea Partyfollowers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.

"I don't know what 'cap and trade' means," Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said last fall in introducing his original climate change plan.

Say, what?

Really?! Rehberg Campaign Email Extolls Montanans on 'Virtue'

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 20:24:25 PM MST

"Being a responsible citizen" and "caring for your family."

Dennis Rehberg talking about 'virtue' is like Tiger Woods talking about fidelity.

Excuse us if we have some trouble taking Rehberg's new-found focus on 'virtue' seriously in light of his long record of sucking cash from disgraced and convicted con men like Abramoff and Davison and VECO execs, using his influence to slip unjustified contracts to members of team Abramoff, and packing his staff with low-lifes.

Rehberg has also been spotted at Bobcat games with the man at the center of the Bozeman prostitution scandal that the national news program Nightline said had political links. (Rehberg donor Bill Martel.) It is unknown on what other outings Rehberg has accompanied Martel.

For these reasons, and so many others, it's unlikely that anyone's going to be asking Dennis Rehberg for a lesson on "virtue."

Vogel Should Take a Lie Detector Test

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:13:51 AM MST

Now, the character of yet another of Rehberg's inner circle has been called into question by the law.  Vogel, is trotting out the tired framed by political enemies conspiracy theory.  I guess it's everyone else who is lying, not him.  Vogel, a former cop, should know there is a simple way to prove whether or not he's lying.

It's called a lie detector test.

Since Dennis Rehberg appears to lack the moral fortitude to do so himself, let's call on Randy Vogel to voluntarily submit to questions about his recent activities with the assistance of a lie detecter test.
 
Rehberg has a real problem here.  Again and again, the character judgements of this public servant are proved to be unworthy of the office to which the people had elected him. In each of these cases, it was about more than the specific wrong-doing of Rehberg's close advisors and backers, his associates and staff. It was about a clear violation of the public's trust.

Those who seek to be public figures, elected or appointed staff, have a moral obligation to the communities from which they come and which they (are supposed to) take pride in representing. This obligation is simple: If you seek to be a role model, act like one.

Be transparent and honest. And, most of all, demand integrity of yourself and your advisors out of respect for those who look to you as an example.

Bowen Greenwood: So much for fiscal responsibility...

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 07:45:17 AM MST

Reporters have attempted to call him "a conservative activist".  Really!? I find no record of any cause he is active in (other than himself.)  

Greenwood is well known in the state's political circles all right--as the guy that got caught trying to walk out the door with an illegal, secret $7,000 golden parachute  from the State of Montana after his former patron Brad Johnson was voted out of office after serving only one term (h/t.) So much for responsible budgeting!

Oddly, he said he doesn't plan to give up his own campaign for legislature.  Can you say "conflict of interest"?  He now has free reign to raid the GOP cookie jar to help his own race.

Hilariously, his campaign theme is "Restoring Responsibility to Government."  

Top Rehberg Staffer's Crimes Revealed Including Poaching, Obstructing Police and More

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 06:59:56 AM MST

Randy Vogel, hired by Rehberg last month as Rehberg's top staffer (replacing former state director Dustin Frost who suffered severe head injuries following the boating accident involving Rehberg, a GOP legislator, and lots of alcohol and is leaving to "become a private consultant"), must appear in court next Tuesday where he will face allegations of poaching and obstructing a police officer, among other charges.

This is the third Republican busted for poaching in recent memory, others include Republican legislator Scott Boggio and Legislative Fiscal "analyst" Terry Johnson.

It is not yet known what effect this most recent poaching scandal will have on Rehberg's and other Republican's electoral chances this fall, but it can't be good.

It's also interesting that Rehberg didn't fire this individual, but instead allowed him to "place himself on voluntary leave."  

UPDATE: Pogie at Intelligent Discontent has a great analysis of Vogel's pathetic "defense" here.

The party of Fear

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:06:36 PM MST

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on "fear" of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how "ego-driven" wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and "tchochkes."

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party's donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!"

It's nice to see some actual proof that the conservative movement's cries of socialism are blatantly manufactured, although sadly this rhetoric has actual consequences in places like Montana, where anti-statist radicals like Roger Koopman have their delusional paranoia underscored by establishment Republican fund-raising pitches. The result: some real whack-a-loons get to craft legislature.

But then most of the GOP has abandoned any pretense of aspiring to govern. The important thing is to win. Win elections, win media coverage, win with bumper-sticker slogans.

Robbing the poor to feed the rich

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 07:51:17 AM MST

It has legs.

Forty-five fellow R's, including twenty-one Republican legislator wannabes have signed on to it.

Here it is:

Oregon just raised it taxes on businesses. And Senator Jeff and 44 others say we need to advertise in Eugene and Ontario and Hines and elsewhere and entice businesses there to come to Montana because of our business-friendly tax climate.

To his and the R's credit, the rhetoric is, well, rhetorical:

Essmann said Oregon had taken a "higher tax path" to the detriment of good business. And while Montana's own tax system isn't perfect, he added, it does offer a favorable tax policy when compared to Oregon.

Among the advantages, Essmann named Montana's top marginal income tax. He said it helps small businesses retain capital and reinvest it, making it possible to expand and hire new employees.

"We need to leverage every competitive advantage we can," Essmann said. "We think now is the time, when we have a need for more jobs - and with small business in Oregon feeling under duress - to advertise the availability and the quality of our work force, and have Oregon businesses take a look."

So, what's going on? Jeff and his fellow travellers might need to review how the higher tax path was accomplished. By a vote of more than half of the state's registered voters.

Actually, there were two initiatives that passed. The Montana R's conveniently ignore the fact that the Legislature approved the tax increases last spring. Irate Oregonians took matters into their own hands and gathered enough signatures and place the tax increases on the ballot. By gum, we'll show 'em. Measure 66, which raises taxes on households earning $250,000 or more, passed by 54 percent. Measure 67, which increases corporate levies, passed with 53 percent.

Those damned, pesky voters.

So, now, let's see, Oregon bad. Montana good.  

By their words shall ye know them

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 12:04:07 PM MST

In a recent email missive about her efforts, Annie Bukacek assumes the black helicopters are already circling when she writes this accusation about Montana's county elections officials:

It is a near-certainty there will be fraud in some of the county elections departments. 

Bukacek certainly knows something about fraud: she's under investigation for being a perpetrator of it.

In the same rambling email, Bukacek also mentions her efforts to recruit tea-baggers to her cause. I can see why Bukacek's minions are drawn to tea-baggers.  They seem to share a penchant for boldly displaying their cognitive limitations.  I'm not saying that's all bad--it makes it easier for the rest of us to avoid hiring them.

The fact is, Bukacek's prototypical supporter seems to be "that one guy" who, if he continues along his current trajectory, will likely spend a considerable portion of his 30s as that one local nutter in every Denny's who spends his time filling notebooks with manifestos.

Not the tea-baggers.  

This small, whiney minority of the population that is virtually impotent and have no impact on policy is the wrong target for Bukacek. Heck, they aren't even trying to have a part in any movement FOR anything - they are the "new anarchists".  They aren't the types who are going get behind a movement and volunteer.  Nor do they seem like the types that want the government to have more say in private medical decisions.  

Nobody loves a centrist

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 06:59:54 AM MST

Take Evan Bayh's sudden gut shot to the Democratic party and president Obama. Read Charles Lane's analysis:

Millions of Americans long to tell their bosses "take this job and shove it." Hardly any have the power and money to do so, especially in these recessionary times. Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, however, is the exception. His stunning retirement from the Senate is essentially a loud and emphatic "screw you" to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda -- one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw....

Quitting the Senate was a no-lose move for the presidentially ambitious Bayh, since he can now crawl away from the political wreckage for a couple of years, plausibly alleging that he tried to steer the party in a different direction -- and then be perfectly positioned to mount a centrist primary challenge to Obama in 2012, depending on circumstances.

For Lane, Bayh's sudden departure was a noble, gutsy maneuver that should propel him into the middle of a primary challenge of Obama, as if he's become a "centrist" rebel. Daniel Larison picks that notion apart, nothing that party voters tend to eschew losers like Bayh who quit the team and over issues they actually like. But even if Bayh, say, chose to run as an independent, he'd probably run into the problems that NYC mayor Bloomberg did when he put out feelers in '08:

Centrists" do not run insurgent campaigns very well....There are no passionate, vocal groups of voters eagerly demanding that government be more solicitous of corporate interests and more willing to start wars overseas. There are not many large voting blocs requesting the offshoring of whole industries. To be a "centrist" is necessarily to champion the interests of concentrated power and wealth and to ignore and deride as "populist" insanity anything that stands in the way of those interests. Who has ever heard of an explicitly anti-populist political insurgency? Insurgents always set themselves up as the independent outsiders who will stand up for the people against the establishment. Just imagine Bayh trying to sell himself as the establishmentarian who wants to tone down the "radicalism" of Obama's Rubinite economics and his Clintonian hawkish foreign policy. What Lane proposes is that an old DLC-type Democrat will be positioned to win over a party that is increasingly disgusted by the overrepresentation of DLC-type Democrats in the current administration. This misreads the mood of the party and the substance of administration policy very badly.

Good bye, Bayh. Don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.

BREAKING NEWS: Leader of MT Right Wing Breaks Federal Law-Caught Trying to Nurse On Gov't Nipple

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 16:43:03 PM MST

Koopman's employment firm, Career Concepts, has been collecting massive fees, which sources say are as high as $1500 in some cases, from job applicants who are unemployed and have been answering job offers on the state jobs website. That is a federal crime. There will be more to come on this. I'll keep you posted.

Koopman has in recent times become the self-appointed Anti-Government/Tea Party/Far-Right Wing leader, even recruiting super-conservatives to challenge right-wing incumbents in republican primaries.

Now, Koopman could be finished in that role.

UPDATE: I fixed the link. You can view the letters here. To view the large file size, click "all sizes" at top of photo.

***UPDATE 2***: Here's the latest letter from this month, and the second page of that letter.
 

Koopman's purity tests for legislators

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 13:49:33 PM MST

In a repeat of 2008, former Bozeman Rep. Roger Koopman has set his sights on state Republicans who he accuses of being too liberal, or RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Koopman, the chairman of the newly formed Montana Conservative Alliance, says his group is mailing questionnaires to every GOP candidate and, based on their results, will identify who will be supported and who will be targeted.

In the last legislative election, Koopman and his cronies dislodged three moderate Republicans in primaries.

I know there are leftys out there who would apply the same Koopman-esque tactics to the Democratic party - and certainly I heartily support running good progressive candidates against bad candidates - but Koopman's style demands strict ideological adherence to a narrow set of simplistic "principles" under all conditions. What you get from that kind of process is a pack of simplistic, narrow-minded legislators applying simplistic cookie-cutter policies to complex problems with monomaniacal fury.

That's not a good thing.

I will say that pundits and media outlets have an irrational love of "independents." There's a romanticized vision out there that an "independent" is somehow a fierce, pragmatic thinker free from the pull and tug of mindless partisanship, bravely inhabiting the small strip of no-man's land between the two political parties. But in reality, independent voters are anything but a homogenous bloc. Maoist lefties and white supremacist righties both consider themselves "independent." Others are independent because of a single issue. Abortion, for example, may push a economic progressive, say, to vote for a rightwing pro-life Republican. Others are partisan, but call themselves independent to foil pollsters or because they like the idea of being independent. Others are partisan, but switch their vote to punish a politician for not upholding her party's values - like in the case of the recent Massachusetts special Senatorial election.

That's a long way of saying that "moderates" don't really represent "independent" voters. But a moderate politician does make sure that constituents from both sides of the political divide are represented - which isn't a bad thing. (In the national health care debate, for example, Blue Dog Democrats did bring legitimate concerns about the effects health care legislation would have on state budgets and small businesses.)

In the case of the Montana Republican party, that's crucial. That's because efforts of folks like Koopman have transformed the state Republican party into a truly radical political movement that seeks to advance the interests of a tiny faction of the state's voters.

What Republicans believe

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 10:01:38 AM MST

Of course, it's easy to claim some sort of superiority...without seeing a similar poll of self-identified Democrats asking them about their favorite conspiracy theories. That 9/11 was an inside job, say. It could that people are irrational, not just Republicans.

But I do like Nate Silver's observations of the poll. He noticed that the answers to the poll questions varied little, if at all, with demographics. Regardless of your age, location, or gender, pretty much you believe the same sorts of things.

This accounts for what might be the Republicans' greatest strength as we head into the November midterms as well as their greatest liability. The strength is that they can somewhat comfortably adopt a nationalized, one-size-fits-all message. They don't have to worry about the constellation of constituencies that Democrats have: labor voters, Baby-boomer liberals, blacks, Hispanics, college-educated technocrats, libertarianish younger voters, etc. Their base is the same pretty much everywhere, and actuating a strategy that appeals to that base is not challenging.

The liability, meanwhile, is that while the Republican base might be the same pretty much everywhere, the rest of the electorate isn't. Some states and districts have different ratios of Republicans to Democratic and independent voters. Moreover, they have different types of Democratic and independent voters, some of whom may be amenable to the Republican message and others of whom won't be.

The question is, how did this happen? How did the base of one party come to believe all the same things in the same way? That some of these monolithic beliefs include outright delusions - the Obama birth canard, for example - points to success in messaging, whether by cable news, talk radio, or email chains. Obviously simple messages are getting out and reinforced as they're passed along.

One thing, too, that neither Kos nor Silver mentioned is that the demographics of Republicans are skewed strongly towards white males to begin with. While the breadth of Republican demographics are similar in belief, what's not said is that most of the other demographics are small. That homogeneity probably also aids the message. Republicans probably congregate in the same places, talk the same language, and participate in the same activities. That's probably also why many are under the delusion that they represent "real" American values and ideas - the opposite is true, of course, they're actually a minority of the population - they don't really get out much.

All of that is opposite to the left. The left spans class, race, language, education, and the rural/urban divide. Democrats in Portland, Oregon, are vastly different from those in the Salish-Kootenai nation. They hardly interact, let alone hear the same unified message.  

Don't back off

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 23:44:33 PM MST

Democrats can be assured that Republicans will attack them, regardless of what they do.  Democrats could eliminate the estate tax permanently, slash the capital gains tax, repeal the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, invade Iran, and pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion, and Republicans would still attack them -- with exactly the same vehemence and vigor that Republicans have now.  That's politics.  It's how partisan politics is played...

My advice to Democrats unsure about what to do is this: think about the actual bill, and what its effects would be if it became law.  If in your judgment those effects would be bad for your constituents, then odds are they will dislike it, blame you for it, and you'll be in trouble.  If those effects would be good for your constituents, then vote for it.  Then figure out how you're going to sell the thing and yourself, based on that vote.  But don't back off of it because you think it will open you up to attacks; you're wide open right now, and you'll remain wide open regardless of what you do.

New Republican strategy same as the old one

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 12:06:59 PM MST

Of course, the political reality doesn't support these allegations. Under Democratic leadership, the state has done fairly well compared with the rest of the country. The state has run budget surpluses under its Democratic governor and the state has had sound fiscal management. A good response should be to remind folks (especially some of our own) that Democrats and leftys believe, not in bigger government, but better government. That we want to build a party for the people, not the plutocrats.

And, yes, I'm aware that the present state of the Democratic party falls short of those ideals.

And then there was this:

Senate Majority Leader Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, ripped into the Democratic-controlled Land Board, saying it "turned its back on responsible natural resource development" last month by voting to set overly high lease prices for state coal in eastern Montana's Otter Creek Valley.

"We're committed to developing our energy resources and putting Montanans back to work," he said.

I don't want to toot my own horn, but...what did I tell you?

Republicans will push against the Land Board, claiming they set the price too high on purpose to prevent the coal from being leased. After all, why not? They have a tendency to treat public land as corporate America's backyard, why not try to pressure the Land Board to essentially give away the state's coal tracts? It's good for teh childs! Well, not so much.

The Republicans are dutifully stepping up to play their part in the Otter Creek Kabuki. Man, don't you just hunger for someone, anyone in politics - Republican or Democrat - and just say this whole deal is bullsh*t, and have done with it?

Host of problems snag Montana GOP that could hinder candidate recruitment

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon Jan 11, 2010 at 19:32:21 PM MST

RNC Chair Michael Steele has been criticized for depleting RNC coffers by two-thirds in a non-election year.  Here in Montana, we find the same problem: the party had only $14k in the bank according to its last FEC report.

Michael Steele has been publicly wondering if Republicans were able to win or lead.  Montana Republicans have also been publicly wondering about their leadership abilities.  

In addition, Montana's GOP is facing massive turnover.  They've had four different directors in a period of a little over a year. Between Oct 2008 and December 2009  Jake Eaton, Larry Grinde, Max Hunsaker, and now Gary Carlson have all (briefly) held the post. Not much seems to be going on.  The most recent "news" listed on their website was from June 25, 2009

The lack of direction is  also due to the fact that Republicans lack any statewide elected leaders beyond Rehberg, who isn't the type that can inspire others to get involved.

No doubt any potential candidates with half a brain will see this situation and think, "No thanks, not this year."

Why Hasn't the Montana GOP Renounced the Anti-Indian Comments of GOP Chair Michael Steele?

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sat Jan 09, 2010 at 10:27:09 AM MST

I said look you want o come after me, you want to do this job then take it from me. But until then, shut up and get in line.... This is why are at 22 percent approval in the polls, why no one wants to identify with us because we spend more time tearing each other down as opposed to talking about those principles that have defined us for generations.

What kind of "principles that have defined us for generations" is he talking about?  

Here in Montana, American Indians are our state's first residents and among our most honored leaders and elders.  Governor Schweitzer has worked hard to rebuild the relationships between our state and the sovereign nations within its borders.  And for the first time, Montana voters elected our first American Indian woman, Denise Juneau, to statewide office.  

We want leaders who will end racism, not promote it.  So we want to know: Will the Montana GOP renounce the bigotry and ignorance of their national leader or will they continue to lend him their silent support?

We're waiting.  

Postcards from Bizarro World

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 14:30:26 PM MST

PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately....

Belief in the ACORN conspiracy theory is even higher among GOP partisans than the birther one, which only 42% of Republicans expressed agreement with on our national survey in September.

Un-freaking-believable. Only twenty-seven percent of Republican voters thinks ACORN didn't steal the presidential election for Obama? Seriously?

Man...I don't know what to say. It's one of those polls that really challenges your faith in the human race. What's going on over there on the right? I mean...it's like an alternate universe over there, a place hardly impacted by reality.

Health care reform passes House, with gut punch

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:29:32 AM MST

First, Democrats struck a deal over healthcare to win the support of Catholic bishops by allowing an amendment to reach the House floor that would disallow any insurance passed in the health insurance exchange to cover elective abortion procedures.

Jane Hamsher: "Democrats in Congress have just proudly signed a deal...which allows a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own sexual issues to dictate access to abortion services..." Hamsher rips Planned Parenthood and NARAL for rolling over on this and other women's issues wrapped up in health care reform.

Even Ezra Klein thinks it's a bad deal:

The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

A great day for women, that started off with the Democratic women's caucus being repeatedly shouted down by Republican Congressmen on the House floor.

It's hard to jump and down and cheer for a bill with so many bad compromises in it - how did we get here? In part, I blame the group of "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats who drag their feet on Democratic policies while taking in industry donations. But those Democrats exist and wield power because the Republicans are quickly ceding their role as rational political players. They vote against every piece of legislation in Congress, and refuse to even enter negotiations in crafting legislation. The effect is particularly dire in the Senate, where Republicans so far have filibustered, or threaten to filibuster, nearly every Democratic bill or judicial nomination. As a result, the worst Senators - Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln - are having the most influence on policy.

And it might get worse. Krugman:

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration's job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.

And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing - but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.

The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here - and it's very bad for America.

Turn not to gaze on me with pitying eyes

by: Yellowstone Kelly

Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 08:23:20 AM MST

Don't look now. But, next year the state and national electoral bandwagon rolls though town again. Another election.

Man. I'm just getting over the last one. The feeling is one of fatigue or a hangover, but not the kind with a throbbing headache. More of a dull pain.

After all of these years, I am trying to figure out which is which is worse:

1.Working so hard and losing and feeling powerless while the whackos screw things up; or
2.Working so hard and winning and then watching so little be accomplished when those with white hats rule.

Remember election night in 2008? Soldier Field filled with tens of thousands of new faces. Euphoria. The articulate black guy with large ears, his wife dressed in a stunning red dress and two beautiful children. It was a stunning, electric political moment.

The margin was clear. No need for the Supreme Court to weigh in. So much promise. "Change you can believe in." "We're the ones we've been waiting for." Such promise.

While the nation celebrated, election results in Big Sky Country were close but, no cigar. Our electoral votes narrowly stayed red. And, in the midst of the so-called big wins that night, there were ominous signs.

Baucus surged to a win with a campaign war chest exceeding $10.0 million, but no one critically scrutinized its sources and the consequences.

Conflicted and sad sack D candidate, John Driscoll, actually voted for his opponent; and, Rehberg rolled to victory. The message here exactly?

The bright side? Schweitzer led a ticket of statewide candidates that, with the exception of Linda McCulloch, all won easily. And, for the fist time since 1948, the D's control all five offices.

1948?!?

In the Legislature, a net 5 seats traded hands. The D's increased their count in the House of Representatives from 49 to 50 (and earned a tie with the R's) and lost 4 seats in the Senate (27 to 23).

And, after a year, what has happened?
Nationally, real, meaningful health care reform appears dead, perhaps for another generation. Energy policy and climate change proposals languish. Too often, foreign policy still is measured in troop counts and trillions of dollars in defense spending.

With the health care industry and pharmaceuticals and heavy-industry lobby calling the shots, not much has changed.

Statewide, for progressives, everything is, well, ho-hum. Yes, the Governor can boast about being one of two governors operating a budget in the black. But, hundreds of millions of state tax dollars freed up by then infusion of stimulus monies that could have been directed to health care and education, instead went to "shovel ready" projects (most of which, because of the comparatively small amount of money involved, are cosmetic in nature). High unemployment and chronic underemployment persist. Once again, the legislature gutted environmental laws (and Schweitzer signed most of them), neglected the University System and (Brian says he's the System's biggest ally in several generations) and sent the Governor a piss-poor bill to guide the ways property is valued and taxed (and he allowed it to become law without his signature).

It is often said that the R's hate government and, for that reason, are not very good at governing. But, with working majorities nationally and statewide, when they were in power they delivered their agenda items. By way of comparison, the D's are timid and spineless and when they are in charge produce results much like those of their dreaded opposition.

It could be worse, I suppose. But, we worked hard for what?

And, now, they're back and they want more?

2010 is just around the corner.

Stay tuned.

Drop in left's approval indicative of...what?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 10:45:08 AM MST

Is the dissatisfaction because Congressional Democrats are less responsive to their base?

In a second post, Silver gives two possible systematic reasons why Democratic support for their party's representatives is lower.

First, Democrats actually want to implement policy:

Pollster Celinda Lake spoke to first, and perhaps most crucial point in her email reply to me. "It's easier to unify Republicans because mostly they want to stop things. It's harder to unify people when you want to do things." (emphasis added) Therein lies the broader asymmetry: Doing nothing is a single thing, whereas doing something implies many options. And it is easier to build consensus around a "nothing" menu of 1 than it is for a more variegated menu of limitless options of "something."

Meh. Republicans certainly do things while in office. Huge tax subsidies for corporations and the wealthy, for example. Start wars. Implement a systematic program of torture, say. But the right side of the political spectrum has a funny way of approving and defending what their "leaders" do. The right's outrage over English park rules never would have surfaced if it were Republican leaders implementing the policy. Just as the end of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment were brushed aside because they were inconvenient to Republican policies, concerns about background checks at playgrounds would likewise be brushed away if Dick Cheney said they were necessary.

Which brings us to the Democratic coalition's diversity:

Uniquely compounding this problem for Democrats is the nature of their coalition, which is of course more heterogeneous in demographic terms. Pollster Karl Agne: "The other dynamic here, of course, is the relative diversity of Democrats (age, race, region, ideology) and the relatively monolithic nature of the Republican base, as covered in our focus group report." I think it's a factor as well, but impossible to quantify.

It's not just diversity of race, religion, and gender represented by the Democratic party, there's also a gaping psychological and perceptive divide between the small, monolithic, and like-thinking bloc that comprises the Republican base, and everyone else. In short, the Republican base is a self-isolating and paranoid group who see themselves as members of a small, persecuted minority who are defending themselves and their country from a hidden, liberal agenda; the Democratic base is intellectually diverse, and its supporters span across a variety of beliefs and worldviews. In short, Democratic supporters don't agree on everything...or anything?

Silver's conclusion is that "we ought to be careful not to overstate Democratic disgruntlement and its significance." The nature of the party's support spawns natural dissent. It also means that Democrats "are [not] headed for a colossal collapse in a way that the Republicans would be if their approval of a Republican-led Congress were at the same levels." Silver also thinks Democratic approval will rebound after healthcare passes and the Congress tackles other legislation that addresses Democratic concerns.

I'm not so optimistic. While I agree with the premises about the composition of the Democratic party, the issues that the Democratic Congress is currently rejecting or delaying or gutting - the public option, say, or climate change legislation, or Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell - are overwhelmingly popular, not just among Democrats, but among independents, too. In short, it's hard to argue that the dropping numbers for Congressional Democrats are the result of natural political forces, when that party's "leaders" are retreating on the few principles that tie the party together.

I do, however, agree that this is no indication that Democrats will collapse, and that's because the GOP is heading towards crazy. Just as the Republican base is psychologically homogeneous helps keep the bloc together, it also prohibits Republicans, seeking to appeal to their base, to actually communicate with the rest of the world...