(A little dip through LiTW archives on Tim Fox should remind folks how he's the last guy who should be decrying mudslinging, unless it was part of an apology... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
I just came across a letter to the editor from Attorney General-wannabe Tim Fox about political campaigns and the "barnyard tactic of mudslinging."
After watching Fox's losing effort last November, I figured that this must be an apology for his ridiculous behavior and the negative campaign that he ran - one that was unprecedented in Montana history. I was wrong.
This guy - whose campaign was called "dishonest" and "misleading" by Montana newspapers - now has the audacity to wax poetically about the virtues of clean campaigns:
Having run for elected office myself, I am well aware of the reality that issues that should matter in a campaign tend to sometimes get overshadowed by issues that are of little substance to the office being contested.
...
There are consequences that come with making unfounded allegations about another person; a realization I came to not during the practice of law, but during the course of my upbringing in Montana.
Fox ran a despicable campaign - one that saw him lose by 25 thousand votes - and now he's the moral authority for our state? Good thing we saw through this guy.
With the help of some local Republicans, a national group is trying to rally Montanans - and others - against health care reforms backed by President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress.
Patients United Now, a group recently formed by a national foundation that champions conservative causes, is staging public rallies in Montana and running TV ads warning against "government-controlled health care" or a "Washington takeover" of health care.
The group's chief organizer in Montana is Jake Eaton, a former executive director of the Montana Republican Party.
Jake Eaton? Jake Eaton? You've got to be sh*tting me! I mean, this guy was drummed out of town for his leading role in the Montana GOP's voter suppression efforts last fall. He "chose" to go to Madison, WI, to "pursue other interests." Who knew, besides denying Montanans the right to vote, Eaton was interested in denying them health care, too!
Seriously, isn't Eaton guilty of violating several Montana statutes? Can we arrest him now he's back in the state? And isn't hiring him to run this effort a tacit acknowledgment that this is dirty politics?
Apparently Eaton's pals in "Patients United" - the group that hired this jack*ss to derail health care reform - are Tim Fox and Steve Daines. I mean, first string this is not. Dennison's description of the group:
Patients United Now was formed by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a Washington, D.C., group that campaigns against liberal and left-leaning causes and promotes conservative causes.
For example, the foundation has downplayed global warming, opposes the president's efforts to address global warming, and opposed the president's economic stimulus package.
Patients United is against not only single-payer health care, it's against a public option for insurance. Odd, given that all the energy in Montana recently aimed at Baucus et al has been in favor of a robust government response to the health care crisis...
First, as the word early in the campaign claimed -- that the Republican party would be working hard to win this race -- has come to pass. The state GOP has sunk $388K into Tim Fox.
But to what avail?
The Billings Gazetteendorsed Steve Bullock, largely on the "depth and breadth" of his experience. Also, Bullock's campaign was about his "vision" for the office:
Bullock's campaign to date has focused on a broader vision of the attorney general's job. He wants to beef up law enforcement resources for preventing Internet crimes. He supports enforcing Montana's seat belt law as a "primary" offense, just like any other traffic law. He wants to ensure that all felony DUI offenders get effective treatment and favors intervening before the fourth offense - the point at which Montana law now mandates treatment. Bullock said he wants to expand the attorney general's efforts to protect Montana consumers, particularly in preventing fraud against senior citizens.
The Gazette noted, as has been noted here numerous times, Tim Fox' campaign seems to solely centered on "sex offenders who prey on children." And it's not like Bullock promises to go soft on child molesters.
The Great Falls Tribuneendorsed Steve Bullock, also on Bullock's experience. Additionally, the GFT was turned off by Fox' negative campaigning:
We're inclined toward Bullock based on his background, his positions on a few issues and on some of Fox's advertising claims, parts of which are misleading and play the xenophobe card a little too coyly.
On that last point, we'd say only that we don't view spending six years of a 15-year career practicing law back East as a detriment for a Montana native who also worked as a private attorney in Montana and as an assistant attorney general under Joe Mazurek.
To the contrary, it gives Bullock a broader experience that should serve Montanans well as attorney general.
And if we can make a side point here: We're growing tired of the you're-not-from-Montana-unless-you-were-born-here-and-never-left attacks in politics. Not only is Bullock from Montana, but he has worked here most of his life.
The implication in other ads that Bullock might be soft on sex crimes or on gun rights also are misleading.
Who said negative campaigning doesn't have consequences? And I've argued this before, Tim Fox had an opportunity to discuss law-enforcement issues and philosophy, something Bullock was eager to do. Such a campaign would have benefitted everybody in the state, liberals and conservatives alike. Instead we were treated to a dog-and-pony show that didn't tell us anything about Tom Fox' views on the law.
Sure the MSU-B poll showed a Bullock lead in this campaign, but it also showed Obama with a 4-point edge, when Montana's stalwart pollster, Mason-Dixon, had McCain by 4. One thing's for certain in this race: it'll be decided at the ballot box, and the Montana GOP is throwing everything they've got at Steve Bullock, including that %$#!@ ad that uses this blog as a source for false information...
Yesterday, the Helena IRendorsed Steve Bullock for state attorney general. It came down to two things: experience, and Fox' campaign tactics:
That's why we're endorsing Bullock, a candidate who has represented the people of Montana before the Montana Supreme Court about three times as often as his opponent, has handled a great variety of legal issues for the Justice Department and in private practice, and has prepared attorney general's opinions that have the force of law unless overturned by the courts.
We also were disappointed to see that a recent television ad for Fox, who had told us he wouldn't run a partisan campaign for what is essentially a nonpartisan office. The ad was worded in such a way as to falsely imply that Bullock was from out of state, did not back Second Amendment right, and is against the death penalty.
Heck, Fox' general election campaign has been a joke, a two-note tuba blurting "kiddie sex" and "guns" at anyone who can bear listening. The television ad was just Fox' campaign made manifest.
Incidentally, Bullock's second ad went right after Fox:
I have to say, the Democratic primary for this race was fantastic. It was a good, clean race with three qualified and worthy candidates discussing issues, experience, and ideas. It's a shame that spirit of debate couldn't translate to the general election, where Tim Fox polluted the political debate with a campaign alternating between lying and preying on voters' fears.
Only Steve Bullock has bothered to explain himself, his background, and his vision for the office, if elected. And only Bullock should be getting your vote.
(I'm not guessing at the motivation of station managers to keep running an ad that likely violates federal law; maybe they're reluctant to turn away advertising dollars. Whatever. Here's another theory... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Here's what Monty Wallis, the General Manager of the CBS Stations in Montana, has to say about the untrue Tim Fox ad in the Trib this AM:
"We got documentation from both sides, took a look at it, analyzed it," he said. "There's nothing here that I can see that is so substantially wrong or false that it would justify it being pulled from the air."
Wallis said the state's political parties tried to use him as a political pawn.
"I just don't like being put in the middle of these kinds of disputes," he said.
OK, lets take a look:
The advertisement says:
No wonder Bullock's against the death penalty. (And on screen: AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY)
They cite a 'post' from this website.
And what does the LITW post actually say:
Bullock: The death penalty is the law. As the attorney general, um, ultimately, it's your responsibility to enforce that law. So as long as we have it, I support it.
When something is so clearly untrue, why would the station's GM say something like that?
Maybe it's because he's a GOP donor. Wallis has maxed out to a Republican candidate for the State Senate in a race that his station covers...makes one wonder where this guy's coming from. Commissioner of Political Practices report.
Okay, the more I think about the Tim Fox television ad, the more it bugs me. They're using our good name! As a source for a lie about a good candidate! Serioiusly, that's going to be the introduction to Left in the West to thousands of Montanans across the state as they watch this dog. That's just not right.
I'm going to get on the phone and call the television stations around the state and ask 'em to pull the ad. Doesn't it violate federal law, anyway?
In case you want to join me, here are the names and numbers of the relevant media companies for you to call:
Charlie Henrich
Eagle Communications
(KECI and other Montana NBC stations-Missoula, Bozeman and Butte)
406-731-2063
Bruce Cummings
Max Media Montana
(KULR 8 Billings and KFBB Great Falls/Helena)
406-655-8558
Monty Wallis
Montana's News Station
(CBS affiliates in every market-Glendive, Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Helena, Great Falls, Kalispell)
406-252-5611
Kathy Ernst
Beartooth Communications
(Beartooth NBC-Helena, Great Falls, Havre)
406-457-1212
D*mn it. Matt beat me by about 5 minutes posting about the Gazette article on Tim Fox' attack ad on Steve Bullock using our blog as a source. Ugh.
The ad is posted below the fold.
Anyhow, in the piece, the state GOP's Bridger Pierce justified the claim saying Bullock's interview showed Bullock has a "personal and moral problem with the death penalty."
Way to go, Pierce. Take a thoughtful reply about a serious and complex issue, bend it out of proportion, misconstrue it, and then use it in an attack ad. And quote this blog as your source. What's with state party staffers recently? Is there something in the water? Or is the organization taking its lead from the top?
During the primary season, I remember hearing Steve Bullock talk multiple times about the death penalty and generally sounding like someone who is OK with the death penalty in theory, occasionally has problems with it in practice, and gets nervous talking about it in a state with a pretty vocal abolition movement.
How did I spot that? Well, I fall in basically the same place.
How much did I think about this? Not a ton -- in large measure because as Bullock has emphasized repeatedly, the Attorney General is not a legislative actor, but an executive one. The AG manages an operation of limited resources to focus on different priorities. And Bullock has always been pretty clear that his interest is in managing the state's legal operation, not being a mini-Governor using the bully pulpit of the office to try to convince the legislature to act on his agenda.
Because of that -- and because of a thoughtful, nuanced interview he gave to Jay here at Left in the West -- he is being attacked in a dishonest ad. Jennifer McKee nicely summarizes just how dishonest it is:
Among other things, the ad claims Bullock, also a Helena lawyer, is "against the death penalty."
Bullock has been repeatedly quoted on the radio and in Montana newspapers as saying he supports the death penalty and would support it as attorney general.
In documentation supporting the ad, the GOP cites an interview Bullock gave with the blog, Left in the West. There, Bullock said several times that as attorney general he would support the law.
So where does the GOP argument come from? From stuff like this:
He also said that if anyone hurt his daughter he "would want to kill them but I'm not sure the state should." Elsewhere in the interview, Bullock said he would be neither surprised nor disappointed if the death penalty were overturned.
Hell, I'm in favor of the death penalty, just like Bullock, but I'd also be neither surprised nor disappointed if it was repealed.
Questions of life and death and the state are complicated. They can be complicated legally and are inevitably complicated morally. That's why a bunch of progressives are upset with John McCain's dismissiveness of a mother's health as a justification for late-term abortions. And that's why a lot of us who favor the death penalty in theory also wouldn't be super upset if the penalty went away.
In fact, I think it says a lot more about the Republican Party that they'd be so flippant about taking someone's life than it does about Bullock that he appreciates the import of that decision.
Sadly, though, despite pretty clear evidence that the Republicans aren't just distorting, but that they are outright lying, Montana media stations have yet to pull the ad. It's high-time they do so.
So both Steve Bullock and Tim Fox debuted new commercials. They're about what you'd expect: Bullock offers a positive message about himself, his record, and what he'd do as State Attorney General; Tim Fox talks guns and pederasts.
The interesting thing? Jennifer McKee did an analysis of the candidate's ads to parse the rhetoric and report on who's fibbing in their statements to Montana voters. Again, it's about what you'd expect: Bullock is straight up; Fox lies his *ss off:
"The assertion that Bullock doesn't think it's the 'attorney general's job to protect our gun rights' is misleading....
Both Bullock and Fox have come out strongly in favor of gun rights. In July, Fox released an 18-point plan outlining his stance on guns and challenging Bullock to respond. Bullock responded with a letter to Fox saying he agreed entirely with 13 of the points, found a few of Fox's points confusing and concluded that two of the points involved powers the attorney general does not have.
Bullock has never said he doesn't think it's the attorney general's job to protect gun rights, although he did state in his letter to Fox that most of Fox's proposals involved new laws and that the attorney general has no power to enact laws, only to lobby the Legislature.
The ad's statement that Bullock "opposes new laws to crack down on sexual predators" may be technically true, but is misleading in that it doesn't mention that Bullock, like Fox, has presented plans to protect children from predators.
In Bullock's plan, he says Montana doesn't need "new laws," but better ways of enforcing the ones already on the books....
Given that both men have these plans, the ad's statement that only Fox will "crack down on sex predators" is incorrect.
It kind of reminds you a little of the presidential campaign, where McCain -- apparently bankrupt for ideas -- substitutes low-road smear tactics for policy or issue debate. And in this race, Fox also substitutes good, relevant policy with lurid tales of child molestation and stokes fears for our guns.
Is this all you got, Tim? I mean, I'd love to write about this race, but only one man is actually campaigning, talking issues, and mulling the office. Seriously, this was supposed to be a marquee race, but frankly, I found even Conrad Burns' 2006 Senate campaign to be more substantive, and that's not saying a whole lot. This is an opportunity to discuss differing philosophies on the death penalty, drug policy, the use of the land board, the whole kebang. Instead, we got Tim Fox the carnival barker trying to lure us into the sideshow.
Okay, so, yes, the big news from last night was the gubernatorial debate. But what you may have missed was that the two Attorney General candidates -- Steve Bullock and Tim Fox -- had a little debate, too.
Fox, who's running on a campaign of guns and sex predators, went down his usual path and accused current AG Mike McGrath of not posting pictures of sex offenders on the state's website. "Sixty percent of the photographs are missing," Fox said. "That's something I want to fix."
Only...
Contacted by The Gazette to clarify the number of photos missing, the Department of Justice said of the 1,767 sex offenders listed on its Web site, four didn't have photographs.
Oops! Red alert! That's 0.2 percent not 60!
Caught in an "indiscretion," Fox later blustered his way around his...er, misstatement.
"It's obviously good news that the Department of Justice got that done, and I'm sorry it took the current attorney general eight years to get the photographs on the registry," Fox said later in the day. "On my watch, we won't let this kind of negligence occur."
Fox claims that his campaign staffers counted up the missing pics at the beginning of the year, and found 228 registries without photos. First, if that number is accurate, that's just under 13 percent of registries missing photos, not 60. Second...I dunno, folks. Fox hasn't showed himself to be trustworthy. How do we know he didn't pull the "228" out of his *ss?
Looks like Fox is following the lead of his party's presidential candidate and making sh*t up on the fly. I guess that's what you do if you don't have the qualifications or ideas that befit the office.
Oh, and you can drop a coin into Bullock's coffers while you're at it.
Montana Headlines gives us a glimpse at the type of politicking to expect out of Republicans this year - meaningless wedge issues intended to distract us away from serious problems. Gun control!
Yes, you, like I, assumed the recent SCOTUS decision on the DC gun ban has made this topic somewhat pointless - not that it's ever been relevant with any Montana Democrat candidate I know - but classy Tim Fox has added gun control to his other issue, sexual predators:
"Obama could be the next president of the United States, and he's way to the left of the mainstream on gun rights," the Republican, Tim Fox, said in a press release. "It should raise questions in all Montanans' minds about where, specifically, the candidates for attorney general stand on various aspects of their Second Amendment rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. It's important that Montana voters know what their candidates believe. I strongly believe in gun rights, and I call on Mr. Bullock to come out of the shadows and finally announce his position."
The irony here is that's Tim Fox who's spent his days in the "shadows," as it were. Who is he? What does he believe? He's offered voters nothing so far. Besides fear, divisiveness, and partisan rancor, I mean.
And you wonder why some folks are turned off by politics.
But that's the idea isn't it? Chasin' away the good folks from the polls...
Montana Attorney General Candidate Tim Fox says that Democratic operatives have used illegal and deceptive campaign practices.
Fox says voters have received automatic-dial messages that tout his opponent Lee Bruner in the primary.
Fox believes Democrats look at him as a stronger candidate, and want Bruner as the Republican nominee to make it easier to win in November. Fox says that the auto messages are illegal for campaigns in Montana.
Finally, Fox said, he would try to strike laws that don't work or are unenforceable, like the current law banning automated phone calls by political candidates. That law is routinely broken by candidates from both parties; violators often say the law is unconstitutional and little, if anything is ever done to enforce the law.
"Rather than having statutes being ignored," Fox said, "we should do something about it. We should either fix it or make it so it is no longer on the books."
Geez, between Rehberg and Fox, we could make a series out of "Then and Now" posts!
Montana Attorney General Candidate Tim Fox says that Democratic operatives have used illegal and deceptive campaign practices.
Fox says voters have received automatic-dial messages that tout his opponent Lee Bruner in the primary.
Fox believes Democrats look at him as a stronger candidate, and want Bruner as the Republican nominee to make it easier to win in November. Fox says that the auto messages are illegal for campaigns in Montana.
The message says "paid for by Citizens for Strong Law Enforcement", a group that Republicans say does not exist.
Bruner told Fox he is not part of this group, and did not pay for the messages.
"This is a cowardly, irreprehensible attempt to manipulate the Republican primary for purposes of retaining a Republican nominee who is weaker in the general election," Fox said, "and who potentially would not be able to win against a Democrat nominee."
Whoever is behind these calls owes Tim Fox and Montana an apology, but Fox's response is really nothing short of hilarious, for two reasons.
Irreprehensible means not reprehensible -- another way of saying "not terrible." Check it out yourself.
A guy running for Attorney General is leveling accusations that he himself admits he has no evidence of. I know it's just before an election, but that's not responsible law enforcement.
Who is behind these calls? I have no idea. It could be a Democratic operative. It could be Lee Bruner (I don't think so, but it could be). It could be someone who just doesn't like Tim Fox. It could be someone ideologically aligned with Lee Bruner, but not Bruner himself. Who knows? I don't. Tim Fox doesn't either. He shouldn't point the finger unless he has really good reasons to believe he's right.
Montana law currently caps pain and suffering money awarded to people injured by doctors or hospital negligence at $250,000. Bruner, who specializes, in part, in representing doctors and hospitals, said that cap will almost certainly be challenged as unconstitutional in the near future. Bruner believes he is the only candidate ready to defend the case.
Er, is Bruner really campaigning to use state office to protect his clients from people who suffer?
Bruner's top priority as AG, apparently, is to use his position on the Land Board to develop the Otter Creek coal tracts, and build a railroad to help ship the coal out across the country. Other than that, his positions are palatable: battle crimes against seniors and children, help define gun rights' in the 21st century.
Fox appears to be the "establishment" candidate, having been endorsed by the likes of Marc Racicot and Conrad Burns. He's a former defender who vows to be an advocate for law enforcement -- "beefing" up the Crime Lab, for example, or fighting for stable federal money for drug task forces.
Also:
Finally, Fox said, he would try to strike laws that don't work or are unenforceable, such as the current law banning automated phone calls by political candidates. That law is routinely broken by candidates from both parties; violators often say the law is unconstitutional and little, if anything, is ever done to enforce it.
"Rather than having statutes being ignored," Fox said, "we should do something about it. We should either fix it or make it so it is no longer on the books."
Wait...is the GOP's leading state AG candidate calling our robo-call law unconstitutional and unenforceable? That's the "crime" the Republican establishment tried to hang on Jon Tester and John Morrison wa-a-a-ay back in...2005? Remember that? Where conservatives tried to equate the Democratic candidates' ethics with robo-calls to Burns' selling out sex slaves and border security for a small campaign contribution?
In any case, Fox' positions seem slim. Visiting his website won't clear anything up, either. So far, I prefer Fox, but based on all the opinions he hasn't yet expressed...
By the way, I've interviewed two of the three Democratic AG candidates, and as soon as I get the third, I'll post all three to this site. Good stuff. They talked death penalty, drugs, Internet, etc & co.
Brian Schweitzer has over $500,000 in the bank and over $600,000 raised (he raised about $1.5m in his successful '04 race). That's an intimidating number for potential opponents (and that's a great argument for clean election public financing alternatives). Back of the envelope calculations reveal that about .8% of the voters in the state have now contributed to his re-election campaign. By Election Day, expect that to be a much higher figure at his fundraising clip.
Steve Bullock's fundraising has continued at a monster clip, with his total being $77,500 and change raised ($12k online, good enough to make a top 10 list of state candidates on ActBlue). He's banked $65k of that. Mike Wheat is only down by about $500, but nearly half his money is self-financed. John Parker of Great Falls got a later start, but my understanding is he raised close to $30,000 this quarter (his numbers weren't available yesterday) -- an impressive showing. Meanwhile, the two Republicans running for AG are sitting about about $2k raised each. They both got a much later start, but are clearly behind in the money chase.
Monica Lindeen has $20k in the bank for her Auditor race -- formidable for this early with no opponent. Brad Johnson, by comparison, has $15k banked for his as yet uncontested re-election campaign for Secretary of State.
Denise Juneau has nearly $15k in the bank in her OPI bid. Holly Raser has raised a bit over $2k.
Democrats shot out of the gates faster and are raising far more money. Indication of things to come?
