After hearing about my foolishness and naivete regarding the forest bill, I was interested to see this article by Pat Williams.
I mean, I'll take it as granted that Pat Williams might be, like me, a malleable sell-out scoundrel. He might also be Montana's most progressive lawmaker of the modern era. Potato, potahto.
Since writing about the forest bill, I've gotten a couple notes and had conversations with people very familiar with the forest bill's content and the process behind it. My understanding is that the "talkers" of the critics are either deeply misleading or, in some cases, just not true.
I've been struck during this process how amazingly similar the health care, global warming, and forest debates are. With health care, the question is private/public or single-payer. With global warming, the question is cap-and-trade or carbon tax. With forest, the question is Tester bill or complete wilderness protection.
Except those really are all fake choices that really say that the choice is private/public or nothing, cap-and-trade or nothing, the Tester bill or nothing.
Perfect: enemy of the good.
Again, this isn't to say that there aren't devils in the details to focus on, but the question at this point for much of the left is whether we're ever going to take yes for an answer.
The health care bills under consideration institute important insurance regulations like community rating and guaranteed issue, subsidize coverage for low-income families, ease purchasing through exchanges, and (hopefully) bend the cost curve over the long-term.
Cap and trade actually worked better than anticipated when instituted for sulfur dioxide and, while imperfect, will reduce carbon output in this country. Action by the U.S. will help stoke other nations to take steps as well, creating a positive feedback loop.
I still know less about this forest bill, but so far the voices I trust on lands management and conservation are increasingly telling me thumbs up on the bill.
While reading up on Steve Kelly's, let's say quixotic, run against Pat Williams in '94, I came across this piece. Interestingly, the piece basically recounts how efforts to shore up Williams' left flank also resulted in Williams moving to the right to prove his independence from the Clinton White House. Some of the quotes are marvelous, though:
With progressive
congressmen like this, Kelly asked, who misses the likes of Ron Marlenee?
[...]
"The Clinton administration was retreating from its campaign pledges to protect our public lands and Pat Williams played a key role in pushing them in that direction," Kelly told me. "Williams repeatedly voted against mining reform, grazing reform and measures to end subsidies to multinational timber companies. Worst of all, from my point of view here in Bozeman, Williams sponsored anti-wilderness legislation that condemns 4 million acres in Montana to logging and mining. Cy Jaminson's record spoke for itself. He never pretended to be anything but what he was: a voice for pillage."
[...]
"If these independent political campaigns cause some conservative Republicans to get elected, well at least we don't have to guess where they are on an issue," said Larry Tuttle, director of the Portland-based Center for Environmental Equity. "Frankly, when it comes to changing the incentives that lead to environmental destruction, evironmentalists often have more in common with the National Taxpayers Union than with many incumbent Democrats."
So that's the result of left vision, as near as I can tell: the '94 Gingrich revolution, Denny Rehberg, and George W. Bush.
I'm not interested in walking down that path. So, yeah, call me malleable.
The U.S. House is moving pretty quickly on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (better known as Waxman-Markey). This bill is the primary vehicle for a carbon cap in Congress, which is to say it is the primary vehicle to stop global warming.
New modeling shows a 9 degree rise in global temperatures is a highly probably outcome of global warming at this point. This is what trained scientists refer to as a "Holy Fuck!" scenario, because it is really, really bad news.
So the next question, obviously, would be, "What can we do to get this shit under control?" And the answer, so far, is that the Clean Energy and Security Act is our starting point, but unlikely to be the final answer.
Here's some details:
The original draft [...] was a mixed bag: its "complementary policies" (the 75% of the bill devoted to energy stuff unrelated to cap-and-trade) were excellent, and its targets for climate pollution reduction were bolder than anticipated, but it allowed for far too many carbon offsets and left unsettled the key issue of how the pollution permits under cap-and-trade would be allocated.
Since then, the decision has apparently been made to give away permits rather than auctioning them (a net loser for most of us AND for the environment since auctions would raise revenue to rebate to offset costs to the low-income and also to build out things like mass transit and since auctions would put additional downward pressure on carbon).
And the bill probably just doesn't go far enough in attempts to limit carbon output. Now, I'm seen as a jerk in some corners because I think global warming is a big enough environmental problem that I'm open to nuclear or clean coal technology to avoid our planet frying alive. It ain't my goal, of course, but I've found the Gods have yet to issue me fiat power over our government, so I'm open to carbon sequestration and other things.
But all that said, what is fascinating to me is watching how the carbon debate mirrors the health care debate:
It comes down to how you see the big picture and the larger forces of history-that Rorschach blot. Those who have turned against the bill think there will be one chance to do this; they cite the Clean Air Act to show how crappy compromises get cemented in place in legislation and become very, very difficult to reopen. They're worried that if a weak bill is put in place, by the time the country seriously revisits it it could well be too late. It blows the one chance.
The bill's supporters think history is on their side. They see the most important goals as establishing a long-term declining cap on CO2 (the 2030 and 2050 targets remain strong in W-M), getting a carbon trading system up and running, and above all shifting off the status quo trajectory. They also point out that the U.S. desperately needs something to take to the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Only a show of good faith will get the rusty gears of multilateral negotiation turning again, and that process, too, cannot wait. As time passes, they say, climate change will hit harder, increasing political pressure to strengthen the system. States will accelerate their own programs; clean businesses will gain size and lobbying muscle; everyone will get much more serious about the problem and cognizant of the opportunities. This is the beginning of a journey that will only gain, not lose, momentum.
That's the single-payer folks and the HCAN team spelled out right there. It's the one-fell-swoop crowd v the incrementalists.
I had a fairly long conversation last evening with one of my favorite local conservation leaders. This discussion was at the very heart of it. When you're a principled incrementalist, the question is always what you're willing to settle for, because the reality is: if we pass major health care or global warming legislation in 2009, it will not be on the agenda again for at least several years in the same way.
Conversely, what we know from history is that when the issue dies in Congress, politicians back off their support for it, the media finds different stories, and the issue does not return again until a champion finds it once more.
Health care reform is very likely to occur this year before we move on to considering the carbon pollution caps (I don't coordinate the ball, I'm just reading the program they gave me), but this issue is going to be even tougher to navigate. It is nearly impossible to convince Americans that our healthcare system isn't broken. In the realm of climate science, disinformation still has sway.
In a good sign for both gender equity and economic justice, the U.S. Senate passed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today. The measure received unanimous Democratic support and a handful of crossover Republicans -- Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (Murkowski's a bit of a surprise, but there are only so many women who will vote to keep pay discrimination effectively legal).
This measure arose after the Supreme Court denied relief to a woman who brought a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination after becoming aware of a difference in pay. The Court found that she needed to sue as soon as the discrimination started -- which is perfect since most workplaces have and encourage complete transparency regarding pay differences among employees.
This bill fixes this to ensure that injustices can be addressed when discovered, instead of demanding that they be fixed before anyone knows about them.
With this passing the Senate, a final version signed by the President is well on its way.
Max Baucus and Jon Tester both supported the bill. When it came up in the House, Rehberg opposed it. Of course, for someone worth millions and millions of dollars, $.78 on the dollar might not actually seem like such a bad bargain.
Max Baucus and the Senate Finance Committee reported out a very good version of the SCHIP Reauthorization bill today -- meaning that we're close to getting a bill on President-Elect Obama's desk very, very soon.
The goal now is to hold on to what was won in the committee, which includes some good things like allowing states to cover eligible children for dental insurance, even if they have medical insurance through other means.
Dental coverage for children is crucial to lifelong health of teeth and lifelong health overall. This is a great call.
The better news is that this bill sailed pretty smoothly, with bipartisan support (the Dems and Sen. Olympia Snowe voted for it in committee). The other good sign is, frankly, Sen. Grassley's temper tantrum. He complained as reported by CQ:
The nearly five-hour markup turned contentious at points, with Republicans, including ranking member Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, claiming that Democrats had shut them out of the process and betrayed compromises worked out on similar bills in the 110th Congress.
"It makes me damned disgusted," Grassley told the panel. "We had all sorts of cooperation.... Now it's kind of feeling like you're thrown overboard."
Sen. Grassley is right that the two sides compromised in 2008. They worked together, in an environment with 49 Ds, 49 Rs, and two Is caucusing with the Ds. They passed those bills only to see President Bush veto them. The voters spoke and created a U.S. Senate with 56 Ds, 41 Rs, 2 Is caucusing with the Ds, and a vacancy waiting for a D to be seated.
So, um, yeah, last year's compromises are no longer operational. The American people spoke and they said it is time to take some major action. It was the American people, not the Democrats on the Finance Committee, who threw Grassley's colleagues overboard. Let's just be clear about that.
Jon Tester has been appointed to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, fulfilling a promise made by Democratic leadership in the 2006 election. Jon also serves on the Veterans' Affairs, Banking, Homeland Security and Indian Affairs Committees.
By my tally, that means he traded Energy and Small Business for Appropriations.
After listening to a newly contrite appeal for billions in taxpayer help for the struggling auto industry, U.S. Sen. Jon Tester said Thursday that there are merits to throwing a tax-funded lifeline to the Big Three, but "the devil is in the details."
"There are grounds to support a bailout, but there are some deal breakers," Tester said in an interview with the Gazette State Bureau on Thursday afternoon.
He also gave some criteria:
Taxpayers would be first in line when the debt is repaid.
The money would be spent in America, on American manufacturing, rather than expanding American-owned plants in Mexico, for example.
A government board would have oversight of the package and would potentially help craft a bankruptcy package for an automaker, should bankruptcy prove inevitable.
Tester also correctly notes that this bailout is a far better deal for taxpayers than the bailout of Wall Street. It would be stupid of us to stop a smarter bailout because of anger over a stupid one. Ideally, the money for this would come from the already approved $700b anyways.
Final thought: as the newspaper account and the video highlight, Tester is neither bending over backwards to support or to oppose this deal. Rather, he appears to be demanding a good deal and saying he'll support it if it has its ducks in a row. That's a good position -- especially for someone like him who has some real say in how this thing gets crafted (although, even in a club of 100, he lacks the seniority still to be in the driver's seat).
Paul Krugman gets shrill about the economy in the near run, noting that jobs reports are showing very, very quick rises in unemployment.
The second problem he notes is that infrastructure spending will take time to phase up as a lot of infrastructure we could put money into isn't really ready to move yet. Infrastructure -- highways, bridges, rail lines, power lines, etc. -- takes some thought to do properly.
Atrios says that means all the more reason to quickly up aid to state and local governments, plus transit agencies.
Cutting those checks can do a lot to keep public sector layoffs from adding to private sector layoffs. Plus states may be able to start more infrastructure projects with an influx of money.
Second -- now would be a smart time, as councilman Jason Wiener already noted in Missoula, for municipalities and states to start budgeting and preparing infrastructure projects that could be funded and revved up quickly to infuse some money into the economy.
There's a free screening tomorrow night in Missoula of I.O.U.S.A. -- 7pm at the Wilma -- which I've heard is a very eye-opening look at the fiscal situation our country faces. There are some decent arguments to be made about our country's fiscal realities. But right now is no time to be penny wise and pound foolish.
Jon Tester asked and now they've agreed. The CEOs of Ford and GM will cut their pay to just $1 if they receive the bailout they're pining for (Chrysler's CEO had already agreed; also it is unclear if that pledge extends to their salary or to their total compensation package).
That's good news -- and Tester explains that it goes a bit beyond symbolism (which is true, given the size of their salaries).
So good work to our Senator, but this isn't over yet. Before another dime of public money is handed out, Washington better think long and hard. I'm far more sympathetic to Detroit's situation than I am to Wall Street. For all of their dumb management decisions (including to keep health care in-house and oppose universal health care against the UAW's wishes decades ago), Detroit makes stuff of real value and employs middle class workers. Wall Street got rich trading BS at the cost of the country.
Anyways, there is more to ponder on this proposed bailout. Here's some suggested reading for anyone (including our Senator or his staff) who may be interested:
I have to say, I'm torn on this. The bailouts are bothersome. A vibrant economy has a place for failure and bankruptcy. But the auto manufacturing market is far from a competitive market (witness Ford's support for a bailout package it claims it only needs indirectly). How do we get it to the point where it is? I have no idea.
Update -- Jon Bennion responds and notes that I hadn't linked to his original posts. That was an honest oversight. The main substantive post of his is here. Also -- a correction below.
Original Post: In a clear sign that the corporate community is sweating bullets, Jon Bennion of the Montana Chamber has been spending a lot of time beating up on the Employee Free Choice Act, a pro-union measure that would make starting a union easier for workers.
If Bennion's writing so far is any indication, it is a safe bet that the national Chamber (which, it is worth pointing out, is a different entity than the Montana Chamber) will be targeting Max Baucus and Jon Tester on this issue, even though both of our Senators are co-sponsors on the measure.
There's good reasons to make joining a union easier. By any account, worker intimidation by management during unionization drives is rampant today. The current law is toothless against worker intimidation (funny how the Chamber isn't too at all concerned about protecting workers from intimidation by management). In fact, one former Bush Administration official an employer in a frank Q-and-A summed up his opposition to card check by saying, "[Corporations] have no chance to retaliate" against workers trying to organize. Retaliation, of course, is already "illegal," but the laws are so meaningless that Labor Department officials talk about it as though it is legal (the equivalent of ONDCP opposing a law because it would give pot smokers no chance to light up in the privacy in their homes).
The bottom line, though, is that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and its card check provisions that will make it easier for workers who want to form unions to do so will also be good for our economy. Why? One of the biggest problems with our current economy is that it is way too top heavy and focused on playing money games with meaningless paper. For most American jobs, real wages have been in decline. A growing and active labor movement will restore some sanity to the wealth disparities in this country. Even better -- it will do so through the power of a contract and negotiations between invested individuals rather than through forced intervention by the government.
Both Max Baucus and Jon Tester are co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act. And while it will no doubt be a tough uphill climb to get the bill passed (the Chamber is clearly going to be pulling out all the stops), any workers who want to be paid what they are worth and any one who wants a stronger economy for all Americans should support its passage.
The bailout bill is driving some odd alliances in the Senate today. Jon Tester just released a statement that the bill "doesn't deserve my vote," while our senior Senator Max Baucus has been one of the people leading the efforts to pass it.
I haven't had a chance to digest the Senate version under consideration today. My gut is that if I was in Washington, I'd probably vote against it, but I can also understand why Max would support it.
When I've been knocking doors lately, the bailout bill inevitably comes up quite often. The voters I'm talking to sound a lot like what you'd expect -- looking for a solution, frustrated by the cost, but wanting Congress to make sure this doesn't spread to the rest of the economy.
In that environment, most members of Congress face the options they're facing right now: either vote for a mediocre bill because it is better than nothing and we need to do something or vote against a mediocre bill because it is too friendly to the rich bastards who mucked this up in the first place.
Daily Kos has a round up of who is coming down on which side with some rather interesting pairings appearing.
But it should be no surprise that this bill is causing some weird divisions because it is not a stereotypical ideology question. To some extent, the best predictor of how someone will vote on this bill is whether the person is an a) sit down and make things work even if they're imperfect or a b) populist rager who works to push the system closer to perfection by fighting hard against it. Our country needs both those things. Any observer of Montana politics also knows that Baucus is more the former and Tester more the latter.
Unsurprisingly, both Clinton and Obama are in the first camp. My guess is McCain would be there, too, today, but would possibly or even probably have been a no vote if he wasn't running for President.
Edwards, I should say, would almost certainly be a no vote if he was still in the Senate.
Jay already mentioned this, but it unfortunately appears that there is a lack of agreement in our Congressional delegation on whether to reconsider the deregulation of Wall Street that allowed for this mess to occur:
Rehberg said he favors some curbs on excessive executive pay and wants to have a full debate on the House floor. He wouldn't say whether he favored more regulation of the banking industry.
A few things we need to be clear about -- this isn't just the banking industry. It's the larger financial sector. And as much as I'm all for more accountability for executives, what we're talking about there is small potatoes in the larger scheme of things.
The better questions revolve around a lot of the newly ginned up financial instruments that were largely operating without oversight.
Unfortunately, the penchant for deregulation as silver bullet hasn't dissipated. Despite a bit of outcry over McCain's recent writing in an actuarial magazine that the best route for health care is to deregulate in the same way that we deregulated the financial services realm, similar ideas continue to percolate.
From Duane Grimes, Republican candidate for State Auditor:
Grimes said his plan would ease some insurance regulations and give consumers more information so they could have more choices and competition in the private health insurance market.
[...]
Analyzing how health insurance mandates drive up costs, and possibly pushing to eliminate mandates so insurers can offer less-costly products that provide only the coverage that some consumers want.
No one is going to argue that subprime health insurance is going to cause BCBS to be overleveraged and crash our economy. But the other problem will still be real. On a cashflow basis, toothless insurance is cheaper. The monthly bills are lower.
But the point of insurance isn't to protect against the harms you foresee, but also against the ones you don't. Narrow insurance isn't really insurance at all. And especially in health care, what mandates largely cover are preventive approaches that most people agree are what we need more of, not less of.
Health insurance deregulation is likely to exacerbate America's health care problems, much of which is driven by overconsumption of health care by the rich and underconsumption of health care by the poor. The overconsumption by the rich drives of the price. The underconsumption by the poor results in people seeking (costly) treatment at the emergency room.
Look -- from everything I've heard Duane Grimes is a stand-up guy and a friendly human being. I actually think there's a decent chance he'll be the next State Auditor. Fortunately, in that role, he won't have the power to deregulate the health insurance sector unilaterally (as far as I know).
But it should raise concerns that he wants to take the approach to health care that got us in this financial mess.
OMG! Bob Kelleher has (had?) a zipper problem?!?!?!?!?!
Saying he's concerned that Democratic Sen. Max Baucus may use personal smears in the campaign, Republican candidate Bob Kelleher laid out his life's faults Wednesday - and threw a few political punches of his own.
Kelleher, a longtime Democrat who surprisingly won the Republican U.S. Senate primary last month, said Baucus "can't beat me on the issues" and may resort to personal attacks to win. Kelleher referred to Baucus' last re-election race in 2002, when the Montana Democratic Party ran television ads showing embarrassing old footage of Republican candidate Mike Taylor. Taylor dropped out of the race, saying the ads suggested that he was gay.
To that end, Kelleher said he'd beat Baucus to the punch and lay bare his personal shortcomings:
As a 23-year-old man, Kelleher was a friar in a Carmelite monastery and 18 months away from ordination into the priesthood. He dropped out, Kelleher said, because he couldn't handle the vow of chastity.
Montana Headlines is already previewing what could be the heavyweight match of the decade: a 2012 U.S. Senate battle between Sen. Jon Tester and Rep. Dennis Rehberg:
When it comes to staying in touch with every corner of Montana, there is no-one else in Rehberg's league. Like the professional that he is, he will concentrate on his job, and as a politician he will concentrate on one election at a time. But in this year of the Sen. Baucus cash juggernaut, it is hard not to look a bit into the distance at 2012, realizing that Rehberg will likely face off against Sen. Tester with 6 straight winning statewide elections under his belt and having spent more than 2 decades building his statewide support and organization.
This is already a fairly widely anticipated event. That doesn't mean it will certainly happen, but there's a good chance. Rehberg managed Conrad Burns' first campaign, so it's a bit of a personal fight for him, I'd guess.
What's the most similar match in Montana history? The one that comes to mind for me is Williams v. Marlenee. Williams, of course, came out on top of that fight.
That will be a 20 year-old fight by the time Tester and Rehberg square off, though.
Montana has a hell of a primary season coming up -- so I wanted to issue a call for info. The big benefit of the software that powers Left in the West is that anyone can contribute by writing diaries -- so feel free to register and start writing. Don't be surprised if your contributions show up on the frontpage (of course, if it gets to be super-intense, don't be offended if they don't).
Long story short, the current team here won't be able to do justice to all the races shaping up here in Montucky:
U.S. President: The Obama/Clinton showdown is coming to Montana. Who's up? Who's down? Who's got volunteers on the doors?
U.S. Senate: The Republicans have a four-way primary for U.S. Senate. In what is likely to be a low turnout primary (Presidential votes won't matter, none of the campaigns are running particularly hard), who will take the prize? It's hard to beat Mike Lange for name recognition. But he's got a problem: everyone associates him with his PLT. Will Bushman pull it off? Will one of the dark horse candidates squeak out an inexplicable victory? What are you seeing/hear?
Governor: It looks like Brian Schweitzer will face a primary. I'd be hard-pressed to call it a close contest, but that doesn't mean it couldn't create some interesting, um, spectacles -- not the least of which is the current poll on the righthand side.
Attorney General: Both the Ds and the Rs have primary fights for their parties' nods for the AG race. This is likely to be among the fiercest fights in the primary. And big turnout in the Presidential could render all the legwork here for naught.
Superintendent: The Ds have a 4-way race. Again, big turnout could make this a surprising race to watch.
State Legislature: In districts across the state, open seats are seeing primaries -- and if Koop-dog has his way, the GOP arena will be absolutely full of 'em.
County Commission: At least in Missoula, we've got a commission primary -- I'm sure similar stuff is happening elsewhere.
Now I'm sure some folks would rather not write full posts. Email always works -- and if you post something interesting in comments, we'll do our best to follow-up.
Bottom-line: no newspaper in this state is big enough or dedicates enough resources to adequately cover the kind of primary we're about to witness. Help us do what we can to fill the gaps.
Jay noted yesterday that it was odd that Keenan is highlighting his talks to the NRSC. All the while, Keenan is even making it sound like he is more interested in seeing his name in print than in making a serious run.
All of this stuff is interesting to me. I've heard some progressives say, based, I think, on Keenan's rhetoric, that he's actually not a bad Republican.
When it comes to voting, though, Bob Keenan has done some wacky stuff. Take HB 197, for example, from '05. This was a bill to increase penalties for elder abuse. Huge bipartisan support -- like 138 votes for passage.
Bob Keenan was one of 18 opponents between both chambers.
Here's another example. In 1999, a bipartisan resolution encouraging the Governor to include the Native community in economic development only got a single 'no' vote in the Senate. The lone opponent? Senator Bob Keenan.
Now, I suppose the Senator from Big Fork could have good reasons for these votes, but they certainly appear to be bad votes on first blush.
Wow. Rep. Mike Lange is going after Max Baucus on the war. There's not a lot of substance to his charges, unless Lange wants to announce his support of Reid-Feingold. But it's worth noting that the only Republican running for U.S. Senate right now is vehemently opposed to staying in Iraq.
The U.S. Senate just spent time debating and voting on a measure condemning "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus" and saying that General Petraeus deserves their full support.
This comes after news that Gen. Petraeus's boss, Admiral Fallon, the Chief of Central Command, referred to the General as "an ass-kissing little chickenshit."
I mean, I can see disagreeing with Admiral Fallon's views of Petraeus, but why does the U.S. Senate feel the need to spend time on it?
Jay has already written pretty widely about the wiretapping votes that occurred last week, but they are another great example of just exactly how big the gulf between the two parties is -- especially here in Montana.
Max Baucus and Jon Tester were not part of the group that broke in order to support Mr. 28%'s desire to hear our conversations and further weaken our privacy protections.
Dennis Rehberg, on the other hand, took his typical route and rubber stamped the President's desire to increase executive power with no oversight.
Meanwhile, even as the U.S. Congress takes action to increase federal power again, the state's leading libertarian blogger finds the most interesting story -- enforcement of military law against a right-wing gadfly at Daily Kos. Check out the comments to find out why Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org did what he did. It wasn't censorship. It was his obligation to enforce military code. Still, good to know that blogger conventions are more interesting than abuses condoned by the U.S. Congress.
I write a whole post on Bob Keenan and didn't even see this Flathead Beaconarticle where Bobby plays hard to get.
"I absolutely don't know," Keenan replied when asked by the Beacon. "I doubt that I'm going to run for U.S. Senate, as far as I'm concerned it's up to the people in D.C. and the Republican party to have more conversations."
Tires squealing as this vehicle stops -- did a potential candidate for U.S. Senate just said it's up to D.C. to decide whether he runs?
Bob Keenan floated a story to state papers last week about how the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is recruiting him. I have no doubt they are, but it's important to remember that until last week, there was no indication that anyone considered Bob Keenan a top tier candidate. In fact, if I recall correctly, Sen. John Ensign, chair of the NRSC publicly said that without Rehberg, they wouldn't really be able to make a race of it.
So what's the real story? Why is Bob Keenan claiming that
officials from the National Republican Senatorial Committee told him they ran a poll and found that he and U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg were the only two Republicans who could give Baucus "a run for his money."
Has he seen the numbers? Has anyone seen the numbers showing that Keenan can keep Max close to 50?
'Cause, frankly, I doubt them.
Here's what I'd wager is going on. The NRSC and the state GOP are both terrified of a Mike Lange candidacy and the specter of Max Baucus riding to re-election with 70% of the vote, as Mike Lange becomes the standard bearer of Montana Republicans and down ticket, they get slaughtered.
So they're drumming up candidates and Keenan is a natural choice. He can drop some of his own money into the race. He's got leftover name ID from his primary against Burns and subsequent TV ads endorsing him afterwards.
He'll lose, sure, but he'll fare better than Mike Lange and that's all the GOP can really hope for at this point -- not losing as badly.
The NRSC whispers some sweet nothings in his ear, "No, really, babe -- your poll numbers are just as hot as that last candidate we were recruiting. We weren't serious when we said he was the only guy who could ever do it for us."
Keenan signs on the dotted line. He loses by 20% and the state GOP has a chance to salvage its legislative races.
So here's my question for the chattering classes -- has anyone actually seen poll numbers showing Keenan competitive? And if so, why aren't we seeing numbers leaked? Why third-hand reports?
