Archive for the 'Republicans' Category

Gubernatorial candidate Don Pogreba wrote an interesting opinion piece on education funding in the Billing Gazette. While Don and I don’t agree on everything, I think he generally nails the issues surrounding education dead on. This piece being no exception, Don manages to distill the debate that is going on in this state in a few sentences:

Rather than acknowledge funding shortfalls, conservative critics of education would like you believe that Montana is already spending too much on its education programs. Despite laudable increases in the last few years, statistics demonstrate that Montana has failed to keep pace with the spending necessary for quality education. The conservative American Legislative Council just issued some troubling statistics about education spending in Montana. According to their research, we rank dead last in the nation in compensation for education professionals, and 42nd in the rate of growth in education expenditures, from 1986-2005.
[snip]
The people of Montana have a choice to make. We can either look backwards to 1950, focusing on resource extraction that will primarily benefit multinational corporations, or we can look ahead to 2050, focusing on the best-educated, most creative people in the world, giving them the tools to create their own destinies because we had the sense to invest in them.

During last years legislative session, I was dismayed to see that there was a debate over this at all. To fund or not to fund while we have teachers buying classroom supplies from their own meager salaries. It just doesn’t make sense to me that legislators don’t seem to get the point that Don makes above: educating our children is far and away the best investment we can make.

With the recent defeat of mill levies to fund schools in Great Falls and Billings, we should see that there are some very serious issues with the regard for education in this state. In order to help deal with budget shortfalls Senators Ryan and Kitzenberg (also a candidate for OPI) will propose a special session to consider a bill that would add $30 million to fund Montana schools.

“We think such economic factors as rising gasoline and food costs were a big reason why people opposed levies,” Ryan said. “And we believe the state has enough surplus revenue to help prevent school districts from cutting too many teachers and programs.”

One important point that this statement should bring out to people is that the same budget issues caused by inflation facing individuals are also afflicting schools. While I applaud their effort to deal with the issues, I would also make the claim that there is something fundamentally problematic about the state’s attitude to school funding. Emergency funding is good but positive policies with long term growth plans would be so much better.

For instance, consider my own neighborhood here is Helena. New houses go in everyday, but the school has stayed the same size. Kids are just shipped further and further away. Builders should be putting money into building new schools in the area as they are the ones making the profit off of building the houses there. The increased value of the property will support the school, but it has to be built first.

As Don points out, we need a shift in the way that we think about school funding. It is not a sink hole, it is an investment.

Look at the headlines:

Senate Republicans block unequal pay bill
McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate
Republicans block pay discrimination bill

What is happening here? What is it about women and the working class in general that Republicans hate? Even in a session saturated by GOP obstructionism, this one really stands out.

The blocked Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama woman who lost her case in the Supreme Court last year, is backed by women’s and civil rights groups that argue it would give workers a fair chance for justice.
-
It is opposed by the White House and business groups, which warn it would trigger an explosion of lawsuits and allow suits to be filed years and even decades after alleged offenses.
-
On average in the United States, women are paid about 23 percent less than men, while minorities receive even less — despite laws that mandate equal pay for equal work

Opposed by the White House and business groups? Well, by all means, vote it down. Can someone explain why Republican’s are so interested in doing the bidding of business groups instead of looking out for their constituents? What is the idea with that?

Today, the Chronicle is reporting that notorious Bozeman-Republicans Roger Koopman and John Sinrud have both decided not to seek re-election this year.

On Thursday, Sinrud, who had filed in February, said he withdrew from the race because he needed to attend to providing for his family after his business was shut down by the Montana Board of Architecture.

You may remember some controversy over said matter, with Sinrud accusing the Governor of being behind the investigation into this license, or lack thereof.   It appears that Sinrud’s new line of work (which is unstated) will not allow him the four month break to serve in Helena.

Koopman’s decision seems far more unexplained; the Chronicle has received no comment from him, and Gallatin County Republican Chairman  Larry Blakesley was surprised to hear that Koopman didn’t actually file, as he promised he would in January.

This should come as very good news, what with Sinrud and Koopman both being two of the most obstructionist and uncompromising members of the Montana Legislature.

House Speaker Scott Sales, also of Bozeman, is still running, but two out of three sure ain’t bad.

They Picked Who?

I have been wondering what kind of race Roy Brown and Steve Daines were going to run. Clean? Honest? Affable? Well, one can have high hopes, seeing as how that is what they have been promising. While I still hold hope, I became a bit more skeptical when I heard that they have selected Chris Wilcox, the executive director of the Montana Republican Party to lead their campaign.

I have to say that this is rather disappointing, knowing how Chris Wilcox does business. You might remember that Wilcox is the one behind the very odd death porn mailers last march. If you can stomach it, here is a direct link to show you how strange and twisted they really were. Remember, these were so bad that even Mike Lange said on the house floor:

“I agree with the fact that that is garbage; you can quote me on that,’’ House Republican Leader Michael Lange of Billings said on the House floor.

Lange also said he won’t support for party chair anyone who would sanction such attacks, and promised to bring up the issue at the party’s June convention that chooses the next party chair.

Just is case there is any doubt who Mike Lange is talking about here:

Republican Party Executive Director Chris Wilcox told the Lee Newspapers State Bureau Friday it was his decision to send out the mailers this week

So, Mike Lange wouldn’t support Chris Wilcox for party chair based on this ‘garbage’, but Roy Brown would have him lead his campaign? See the reason for my concern here?

A Wind Fall

Running counter what Brown and Daines have been saying, this is good news for Montana. Call me a partisan hack, but this is about three things that are near and dear to my heart: wind energy, good jobs for Montana and a blue Montana. It looks like a German company that builds wind turbines will locate a manufacturing plant near Butte. In all, it will create 150 jobs, most in the $15 to $25 an hour range. Additionally, the construction of the $25 million dollar plant will be a boon in and of itself. Why is it coming here? You can’t buy publicity like this:

The CEO said one reason he picked Montana was the company wanted to operate “where we could find open arms from people.” Fuhrlander said that was the case from his first meeting with Schweitzer and his strong support for wind energy development.
-
“We could see we have the right area, we have the right political support, the right financial support and we have the windy area where the wind farms and projects are close to the manufacturing line,” Fuhrlander said.
-
Montana has about 50 wind power projects in various phases of discussion, the Schweitzer administration said. If all were built, that would result in more than 4,000 megawatts of wind energy.

This is good stuff. Like I said, call me a partisan hack if you will, but Scweitzer is really pulling through on a lot of his commitments here.

Self Destructing GOP

This has been covered very well elsewhere ( Intelligent Discontent, Speedkill, LITW ), but I wanted to make sure that I brought it up in case anyone missed it.

One of the Legislature’s most conservative members is trying to recruit challengers to run in certain legislative primaries to purge the Republican Party of what he calls 14 “socialist incumbent Republicans.”

Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, said he wants to help oust those Republicans “who have consistently sold out the cause of liberty in the Montana Legislature.” He wants to return the GOP to “its low-tax, limited-government, free-market roots.”

It seems Koopman has made a list of targeted republicans tha includes the likes of Bill Glacer, John Ward, John Brueggeman and Dave Lewis. I know that when I think ‘Dave Lewis’ I immediately think socialist. In Koopman’s mind there is no room for dissent and no middle ground. It would be kind of scary if it weren’t so funny. As a commenter at LitW said:

…Montana Democrats couldn’t write a script for the R’s that was this funny, and there are some real cut-ups in the party. Hear that noise? That’s the sound of the Republicans eating their own. Munch, munch, spit……

In a surprisingly unselfish move, Mitt Romney has exited the Presidential race because otherwise:

I forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I’d be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Essentially, the Republican nominee is decidedly John McCain, who now can begin to build general election momentum while Democrats endure a drag-out nomination fight with no end in sight.  This news is likely good news to Republicans of all slants, for this very reason.

As “Super Tuesday” draws ever closer, in the back of my mind I have been wondering about the possibilities, as I am sure many people are who are considering Republican candidates for President. As many (hopefully) know, the Republican party will be holding a caucus on February 5th here in Montana, to decide the candidate that Montana’s 25 Republican delegate votes will go to. The democrats get 16 delegate votes in their convention, but who they support will not be decided until Montana’s traditional primary in June.

Right now, the pledged delegate votes stand like this for the Republican candidates:

John McCain has 93 delegate votes
Mitt Romney has 59 delegate votes
Mike Huckabee has 40 delegate votes
Ron Paul has 4 delegate votes
Fred Thompson has 5 delegate votes
Rudy Giuliani has 1 delegate vote
Duncan Hunter has 1 delegate vote

A total of 1,191 delegate votes are needed to obtain the Republican party nomination. Given that the last three of those have dropped out of the race, that means that 7 of those delegate votes might be back up for grabs. On Super Tuesday, there are a total of 1,038 delegate votes up for grabs, so no candidate can take the nomination. (AL 45, AK 26, AZ 53, AR 31, CA 170, CO 43, CT 27, DE 18, GA 72, IL 57, MA 43, MN 38, MO 58, MT 25, NJ 52, NY 101, ND 26, OK 38, TN 52, UT 36, WV 27).

A couple of quotes from the Montana Republican party website, in which Iverson answers John Adam’s questions regarding the caucus.

Q: Who is eligible to vote in the caucus?

Iverson:About 2,800 people are eligible to vote, and that’s if we fill all 1,700 precinct positions. All of the voting members of the Montana Republican Party State Executive Committee have a vote. Elected officers from each county central committee have a vote. Each precinct person has a vote. All incumbent Republican members of the Montana Legislature, Public Service Commission and incumbent Republican office holders in county, state and federal offices also have a vote. The state headquarters sent out information packets notifying everybody who is eligible.

and

Q: How will the caucus work?

Iverson:On Feb. 5, there will be a caucus held in each of Montana’s 56 counties. For example, here in Missoula they will meet at the Doubletree Hotel at 6 p.m. They’re having a social hour, and then at around 7 p.m. representatives of each of the campaigns will give speeches. After that, there will be a chance for discussion, and then there will be a vote conducted by paper ballot. Most of the caucuses follow that same model. The only rule we have deadline-wise is that all of the votes need to be called into state headquarters by 10 p.m. that night.

Right, so now, not only do the majority of citizens who consider themselves to be Republicans not get to participate in choosing the candidate that they want to run against the Democratic nominee; but the final votes are not due to state headquarters until an hour after the California and west-coast polls close, which could lead to the vote in Montana being swayed by the outcome of caucuses and primaries in other states. I thought the whole point of having Montana’s Republican caucus in February, well let’s use an Iverson quote again, this one is from last August:

The new proposal would require Montana’s 25 delegates to support the winner of Montana’s Republican Presidential Caucus, an honor that could only be won by garnering broad support from 2,262 party officials representing every county across the state. Under the new, reform plan, those who cast a vote on behalf of Montana Republicans at the National Convention would better represent the will of Republicans from throughout the entire state, instead of their own personal preference.

Iverson has changed his tune since last August, now he is saying:

Q: What happens once you have a winner?

Iverson:All 25 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be required to vote for the winner of the Montana caucus. However, there are a couple of protections built into that.

For example, say Fred Thompson wins in Montana on Feb. 5, but by the time a few other states’ results come in it’s pretty clear that John McCain is going to be our nominee. In that case, our delegates are bound to vote for Fred Thompson on the first ballot at the national convention, but on the second ballot they would be free to vote for whomever they wanted.

Also, we’ve made a provision where Fred Thompson (in that scenario), by way of letter to me, could release his delegates to vote for whomever they wish.

So the good news is, that even though the delegates are bound to cast all 25 of Montana’s delegate votes at the Republican Presidental Caucus to the “winner” of Tuesday night’s selective caucus; the will of the citizens who are members of the Republican party should still cast their votes in the June primary for the Republican candidate of their choice.  Then maybe the 25 delegates will finally listen to those not allowed to participate in a primary caucus, and cast their votes to represent who Montana really wants to run as the Republican Presidential candidate.

A while ago I asked you to predict who the first Republican casuality (first after primary season began, anyhow) would be.  It appears that most of you, those who said Duncan Hunter, were right.

The Right wing field has finally narrowed, even if only a little bit.

Now when is that Fred Thompson concession speech scheduled for…

It should come as no surprise that Democrat Bill Richardson has dropped out of the race for President, joining Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.  That makes three Dems down.  My question, how long can longshots Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter stay in the hunt.  Will we see the demise of Fred Thompson anytime soon?  I would think some Right wingers will have to join these Democratic casualities sometime in the near future.

What do you think?

It is official; Congressional Republicans have set a record for the most filibusters ever used in a single session of Congress, with a full year to go still!

Absolutely not. The 49-member Senate Republican minority has done something no Senate minority in American history has ever done: they’ve filibustered more bills than any Congress ever has — and they broke the record with a full year to spare.

The latest came this morning, when the Senate GOP filibustered an omnibus budget bill, the 62nd Republican filibuster since the 110th Congress began in January.

This should help structure the debate between those who have accused Liberals of hypocrisy when criticizing Republican Filibusters (since Democrats used the tool last session as well). While Democrats did indeed use this minority tool, it was never used to the degree we are now seeing with Republicans. Although the filibuster was originally meant to protect the minority, it is obvious that is has been reduced to an obstructionist tool; essentially, Senate bills need 60 votes to pass, instead of a simple majority.

As a recent Rasmussen poll discovered, people are just as fired up about who they don’t want for their president as they are about who they do want to elect. Not that this should surprise anyone, but it got me thinking about who is the worst of the worst. We bloggers spend a great deal of time complaining, so I have a feeling that I should see the answers to this question coming, but I thought it would be interesting to ask everyone the same question Rasmussen put out there; to see what kind of commentary we get.

Here goes nothing (feel free to comment on why you answered the way you did):

I am honor bound and I believe that it is the right thing to do: Max Baucus’s campaign finance practices are wrong. I feel driven to write this post because I constantly chastised Burn’s and still chastise Rehberg for collecting large sums of out of state money. It is wrong when they do it and it is wrong when Max does it. As Pogie points out here:

A lot of of us on the left raked Conrad Burns across the coals last year for his attitude about fundraising, as well as the source of much of that money. While no one will ever suggest that Baucus comes close to the level of sleaze that emanated from the Burns campaign, consistency demands a critical look at the people who contribute to his campaign, as well as his office’s attitude about it.
-
Money has corrupted the legislative process and cheapened the leaders who shape the laws. Isn’t it time for Senator Baucus to show that he is worth more than his campaign contributions?

Really. Think about it. 90% of his funding from out of state? Millions of dollars and he hasn’t even started campaigning in Montana? Does he intend to? Do we count? I am not so sure.

Now, consider this post by Carol from Missoulaopolis, where she suggests that Montana should take the lead on enacting requirements that all campaign contributions come from inside the district to be represented. I think there might be something to this. What is the downside? Why do we need out of state money? Particularly when it only serves to fortify the incumbent. This puts no one at a disadvantage, so what is tha harm? Thoughts?

It has been a while since I visited either the Montana GOP or Montana Democrat websites.  The last time I checked the GOP site, it was a horrible mess, with most of the content crammed at the bottom.

It looks like they have a new format, and I have to say it really looks nice.  They even have the obligatory red,white, and blue in the main banner; someone forgot to send the Dems that must-have-colors-prominently-displayed memo.   The Dem’s site doesn’t look nearly as nice, in my opinion.

Again, I have no clue how long these sites have been updated, but if you are like me, and have been avoiding them, now might be the time to check them out.  As 2008 approaches, both will probably be filled with new information all the time.

One of the recurring themes this election season has been a favorite of Republican front runners Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney; executive experience. I can’t count the number of times that one of them has attacked an opponent, Republican or Democrat, by reminding us that said person “never ran a _____”. For Guiliani, the statement normally reads “he has never run a city”, while for Romney ’state’ normally replaces city in that tired reminder. In fact, Romney was at it again recently while speaking about Hillary Clinton:

“She hasn’t run a corner store. She hasn’t run a state. She hasn’t run a city,” he says. “And the idea that she could learn to be president as an internship just doesn’t make any sense.”

The emphasis is mine to show the alliterative nature of his executive claims.

Of course, both men do this for two reasons. One, to claim that their opponent lacks the necessary leadership qualities to do the job. However, and fare more important, these statements are used as a tactic implication that only someone with their kind of executive experience (read: running a state or large city) is fit to be president. They feel that you need all kinds of experience “running” things before you qualify as Presidential material, and that is where I take issue.

I don’t want my President to act like a business owner; where everything is about increasing the bottom line. People get left behind under leaders like that, because people are evaluated as expendable currency.

I don’t want my President to act like a career-politican, even if that is a requisite for the job. There is a perception that politicans have to forfeit every belief they have to make it in Washington, and that kind of mentality is not going to heal this country’s political issues.

I don’t want my President to act like he/she deserves the job because he/she has mastered the art of “running” things. People with that much ‘leadership’ experience talk a big game, but seem to forgotten how best to lead; by example. I want a leader who wants to work with people; not lead them to the promised land.

I don’t want my President to get the job as a bloated promotion. Who cares that you were major or governor, that doesn’t mean you get to move up the ladder. Romney: you have taken the accomplishments of the state you ‘led’ and sacrificed them on the altar of Family Values, so why should I care about the experience you so easily disavow? Giuliani, you have attempted to parlay a national disaster into the notion that you have valid ‘Foreign Affairs’ experience. Why should I support someone so willing to bend human tragedy to his will?

Nope, this isn’t going to fly. We need someone who knows that actions speak louder than words; especially tired, worn out words. We need the a President who will be honored to do the job, rather than feel that they have finally earned their due. It is time for our President to stop “running” everything and start working for the people who elect him/her.

Candidates: remember who works for who, the next time you talk about “running” the country.

Counting commas…

I can’t even count the commas and zeros the government is talking about to fund the war in Iraq. The current physical year, August, September and October is some 196 Billion dollars and the President now wants an additional 46 Billion dollars as emergency funding to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course this would have to by-pass the normal funding channels, which I highly doubt the Democrats (and many Republicans) will support that “open” checkbook. Also, please keep in mind the National debt – How many Trillion dollars?

The bottom line is too many commas and too many zeros for any average person to count or understand the enormity of $$$ being spent to fight what? Our freedom? It surely isn’t yours or mine.

The question to any of the hopeful candidates running for President would be – When and how would you stop all of this bloodletting?

Keep in mind that with this much money we could be solving a lot of families without insurance to insure their kids. With this much money we could have the resources needed to fight the raging fires throughout the United States. We could use this money to rebuild the New Orleans area from the throngs of Katrina. Need one go on?

The time is NOW my friends. We cannot let this to continue with no end in sight. We must take care of number one (us) before we can even begin to think about number 2, 3, 4.

I was listening to Yellowstone Public Radio on the way home this afternoon when I heard that someone was running for senate who wasn’t Baucus. Bushman who? My first thought was that Mike Lange had changed his name, it could help when you have negative name recognition. No, it’s true. Even the serious media is covering it.

According to the YPR coverage, he has already raised over $10,000, mostly from friends and family. While he has never held public office, the engineer from Billings seems to have a solid grasp on the issues facing Montana. From his website:

One of the single biggest reasons for the record-low approval ratings of Congress is, no doubt, due to illegal immigration.

I am not sure that he has been paying attention lately, but I think that he is dead wrong here. There are plenty of other reasons that people hate congress. From the Lee article and his website, privatizing social security and supporting Bush’s veto of SCHIP are seemingly important. I am going to have to agree with Matt here:

Look, we can have a serious conversation about both of these issues and I suppose it is good we live in a country where these things can be debated. But if there new best hope is a guy who supports gutting Social Security and opposes expanding health care for kids, they should really just stick with Mike Lange

I am not trying to make lite of Kirk here. I want the GOP to come up with a candidate that can challenge Max, just to keep the system honest. A good democracy, like a good free market, requires competition. I don’t see the Montana GOP providing any of that.