Missoula Dems endorse
by Pete Talbot
Missoula County Democrats endorsed candidates in all six wards at Tuesday night’s central committee meeting and forum.
Incumbents Stacy Rye (Ward 3) and Ed Childers (Ward 6) got the nod. Rye’s opponent, Doug Harrison, did not seek the Democrat’s endorsement and chose not to attend the forum. The two other candidates in Ward 6, Lewie Schneller and Martin Guthrie, were also no-shows.
In Ward 1, candidate Jason Wiener received the endorsement, although this will be revisited when his opponent, Justin Armintrout, returns to Missoula. Justin Armintrout was out of the country and unable to respond to a questionnaire or attend the forum, so the Missoula County Democrats will talk with Justin at a later date and decide whether to endorse him, too. (Pete incorrectly implied that the Democratic endorsements were limited to one candidate in each ward; they are not. It’s still possible that both Jason and Justin will recieve endorsements from voting members of the Missoula County Democrats. -JS)
(To which Pete adds: Thanks for the clarification, however, for further clarification visit my comments over at LiTW.)
http://www.leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=854#3105
Pam Walzer got the endorsement in Ward 2 over candidates Dave Huerta and the incumbent, Don Nicholson. Huerta participated in the forum but Nicholson did not.
In the five-way race in Ward 4, Denver Henderson received the endorsement over incumbent Jerry Ballas and candidates Alan Ault, Joseph Gorsh and Lyn Hellegaard. Henderson was the only candidate from the ward to seek the Democrat’s endorsement and attend the forum.
Candidate Christine Prescott (Ward 5) was at the forum and got the nod over her opponent Renee Mitchell. Mitchell did not seek the Democrats’ endorsement and did not attend.
The endorsement of candidates in nonpartisan elections is an unusual move for the local Democratic Party. According to Chairman Jim Dayton, however, “there’s been some confusion in past elections on which candidates support Democratic Party values. We wanted to let the voters know which candidates support our platform, and which candidates don’t.”
The municipal primary election will be held Tuesday, Sept. 11. Mail-in ballots should begin arriving at registered voters’ homes next week.
-
1
Pingback on Aug 16th, 2007 at 9:51 am
[...] 4 & 20 Blackbirds – Pete is talking about the Democrats endorcing Missoula City Council Candidates [...]
Leave a Reply
-
Recent Comments
JC on Memorializing War Swede Johannson on Memorializing War Swede Johannson on Rape is not “knucklehead… 
larry kurtz (@larry_… on Memorializing War larry kurtz (@larry_… on Memorializing War Turner on Liz’s Weekly Poetry Seri… lizard19 on Memorializing War
August 15, 2007 at 1:02 pm
the endorsees should agree with Donkey values…they are all outspoken libs.
August 15, 2007 at 8:39 pm
So you know this as a fact, Ayn? You know where each of the candidates stands on the issues? That they’re all outspoken libs? Yeah, right.
August 16, 2007 at 9:15 am
Of course in Missoula, there’s no higher compliement.
August 17, 2007 at 7:03 am
Wow a slow pitch down the strike zone. Let me start with Anti pledge
Childers. In favor of doubling the hydrant fee, increasing property taxes in
Missoula by 6% each year, increasing his salery by $2000, increasing local
gas tax by 2 cents, favors local option tax, voted for an over charge of
$8,000,000.00 on Missoula Aquatics program. The operative word here is
TAX. He is a true tax and spend liberal. In Missoula-stan there is no higher
compliment!
August 17, 2007 at 9:49 am
Taxation isn’t synomous with liberal. Fair taxation, sure. Progressive income tax, yes.
You have a problem with a gas tax? Interesting.
August 17, 2007 at 10:10 am
Ayn. 1) Ed isn’t against the Pledge, he’s against the MANDATORY requirement to say the Pledge. 2) A local option tax would probably lower your property taxes (not that I’m for one — I think it’s regressive — which is why I figured you’d be for it). 3) Raising city council salaries was way overdue and a lot of the conservatives on council voted for this, too. Most council members work darn hard at their jobs. You’d end up with a pretty mediocre and lazy council with out a boost in wages. 4) And finally, you don’t like fire hydrants?
August 17, 2007 at 7:28 pm
{You’d end up with a pretty mediocre and lazy council with out a boost in wages}
Like we have now?
August 22, 2007 at 8:42 pm
how do you find out info on the guys in the ward one race? wiener’s website says nothing, and i can’t find armintrout.
August 23, 2007 at 9:37 am
gunit: If you want to know Wiener’s positions on issues important to you, drop him an email with questions. He’ll respond.
If you do that, consider emailing me the questions and responses, and I’ll post ‘em here for everyone to see.
As for Armintrout, I believe he’s been out of town and hasn’t really left any info about himself for anybody.
Again, if you do find a website or something, let me know and I’ll post a link…
August 24, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Oh my goodnes. Ayn Rand! I just LOVE your work!
Here comes a too-long post. Sorry ’bout that. If you’re Ayn Ran, the best is at the end.
1) I just came from a visit with the Pachyderms. We started the meeting with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Very pleasant beginning to a non-governmental affair. A nice lady I’ve known for a long time told me her 3-year-old granddaughter can recite the Pledge, and sing God Bless America! That’s great, I wish she’d have come to the meeting.
PeteTalbot is right. Why would anyone want to MAKE adults say the Pledge of Allegiance? We proposed a City Council agenda item “Opening Ceremony” that would have been a perfect venue for the Pledge, always assuming nobody objected to saying it, in which case I’m sure we could make other arrangements. The same people who adamantly insist that people MUST say the Pledge voted AGAINST having an Opening Ceremony agenda item. It’s a no-compromise position that pits them against the Constitution of the United States and, in my estimation, makes them seem foolish.
At any rate, the arguments in this case: – http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624 – are well-put and I refer people to them for their edification.
2) Hydrants: the city was being charged, and paying, too much for fire hydrants, according to the Public Service Commission. That $400,000 is now being put to good use as partial funding for the million-dollar-a-year fire station we opened up Miller Creek.
3) Property taxes going up 6% a year? Part of that’s city, but of course the city’s property tax increase is limited to half of the rate of inflation except for growth-related taxes and voter-approved bonds and health-insurance mills. There’s a fire hall bond, the open spaces bonds, and aquatics bonds to pay back.
4) Yep, I voted in favor of a Don Nicholson-proposed increase of $2,000 a year (Don voted against it).
5) Local gas tax would be county-wide and require a county-wide-vote. Gas tax funds are drying up. Roads need work, and expansion.
6) Local option tax – there’s a larger-area version of that, too, that the legislature turned down. I don’t like sales taxes but we need the money. See below.
7) 8 million on aquatics? Explain that one.
8) Tax and spend: yep, unlike national-level Republicans I believe in paying as you go, not burdening future generations with our debt. Not counting voter-approved bonds, of course. :)
9) Missoula-stan?
10) ALSO, I support a City Income Tax. That would let people who work in town but live out of town help pay for the City services they currently make City residents pay for. Seems fair to me.
August 25, 2007 at 7:08 pm
#10…here we go again…blame the out of towners. What we need is a toll booth at the city limits to keep those pesky shoppers from out of town from spending money with Missoula merchants. # 9 Missoula-stan, a sister city government akin to any Russian-stan country..#8, Tax and spend..doubling the effective cost on city taxpayers from 400K to 800K. That’s good effective and responsible accountability. IT”S NOT YOUR MONEY!! 7..doesn’t even deserve a a response. You and your fellow councilers did such a good job of keeping fiscal control of that project. 6.. see above..I don’t trust you with my money as you have shown a disregard for fiscal restraint. Lets just skip to the pledge you so adamently dislike. It is hard to argue a negative but let me try. The resolution would not FORCE anyone to say the pledge but rather ALLOW those that want to to do so. You are a perfect example since you sat while the pledge is was said during the Jan 17th A & F. So make fun of us and deride us and dislike us, but be mindful, we will not go away. I would respect you more if you didn’t look like a waffle on ther pledge. But respect is earned and you, so far, aren’t there yet. So keep pounding your drum and wrap yourself in the flag of the ACLU ( you know protect the rights of folks) unless you disagree with them.
August 26, 2007 at 8:47 am
Hi, Ayn Rand.
#10: I appreciate your suggestion to make more government jobs by setting up toll booths! Lots more jobs that way than using the income tax system that’s already set up. Good work. Thanks.
#9: Don’t you remember when Ronald Reagan single-handedly broke up the Soviet Union? Dang.
#8: Oh, I get it, you want the city to pay more of your bills. I dunno, sounds like socialism to me.
#8: some more: wrong about it not being my money, Ayn. It’s everybody’s money. Well, at least all Missoulians’ money.
#7 Sorry you won’t, or more likely can’t, explain the 8 million. I asked one of the candidates who’s using that as an issue and their answer was incomplete but included interest on the bonds as part of the 8 million. Apparently a lot of you are surprised to learn that lenders want to be repaid with interest. Who’d have known?
#6, #5, #4, #3, #2: Dang.
#1 I really wish the people, you apparently included, who value the Pledge of Allegiance over the Constitution for the United States of America would at least consider the Supreme Court’s arguments for and against the decision in
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624
I have not made fun of you or derided you (except in the absolute mildest way), and I don’t dislike anyone on the Council whether they’re trying to put the Pledge of Allegiance on the ballot or whether (like me) they tried to add a Council agenda item called “Opening Ceremony” that would have made a perfect place to say the Pledge of Allegiance or even, say, the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America. As I remember, we only got 7 votes.
I don’t dislike you, either, as far as I know. Especially if you really are Ayn Rand (OK, I know she’s dead).
What else? For whatever it’s worth, and you seem to think it’s worth something, I’m not a member of the ACLU. I didn’t even know they had a flag. Do they really have a flag?
And for what it’s worth, you apparently haven’t been paying attention to City Council matters for very long. When Jon Wilkins disrupted our committee meeting by standing up to say the Pledge of Allegiance (really unprecedented, to say the Pledge during the work of a committee meeting), that was the second time in my life that I sat one out. The first time was about four years or so ago (maybe it was being used as a political wedge issue then, too) when some of our citizens came, made rather nasty comments about people who don’t say the Pledge, and then started the Pledge of Allegiance on their own. It turns out that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution covers that, too. Oh, did you catch that part? The 1st Amendment covers people who say the Pledge. You can say it right now, if you want to. I will too!
Everybody (but only if you want to): I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!
There, that feels better, doesn’t it?
August 26, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Lets just skip to the pledge you so adamently dislike. It is hard to argue a negative but let me try. The resolution would not FORCE anyone to say the pledge but rather ALLOW those that want to to do so. You are a perfect example since you sat while the pledge is was said during the Jan 17th A & F. So make fun of us and deride us and dislike us, but be mindful, we will not go away. I would respect you more if you didn’t look like a waffle on ther pledge.
Sheesh, Ayn. You really ought to bone up on the issue. No one’s pressing for rules forbidding saying the Pledge, it’s about compulsory Pledges.
You also ought to review your work. I’m pretty sure your books derided those small-minded and petty officials who wanted to make everybody jump up and follow their compulsory, meaningless gestures of fealty to their own mediocrity.
August 27, 2007 at 6:27 am
I will give you both the credit you are due. You both are commited liberals that think government and their officals know what’s best for the proletariat. I don’t know how we get through a day without some elected offical or some self appointed one directing us on how to live our lives. We are truly blessed to have you both here in Missoula to remind us of our freedoms lost.
August 27, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Er…government is of the people, by the people, for the people. If you prefer sniping from behind a pseudonym, that’s your bizness. But remember this: we’re not doing what’s best for the “proletariat,” we’re doing what’s best for Missoula. And we’re sure as h*ll not directing anyone to do anything — thus, our opposition to the pledge ordinance.
I don’t know how the h*ll liberals got tagged as folks who direct other people. All you have to do is follow the conservative trolls on this site. All you folks do is tell us what we should think, do, and say, where we should live, and who we should hang out with. It’s pathetic.
Why don’t you all actually put forth some original idea? Or some persuasive arguments? Or a coherent world view?
August 28, 2007 at 7:32 am
My one coherent view..you loons are way to smart for me.
September 5, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Can anyone provide me with, or direct me to, more information about the Ward 5 candidates (Christine Prescott and Renee Mitchell)? Thanks.
September 5, 2007 at 7:59 pm
You can check out the Missoulian’s election page for puff profiles of the candidates, but they’re not too informative.
In Mitchell’s profile, she both spoke highly of pro-developer members Wilkins and Nicholson, but disparaged the subdivision up the Rattlesnake…she also talked about making Missoula “business friendly,” which is a keyword for deregulation and targeted tax breaks…and her growth policies were nonexistent.
Basically, no one knows much about her, including Carol Minjares, who endorsed Mitchell and called her “mainstream” based solely on the fact that the Missoula Democrats endorsed her opponent. So that’s a plus for Prescott in my book.
I heard Prescott at the Missoula Democrats’ candidates’ forum, and she was definitely the least progressive of the candidates (excepting Huerta). She won the endorsement mainly on her message of straight-shooting and a desire to bridge or even end the current rifts on city council.
From the profile, she favors Amtrak running through Missoula, was keen about city council respecting neighborhood plans (which was also a well-aimed shot at Mr. “lawsuit,” Jerry Ballas, hands down the worst and most divisive member of council), and talked up alternative transportation, but seemed lukewarm about progressives’ plans for affordable housing.
So…I’d give the nod to Prescott, not because she agrees with everything I like, but because we need her type of common sense on the council…
September 6, 2007 at 11:20 am
Thanks for the run down Jay. I didn’t find the Missoulian’s coverage that helpful either. What do you make of Mitchell’s emphasis on not claiming a party affiliation?
September 6, 2007 at 1:04 pm
What do you make of Mitchell’s emphasis on not claiming a party affiliation?
Well, either she’s sincere or she’s a Republican. Heh heh.
Unlike Hellegard of Ward 4, who worked the GOP booth at the county fair, I haven’t heard any rumor of her political affiliation…