It’s a rhetorical question
by Pete Talbot
I picked up Thursday’s Missoulian and the Missoula Independent at the same time yesterday. Both had lead stories on Sen. Baucus and health care reform.
The sub-head on the Indy piece reads: Is Sen. Max Baucus the sellout the left portrays or the savvy centrist poised to finally reform health care?
They teach folks in law school to never ask a question in the courtroom if they don’t know the answer. After reading Mike Dennison’s story in the Missoulian, I can safely say I know the answer to the Indy question. Baucus is a sellout.
Here’s how he sold us out this time: there will be no public option, there will be no requirement for businesses to provide health insurance and there will be no tax increase for the wealthiest Americans to help pay for expanded coverage.
And here’s another (probably) rhetorical question: can anyone beat Baucus in the Democratic primary in 2014? The pundits I spoke to say no way. Even though Baucus has failed his constituents, he just has too darned much campaign money.
This all makes me sad. Very sad.
-
Recent Comments
lizard19 on Who Can Can Engstrom? Pancho on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
July 31, 2009 at 11:22 am
Schweitzer could do it, if he wanted to… he does get termed out in 2012.
July 31, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Seriously. Why would you want Schweitzer for Senator? He and his departments proposed legislation to shred MEPA this past session. There’s his coal-porn dreams…I can’t figure out why people think he is so great save for the fact that he’d be fun to have a drink with.
July 31, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I’m just trying to think of someone who could realistically take on and beat Baucus in a Democratic primary. Can you think of anyone?
I hear you on MEPA, etc. but given a choice between Schweitzer and Baucus…. well, I’ve vowed to never vote for Baucus so it would be an easy choice for me.
July 31, 2009 at 4:35 pm
See, and me? I didn’t vote for Schweitzer last time around.
Funny.
But yes, I hear you too.
July 31, 2009 at 9:41 pm
In a heartbeat.
July 31, 2009 at 11:42 am
People thought that John Melcher couldn’t be beat in ’88. But his untimely dallying with oil & gas industry lobbyists contributed to his image of being bought and sold–working to advance industry goals to the detriment of his constituents.
I remember when a group of environmentalists were protesting Melcher outside of a motel where there was a convention he was to speak at. They (we???) were holding a banner that showed a caricature of Melcher in cowboy boots.
Inside one of his cowboy boots was firmly planted one of 4 legs of an oil derrick, pinning him to the rig. Melcher made the mistake of walking around outside and throwing a few barbs out at the crowd of protesters. Somehow, one of the local TV channel affiliates got a great clip of Melcher mouthing off in front of the banner, while the crowd chanted in the background.
Thus was born the “Dump the Windbag” campaign.
Local TV news across the state picked up the clip of Melcher, the chanting crowd and the banner and used it on the nightly news as part of the video lead in for the news–magnifying and trumpeting the image that had been concocted. The clip played nightly during the run up to the election, watched by possibly hundreds of thousands, driving the message home.
One couldn’t have paid for a better ad campaign.
The rest is history. Melcher lost to Conrad Burns. Many people would say that was a horrible thing, to trade a sitting democrat Senator for someone like Burns.
But the question in front of people was not which of the two candidates was the lesser of two evils. It was one of whether or not the Montana electorate was willing to hold Melcher accountable for his actions being the puppet of the oil & gas industry.
And it turns out they were.
Baucus is vulnerable to the same backlash by Montana voters given that he can be accurately caricatured and portrayed as the tool of the health care lobbying industry that he is.
When Ty Masdorf started sounding like a skipping record a few months back, repeating ad nauseum: “[Baucus] is only driven by one thing: what is right for Montana and the country,” it became clear that Baucus was becoming afraid that his constituents were beginning to hear: “Max is only driven by one thing: doing what is right for the health insurance industry.”
As with ex-Senator George Allen, Baucus will have his “macaca moments.” Hopefully someone will be there with a camera ready to pick it up.
Maybe history can repeat itself!
July 31, 2009 at 12:27 pm
You only need a couple of billionaires with ties or residences in Montana to back another candidate. Pritzker would be a start and I think there are others.
Max needs to retire.
July 31, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The question isn’t whether he can be defeated in the primary. It’s whether the progressives will join with the Republicans to defeat him in the general election. It’s way past time to get rid of Max Baucus, and there’s no better time than when he’s not needed to ensure the Democrats organize the Senate. Besides, he’s a DINO, and it will be next to impossible to notice a difference between Baucus and a Republican.
This all assumes he’ll stand for re-election. He’ll be in his early 70′s, and with all the water he’s carrying for his pals in the health rackets, he’s more than likely going to retire to a nice cushy corner office in the top floor of one of those towers health care premiums have paid for and join the selected few who skim millions each each for their own pockets from the rabble’s premiums.
I, for one, will accept six years of a Republican if that’s what it takes to start sending the message to sell-out Democrats that the free ride is over. Either starting taking care of people instead of corporations and their lobbyists, or face the firing squad on election day.
July 31, 2009 at 2:14 pm
After the Bankruptcy ‘Reform’, I was not satisfied with the standard weak form-letter responses to my questions…. I followed up with his office for weeks to try to get some explanation or justification for some really bad votes on particular amendments… of course, I got nothing. I vowed then to never vote for him again. And I certainly did not do so in 2008.
July 31, 2009 at 4:20 pm
when wilderness people joined hands to defeat melcher the theory was this; better to have a junior republican senator with no seniority and someone who can do very little to hurt us than a democratic senator like melcher with seniority who can.
but i think the time is getting ripe for a good independent candidate…the amount of corruption and behind the scenes power grabbing by the parties has come to a crescendo with common folks. they don’t care what the party is , they just want someone who will work hard for their interests instead of doing the bidding of lobbyists or the politics of some party.
for years Burns was completely ineffective due to his complete stupidity, but one thing i liked about burns staff was their attention to common ordinary problems that constituents brought to them. contrast that with the service you get from baucus’s staff in this state and you will see what i mean.
i don’t agree with rehberg’s politics but for problem-solving and attention to ordinary folks his staff is very good. tester is too new to grade yet on how his staff handles common every day problems for people, but i do know that i would never bother baucus’s staff for anything. i don’t have enough money to warrant any attention from them. in fact, few do.
July 31, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Max likely won’t run again, but that’s not the problem. It is my opinion that Max, being Max, is going to hold Jon Tester hostage. Tester is up for re-election in 2012, and Max feels that he can make or break the guy. So, for the next 3+ years, he’s going to manipulate that power if for no other reason than to secure his own legacy. Please understand that I don’t blame Jon. He’s been a pawn in Max’s political sphere for some time; he’s still a good man and likely will be a good Senator. But we do need to proceed with clarity and caution. Trading Max for a Republican would make little difference whatsoever. Trading Max for two Republicans … would.
July 31, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Beating Tester after two terms would be hard.
But Tester is now in a 4 year box. On one hand he can rubber stamp everything everything this adm. does, but with those endorsements comes a major downside. A deepened recession combined with high employment and falling pole numbers opens the door for Denny who votes completely opposite.
In a poker game this is called going all in, and right now the odds are changing, Max or no Max.
July 31, 2009 at 9:41 pm
bush is not quite a distant enough memory yet for rehberg and his lapdog performance with that debacle….and when the time comes rest assured there will be plenty of people to remind us swede. rehberg will have to tote some heavy baggage to accomplish that feat.
denny has to survive 2010 first bs.
July 31, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Not only has Denny shouldered the load he does it every two years with overwhelming success.
Tester better get religion, because if MT starts feeling economic woes prayer may be his only hope.
July 31, 2009 at 10:03 pm
denny will probably only have to draw two pair for 2010 against a weak field unless a viable independent emerges but it would take a bunch of bullets to challenge tester in 12.
i think denny will stand pat…
bet a litre of jack on it, swede?
July 31, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Never bet with whiskey.
Unless it comes in a square bottle.
You’ll need my shipping address.
August 1, 2009 at 12:30 am
No way Denny runs against Tester. Denny might lose that one, jeopardizing the cush job he has now (which requires very little work on his part). And even though Denny is well off, he’d be a fool to throw away the perks — you know, the stuff he votes against all the time — a superb pension, unparalleled health care and other benefits up the wazzou.
July 31, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I heard that Max wanted to run for one more term. I mean, what else does the guy know? I would so love to see someone give Max a primary he would never forget.
And if Jon could distance himself from Max, it would make me, and a fair share of his base, extremely happy.
July 31, 2009 at 6:13 pm
maybe this would help: http://problembear.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/lets-bring-em-home/
August 1, 2009 at 8:48 am
I was down at Camp Baucus yesterday, holding a sign that said “Max Baucus, the Best Senator Insurance Companies Can Buy” and you’d be amazed at how many people slowed down almost to a stop to read it (it was a big sign) and then started nodding, giving us thumbs up, and waving. The Canadians, who apparently don’t find their system as odious as the insurance company ads depict it to be, were the most enthusiastic, honking and waving in support.
Of course we got flipped off a couple times, too, but I’d say out of the hundreds of cars and trucks that went by, way over 90% were supportive.
Ty Matsdorf, Baucus’ “broken record” mouthpiece says in today’s Bozeman Chronicle : Ultimately, the senator and single-payer advocates share the same goal, Baucus spokesperson Ty Matsdorf said — WRONG, Ty.
We weren’t there seeking phony “bipartisan” solutions to hide behind while selling out the American people, we weren’t there serving the insurance industry under the cover of doing some health “reform.” We were there to support singlepayer health CARE for ALL Americans…quite a bit different “goal” than Max, who continues to tell us we must keep the insurance industry (and its obscene profits) firmly between patients and their doctors as our only feasible choice.
All the talk about Max running for office again plays right into the old football game of R v D — a very handy diversion for the citizenry to keep their minds off the all-too-Republican policies that Democrats are supporting by bringing the Boogie Men Republicans up as the real enemies. Pure Hogwash. I don’t see the Dems cutting the $630 BILLION “defense” budget (close to $2 billion a day to “defend” ourselves from whom, exactly?) The Dems are giving us an energy policy that goes BACKWARDS to provide even more subsidies for coal, and Tester can’t even write the word “wilderness” in his own column on his own bill.
Oh, and all that election baloney about how progressive the Dems would be if ONLY they had 60 votes in the Senate (and if ONLY we’d send them our dollars endlessly)? Well, they have the 60 votes and we’re still waiting for the progressive legislation to appear, aren’t we?
All fine and dandy, though, as we argue about elections that are 4 years off. Like I said, a clever and very effective diversion that Americans have swallowed for years on end. Sooner or later, as the debt builds into a tower that will crush our future, we’re gonna have to deal with the reality of their bad policies instead of the fiction of their phony politics.
Speaking of which, the only young person at the protest yesterday was a young man who worked at Big Sky, had no insurance (of course) and came over to talk and support what was going on. Other than that, not a single person under 40 (maybe 50) was there (despite Jhwygirl’s post and link to the articles and alerts). So you have to wonder — who do they think is going to take care of their future if not them? I guarantee you one thing — it won’t be Max Baucus.