Clark Fork Chronicle Looks into Charges of Negative Campaigning Against SD-7 Candidate Hinkle (R) and Finds….

by jhwygirl


So, when is negative campaigning not negative campaigning? When it’s the truth.

Republican candidate Greg Hinkle, during a candidate forum held in May, said:

I signed a taxpayer pledge not to vote for any increase in taxes, period, unless they’re revenue-neutral. So having said that, I will not vote for any increase in taxes and because of what I explained too and anybody can look at this later, I will not vote for any federal funding of state programs. That’s got to change. We have to wean ourself off of that.”

In seeking better clarity to the issue, the Clark Fork Chronicle sent the candidates further questions, due mainly to questions that arose from Judy Stang’s statement regarding Greg Hinkle when she withdrew from the state senate race in mid-October. When she withdrew from the race, Stang endorsed Hinkle’s opponent, Paul Clark.

The Clark Fork Chronicle sent clarifying questions – you can see them in this article – and Hinkle avoids answering the Chronicle’s question altogether (the Chroncle’s own words: “Greg Hinkle did not respond to the questions,”) instead sending a statement saying that he was taken out of context, and that he would take federal funds for “transportation, etc….,” but then goes on to say that “However, I do believe our state must end our dependence on these funds as much as possible. It’s vital we ensure that we have a local revenue safety net should those funds dry up.”

Hmmm, where exactly is he going to find funds for a local revenue safety net?

Further – let’s keep in mind here that Mineral County looking to go to essentially 90% federal ownership if and when Plum Creek lands are sold into the Legacy Project. So you have a county with a total population of less than 4,000 people, and a land area size of 1,220 square miles, and Hinkle wants the local population to stave off federal funds and find a local revenue safety net?

Like taxes, anyone?

Paul Clark, on the other hand, answered the Chronicle’s questions, showing a depth of knowledge about the fiscal role that the federal government plays in a rural area like SD-7, calling for more local control over natural resource management issues like logging, and citing a desire to look into a potential agreement between state and federal land managers that would put even more money into the state’s school trust fund.

Read it all for yourself.

So who, ultimately, is showing a better knowledge of the issues that face SD-7? Who has spoken consistently and avoided double-talk?

Vote Paul Clark for SD-7. Help avoid the cluster mess that the Montana Legislature experienced in 2007, and let’s move Montana forward.

Hell, why not throw the guy a couple of bucks, too? It’s darn hard to run a senate campaign in such a large senate district. Here’s a link to his ActBlue page.


    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,671,336 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • November 2008
    S M T W T F S
    « Oct   Dec »
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: