Montana Democratic Party is Going Palin-style
by jhwygirl
In full disclosure, I am 200% in the Dave Wanzenried for U.S. Senate camp. I firmly believe that if any democrat candidate has a chance to beat Steve Daines, the only person who’s thrown their hat in the ring that has the bonafides to run for the office and the speaking ability to motivate voters is State Senator Dave Wanzenried. Wilmer was another favorite, but she has withdrawn herself from consideration as of yesterday.
The Montana Democratic Party have a chance here (even though many think it is impossible) to reverse a few things about the Montana U.S. Senate seat race here in Montana that have gone pretty much disastrously so far.
They are able to return this race – sort of – to the people. But already the winds are wafting with party insider activities.
We are 84 days out from the election. In terms of an actual horse race, it really hasn’t started its full run, but there’s no doubt winning is a very very uphill battle for the Montana Democratic Party.
Money…name recognition – it’s a K2 climb, baby – no doubt. Montana Dems have to create excitement to raise the money and get some free press name recognition. They’ll need it to get outside money, which they are, unfortunately, going to have to rely heavily given the very little amount of time the candidate will have to raise cash.
But getting Tester elected in 2006 was that, too. He was an unknown underdog up until the primary. I know – I was making calls for him.
So who is the party insider’s choice to run for the U.S. Senate seat? A 34-year old teacher from Butte, who has one legislative session under her belt. Who decided not to run for re-election, but is considering a state senate seat for 2016. She also wrote a video blog, uploaded to YouTube for most of the 2013 legislative session.
Her name is Amanda Curtis.
Now, I watched some of Amanda’s videos back during the session. I don’t really remember much of her speaking on the floor or in committees, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t. Lots of people have talked about her – she’s certainly a favorite at the Montana Democratic party’s online mouthpiece. She’s shown she has smarts. Curtis got two bills (out of 9) passed in the difficult 2013 legislature, while of the 7 that didn’t get anywhere, 1 made it out of the house and into the state senate, at least.
Not bad for a freshman, really.
Is Curtis U.S. Senate material? I started asking around last Friday when her name came up at the Dem mouthpiece. “Hey – what about Amanda Curtis?” Well, there wasn’t a single person who knew who she was. I’ve probably asked about 20 people at this point. Of even the few that read newspapers and have opinions about Montana politics and actually talk about their opinions – no one knew who Amanda Curtis was. When I told them what I knew, the most common response was a general reply that “well, they weren’t really going to win anyway at this point.”
Currently the only name in the ring that has actually carried barrels of water in the legislature for Montana Democrats is David Wanzenried. Here’s Wanz’s work in the 2013 legislature.
Here’s his work in the 2011 legislature
Here’s 2009.
I’m not going any further back. Plus, this purpose of this post isn’t to highlight Wanzenried’s accomplishments. I don’t know that the legislative website actually goes back to his start in politics – but you get the gist. Wanzenried has a political resume like no other currently wishing to be considered for the Dems U.S. Senate ticket, and substantial work, at that.
But no – insiders at the Montana Democrats, along with MEA-MFT have – and here I’m going to be blunt and politically incorrect, but very accurate in what those insiders have told me – the insiders have decided that only a woman is going to excite the base, and that means Amanda Curtis, a freshman legislator and teacher from Butte, is the person who should be Montana’s next Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, to replace Max Baucus.
To run against Steve Daines.
Now, for the record, back in 2008 I found McCain’s pick of of the unknown-and-lacking-political-resume Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket an insult. McCain picked Palin because Hillary had created such a stir that he needed a Hail Mary that first week of September in 2008. He needed attention and he needed to separate himself from Obama, which had just blown America away with his Hope stuff at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. He needed someone pretty who could grab up some women votes (that Obama was scooping up) and who could excite the youth. McCain and the GOP needed thunder, and they needed the media to give a shit
So they picked a – pardon my vulgarity – they picked a vagina.
They didn’t want a smart woman who could express opinions and thoughts – they wanted someone they thought they could control, and someone that didn’t have a long history to bring up dirt (which sort of came back to bite them, didn’t it?)
I mean – they could have picked Carly Fiorina. They could have picked Elizabeth Dole. Condi Rice! Or Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
But they went with Palin.
It was insulting as a woman that the GOP thought that they could pull votes for McCain by putting any female on the ticket. Not substance – just a woman.
I mean – I can’t stand Carly Fiorina, but I was pissed for her and those other I mentioned. Except Condi – her association w/Bush was enough to make me not care about her.
Sure worked out, though, given the choices. And damn – election night 2012 was over by like 10:30 p.m. MST time, wasn’t it?
I got nothing against Amanda Curtis. She may eventually build a resume that would have her a viable challenge against a candidate like Steve Daines. But if Montana democrats and MEA MFT think that they can elevate a freshman state house representative to a winning US Senate candidate, they are absolutely – dare I say it? – batcrap crazy.
I’d love to have a viable woman potential candidate around. I’ve been reminded by many that now is just as good a time as any. At some point, there’s a choice to be made to support a woman candidate.
Now, unfortunately, does not appear to be that time. If Frankie Wilmer had stayed in, I would have wholeheartedly supported her. Quite honestly, I’m bummed she left the consideration – better to have a pool of quality and experience.
Sadly, without Frankie Wilmer or Denise Juneau, Montana Dems have yet to find themselves a viable woman candidate.
I’m also going to say this – Montana Dems have only themselves to blame for not having a viable woman candidate. They didn’t even have one running in the primary – so they can’t push the blame on Bullock for that.
And the idea that Montana Dems and MEA MFT can push any old female on us as a viable candidate is, quite frankly, sexist.
It’s an insult to me as a woman voter. It’s an insult and it’s sexist.
-
1
Pingback on Aug 14th, 2014 at 1:22 pm
[…] I actually have met jhwygirl and like her, but I disagree with her thoughts and her premise on this. It’s not that she can’t have her opinion, trust me, I’d much rather have her […]
Leave a reply to jhwygirl Cancel reply
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.…
4&20 blackbirds 
August 11, 2014 at 8:38 pm
Agreed wholeheartedly with you both on support for Wanzenreid and amazement on what the dem insiders will think of next.
August 11, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Thank you, Debra, for saying that.
I’ve had a number of people tell me this ‘off the record’ so I know it isn’t easy for many to publicly say what you just said.
We have one chance, and they’re blowing it.
August 12, 2014 at 12:19 am
Denise Juneau barely won two years ago because her campaign, as far as I could tell, didn’t know what the term “opposition research” meant. Her opponent appeared to me to have a boatload of California and Montana skeletons in her closet, but I couldn’t get a damned call back on the subject from Juneau’s “staff.” She lacks the aggressiveness to do any serious fighting in an election.
Montana has sent just one woman to Washington: Jeannette Rankin. She was a Republican from the days back when that party still tolerated decency and sought after ability.
I agree with Rankin when she said, “I may be the first woman in Congress, but I won’t be the last.” Hopefully Montana will once again elect another, but it won’t be this year, and It will take more dynamite to blow Daines out of his seat, if he’s elected, than it took to dislodge that odious creep, Connie Burns.
August 12, 2014 at 8:09 am
Ya,never enough old, white, guys.
August 12, 2014 at 9:38 am
I don’t think Amanda Curtis is “any old female.” Comparing her to Palin is truly insulting.
August 12, 2014 at 3:50 pm
I think you’re missing the point. it’s not Curtis jhwygirl is comparing to Palin, it’s the desperate political operatives more concerned with a demographic game. in that context having a vagina is more important than having a solid progressive résumé.
August 12, 2014 at 4:14 pm
I don’t really know any “operatives.” But I’m aware of a lot of resistance to Amanda based on her lack of experience and not being well connected inside the Party. jhwgirl was the first to use the terms “vagina” or “any old female.” I think both are offensive.
She’s backing Wanzenried. Is it because he has a penis?
It’s not desperate to want someone who’s an outsider with strong communication skills and a lot of personal appeal. Since we’re forced to toss a hail mary, I want someone with a strong arm to throw it.
August 12, 2014 at 4:34 pm
the political calculation is quite similar, Turner. can you at least acknowledge that was the point of jhwygirl’s post?
August 15, 2014 at 2:33 am
An outsider? 90 days legislative experience & so leadership committed she didn’t run for reelection, & she’s STILL hand-picked by largest union in Montana?
That doesn’t quack like any insider I’ve ever seen.
I assure you, Turner – if this Feaver-picked 90 Day Wonder actually accepts a nomination the Walsh fiasco will be but a distant memory.
I’m taking good notes, too because I’m honestly thinking it could be worthy of a feature-length piece eventually, there’s so much unbelievable crap. Plenty of embarrassment to be had.
Plenty of people capable of saving themselves. No reason for me to throw the torch. We’ll see how Saturday goes.
August 12, 2014 at 9:43 am
Plain was a poor choice, for a myriad of reasons – almost none of which apply to Amanda Curtis.
No matter who the Dems pick. There is a high probability they will lose. That’s just the stats.
Weak,weak analogy.
August 12, 2014 at 9:43 am
Palin
August 12, 2014 at 12:18 pm
You’re right. Thank God we got Joe.
August 12, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Republican women hate Palin, Swede, not Republican men.
August 12, 2014 at 9:01 pm
If Palin hadn’t run we would have lost by another 50 million votes.
Conservatives hated/hate McCain.
August 13, 2014 at 7:18 am
i’ve noticed that you aren’t a conservative and that you didn’t hate McCain.
August 13, 2014 at 7:22 am
Another bit of idiocy. She and McCain got 58 million votes, losing by 8.5 million in the popular vote. She had been heading into the tank in Alaska when McCain picked her in a desperate attempt to solidify the “Christian” conservatives vote. If my dog had been the “R” VP candidate that year, he wouldn’t have done much worse.
August 12, 2014 at 11:13 am
I’m a big fan of Wanz. He’d make a great U.S. Senator. That being said, if we can’t hold this seat, it might be a good idea to advance a young women as a prelude to future elections — let her hone her skills and get name recognition for bouts in ’16, ’18, ’20.
Of course MEA-MFT is supporting Curtis, she’s one of their own, and this might not be a bad thing as the teacher’s union will bring money, membership and organizing experience to the campaign.
You’re correct, though, about current name recognition for Curtis. Of all the names out there, I’m the least familiar with her. There are four mentioned in the Lee papers today: Bohlinger is a non-starter for me; I voted for Adams in the primary, he has money and I like his politics, but I wasn’t impressed by his campaign (nor were primary voters, apparently); I know the least about Curtis but she seems to have ground support and momentum; and while Wanz would be great, I’m not sure his name plays that well outside of Missoula and certain legislative circles. Wanz was considering a run for governor (in ’04, ’12? — I can’t remember) but didn’t get the support. Maybe it’s the Missoula curse.
Cowgirl ran a (very unscientific) poll, and I’m guessing it was mostly Helena insiders and political dweebs voting but Curtis topped the list at 34% and Wanz was at the bottom with 11%.
Obviously, these are just observations and I’m waffling all over the place, but I’ll get behind whomever is the nominee. It should be a raucous caucus up in Helena this Saturday.
August 12, 2014 at 11:50 am
P.S. If Wanzenried is a contender — and I seriously hope he is — he better be working his nomination hard: calling delegates and political insiders (shaking hands and kissing babies). He has a lot of colleagues from his days in office; he needs to rally the troops.
August 15, 2014 at 1:47 am
The W dude is from Missoula, he’s dead in any state wide race, like the large fellow minding the ship here,
August 15, 2014 at 2:12 am
He was a legislator on Kalispell b4 he was in Missoula, and he’s lived in Billings now for prey much 2 years.
No matter – he’s more important matters at hand, and I am sending positive thoughts their way.
August 12, 2014 at 5:04 pm
When Walsh was ‘ordained’, many people, myself included, were unhappy with the process but willing to analyze his strengths and weaknesses as a candidate. It is impossible to document now how many times the accusations of ‘old white guy’ and downright misogyny were thrown around because Bullock, and “the party” didn’t choose a woman. Lists were posted of available women who could have been potential candidates, even though many of those women (like Juneau, Lindeen and Wilmer) had already declined. Even to point that fact out generated accusations and outrage that no woman was selected. ‘The party of old white guys had an opportunity to choose a woman and they didn’t! Shame, shame!’ Just for a second, bask in the glory that is the irony of a bunch of predominantly old white guys telling anyone that ‘the party’ should have chosen a woman regardless of whether she wanted the campaign or not …
Yes, it would behoove the Montana Democratic party to help empower and groom it’s female political candidates for higher office. Perhaps they have that opportunity to catapult Curtis into the greater public sphere here (or let her get crushed and abandon her as has happened with some frequency here of late.) But, my opinion, jhwygirl is spot on in pointing out the lunacy of foisting a woman into a situation she is likely not ready for, and doing so simply because she is a woman, and ‘doesn’t that look good to voters?’
The answer is, not really. When Geraldine Ferraro, who was an established and competent politician, was absolutely crushed in her VP bid alongside Mondale, the CW takeaway was that women shouldn’t be trusted with positions of power if they couldn’t really bring anything to an election. It should also be noted that her defeat was another nail in the coffin of the ERA. Phyliss Schlafly used Ferraro’s defeat to declare feminism “dead”. Having been paying more than a tiny bit of attention at the time, I remember the Republicant claims that Ferraro was put on the ticket ‘just because’ she was woman, and in defeat, those claims stuck even with many Democrats.
I’m not a huge fan of Wanzenreid over any other, and I like what I’ve seen from Curtis, at the state level. jhwygirl is correct, though. Nominating a woman just because she’s a woman and will ‘appeal’ to a particular demographic is a huge mistake. It is transparently manipulative, likely self-defeating and hardly guarantees that demographic won’t become even more pariah and fearful of voting issues over anatomy.
August 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm
I forwarded this blog post to my friend who works for Labor and he was furious. Insulted. They want Curtis not because she has a vagina but because they have worked alongside her–she’s a Wobbly–and have seen her in action. Two weekends ago when ALL the possible candidates were being discussed, Juneau, Keenan, etc, Curtis is the name that kept coming up.
I voted for Dirk though some say he’s an imposter, a Repug in sheeps clothing–I would be ok with Wanzenreid, he’s got the credentials–but honestly, they both don’t excite me. Curtis does. She’s a blast of fresh air. The most impressive thing about her to me is that when presented with the possible nomination there wasn’t any hemming or hawing, as much as her being, “LET’S DO THIS.” She’s called Daines out. She’s ready. Now that all eyes are on us we’ve got to do something exciting. If we go safe with boring old white dudes, we might as well pack it up now.
Yes, it’s a gamble. But what are our alternatives?? Put it all on black and hail mary. TEAM CURTIS. LET’S DO THIS.
August 12, 2014 at 6:34 pm
Having spent years watching the Bronco’s Pony Express with rapt attention, I have learned this much: Cheerleaders don’t actually generate excitement (save the sexual kind which has nothing to do with the task at hand.) They can focus it, and give it voice. So, unless you’re willing to post a picture of yourself in a frilly skirt, which would be truly fun, your demand for “excitement” is falling flat to those who don’t already feel it. If you think all eyes are on you and Curtis, and you want to do something exciting beyond insulting “boring old white guys”, I suggest the frilly skirt. Face it, it couldn’t hurt …
August 15, 2014 at 2:39 am
Your union friend was furious and insulted?
That makes at least two of us, but my money is on many many more.
Tell ’em I’ll buy ’em a beer next time they’re down these ways.
August 12, 2014 at 6:19 pm
If the objective is to place people in office as symbols, fine. Go for it.
If the objective is to put a name in a slot in a lost cause, fine, go for it.
If the objective is to retain some party dignity in the wake of manipulation and backing a big time loser, fine, go for it.
If the objective is ground level organizing for important issues, you ain’t got a clue. That ship sailed.
What is troublesome is all the whining that will go on about this or that vote or statement by Daines in the coming years, like you guys had something better or even tried. You were not interested in anything but winning, and so gave us Walsh. You really blew it.
Your bad.
August 12, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Wrong website, dude.
August 12, 2014 at 6:51 pm
In answer to your 5:04 analysis of the candidates without a word about issues. I agree, for a Democrat, wrong debate, for a sentient citizen, the right one.
August 12, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Not wrong debate, Mark. Wrong website, wrong post. If you want to debate issues, you’d best take such up on another post, or with me elsewhere.
August 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Thanks for clearing that up. Democrat politics is not about issues. Only winning elections. Your words.
August 12, 2014 at 7:36 pm
Of course, once an election is won, if a candidate is not supported by ground-level issue-based organizing, the winner will run for cover and issue press releases and never get anything done, or succumb to power, take money, and think about reelection, ala Baucus.
August 13, 2014 at 4:25 pm
How very black/white-thinking of you, Mark. Since you don’t appear to have actually read the post, my comment was in defense of jhwygirl’s stance that nominating a woman because she’s a woman is precisely being blind to issues and counter productive. Let me spell it out very clearly for you: this.post.is.not.about.issues and laments that the decision for candidate should be about competence when it comes to issues, not gender. As I said clearly, your attempt to draw me into debate about issues is the wrong thing to do at the wrong website in the wrong post.
Nor did I ever say, in my words or any others, that what is happening is “only about winning elections”. It’s about making good decisions, those things that sentient people do, yes? Take a look down below our little exchange here. Pete is trying to undo the potential damage caused by Steve’s hair-trigger by assuaging him with Amanda Curtis’ stand on environmental issues. Funny thing that, neither of them know what her stance is, and Pete’s having a hard time finding any record of such. You think maybe that might be the problem with your demand to debate issues in this post thread?
But please cheer up, Tokarski. If Curtis is chosen as the candidate it will validate your continuing caterwaul about Democrats, just as jhwygirl and I have agreed with you. The only thing that should irk you here is that others came to the ‘correct’ viewpoint without the need of your tutelage.
August 15, 2014 at 1:55 am
There is derp and then there be mega derp…thanks for showing us the blue print…
August 12, 2014 at 8:43 pm
If there was ever a time I’d like to have heard the phone calls and listened to the back room meetings it would have been when Walsh decided he didn’t want to take his beating on election day.
I couldn’t be happier with the way it’s playing out, but there is no way the Dems would have chosen to pick a “seat filler” to go down in flames.
I’m thinking that Walsh wasn’t working and playing well with others.
Remember when the Minnesota Dems tried this, when they replaced the deceased Paul Wellstone with Mondale? No wonder the Dems top tier faces scurried for cover.
One race out of the way – now to get out the vote for Ryan Zinke.
August 12, 2014 at 9:46 pm
what is your vision for the state if Montana, Eric? what benefit can Montanans look forward to with stronger Republican representation?
August 13, 2014 at 7:13 am
Thanks, Liz.
By the way, incumbent Wellstone was killed 11 days before the election in 2002. He was replaced on the ballot by Fritz Mondale who lost to Norm Coleman by 2% of the vote, 49%-47%. Some “scurrying.”
August 13, 2014 at 9:36 am
I’m not a delegate so I won’t be voting but I’m leaning Curtis now. The story in today’s Missoulian:
http://missoulian.com/news/local/u-s-senate-hopeful-curtis-says-gun-comments-not-a/article_cab310ca-2285-11e4-920c-0019bb2963f4.html
Here’s a woman who takes a stand — and a unpopular stand in the eyes of many Montanans — to expand background checks for gun buyers. Adams and Wanz gave mealy-mouthed, politically-expedient responses to expanded background checks.
The online headline reads: ” … Curtis says gun comments ‘not a radical position.’ Duh. Expanding background checks to gun shows is not a radical idea.
Now I’m not a single issue guy so I’ll try to keep an open mind but this one is important to me. Curtis’ stand also shows a lot of courage and character; not bad qualities for a candidate.
On the flip side, get ready for a slew of ‘Curtis is going to take away your guns’ 30-second TV commercials, brought to you by Daines and the NRA.
And finally, thanks, Mike Dennison, for picking the most controversial issue as the highlight of this selection process. Should sell some papers.
August 13, 2014 at 12:10 pm
If the selection process is already over, why gas up the car and drive to Helena? Perhaps Eric Feaver should be the nominee, not his proxy.
August 13, 2014 at 12:51 pm
I don’t think it’s a done deal, Steve. While there are a number of political insiders who are delegates, there are quite a few rank-and-file Dems who have votes (let’s hope they show up from the far-flung counties around Montana).
I’m curious. If you were a delegate, who would you nominate? Seriously.
August 13, 2014 at 1:05 pm
That’s a seriously irrelevant hypothetical, however, since you asked, Adams or Bollinger. I prefer Adams because he would be a champion for protecting public lands and clean water.
If primary elections hold so little meaning for party elite and delegates, why have them at all? Wouldn’t a nominating convention make a lot more sense — less likely the media could hijack the narrative, less cost to candidates and taxpayers, and no “crossover” threat.
August 13, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Not sure why it’s such an irrelevant, hypothetical question but Bohlinger? I can see Adams for the same reasons you mention. I don’t recall Bohlinger being a champion of public lands or clean water. Not sure where he stands on the Keystone XL or expanded coal mining. Bohlinger? Really?
August 13, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Try reading that again. Remain calm. Wipe the foam off your mouth and chin.
Didn’t I say “I prefer Adams?” I assume a (hypothetical) delegate can only nominate one.
What is the point in discussing anything if you just want to make shit up and put words in my mouth? I did not say anything — not one word — about Bohlinger’s environmental record or views.
I did say there are only two people I would consider. My reasoning: I think both are more than decent human beings, they both ran in the primary, and both garnered a respectable number of votes. I could have been more clear, I suppose.
August 13, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Pete here, wiping the foam off my mouth and chin. Perhaps I misread your comment. Just surprised at the Bohlinger reference. And have you looked at Curtis? Despite the fact that she has been endorsed by MEA-MFT, she might represent the environmental principles that are important to you. I’m doing a little research on this myself. Project VoteSmart has some info but I could use more. Folks out there in the blogosphere, please chime in.
http://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/136932/amanda-curtis/#.U-vbPVa4nFI
August 13, 2014 at 3:08 pm
I think Peter probably was shocked that you would even consider Bolinger, you being a foaming at the mouth – principles above everything supporter of the environment.
August 13, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Bohlinger? Really? He’s s-e-v-e-n-t-y e-i-g-h-t years old. That’s LXXVIII in Roman numerals, which were used when he was born.
August 15, 2014 at 2:16 am
He’d be about the median in the Senate if you happened to look, let’s not forget that Shrillary would be close to the age that Reagan was if she assumes the POTUS,
August 15, 2014 at 8:12 am
She’d be older than Reagan, by a few months, if she took office. He was 77 when he left office. He apparently may have been suffering from dementia for some time so became a figurehead.
I don’t think that age necessarily precludes one from doing a great job in Congress. Bob Byrd was 92 when he died in office, still in greater possession of his faculties than you seem to be. I was thrilled when he stood, just short of 85 years old, for hours to protest the “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” bunkum that Bush engineered to get supposed permission for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Speaking of Bush II, I suspected he suffered from early onset dementia, especially when he said at a W.H. press conference with Kofi Annan, in 2003, that he had to invade because Saddam “wouldn’t allow the inspectors in.” He was probably just dropped on his head as an infant, however, because he doesn’t seem any dumber now than how he presented a decade ago.
Jesse Helms’ dementia became public a few years after he left the Senate, though from his behavior I would have suspected he suffered from it long before he retired in 2003.
Campaigning for statewide or national office is normally an incredibly rigorous task. For Byrd, it was a cakewalk, winning by almost 2:1 in 2006, his last election.
Do you think Bohlinger is up for it? Dream on.
August 15, 2014 at 2:06 am
If you think that that her advocating fuckstains like Bloomberg will fly in Montana you are delusional.
August 13, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Abe,
Little chippy today? Think whatever you want. Another thing I know about Bohlinger: He is not a cheap-shot artist.
August 13, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Its just my style Steve. I think your personal relationship with Bohlinger is probably clouding your view perhaps. Maybe its guilt by association but he has been Governor BS’s flunky for the past 8 years. In some form or another that means every cheap shot or anti-environmental stand from the BS admin is also owned by Bohlinger. That being said I agree with you to an extent…except I would vote Bohlinger over Adams.
August 13, 2014 at 4:25 pm
I have no personal relationship with Bohlinger. I do have friends I respect in Billings who like the guy. Good enough for me.
Weird don’t you think how Bohlinger has to own BS’s sins but none of the blind-faith popular support heaped upon BS comes his way? Double-standard, or is that categorically a “flunky’s” plight?
August 13, 2014 at 4:30 pm
I doesn’t take a very deep look into human psychology to admit that quite often it is the latter. It may be ‘unfair’, but then life isn’t either, right?
August 13, 2014 at 6:06 pm
The only folks more “batcrap crazy” than those who think Amanda Curtis has potential for winning a Senate race are those who think Dave Wanzenreid has a chance of winning any state wide race.
Jon Tester was able to win a state wide race because he was able to pull off the “simple son of the soil” thing and it appealed to people (especially rural people) when contrasted with Conrad Burns and his Washington DC shadiness e.g. Jack Abramoff.
Brian Schweitzer won state wide races because he had oodles of personal charm, pulled off the simple son of the soil thing, and had few enough principles to be everything to darn near everyone from a policy standpoint.
Steve Bullock won a state wide race mostly because Rick Hill was a terrible candidate who was (and is) totally out of touch with the people of Montana, even within the conservative movement. It was Hill’s to lose and he obliged.
Back to Wanzenreid. He lacks name recognition outside of Missoula and the Capitol, has little personal charm, and has a left wing legislative record that will not play well outside of Montana’s most liberal pockets. It’s not enough and I think we all know that, whether we can stand to admit it on message boards or no.
But all of this is a moot point. You know who your next United States Senator is going to be.
August 13, 2014 at 6:11 pm
Though to be fair to Bullock, he did beat Tim Fox. But he had a lot of help. 2008 was a great year for Democrats. That’s not going to be the case in 2014.
August 13, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Listen folks: Without grassroots power behind them, elected officials are helpless when they come face to face with real power. They are told to either knuckle under or they’ll get bad press, scandals, primary opponents and well financed opponents in the other party. One person in that swamp is nothing!
The problem in DC is simple: Bad behavior is not punished. Good behavior is not rewarded.
The only truly effective grassroots power I’ve seen are labor unions (once upon a time), Social Security recipients and gun owners. Each has organizations that focus their power on people in office. That’s all bankers do – group together to focus their power.
Without movement politics, elected officials swing in the wind. Even the good ones bite it. Who knows, maybe Tester meant well in 2006 – but how was he to survive without selling out. No one had his back. (I am not convinced he was was ever sincere.)
So the Democrats dispensed with process, appointed their Baucus successor, and you all went along with them. He’s gone, you’ve got nothing. But you had nothing anyway. Boo hoo. You lost when you allowed them to appoint the successor.
August 15, 2014 at 2:33 am
You are correct that bad behavior does not get bitch slapped, you are wrong that it is only one party, statist fucks abound in both parties, and they should all be accountable and hopefully be replaced, we can only hope.
August 15, 2014 at 6:17 am
I don’t know where you draw the meat from your comment out of mine, which pays no attention to the party structures, which are subordinate to the financial structures of this country, and which overlay most of our institutions, none of which pay much attention to election outcomes.