Those aren't the sort of fundraising totals you want to see. Dennis McDonald recently announced staff expansion, but his latest fundraising numbers make that seem like a questionable decision:
Column A This Period
Column B Election Cycle-To-Date
6. Net Contributions (other than loans)
(a) Total Contributions (other than loans)
17291.09
104164.95
(b) Total Contribution Refunds
40.00
40.00
(c) Net Contributions (6(a) - 6(b))
17251.09
104124.95
7. Net Operating Expenditures
(a) Total Operating Expenditures
32996.48
87004.79
(b) Total Offsets to Operating Expenditures
0.00
0.00
(c) Net Operating Expenditures
32996.48
87004.79
8. Cash on Hand at Close of Reporting Period
18120.16
Tyler Gernant hasn't reported yet. I don't believe Dennis Rehberg has either.
Let's say you want to run Montana's lone Congressional seat as a Democrat. (Recommendation: You might want to seek counseling.) Then, you have to ask yourself: Do I really want to win?
At first blush, the answer is 'yes,' of course. You then recite the litany of reasons. Rehberg evil. Me good. You (and, your spouse if you have one), family and friends and supporters decide to go for it.
Then, the reality of the undertaking sets in.
Consider this:
A primary is inevitable. And, you need money. A lot of it.
To make the math easy, let's say you need to raise at least $1.5 million to be credible candidate and you intend to raise it over an 18-month period. Your campaign would need to raise approximately $77,000 a month, or $19,200 a week, or $2,700 every day.
For 18 months.
Of course, things will be slow starting out, so the averages listed above go up, depending on how slowly you make it out of the gate.
You won't have much of a staff. You can't afford one. Volunteers are OK, but you need to spend hours and hours on the phone groveling for dough and then bird-dogging those who agree to contribute to make sure they do.
Just when Montanans were starting to wonder if money and power really did mean you could get away with anything, Melville rancher and congressional candidate Dennis McDonald had the guts to call a spade a spade and voice his concern about Rehberg's actions. Thank you.
Here's the deal, folks: In spite of what Rehberg's "crisis manager" says, the facts speak for themselves.
After the accident, Rehberg's "crisis manager" tried to deceive Montanans by saying that Rehberg's BAC was "only" .05 (when tested at the hospital 3 hours after the accident.) Unfortunately, this means that at the time of the accident, Rehberg was legally drunk.
BAC levels decrease at a rate of .015 per hour. So 3 hours before Rehberg was tested (the time of the accident) Rehberg's BAC was .095. Because Rehberg was impaired, he was incapable of judging whether Barkus was sober, and he took his two young staffers on the boat with him.
Here's another major point: Rehberg failed to designate a sober member of his party who could make sure everyone got home safe before everyone started drinking. State and federal experts spend millions of dollars every year for decades on DUI prevention and the importance of designated drivers. Trying to say that you don't know about designated drivers in today's world is like trying to say you didn't know smoking was bad for you.
Finally, what we have here is a shameful pattern of alcohol-induced bad behavior. I can think of at least 3 other incidents:
This one, when Rehberg drank half a dozen shots of vodka, jumped on a horse, fell off, got trampled by another horse, broke a rib and allegedly called the locals "cone heads." Initially Rehberg's spokesman told reporters the Congressman had no shots of vodka. Then the Congressman admitted he had "two or three." And later, a Marine colonel who was on the trip told Roll Call Rehberg really had six shots.
And then there was this. Rehberg's reelection campaign report lists a nearly $300 expenditure on Feb. 25 for "lodging" at the Tune Inn, a storied dive bar on Capitol Hill. An inn, the Tune Inn is not. "There's a cot in the basement," a bartender explained. "But usually people just pass out on it."
US Congressional candidate Dennis McDonald is today announcing his support for a single-payer health care plan. Over 100 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured, and when coupled with the high costs of health care it is clear that we can delay no longer in enacting comprehensive health care reform.
There is overwhelming public support for a single payer plan here in America. And as families continue to struggle financially across Montana, providing relief from high health care costs is a priority for McDonald.
One of the complaints (and rightfully so) of single-payer advocates is that single-payer health care is popular among Americans. Well, here's their chance to put that idea to the test: a single-payer candidate.
That position, of course, is in stark contrast to the incumbent, Dennis Rehberg's, who not only opposes any meaningful health care reform, but thinks the health care crisis is limited to about 1 in 50 Americans. (Maybe it is limited to 1 in 50 multi-millionaire real estate developers.)
I'm curious to see Tyler Gernant's reaction to this news. If Germant plays it cool, and doesn't endorse single-payer health care, this could be the big issue in the primary...
Shawn White Wolfe yesterday wrote an open letter (pdf) condemning the racist rhetoric that's substituting for debate in the OPI race. (The full text of the letter is also below the fold.) White Wolfe ran for HD79 as a Republican. Dennis McDonald wrote a heart-felt response, reconfirming the Democratic party's and his own personal committement to civil rights. I know that, for Dennis, this is something he believes strongly in.
A couple of things.
First, I think Taylor Brown should be in the spotlight, too. After all, it's Brown's megaphone Dave Rye is using. Does Taylor Brown approve of such rhetoric? And do we want someone who would tolerate, even encourage, the Dave Ryes of the world to sit in a body representing the state of Montana?
Second, this race is in danger of quickly become about Denise Juneau's Native American heritage. But let's face it, by any standard, Denise Juneau is the perfect fit for the office she's seeking, whether it's judging her by her experience, ability, or intelligence. She's had a successful stint as an administrator in the OPI's office; she has several advanced degress from top-notch programs that are directly relevant to the job; and she's spent her entire life in education, thinking about education, and being a tireless advocate for education.
In contrast, Elaine Sollie-Herman has not taught school since...the 1970s? The 1980s? Her claim to fame -- besides wallowing in racist support this election cycle -- is that she once joked about shooting students. (At least, I hope it was a joke.)
Amusingly, McDonald showed up at the interview wearing a giant white cowboy hat.
Aptly, Erik Iverson pointed out to the assembled crowd that McDonald is a trial lawyer from southern California. Iverson, on the other hand, is a 5th generation Montanan who grew up on a ranch in the Sweetgrass Hills.
"If my grandmother were to catch me wearing a hat indoors anywhere -- let alone in a television studio," Iverson noted, "she would have bent me over her knee, even to this day."
Does that means these are outdoor photographs? They sure don't look like it.
At the end of the day, I really don't care either way. I even think both Erik Iverson and Dennis McDonald are good guys who occasionally do stupid things because of partisan pressures (when I do stupid things, it's generally for the simple reason that I'm occasionally stupid).
But this gotcha game is ridiculous.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if our cowboy-playing politicians wear hats indoors. From what I can tell, voters in this state seem to like that look. Jon Tester, a real farmer, rarely wears cowboy hats from what I've seen. Brian Schweitzer, a real rancher, rarely does either.
I'm not sure I've ever seen Pat Williams wear a hat, much less indoors. But I know that if I saw him wearing a trucker hat in church, I'd still adore him and his record.
Whatever.
And in the interest of balance -- the Dems have taken some stupid and unfair swings, like when they beat up Iverson's colleague for protecting the privacy of a constituent.
What's going on with the U.S. House race? Out of all the contests coming up in 2008, there are really only two where Dems should be spending much time at all speculating right now. Those two are the Presidential and the U.S. House. The down ticket races are important, but the timelines just aren't the same.
So what's going on with the Congressional race here in Montana? Recently, I've been hearing three names over and over again:
Bill Kennedy -- Bill is the lone Democratic County Commission in Yellowstone County. I'm hearing that he's definitely throwing his hat into this ring, but there's been no announcement, so take it with the same grain of salt that you take anything in the political rumor mill. That said, Bill brings some strengths to this race. He represents a swing county that is Dennis Rehberg's base. He lost the race for Secretary of State in 2004, but I hear he appreciates the reasons for that defeat and has vowed to not repeat the mistakes. If there are "factions" in the Democratic Party, Bill and I are from different ones. I worked for and supported Jon Ellingson for S.O.S. in 2004. Bill was John Morrison's primary treasurer in 2006, while I supported Jon Tester. All that said, Bill has always struck me as a genuinely nice guy and good human being. With the right kind of campaign, he could be a formidable opponent to a huckster like Rehberg.
Jim Foley -- A former top aide to both Pat Williams and Max Baucus, Jim Foley has flirted with running for office for years. A recent Roll Call article said rumors were spreading that he was eyeing a race for Congress. Both the DCCC, which works on recruiting for these campaigns, and Jim himself refused to comment. That said, the story wouldn't have mentioned him if someone hadn't placed it and it wouldn't have been placed for no reason. He's probably feeling out the waters. His strength? A huge percentage of members of Congress are former staff people who understand the grueling work it takes to get there. His weakness? He's been based for years in Missoula, so he'll have to deal with the (often exaggerated) implications of being tied to the progressive hotbed of Montana, but he'll do it with few of the benefits. Jim himself is not beloved by the Missoula 'roots. Final Note: I don't have this on any authority, so don't quote me, but I'd guess Jim Foley would not jump into this race until after Rehberg explicitly says he's running for re-election. Jim knows the tougher race Rehberg expects, the more likely he is to jump into the Senate race. Jim is loyal and he wouldn't look to set up a tougher race for his former boss. Again, this is just my gut, so take it with a half a grain of salt.
Dennis McDonald -- The current chair of the Democratic Party in Montana, Dennis may find his background as a rancher and relative political outsider comes in more useful as a candidate than as a behind-the-scenes manager. Dennis is a founder of R-CALF, has deep connections across rural Montana, and could undermine part of Dennis's base. He'd continue the successful formula that has worked for Montana Democrats -- run a rancher or farmer who is good on gun issues and can be forceful on trade, keep the base unified, and win. What's his biggest weakness? He's never been a candidate, much less a statewide one in a high-profile race. And he doesn't receive the natural political benefit of that, since as chair of a political party, he's relatively easy to paint as a typical insider.
What are my thoughts on this field? I actually like all three of the candidates. I'm also hearing rumors that Brian Kahn is eyeing a run. He'd be an interesting candidate, but this would be a tough field for him to jump into.
All of these candidates, though, show the potential to be extremely hard-working candidates. That's a good thing.
The same Roll Call article that floated Jim Foley's name had some insiders saying Dennis Rehberg had the potential to rise a lot higher. I think that's overstated. I think Rehberg is tolerated by people who think he does OK work. He's not especially loved or respected by anyone in Montana. A hard-worker who is more likeable could do a lot against him.
Does that means these are outdoor photographs? They sure don't look like it.