Here is a ten-point rack of antlers, some political reading-between-the lines of what we have learned in the press so far, regarding Poacher-gate.
1) Notice, so far, that Lance Lovell, the Republican hack who got a few headlines out of the Schweitzer-ethics charge back in 2008 (but never any blood) is saying things like Vogel "is innocent of these charges" and is "presumed innocent." He is couching the words carefully as Pogie points out. He's not saying that Vogel wasn't involved in no-good, because
2) Vogel could, by several means, be proven definitively to have been involved.
3) At a minimum, Vogel is on record as mistreating an impeccably credentialed FWP officer who has called Vogel's behavior "demeaning and uncooperative."
4) Sooner or later, there will be a statement from the landowner who confronted Vogel and called the warden, though you can bet that this landowner is no Democrat or he'd already be talking, loudly and proudly.
5) Vogel's gun may or may not surface, but it is highly suspect that Randy, a former cop, sold it immediately after the incident, not to a pawn shop or dealer but at a gun show, where there is no record kept of the sale or buyer. And, that this gun he sold just happened to be a .270, like the bullet they found in the male elk. This fails the laugh test.
6) A little-noticed facet of this story: Rehberg's spokesman says he "doesn't know" whether another staffer was involved in the incident. Um, so let's see: when Rehberg, humiliated by a major story, confronted his top aide in Great Falls, and asked, "Mike, were you a part of this?", we are supposed to believe that Mike Waite said "Boss, I don't really know."?
7) When you try to blame the opposing political party for something like this, it is usually the last desperate measure. Blame the Democrats for mudlsinging. That type of attack is known to be very weak in electoral politics. It rarely affects poll numbers. The central story--the scandal--is remembered. Blaming "negative politics" when a story breaks is usually a fruitless effort, an inside game that might influence a news cycle, but is forgotten when election season comes around. The smelly carcass, the disposed-of gun, the breathlyzer results, or the drunk brawl or the drunken pass-out at the bar, or the drunken falling off the horse--those are the things voters remember.
8) I do believe that this incident, in a cumulative effect, will drag Rehberg down in a signficant way, coming on the heels of the Dustin Frost/Flathead boatwreck story. It's a big enough story that it will continue to roll out and embarass the Congressman. And Vogel, as we now see, is going to try to protect his own ass, not Rehberg's.
9) Nevertheless, watch for Rehberg's statewide spin machine to get into motion. You will see op-eds, letters to the editor, blog posts, comments on web articles, all decrying the mudslinging and the outrageous witch hunt by a Democrat-filled FWP, etc.
10) I doubt the warden who tracked Vogel down is a Democrat, nor are most of the career law enforcement folks at FWP. In the aftermath of the Boating Wreck, the Rehberg spin machine was pretty effective, proving again that Republicans seem to be generally better at that stuff than Dems. But again, as time passes the facts of the accident, not the post-accident spin, is what will be indelible. Let's see what happens with poacher-gate.
Reporters have attempted to call him "a conservative activist". Really!? I find no record of any cause he is active in (other than himself.)
Greenwood is well known in the state's political circles all right--as the guy that got caught trying to walk out the door with an illegal, secret $7,000 golden parachute from the State of Montana after his former patron Brad Johnson was voted out of office after serving only one term (h/t.) So much for responsible budgeting!
Oddly, he said he doesn't plan to give up his own campaign for legislature. Can you say "conflict of interest"? He now has free reign to raid the GOP cookie jar to help his own race.
Hilariously, his campaign theme is "Restoring Responsibility to Government."
As the saying goes, you know the true nature of a man by the company he keeps.
Randy Vogel, hired by Rehberg last month as Rehberg's top staffer (replacing former state director Dustin Frost who suffered severe head injuries following the boating accident involving Rehberg, a GOP legislator, and lots of alcohol and is leaving to "become a private consultant"), must appear in court next Tuesday where he will face allegations of poaching and obstructing a police officer, among other charges.
This is the third Republican busted for poaching in recent memory, others include Republican legislator Scott Boggio and Legislative Fiscal "analyst" Terry Johnson.
It is not yet known what effect this most recent poaching scandal will have on Rehberg's and other Republican's electoral chances this fall, but it can't be good.
It's also interesting that Rehberg didn't fire this individual, but instead allowed him to "place himself on voluntary leave."
UPDATE: Pogie at Intelligent Discontent has a great analysis of Vogel's pathetic "defense" here.
The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on "fear" of President Barack Obama and a promise to "save the country from trending toward socialism."
The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how "ego-driven" wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and "tchochkes."
The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.
In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party's donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.
The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.
"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.
The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!"
It's nice to see some actual proof that the conservative movement's cries of socialism are blatantly manufactured, although sadly this rhetoric has actual consequences in places like Montana, where anti-statist radicals like Roger Koopman have their delusional paranoia underscored by establishment Republican fund-raising pitches. The result: some real whack-a-loons get to craft legislature.
But then most of the GOP has abandoned any pretense of aspiring to govern. The important thing is to win. Win elections, win media coverage, win with bumper-sticker slogans.
Oregon just raised it taxes on businesses. And Senator Jeff and 44 others say we need to advertise in Eugene and Ontario and Hines and elsewhere and entice businesses there to come to Montana because of our business-friendly tax climate.
To his and the R's credit, the rhetoric is, well, rhetorical:
Essmann said Oregon had taken a "higher tax path" to the detriment of good business. And while Montana's own tax system isn't perfect, he added, it does offer a favorable tax policy when compared to Oregon.
Among the advantages, Essmann named Montana's top marginal income tax. He said it helps small businesses retain capital and reinvest it, making it possible to expand and hire new employees.
"We need to leverage every competitive advantage we can," Essmann said. "We think now is the time, when we have a need for more jobs - and with small business in Oregon feeling under duress - to advertise the availability and the quality of our work force, and have Oregon businesses take a look."
So, what's going on? Jeff and his fellow travellers might need to review how the higher tax path was accomplished. By a vote of more than half of the state's registered voters.
Actually, there were two initiatives that passed. The Montana R's conveniently ignore the fact that the Legislature approved the tax increases last spring. Irate Oregonians took matters into their own hands and gathered enough signatures and place the tax increases on the ballot. By gum, we'll show 'em. Measure 66, which raises taxes on households earning $250,000 or more, passed by 54 percent. Measure 67, which increases corporate levies, passed with 53 percent.
It looks like the embattled leader of the abortion ban ballot initiative from Kalispell is displaying her fading grasp on reality once again.
In a recent email missive about her efforts, Annie Bukacek assumes the black helicopters are already circling when she writes this accusation about Montana's county elections officials:
It is a near-certainty there will be fraud in some of the county elections departments.
Bukacek certainly knows something about fraud: she's under investigation for being a perpetrator of it.
In the same rambling email, Bukacek also mentions her efforts to recruit tea-baggers to her cause. I can see why Bukacek's minions are drawn to tea-baggers. They seem to share a penchant for boldly displaying their cognitive limitations. I'm not saying that's all bad--it makes it easier for the rest of us to avoid hiring them.
The fact is, Bukacek's prototypical supporter seems to be "that one guy" who, if he continues along his current trajectory, will likely spend a considerable portion of his 30s as that one local nutter in every Denny's who spends his time filling notebooks with manifestos.
Not the tea-baggers.
This small, whiney minority of the population that is virtually impotent and have no impact on policy is the wrong target for Bukacek. Heck, they aren't even trying to have a part in any movement FOR anything - they are the "new anarchists". They aren't the types who are going get behind a movement and volunteer. Nor do they seem like the types that want the government to have more say in private medical decisions.
Traditional media types love the notion of a "centrist," whatever that is.
Take Evan Bayh's sudden gut shot to the Democratic party and president Obama. Read Charles Lane's analysis:
Millions of Americans long to tell their bosses "take this job and shove it." Hardly any have the power and money to do so, especially in these recessionary times. Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, however, is the exception. His stunning retirement from the Senate is essentially a loud and emphatic "screw you" to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda -- one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw....
Quitting the Senate was a no-lose move for the presidentially ambitious Bayh, since he can now crawl away from the political wreckage for a couple of years, plausibly alleging that he tried to steer the party in a different direction -- and then be perfectly positioned to mount a centrist primary challenge to Obama in 2012, depending on circumstances.
For Lane, Bayh's sudden departure was a noble, gutsy maneuver that should propel him into the middle of a primary challenge of Obama, as if he's become a "centrist" rebel. Daniel Larison picks that notion apart, nothing that party voters tend to eschew losers like Bayh who quit the team and over issues they actually like. But even if Bayh, say, chose to run as an independent, he'd probably run into the problems that NYC mayor Bloomberg did when he put out feelers in '08:
Centrists" do not run insurgent campaigns very well....There are no passionate, vocal groups of voters eagerly demanding that government be more solicitous of corporate interests and more willing to start wars overseas. There are not many large voting blocs requesting the offshoring of whole industries. To be a "centrist" is necessarily to champion the interests of concentrated power and wealth and to ignore and deride as "populist" insanity anything that stands in the way of those interests. Who has ever heard of an explicitly anti-populist political insurgency? Insurgents always set themselves up as the independent outsiders who will stand up for the people against the establishment. Just imagine Bayh trying to sell himself as the establishmentarian who wants to tone down the "radicalism" of Obama's Rubinite economics and his Clintonian hawkish foreign policy. What Lane proposes is that an old DLC-type Democrat will be positioned to win over a party that is increasingly disgusted by the overrepresentation of DLC-type Democrats in the current administration. This misreads the mood of the party and the substance of administration policy very badly.
Good bye, Bayh. Don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
Sources at the Department of Labor have confirmed that Roger Koopman, the arch-conservative leader and former legislator from Bozeman, has been notified by the Department of Labor that he is violating Federal Law. It appears that he could face criminal prosecution if he continues to defy multiple cease and desist orders.
Koopman's employment firm, Career Concepts, has been collecting massive fees, which sources say are as high as $1500 in some cases, from job applicants who are unemployed and have been answering job offers on the state jobs website. That is a federal crime. There will be more to come on this. I'll keep you posted.
Koopman has in recent times become the self-appointed Anti-Government/Tea Party/Far-Right Wing leader, even recruiting super-conservatives to challenge right-wing incumbents in republican primaries.
Now, Koopman could be finished in that role.
UPDATE: I fixed the link. You can view the letters here. To view the large file size, click "all sizes" at top of photo.
***UPDATE 2***: Here's the latest letter from this month, and the second page of that letter.
Roger Koopman and his friends are up to their usual tricks, this time circulating a purity test:
In a repeat of 2008, former Bozeman Rep. Roger Koopman has set his sights on state Republicans who he accuses of being too liberal, or RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Koopman, the chairman of the newly formed Montana Conservative Alliance, says his group is mailing questionnaires to every GOP candidate and, based on their results, will identify who will be supported and who will be targeted.
In the last legislative election, Koopman and his cronies dislodged three moderate Republicans in primaries.
I know there are leftys out there who would apply the same Koopman-esque tactics to the Democratic party - and certainly I heartily support running good progressive candidates against bad candidates - but Koopman's style demands strict ideological adherence to a narrow set of simplistic "principles" under all conditions. What you get from that kind of process is a pack of simplistic, narrow-minded legislators applying simplistic cookie-cutter policies to complex problems with monomaniacal fury.
That's not a good thing.
I will say that pundits and media outlets have an irrational love of "independents." There's a romanticized vision out there that an "independent" is somehow a fierce, pragmatic thinker free from the pull and tug of mindless partisanship, bravely inhabiting the small strip of no-man's land between the two political parties. But in reality, independent voters are anything but a homogenous bloc. Maoist lefties and white supremacist righties both consider themselves "independent." Others are independent because of a single issue. Abortion, for example, may push a economic progressive, say, to vote for a rightwing pro-life Republican. Others are partisan, but call themselves independent to foil pollsters or because they like the idea of being independent. Others are partisan, but switch their vote to punish a politician for not upholding her party's values - like in the case of the recent Massachusetts special Senatorial election.
That's a long way of saying that "moderates" don't really represent "independent" voters. But a moderate politician does make sure that constituents from both sides of the political divide are represented - which isn't a bad thing. (In the national health care debate, for example, Blue Dog Democrats did bring legitimate concerns about the effects health care legislation would have on state budgets and small businesses.)
In the case of the Montana Republican party, that's crucial. That's because efforts of folks like Koopman have transformed the state Republican party into a truly radical political movement that seeks to advance the interests of a tiny faction of the state's voters.
So Research 2000 did a poll on Republicans' beliefs and...well...they're kind of crazy. Nearly 70 percent of self-identified Republicans, for example, are open to the idea of impeaching President Obama. Sixty-three percent are certain he's a socialist. Forty-two percent are certain Obama wasn't born in the United States, and another 22 percent are unsure.
Of course, it's easy to claim some sort of superiority...without seeing a similar poll of self-identified Democrats asking them about their favorite conspiracy theories. That 9/11 was an inside job, say. It could that people are irrational, not just Republicans.
But I do like Nate Silver's observations of the poll. He noticed that the answers to the poll questions varied little, if at all, with demographics. Regardless of your age, location, or gender, pretty much you believe the same sorts of things.
This accounts for what might be the Republicans' greatest strength as we head into the November midterms as well as their greatest liability. The strength is that they can somewhat comfortably adopt a nationalized, one-size-fits-all message. They don't have to worry about the constellation of constituencies that Democrats have: labor voters, Baby-boomer liberals, blacks, Hispanics, college-educated technocrats, libertarianish younger voters, etc. Their base is the same pretty much everywhere, and actuating a strategy that appeals to that base is not challenging.
The liability, meanwhile, is that while the Republican base might be the same pretty much everywhere, the rest of the electorate isn't. Some states and districts have different ratios of Republicans to Democratic and independent voters. Moreover, they have different types of Democratic and independent voters, some of whom may be amenable to the Republican message and others of whom won't be.
The question is, how did this happen? How did the base of one party come to believe all the same things in the same way? That some of these monolithic beliefs include outright delusions - the Obama birth canard, for example - points to success in messaging, whether by cable news, talk radio, or email chains. Obviously simple messages are getting out and reinforced as they're passed along.
One thing, too, that neither Kos nor Silver mentioned is that the demographics of Republicans are skewed strongly towards white males to begin with. While the breadth of Republican demographics are similar in belief, what's not said is that most of the other demographics are small. That homogeneity probably also aids the message. Republicans probably congregate in the same places, talk the same language, and participate in the same activities. That's probably also why many are under the delusion that they represent "real" American values and ideas - the opposite is true, of course, they're actually a minority of the population - they don't really get out much.
All of that is opposite to the left. The left spans class, race, language, education, and the rural/urban divide. Democrats in Portland, Oregon, are vastly different from those in the Salish-Kootenai nation. They hardly interact, let alone hear the same unified message.
Read this post, especially if you are a Democratic politician hesitant to cast a vote for fear of blowback from Republicans:
Democrats can be assured that Republicans will attack them, regardless of what they do. Democrats could eliminate the estate tax permanently, slash the capital gains tax, repeal the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, invade Iran, and pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing abortion, and Republicans would still attack them -- with exactly the same vehemence and vigor that Republicans have now. That's politics. It's how partisan politics is played...
My advice to Democrats unsure about what to do is this: think about the actual bill, and what its effects would be if it became law. If in your judgment those effects would be bad for your constituents, then odds are they will dislike it, blame you for it, and you'll be in trouble. If those effects would be good for your constituents, then vote for it. Then figure out how you're going to sell the thing and yourself, based on that vote. But don't back off of it because you think it will open you up to attacks; you're wide open right now, and you'll remain wide open regardless of what you do.
Mike Dennison's got a report on the Montana Republicans' launch of their new legislative campaign. There's not much surprising here; it's the same, stale lines they've been doling out for years: Democrats are for higher taxes, Republicans lower. Democrats want to increase the size of government, Republicans decrease it. Democrats are the party of "environmental obstructionism," Republicans...the corporate whores? Or something.
Of course, the political reality doesn't support these allegations. Under Democratic leadership, the state has done fairly well compared with the rest of the country. The state has run budget surpluses under its Democratic governor and the state has had sound fiscal management. A good response should be to remind folks (especially some of our own) that Democrats and leftys believe, not in bigger government, but better government. That we want to build a party for the people, not the plutocrats.
And, yes, I'm aware that the present state of the Democratic party falls short of those ideals.
And then there was this:
Senate Majority Leader Jim Peterson, R-Buffalo, ripped into the Democratic-controlled Land Board, saying it "turned its back on responsible natural resource development" last month by voting to set overly high lease prices for state coal in eastern Montana's Otter Creek Valley.
"We're committed to developing our energy resources and putting Montanans back to work," he said.
Republicans will push against the Land Board, claiming they set the price too high on purpose to prevent the coal from being leased. After all, why not? They have a tendency to treat public land as corporate America's backyard, why not try to pressure the Land Board to essentially give away the state's coal tracts? It's good for teh childs! Well, not so much.
The Republicans are dutifully stepping up to play their part in the Otter Creek Kabuki. Man, don't you just hunger for someone, anyone in politics - Republican or Democrat - and just say this whole deal is bullsh*t, and have done with it?
The fact that the Republican National Committee is facing sharp criticism and tough financial times has been all over the news lately. But the problems don't appear to be particular to the national level. Republicans here in Montana are in a similar predicament, and that could pose some serious problems for them as they try to recruit candidates for the legislature. Problems of the "Hey, we really want you to run, but we don't have the resources to give you any help" variety.
RNC Chair Michael Steele has been criticized for depleting RNC coffers by two-thirds in a non-election year. Here in Montana, we find the same problem: the party had only $14k in the bank according to its last FEC report.
In addition, Montana's GOP is facing massive turnover. They've had four different directors in a period of a little over a year. Between Oct 2008 and December 2009 Jake Eaton, Larry Grinde, Max Hunsaker, and now Gary Carlson have all (briefly) held the post. Not much seems to be going on. The most recent "news" listed on their website was from June 25, 2009
The lack of direction is also due to the fact that Republicans lack any statewide elected leaders beyond Rehberg, who isn't the type that can inspire others to get involved.
No doubt any potential candidates with half a brain will see this situation and think, "No thanks, not this year."
Across the nation, calls for GOP Chair Michael Steele to make an apology for his racist, uneducated comments on national televison continue to mount, but he's not having any of it. Huffington Post has his comments defending his racism on the Dennis Miller radio show:
I said look you want o come after me, you want to do this job then take it from me. But until then, shut up and get in line.... This is why are at 22 percent approval in the polls, why no one wants to identify with us because we spend more time tearing each other down as opposed to talking about those principles that have defined us for generations.
What kind of "principles that have defined us for generations" is he talking about?
Here in Montana, American Indians are our state's first residents and among our most honored leaders and elders. Governor Schweitzer has worked hard to rebuild the relationships between our state and the sovereign nations within its borders. And for the first time, Montana voters elected our first American Indian woman, Denise Juneau, to statewide office.
We want leaders who will end racism, not promote it. So we want to know: Will the Montana GOP renounce the bigotry and ignorance of their national leader or will they continue to lend him their silent support?
Man, I had no idea how much Hoffman's ACORN conspiracy tapped into conservative illogic. Check this out, from Public Policy Polling:
PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately....
Belief in the ACORN conspiracy theory is even higher among GOP partisans than the birther one, which only 42% of Republicans expressed agreement with on our national survey in September.
Un-freaking-believable. Only twenty-seven percent of Republican voters thinks ACORN didn't steal the presidential election for Obama? Seriously?
Man...I don't know what to say. It's one of those polls that really challenges your faith in the human race. What's going on over there on the right? I mean...it's like an alternate universe over there, a place hardly impacted by reality.
Well...the healthcare reform bill passed the House, but not without a gut punch to women.
First, Democrats struck a deal over healthcare to win the support of Catholic bishops by allowing an amendment to reach the House floor that would disallow any insurance passed in the health insurance exchange to cover elective abortion procedures.
Jane Hamsher: "Democrats in Congress have just proudly signed a deal...which allows a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own sexual issues to dictate access to abortion services..." Hamsher rips Planned Parenthood and NARAL for rolling over on this and other women's issues wrapped up in health care reform.
The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.
A great day for women, that started off with the Democratic women's caucus being repeatedly shouted down by Republican Congressmen on the House floor.
It's hard to jump and down and cheer for a bill with so many bad compromises in it - how did we get here? In part, I blame the group of "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats who drag their feet on Democratic policies while taking in industry donations. But those Democrats exist and wield power because the Republicans are quickly ceding their role as rational political players. They vote against every piece of legislation in Congress, and refuse to even enter negotiations in crafting legislation. The effect is particularly dire in the Senate, where Republicans so far have filibustered, or threaten to filibuster, nearly every Democratic bill or judicial nomination. As a result, the worst Senators - Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln - are having the most influence on policy.
In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration's job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing - but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here - and it's very bad for America.
"I'll show you President Obama's birth certificate when you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma." - Bill Maher
Don't look now. But, next year the state and national electoral bandwagon rolls though town again. Another election.
Man. I'm just getting over the last one. The feeling is one of fatigue or a hangover, but not the kind with a throbbing headache. More of a dull pain.
After all of these years, I am trying to figure out which is which is worse:
1.Working so hard and losing and feeling powerless while the whackos screw things up; or
2.Working so hard and winning and then watching so little be accomplished when those with white hats rule.
Remember election night in 2008? Soldier Field filled with tens of thousands of new faces. Euphoria. The articulate black guy with large ears, his wife dressed in a stunning red dress and two beautiful children. It was a stunning, electric political moment.
The margin was clear. No need for the Supreme Court to weigh in. So much promise. "Change you can believe in." "We're the ones we've been waiting for." Such promise.
While the nation celebrated, election results in Big Sky Country were close but, no cigar. Our electoral votes narrowly stayed red. And, in the midst of the so-called big wins that night, there were ominous signs.
Baucus surged to a win with a campaign war chest exceeding $10.0 million, but no one critically scrutinized its sources and the consequences.
Conflicted and sad sack D candidate, John Driscoll, actually voted for his opponent; and, Rehberg rolled to victory. The message here exactly?
The bright side? Schweitzer led a ticket of statewide candidates that, with the exception of Linda McCulloch, all won easily. And, for the fist time since 1948, the D's control all five offices.
1948?!?
In the Legislature, a net 5 seats traded hands. The D's increased their count in the House of Representatives from 49 to 50 (and earned a tie with the R's) and lost 4 seats in the Senate (27 to 23).
And, after a year, what has happened?
Nationally, real, meaningful health care reform appears dead, perhaps for another generation. Energy policy and climate change proposals languish. Too often, foreign policy still is measured in troop counts and trillions of dollars in defense spending.
With the health care industry and pharmaceuticals and heavy-industry lobby calling the shots, not much has changed.
Statewide, for progressives, everything is, well, ho-hum. Yes, the Governor can boast about being one of two governors operating a budget in the black. But, hundreds of millions of state tax dollars freed up by then infusion of stimulus monies that could have been directed to health care and education, instead went to "shovel ready" projects (most of which, because of the comparatively small amount of money involved, are cosmetic in nature). High unemployment and chronic underemployment persist. Once again, the legislature gutted environmental laws (and Schweitzer signed most of them), neglected the University System and (Brian says he's the System's biggest ally in several generations) and sent the Governor a piss-poor bill to guide the ways property is valued and taxed (and he allowed it to become law without his signature).
It is often said that the R's hate government and, for that reason, are not very good at governing. But, with working majorities nationally and statewide, when they were in power they delivered their agenda items. By way of comparison, the D's are timid and spineless and when they are in charge produce results much like those of their dreaded opposition.
It could be worse, I suppose. But, we worked hard for what?
Nate Silver looked at historical poll numbers for Congressional approval broken down along party lines and discovered that, typically, since 2000, Republican support for Republican-controlled Congress is higher than Democratic support for Democrat-controlled Congress.
Is the dissatisfaction because Congressional Democrats are less responsive to their base?
In a second post, Silver gives two possible systematic reasons why Democratic support for their party's representatives is lower.
First, Democrats actually want to implement policy:
Pollster Celinda Lake spoke to first, and perhaps most crucial point in her email reply to me. "It's easier to unify Republicans because mostly they want to stop things. It's harder to unify people when you want to do things." (emphasis added) Therein lies the broader asymmetry: Doing nothing is a single thing, whereas doing something implies many options. And it is easier to build consensus around a "nothing" menu of 1 than it is for a more variegated menu of limitless options of "something."
Meh. Republicans certainly do things while in office. Huge tax subsidies for corporations and the wealthy, for example. Start wars. Implement a systematic program of torture, say. But the right side of the political spectrum has a funny way of approving and defending what their "leaders" do. The right's outrage over English park rules never would have surfaced if it were Republican leaders implementing the policy. Just as the end of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment were brushed aside because they were inconvenient to Republican policies, concerns about background checks at playgrounds would likewise be brushed away if Dick Cheney said they were necessary.
Which brings us to the Democratic coalition's diversity:
Uniquely compounding this problem for Democrats is the nature of their coalition, which is of course more heterogeneous in demographic terms. Pollster Karl Agne: "The other dynamic here, of course, is the relative diversity of Democrats (age, race, region, ideology) and the relatively monolithic nature of the Republican base, as covered in our focus group report." I think it's a factor as well, but impossible to quantify.
It's not just diversity of race, religion, and gender represented by the Democratic party, there's also a gaping psychological and perceptive divide between the small, monolithic, and like-thinking bloc that comprises the Republican base, and everyone else. In short, the Republican base is a self-isolating and paranoid group who see themselves as members of a small, persecuted minority who are defending themselves and their country from a hidden, liberal agenda; the Democratic base is intellectually diverse, and its supporters span across a variety of beliefs and worldviews. In short, Democratic supporters don't agree on everything...or anything?
Silver's conclusion is that "we ought to be careful not to overstate Democratic disgruntlement and its significance." The nature of the party's support spawns natural dissent. It also means that Democrats "are [not] headed for a colossal collapse in a way that the Republicans would be if their approval of a Republican-led Congress were at the same levels." Silver also thinks Democratic approval will rebound after healthcare passes and the Congress tackles other legislation that addresses Democratic concerns.
I'm not so optimistic. While I agree with the premises about the composition of the Democratic party, the issues that the Democratic Congress is currently rejecting or delaying or gutting - the public option, say, or climate change legislation, or Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell - are overwhelmingly popular, not just among Democrats, but among independents, too. In short, it's hard to argue that the dropping numbers for Congressional Democrats are the result of natural political forces, when that party's "leaders" are retreating on the few principles that tie the party together.
I do, however, agree that this is no indication that Democrats will collapse, and that's because the GOP is heading towards crazy. Just as the Republican base is psychologically homogeneous helps keep the bloc together, it also prohibits Republicans, seeking to appeal to their base, to actually communicate with the rest of the world...
I just got this email from Congressman Rehberg's office forwarded to me outlining his concerns about a public option:
He has concerns about a new "public option" because he's worried that employers will stop offering health benefits, which would force too many people into a public system, which the government will not be able to pay for, so instead of making the system better for those who it isn't working for, we've made it worse for everyone.
Reality check: employers already are increasingly dropping health benefits as costs skyrocket. That's all the more reason to fix the individual market -- and also to have a meaningful employer mandate that reduces the number of individuals dropped from current coverage.
But there isn't a single proposal for a public option where people would be forced into it. Once again, for the folks at home, the public option would be one of many options housed inside a health insurance exchange. The exchange would be the likely stopping place for individuals buying insurance on the individual or small group market. By imposing guaranteed issue, community rating, and a reinsurance to reweight the risk pools, the idea is to create a pretty competitive marketplace and reduce administrative overhead of offering individual plans.
Within that exchange, one of those plans would be publicly administered and publicly accountable. Under the (likely) House plan, it would also leverage Medicare's network to be established and pay rates slightly higher than Medicare. Under the (likely) Senate plan, it would simply be a government run health plan, may be national (good) or a set of state-based (not as good), may be an option everywhere (best), everywhere that hasn't opted out (OK), or everywhere that has opted in (bad), or it might be triggered by the lack of affordable insurance (bad). Or it might not exist at all (booooooooooooooo).
But there simply isn't a proposal out there that would do what Rehberg's office is claiming.
Beyond that, Rehberg continues to say he wants insurance companies to be able to compete across state lines. Max's bill actually allows for that, just not in the willy nilly manner that credit card companies currently compete. It would just give states the authority to approve insurance companies based in another state to enter their market (Montana could say they think Washington State's regulations are sufficient for Washington insurance companies to sell their product here). The national public option proposal is based in large part on the advantage of pooling across state lines. Rehberg says he supports tax credits. That's a backbone of the major Democratic proposals. He calls for HSAs but then says he wants resources for prevention. HSAs really don't incentivize prevention. The Democratic bills actually make prevention a reality.
Beyond that, Rehberg is really worried about the cost. Fine, get out there and champion comparative effectiveness research and make it clear that the government will only subsidize proven cost-effective medicine and paying for the rest will be up to the individuals paying out-of-pocket for insurance or care. I'm all for being hard-minded in how we cover people.
The problem is that the entire Republican Party is either ignorant as dirt on these actual policy questions or more dishonest than Pinocchio. Either way, these answers are utter bullshit and Montanans deserve a hell of a lot better.
The country's political landscape changing right under our feet. Did the shift occur while we were sleeping? Or, did anything actually change as a result of last year's elections?
In 2008, the rallying cry was for Democrats. "Let us govern and we'll show you."
After 8 years of Bush II, we had enough, and the country elected a D President and returned D's in larger numbers to serve as the majority party in their respective chambers, including a then near-filibuster proof Senate. When the Coleman-Franken recount stretched into tax season, D's reassured America that with the magic number of 60 Senators, all things are possible. Just believe.
Well, as we've seen, the 60 votes in the Senate aren't working out that well. I'd say the guy hunched over his breakfast at the diner in Circle would tell you the R's are still running the country (or doing a tremendous job of keeping the D's from doing so).
And home, let's face it: Montana is still a red state.
When it came to the US Senate race in 2008, one could argue that Max was the more Republican of the two. Max didn't even break a sweat. (By the way, has anyone ever seen Max sweat?)
Schweitzer was re-elected overwhelmingly over the hapless Roy Brown.
And, yes, the D's won all of the other statewide offices (attorney general, secretary of state, superintendent of public instruction, auditor) for the first time in 60 years. But, there's been a few blue moons in the meantime and it was bound to happen sooner or later. After all, look at the quality of some of the R opposition: Brad Johnson? Ellie Sollie Hermanson?
Even in the lean years during the 1990's, the D's managed to win most of these statewide offices, but the R's repeatedly produced trifectas, with lopsided wins for governor and 2 to 1 majorities in both houses of the legislature.
In 2008, the D's picked up a seat on the Public Service Commission and now hold 4 of the 5 seats.
But, despite unparalleled campaign resources, D's lost a total of 3 seats in the Senate and scratched out enough seats (a net gain of 1) to earn a tie in the House.
Incidentally, for the benefit of younger readers and immigrants of a progressive persuasion, D's haven't controlled both houses of the legislature at the same time since 1991.
So, where does that leave Montana progressives at the cusp of the 2010 election cycle?
