Recently, Jim Hunt attacked Rep. Rehberg for his decision to let Chief of Staff Erik Iverson live in Missoula instead of in Washington D.C. But keeping a Chief of Staff in Montana is hardly a new idea. Between 2000 and 2005, Senator Baucus maintained Jim Foley as his “State Chief of Staff.”
But far from being chided for his inability to get things done in Washington, Baucus was lauded for his efforts to keep in touch with Montanans. And Foley’s experience earned him a spot as one of the leading candidates to run against Rehberg in 2008, long before seventh stringer Jim Hunt came along.
So, I guess I’m confused: Why is it good a good thing for Max Baucus to have a CoS who lives in state but a bad thing for Rehberg? After all, Rehberg is basically running a Senate district (same area, same number of constituents) with a much smaller staff. So, it just makes good sense that he would have his Chief of Staff in state and his Legislative Director/Deputy Chief of Staff supervising the D.C. operation.
Besides, as WC pointed out earlier, doesn’t having one of his key aides living in our community signify his commitment to staying in touch with his constituents? And with all these new fangled inventions like telephones, fax machines, e-mail, C-Span and airplanes it can’t be that hard to keep on top of things that are happening in DC.
As for myself, I like that Rehberg’s Chief of Staff lives in Montana. Just like I appreciate the fact that the Representative comes home every weekend and recess. And if Hunt is planning to spend all of his time in D.C. and keep the majority of his staff sequestered inside the Beltway, then he’s going to have a very hard time staying connected to the people that matter, Montanans.
Posted in Uncategorized | | Write a Letter to the Editor
Show me someone who has publicly criticized Rehberg’s decision yet is a big Baucus cheerleader. I got news for you; most of the Liberal crowd are not fans of Baucus. Certainly, he is better than a Republican alternative (as far as we are concerned), but he is often unsatisfying to us.
I would argue that most of us aren’t wild about Baucus’ in state chief of state either, but we weren’t blogging then.
I am still failing to see what is wrong about placing the Chief of Staff in Montana? Are Hunt’s supporters worried that Erik Iverson might not have enough access to lobbyists if he stays in Missoula? Or maybe too much access to regular Montanans?
It is sort of absurd, but by all means lets keep this discussion going.
Jim Foley wasn’t pulling double duty in the position that Bob Ream had at the time as well. This is partially about Iverson not being in DC (check it out, both Tester and Baucus still have state directors), but it more about the fact that he’s being paid a premium to give a half commitment.
I should have mentioned, while Jim Foley was state chief of staff (state director in other nomenclature), Jim Messina was still running the show in DC. As far as I know, nobody’s at the wheel in Rehberg’s DC office. Who’ll keep him off horses after too much vodka, and make sure he doesn’t eat crackers (in bed) on the couch?
First off, when Jim Foley was in state CoS, Melodee Hanes was Baucus’s State Director. So, clearly this was not the same position.
Second, do some basic internet research and you will discover that Rehberg has a Deputy Chief of Staff based in D.C. So, saying that there is “nobody at the wheel” is not only incorrect but asinine.
And as for Iverson giving a half commitment, he works out of Rehberg’s Missoula Office. And if your complaint is that he is also Chairman of the GOP, I was under the impression that this job was mostly ceremonial since the MTGOP has an Executive Director who runs the Helena Office.
Again, Lamnidae, before you go throwing allegations around (like about Iverson’s salary and there being no one running the Rehberg’s Congressional office) you might try doing some research.
“First off, when Jim Foley was in state CoS, Melodee Hanes was Baucus’s State Director.” This is patently incorrect. Melodee Hanes didn’t become state director until Jim Foley left.
Regardless, I’m done talking about Max’s staff because I don’t know them and it’s rude for them to keep being brought up in a conversation about why Erik Iverson gets paid a premium for a work arrangement unlike that experienced by his peers.
Keep trying to deflect the main question… It’s all you’ve got.
Do you know Erik Iverson? Cause you seem awfully comfortable talking about him and you don’t find that rude. Plus, I wasn’t being rude toward the Baucus staffers by mentioning their job titles.
And I still fail to see how Rehberg having a Chief of Staff in MT and a Deputy Chief of Staff in DC is any different than having a CoS in each place like Baucus did.
You claim that Iverson is paid a premium. Yet, you can offer no evidence that Iverson is paid more than the average Chief of Staff.
You claim that living in Montana instead of in the District is an arrangement unlike any of his “peers”. Do you have any proof that not one of the 534 other members of the House and Senate plus the delegates find it beneficial to have their top aide in the home district?
And what is the basis for the argument that having Iverson in Montana is bad? Where is the proof that he is getting less work done. In fact, I would argue that it is a good thing for Montanans to have our Congressman’s top aide living in the home state.
Why? For the same reason that I think it’s great that Rehberg lives in his office and flies home every recess and weekend. Because I like knowing that my Congressman cares about staying in touch with the people he represents.
I like that the children of my Congressman’s top aide attend MT schools instead of a school in DC. I like that he has daily interaction with Montanans and knows our concerns, because he lives among us. I like that because Iverson lives in Missoula constituents don’t have to travel all the way to DC to interact with our only Representative’s top aide.
