Kudos to John Driscoll for being the only major ticket Democrat to fill out a Project Vote Smart survey. Shame on Baucus and Schweitzer for hiding their views.
But more important than actually taking the survey is what he says in it. Western Word had this run-down in the days after the surprise Primary. There’s enough there to set him back to pasture - including supporting a tax increase for anyone making more than $12,000/year.
Well Driscoll is at it again - this time taking a candidate survey from the sacred clergy from Scientists & Engineers for America. I think Driscoll must really enjoy filling out these surveys; it’s about all he does. Anyway, here are some quoteables:
I favor taxation to internalize the full costs of an end use [of energy] to the end user.
There you have it. He actually wants to tax energy use with the goal of increasing prices. Gutsy position to take in todays energy climate.
I’m not convinced that monetizing pollution, or the lack of it, will address the challenges we all face. Direct regulation, using the police powers of our various nations, may be quickest and most effective.
Carbon police. Literally.
Require universal metering at every level of water use, including precise measurement for irrigation. Provide resources and education in support of water conservation. Discourage use of plant species that require water not available in the natural local environment.
Against irrigation. Sorry Eastern Montana.
One continuously improving result should build on wellness approaches to human health such as “stop smoking” and “exercise a few minutes each day.”
Nanny state meets Orwellian control. Sorry liberty.
Anyway, the more this guy puts out, the more out of touch he demonstrates himself to be. What’s terrifying is that the army of Obama zealots that may turn out in November may also blindly vote down-ticket and by some freak lapse of judgment elect this guy.
While the Drill-Nothing Democrats celebrate the increased use of public transit “across Montana” (well, at least in the cities that have public transit - if you live in rural Montana where you have to drive further anyway, you’re out of luck), gas prices in Montana hit an ugly milestone on Friday when the average cost of a gallon of gasoline hit $4. While all those working class Montanans are feeling the pain, our elected Drill-Nothing Democrats in the Senate, Tester and Baucus, are actually voting to increase the taxes on energy while the “Energy Governor” continues to attack his opponent for actually having some personal experience in the Energy Industry. Meanwhile, wannabe representative Driscoll, the Democrat’s nominee to challenge Rehberg wants to create an electric train system for everyone to ride.
So while Democrats square dance between the environmentalists whose money got them elected and the working class they claimed to defend, Republican Denny Rehberg actually makes some sense.
So let’s say you’re running for federal office and your policy platform is way, way, way to the left of where the average constituent is in the district you want to represent. What do you do?
Give ‘em the old razzle dazzle Razzle Dazzle ‘em
Give ‘em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give ‘em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather ‘em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
Ed Kemmick is normally a fair reporter and I think he really tries to give an honest impression of the issues he covers. But this piece sheds a rather unflattering light into how the media works. Covering the unique results of Montana’s primary election, he explains how excited he is - as a reporter - about the unconventional nature of Montana’s black horse candidates. Fair enough… we’re all rather amused. But mixed in there we get this gem:
A Driscoll win could be the start of a fundamental change in the country’s whole disreputable electoral process. A Kelleher win would be … well, it would be a lot of fun.
Look, I understand that Driscoll’s run has a gimmicky attraction to it. But beyond that gimmick is some pretty scary policy, and hopefully the Montana press will be able to see past the razzle dazzle - the “fun” aspect of Driscoll’s campaign - to cover some of the hard-and-true facts about what he stands for and what he believes. Driscoll’s candidacy represents a lot more than a referendum on the electoral system. It’s about higher taxes, national security, amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialized health care, and a bloated federal government. It’s about empowering leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It’s about making Montana an attractive retirement haven for Californians looking for a little slice of heaven that they can turn into a California away from California. It’s about a lot.
If anyone out there reading this voted for Driscoll or Kelleher, please post your reason here - and feel free to do it anonymously. I know quite a few people who are very interested. Maybe Jay can ask this over at LITW too.
Thank you.
Never thought either Driscoll or Kelleher would get their own Categories, but look at that down there…
Republicans nominate Kelleher to challenge Baucus. Democrats nominate Driscoll to challenge Rehberg. Montana lives up to its reputation as a political black box, and many - myself included - wake up this morning wondering what just happened. So what happened?
Our friend Montana Headlines theorizes that it’s name recognition in a crowded field that pushed these candidates over the top. Jay Stevens sees protest votes. Both, I think, have a point and can explain Kelleher’s win pretty well. I want to take their thoughts and integrate them into a larger scenario. Here’s what I think happened yesterday.
I think we saw the consequence of split ticket voting on strict party line ballots.
First, Montana voters are notoriously independent, and split-ticket voting (voting simultaneously for candidates from multiple parties) is quite prevalent. It’s why, for example, Republican Conrad Burns lost on the same ticket that Republican Denny Rehberg won on in 2006. As a state, we famously buck national trends and party distinctions.
Second, the highest billed ticket in this primary was the Presidential contest between Obama and Clinton. Given the unpopularity of President Bush and the skepticism many Montana Republicans feel toward McCain, there is a sense of discouraged inevitability among many Republicans that the winner of the Democratic Primary will be the next President. Since the Republican ticket was already set, I think many Montanans who lean Republican may have voted on the Democrat ticket in order to voice their opinion on this important question. Some probably voted for Hillary to continue the in-fighting on the left (Operation Chaos). Some probably voted for Obama because they really like him and will vote for him in the General Election. Most, I’m guessing, voted for Obama because he’s a much better option in their minds than Clinton and they don’t want to be stuck with another Clinton Administration. It was the importance of this race, and the fact that there weren’t any other hotly contested primaries among Republicans that made voting on the Democrat Ticket attractive.
Third, the Republicans who voted for the Democrat Presidential Candidate were locked into voting Democrat for the remainder of the ballot. Congressman Rehberg is still popular in Montana, especially among Republicans who may have selected what they considered to be the weaker of the two significant candidates in order to help ensure his seat was unthreatened.
Fourth, the Republican exodus to the Democrat ballot (again, not for insidious Operation Chaos reasons) left the Republican ticket vulnerable to greater influence from a smaller number of people with an axe to grind (see Jay Stevens’ analysis). Coupled with a crowded field in which no candidate was able to get in front of the pack (see Montana Headlines’ take above) an overall minority of voters (36%) was able to nominate the winning candidate as the majority of voters (64%) split their votes among the remaining candidates.
And pre-emptively, no, I don’t have any hard proof. Like most Montanans I know, I’m still scratching my head. This is my guess.
