Big Sky Cairn

In 1997, current Montana Democratic Party Executive Director Art Noonan wrote a short opinion piece for PBS extolling his belief that money had an acidic effect on democracy. In the piece he wrote:

Democrats should be doubly shameful because we joined in the “politics of price” to balance the playing field and instead we achieved the loss of the moral high ground.

And…

I will never be a millionaire and so I feel very strongly that the money changers have more directly undermined the importance in my vote more than any constitutional amendment ever could.

Now whether the Democrats were ever keepers of the moral high ground is certainly debatable, but the article got me thinking: How does a man who believes that money is the root of all political evil campaign for a sitting U.S. Senator who receives millions of dollars from donors *PACs* outside the state of Montana?

According to Open Secrets, Max Baucus raised a little over $6.7 million dollars for his 2002 campaign. Of that amount, only 17.4% was raised in the Treasure State. In fact, of the five zip codes who gave the most money to Baucus only two are in Montana. So how does Noonan, a man raised in a town built on the backs of Union labor support a man who raises more money in the 90210 than he does in zip code 59701?

If Noonan is right and the people who give the money are the people who shape policy, than the citizens of Big Sky Country only own one-fifth of Max Baucus.

Reading Gazette Comments pays off! Found this gem.

Max has opened 8 campaign offices and hired 35 campaign employees. 91% of the money that he’s spending is from out of state, so that leaves me to wonder: how many of those 35 campaign employees are from out of state?

Any bets?

I’m guessing 30.

Here are six reasons not to trust or support the sixth most powerful Senator. Feel free to add more, be creative about it.

6. On one hand, we lost a seat on appropriations. But the good news is our senior Senator will continue to lobby the crook Senate Majority leader for more empty promises.

5. Where is the outrage?

4. Time to look out the window.

3. Don’t worry, if you lose your job Max will employ you in one of his 8 campaign offices.

2. Good thing one member of delegation knows how to write a bill or we couldn’t go to the sun.

1. Malmstrom Runway, its a done deal…or not.

From a great little Montana fluff-piece in the Economist, we get this gem:

“Ten years ago one of the endangered species in the West was the Democratic governor. Today we’re a solid blue bridge from Alberta to Mexico—Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Kansas, Oregon, Washington”, Mr Schweitzer says. Such facts have led to speculation that the future of the Democratic Party lies not in poaching the odd Southern state in presidential elections, but in building a reliable Democratic base amid the Rockies.

I’ve written about this before - and I still think that Montana’s soul is at stake over the next ten years. What scares me is that whenever anyone outside of Montana writes about Montana it sounds a lot like what the Economist said above. Montana is the future of the Democratic Party…

I have two takes on that, because for that to happen, either the Democratic Party or the Mountain West is going to have to change.

The better option is that Democrats move back toward their populist roots abandoning the Liberal ideals of the Californias and Massachusetts. The Liberal Left doesn’t really love the Mountain West, but they tolerate us because we help give them the majorities they need. For the Mountain West to establish itself as the heart of the new Democrat Party those liberals would have to be exorcized from their controlling role and new, more moderate leaders like Baucus and Schweitzer would have to take over. But the truth is, I don’t see that happening - we just don’t have enough electoral votes.

The more realistic option is that it will be the Mountain West and not the Democratic Party that changes. The liberal-wing has too much control in the Democrat party. My guess is that - over the next few decades - as all of the urban liberals retire and want to leave the social paradises they’ve constructed they will look for a good place to nest. Sort of like aliens looking for a new planet to colonize. And national stories like this one that portray Montana and the Mountain West as “the future of the Democratic Party,” will draw them here like an Arecibo message.

I hope I’m wrong, but that’s why I always get an ugly feeling in my gut when Montana gets national press. Those stories aren’t written for Montana. They are written for East Coast liberals who still swoon over western clichés like the ones Brian Schweitzer was oozing:

Mr Schweitzer revels in rural wit: in a previous interview he said he has “more guns than I need and fewer than I want.” Montana has six guns for every resident, he tells me, after asking me if I own one. “In Montana we think gun control is hittin’ what you’re shootin’ at…Out here in the West we Democratic governors are just as likely as Republican governors to be packing a pistol.”

When it comes to press, I prefer the kind that’s written in other states and printed in Montana’s papers for Montanans to read - not the other way around.

Everyone loves the kids - especially for their political value. Nothing quite as appealing to a politician as exploitation of children. So it makes perfect (political) sense for Montana to raise the income level for Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

It makes a little less sense if you consider the fact that - even at current income caps - this program is only being utilized by a small percentage of eligible families. It would make more sense to put state efforts into “recruiting” already eligible participants - the poorest families - before adding more wealthy families.

Of course, it makes even less sense if you consider that Mr. Count-Your-Chickens-Before-They-Hatch Max Baucus has refused to work across the aisle to get “his” CHIP legislation passed in Congress. It’s been six months since Max declared victory after the Senate sent a bill to the President that everyone knew was going to be vetoed. No votes yet.

But you heard it here first. CHIP will rear it’s ugly head again - right around election time in September or October. Because everyone loves kids and nothing quite as appealing to a politician as exploitation of children.