Big Sky Cairn

Whether we are currently experiencing a technical recession or not isn’t really the point. The point is, it feels like we are, and when it comes to the economy, feelings are often more important that cold data. Feelings dictate actions and actions determine the economy - not the other way around. The fact of the matter is, the solution to economic downturn is rarely some tax stimulus or grand government plan, but it’s the restoration of confidence (sometimes sparked by a stimulus or government action) which leads to the willingness to spend money which restarts the grinding of economic gears.

Of interest to me, however, is the question over which party, Republican or Democrat, a struggling economy benefits in November. The Helena Independent Record weighs in on this question while reporting “more bad news” on Montana’s economy.

The poor economy, perhaps even more than the record of the current president on the war, the response to Katrina, and so on, may turn the tide to Obama, even in Montana. It surely doesn’t help Republican John McCain to have an important economic advisor — Phil Gramm — who insists the economy is fine and people should just get over it. Now, that is stupid.

But why? Read the rest of this entry »

David Crisp has recently fancied himself a monkey on the back of Republican strategists. Lately, he criticizes the GOP for denying Kelleher a speaking slot on the main stage at their convention. He sets up this faulty dilemma:

1. Give the guy the five minutes at the convention podium that he has earned and then let everybody have dessert.
2. Turn our dissatisfaction into a front-page news story that makes us look more divided and inept than ever.

The problem here is that he assumes giving the guy five minutes at the convention wouldn’t be front page news. I think it would under the headline “State GOP Endorses Kelleher” or “Kelleher Finds Himself at Home in GOP.” Kelleher is a nut-job liberal, so giving him a microphone and a stage would make reporters drool. It might even turn into a national story.

There’s plenty of precedent here for the no-win media situation. The GOP comes across badly (in the press) no matter what they do with regard to RINO Lt. Governor Bohlinger - invite him or exclude him. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t and my preference is that they keep Kelleher as far away from my party as possible. I don’t want to the convention to be about that.

From a media perspective, Kelleher is the story - it doesn’t really matter what the GOP does.

The paragraph reads:

He supports a huge, New Deal-type government work program to reduce poverty, backs nationalizing U.S. oil and gas industries and favors government-run, socialized medicine. He is highly critical of President Bush.

Not a flattering portrayal of liberal ideologies. Do you think this paragraph (with linguistic gold like “huge government program” and “government run” and “socialized medicine”) would ever show up if the candidate it was describing wasn’t on the Republican ticket?

If this ‘graph was describing a candidate with the same views running as a Democrat, it would read more like this:

He supports expanded work programs to reduce poverty, government-regulated interventions to reduce the cost of energy for consumers and believes that no American should be without health care. He is also critical of President Bush, whose approval ratings are at record lows in Montana.

On October 26, 1967, John McCain was shot down while flying over Vietnam. McCain parachuted into a lake, breaking both arms and a leg before he nearly drowned. After he was pulled from the water, a crowd attacked him, crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt, and bayoneted him. But his nightmare was just beginning.

McCain spent nearly six years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. And despite being tortured and beaten on a regular basis, McCain turned down a 1968 offer of repatriation unless the North Vietnamese would release every American soldier taken in before him was released as well.

Due to the injuries that he received in service to his country, McCain has been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Administration. So, when I read an article in the LA Times saying that McCain is not fit to be president because of injuries, I wanted to scream. Luckily, I have an electronic soapbox.

By any measure John McCain is a hero, who suffered unspeakable torture in service of his country. He then spent the next three decades in public service. And arguing that the injuries he sustained in Vietnam disqualify him from the presidency is abominable.

McCain is hardly the first person with disabilities to enter politics. Max Cleland and Tammy Duckworth are both 100% disabled, and they are both excellent public servants. Should their injuries make them ineligible to be president?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, the hero of the Democratic Party, was horribly disfigured and disabled after contracting polio but he served as President for 12 years. His disability didn’t get in the way of his accomplishments, and they certainly didn’t hinder his ability to bring his country out of the Great Depression and lead us to victory in WWII.

So, if these politician’s disabilities don’t hinder their ability to serve, why is McCain different? Because he’s a Republican? Because some moron at the L.A. Times who is neither a doctor nor a therapist says so?

Anyone who has ever volunteered on a statewide campaign can tell you, the trail is a grueling test of the candidate’s physical and emotional health. And in the last 25 years, McCain has breezed through three campaigns for the House of Representatives, three campaigns for the Senate and two presidential campaigns. Not to mention the travel and schedule he had to maintain in order to become one of the nation’s most heralded and powerful politicians.

If he can do all of that despite his injuries, I have no doubt that he is healthy and strong enough to serve as president.

But perhaps the most deplorable part of the LA Times article and the constant speculation about how McCain’s disability impacts his health is what it says to the thousands of young disabled veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you for serving your country and putting yourself in danger to protect my freedom, but you are no longer qualified to be president. So, if you aspired to a life of public service in government, be advised that your aspirations will be limited to only certain offices. What kind of message is that to send to the brave men and women who have sacrificed more than many of us can imagine in the name of freedom?

McCain’s doctors say he is in great health. And his performance on the campaign trail over the past several months should silence the naysayers. But even if you think that he’s too old and frail to be president, don’t start insinuating that the brace men and women disabled in combat aren’t fit to hold public office. Because anyone who can survive the pain of his injuries, the grueling recovery therapies and the stigma of being disabled while rising to a position of prominence in the unkind world of politics is tougher and more qualified to be president than most of us will ever hope to be.

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.

Republican Denny Rehberg sleeps on his couch, holds campaign events at bars with animal heads on the wall and raises his money in Montana.

Democrat Max Baucus lives in Georgetown, spends thousands of dollars at swank DC restaurants, drives a new BMW and raises his money everywhere but Montana.

Democrat Jim Hunt… well he wants to live in Washington, DC and doesn’t really raise much money from anywhere.

Why isn’t the media talking about where the millions of dollars that Baucus is going to dump into Montana races comes from?  Since that Missoulian article (linked above), we haven’t heard a thing about where Baucus is raising his money.  Since it’s going to have a pretty big impact on the political face of Montana, I think it’s a story worth telling.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed their yearly resolution honoring mothers and Mother’s Day. A noble gesture meant to signify the love and appreciation that all Americans feel toward the women who bore us. But this year’s resolution is wrapped in a little bit of controversy and a whole lot of distortion.

It started when the Washington Post’s Dana Millbank published a story entitled “Republican’s Vote Against Moms; No Word Yet on Puppies and Kittens.” This article was then picked up by two of Montana’s lefty bloggers who used it’s finer points to argue that Montana Representative Denny Rehberg didn’t vote to support mothers. But their argument leaves a lot to be desired.

First off, the bill honoring Mother’s Day was H. Res. 1113. According to the Library of Congress, Rehberg voted for H. Res. 1113. In fact, the resolution passed 412-0. Which would suggest that every Member who voted, supported the Mother’s Day resolution.

So, where did the Montana bloggers and Millbank get the idea that House Republicans didn’t support the resolution? Because after the vote was complete, Rep. Tiahrt (R-Kans.) moved for a “motion to reconsider.” A motion supported by 178 House Republicans. But despite the motion’s name, Rehberg’s support for the motion doesn’t undo his support for the Mother’s Day resolution.

According to the House Rules Committee’s website, a motion to reconsider:

Under Rule XVIII, the motion to reconsider is available to any Member who votes on the prevailing side of a question and who wishes to move reconsideration on the same or succeeding legislative day. This normally only occurs when Members (usually Minority party Members) determine there is a need to slow down the legislative process.

So, why would Millbank and the lefty bloggers insinuate that this motion showed the Republicans disdain for mothers and Mother’s Day? Because it makes Rehberg sound like the Big Bad Wolf. Nevermind the fact that the motion to reconsider doesn’t change the fact that H. Res. 1113 passed unanimously.

Rehberg is on the record supporting Mother’s Day, as are 411 of his House Colleagues. His vote for the motion to reconsider doesn’t change that. But why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a catchy headline?

I laughed about Mary Ann Aker’s blog post at the Post. I mean, it was so insanely partisan and pointless that I’m not sure it wasn’t ghost-written by Montana Democrats. It’s hard to take such a clumsy piece seriously.

But past the ‘hit piece’ nature is an amusing human story. You can just see the poor campaign treasurer scrounging over receipts in a darkly lit office with a single lamp by which to work. He picks up his cup of warm coffee and grabs the next receipt. $300 for “Tune Inn” - no notations. Naturally he assumes that Tune Inn is an Inn where you sleep. Poor guy has probably never been to DC and wouldn’t really know that Tune Inn was a bar. Now his oversight is national news. Whoops.

As bars go though, this is the sort of Bar Montana’s Congressman should go to. Just look at this description.

There are eight mounted deer heads on the walls of the tiny Tune Inn — and, more important, two mounted deer butts. The butts are a lot more emblematic of this raucous neighborhood joint. The most popular thing on the menu is the pitcher of beer, just $5.50 (as long as you order Busch, not any of that yuppie stuff). During the day, the place specializes in workingman breakfasts and quick lunches. At night, if you feel like eating, the straightforward and cheap cheeseburger is the house specialty. Push through the loud throngs that mob the front of the place on weekend evenings and you may find a relatively peaceful booth in the back. An historical note: This is where James Carville and Mary Matalin went on their first date. They left quickly.

Sounds a bit like Stockmans in Missoula. They probably have peanuts. It’s things like this that make me wonder why Montana Democrats are trying to suggest that Rehberg is out of touch with Montana. He’s still Montana through and through - which is why the east-coast liberals like to make fun of him so much.

And where’s the contrast with Max Baucus? And a tab of $300 is a drop in the bucket compared with the $37,000 Max Baucus spent in three months on pretentious high-brow east coast restaurants. Think there’s not a difference?

Cheers to Rehberg for keeping it real.

Cheers to Jay for getting the humor.

Jeers to Lamnidae for being lamely partisan.

Jeers to the Washington Post for paying a Democrat Party Hack’s salary.

In 2006, you couldn’t pick up a newspaper without hearing about how many Burns staffers took jobs as lobbyists. I believe Montana Democrats used the phrase “revolving door” quite a few times. I actually never had too big a problem with this since realistically there was nothing he could have done to prevent it. If a staffer wants to take a new job with a giant pay increase and more perks there’s not much to be done about it. It’s still a free country.

As Max Baucus could undoubtedly explain since he too has to deal with a lot of staffers heading for the gold-laced hills of lobbying.

Since 1996, a fifth of U.S. Sen. Max Baucus’ highest-paid staff members have left their jobs to become lobbyists, usually for industries regulated by the powerful committee that Baucus heads, a Gazette State Bureau analysis shows.

I’m not going to fault Baucus for this. As with Burns, Baucus doesn’t have any way to prevent this. My problem is with how the Montana media covered the Burns story in 2006. Knowing that the “revolving door” wasn’t just Burns’ problem in 2006 would have helped shape the corruption story that proved Burns’ undoing.

If the media had spent a few hours doing the research that they did for this story about Baucus, it would have been clear that the “revolving door” was not just Burns’ problem but one that afflicted any powerful Senator as a natural course of their power. Their influence gives their staff influence that makes them attractive to the private sector - which has a lot more money.

I managed to catch this little blurb on CNN today. Being CNN, Chistiane Amanpour of course takes the opportunity to take a jab at the Bush administration, nothing new really. What got me was how Amanpour manages to put an internal 2003 Justice Department memo on roughly the same level as the genocidal killings of 2 million people in Cambodia. Stunning for its lack of perspective, but does anyone expect anything different from the Communist News Network?

Finally, the subject of the best known account of what happened in Cambodia, Dith Pran, passed away last month. His story is an amazing account of what happened when the United States left SE Asia thirty-five years ago and serve as a warning for contemporary situations in Iraq.