Big Sky Cairn

Six weeks ago when my sister asked me who I wanted McCain to select for VP, I said Sarah Palin.  I then quickly added, “But it’s never going to happen.”

Then it happened.  And whoa, talk about pulling off a stunner.

I like Sarah Palin, and have ever since she defeated that p.o.s Murkowski in 2006 and rescinded the dozens of political appointments he shelled out to his cronies in the last hours of his administration.  She was proof that the voters of Alaska were capable of making good decisions.  I mean these are the people who keep Don Young and Ted Stevens around despite their numerous infractions against common decency.

In many ways, Sarah Palin is my Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

I love that she is exuberant about politics.  That she ran for office to change her own hometown and then moved on to change her home state.  And wasn’t the obvious choice for Vice President.

It will also be nice to have someone in office who understands rural communities.  Because there seems to be this idea that all small towns are Mayberry, and that only big cities have problems that need to be fixed.  I can’t think of a national candidate, in recent memory, who would have a better understanding of the issues affecting Montanans at the grassroots level.

Palin is a reformer who isn’t afraid to clean her own house.  Her recent scandal gave me pause until I read a quote from the Alaska State Senator (a Democrat) who is spearheading the investigation.   Sen. Hollis French said that he didn’t need to issue subpoenas because Palin’s office was cooperating fully and that he intended to look at everything in context before making determinations about the situation.  So, I’ll reserve judgment until his investigation is complete.

As for her views, there are some things that this moderate Republican doesn’t love.  Her views on abortion and gay rights aren’t the same as my own.  And her contention that creationism should be taught in public schools perplexed this Evangelical Christian.

Despite my disagreement with those positions, I feel that the good far outweighs the bad.  I’m excited to see her debate Senator Joe Biden because I think she has what it takes to hold her own.   And I’m interested to see what influence she will have on the ticket, and the party as a whole.

When I got the all-important text message from the Obama campaign announcing that Obama had chosen Delaware Senator Joe Biden, I thought it was another fake. Then I saw the headlines.  And I must say, I was perplexed.

Biden has had two failed runs at the Presidency.  The first time, Biden withdrew from the race after it was alleged that he plaigarized the text of a speech  and questions arose about his academic record.

In 2008, he withdrew from the race because he did poorly in the Iowa Caucases.  Really, really poorly.  So, now the guy who not even one-percent of Iowa Democrats wanted to be President, could be one heartbeat away from the job?

On the plus side, Biden does have 35 years of Senate experience, and the foreign policy expertise that everyone says Obama is lacking.   But even his strengths have pitfalls.  Three decades of experience, means three decades worth of votes, comments and positions to defend.  Read the rest of this entry »

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.

Democrats have been eager to convince Republicans that their vote doesn’t matter in today’s primary elections. Missoulapolis and Montana Headlines have already done an excellent job of disproving this misrepresentation, so I’m going to take a different tack and suggest that contrary to what you are probably reading in the Montana media, voting in the Democrat Party’s primary probably isn’t going to matter that much either.

Here are five reasons the Montana Democrat’s Presidential Primary is irrelevant on the national stage.

1) Super Delegates - Surprise, you’re voting in an elitist Democrat Party system that is designed to reign in the unpredictable vote of the people - your vote if you dare to buck who The Party thinks you should vote for. In Montana, unless you’re one of eight super-delegates whose single votes can cancel over 100,000 opposing plebiscite ballots, the Democrat Party doesn’t really care who you think should be the Democrat Nominee for the Presidency. Hope you vote correctly!

2) The Democrat Party already knows what you want - In Michigan, no votes were cast for Obama because - well - he wasn’t on the ballot. Hillary Clinton was on the ballot - against the will of her party - and earned 55 percent of the vote. The Democrat Party decided to award Obama the majority of Michigan’s delegates anyway because, well, they already know how the people of Michigan were going to vote so why actually go to the trouble of counting their votes? If Montana gets it wrong, well, thank God super delegates can save Montana Democrats from their own ignorance.

3) Puerto Rico - So even if Montana minds it’s p’s and q’s, and does what it’s supposed to do, it doesn’t matter. The Democrat Party doesn’t really care that much about what Montana thinks anyway. See, there are 50 states (unless you’re Obama) and the Democrat Party has determined that what the people of Puerto Rico think is more important than more than half of them (27, to be exact). Puerto Rico has 55 Democrat delegates. Montana has 25 or less than half of Puerto Rico. Really want to the Democrats to listen to you? Avoid U.S. citizenship - and all hail the international community!

4) It’s already over - It’s really gotta be hard on the Montana Democrats who have been so excited about their votes making a difference today. There’s got to be some frustration that Hillary couldn’t keep a lid on her plans to concede for 24 itsy-bitsy more hours so they could have their fun (and for that matter, she spoiled the fun for Andrew Hammond too). Not that her exit is really that important since pundits have been calling her challenge mathematically impossible for months now.

5) McCain wins Montana anyway - Doesn’t matter who gets the Democrat nomination. McCain beats ‘em both in Montana - land of the bitter gun-clinging racists.

You really can’t make this up.

I’d say that it’s a bit like picking green as a compromise between black and white, but I’m afraid to make any allusions to color.

It is always good to idly speculate that the Bush White House is behind everything. I found it particulary charming that Obama’s camp initially fired off this gem regarding the passport incident;

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, called for a complete investigation.

“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years,” Burton said. “Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes.”

Turns out it was not Department officials, but employees of Obama’s intelligence advisor.

Obama fresh off of preaching unity yesterday, took time today to clarify the division between he and Senator John McCain on Iran and al-Qaida.

“Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America’s enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.”

On the five-year anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq the continued ignorance of foreign policy is astounding. Obama goes on to say our enemies of the Taliban, al-Qaida, Iran and North Korea are the benefactors of US military action in the Middle East.

Of course this would be news to all four of our enemies. According to recent polling, the Taliban is now running approval ratings similar to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress. The change in attitude towards Islamic extremism runs across national boundaries. The average Afghan and Iraqi have rejected their ideology of hate. In fact, Al-Qaida has been emboldened to the point of recruiting mentally ill Iraqis to carry out their mission of hate.

Meanwhile North Korea is looking at mass famine due to drought. Normally the international community would fill the gaps with foodstuffs; however, China, South Korea and the US are putting concentrated pressure on the North Koreans over their illicit weapons program and cutting back on shipments.

For nearly a decade, South Korea had led the world in providing assistance to the North, while setting almost no conditions on aid and asking few questions about who was getting it.

But South Korea’s new president, Lee Myung-bak, wants to condition some of his country’s gifts of food and fertilizer on progress in removing nuclear weapons from the North, on improvements in human rights and on guarantees that food will go to poor people, not to the North Korean military.

Finally we come to Iran, according to the NIE Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 following an increase in international pressure. If an astute reader looks into the fine print of the NIE, they will come away with the impression that Iran responds to credible threats of force. Far from being emboldened, Iran has yet to restart its nuclear weapons program due to sustains diplomatic pressure from the UN Security Council, the IAEA, and the threat of US military power in the region.

Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

In each case the US has worked with local and regional leaders to empower our allies and marginalize our foes. N. Korea is now completely politically isolated from the world. Beijing, due in large part to self-interest, has worked with the US to oppose a nuclear neighbor. Iran has halted its weapons program under the threat of force and a US led diplomatic blitz at the UN and IAEA. Finally, Islamic extremists are on the retreat because the US military empowers and protects the voice of the moderate majority in the Islamic world.

While all four groups are still capable of inflicting serious damage to US interests, it is a tough sell to say that any of them are better positioned now than they were before US military actions in the Middle East.

Possibly the most brilliant analysis of the race I have seen so far. It is a wonderful job by the folks over at Snarky Bastards.

The Dune Theory of Democratic Politics

We were wrong; Barack Obama is the the Democratic Party’s Kwisatz Haderach. He is the shortening of the way, the one who shall give meaning to our lives and make our planet anew.

Like Paul Muad’Dib, his youth was shaped by the untimely loss of his father, who was not of this land. He has been rigorously trained, and recently endured a painful test at the hands of a Bene Gesserit Witch. He achieved a surprise victory in his first combat and it is said that his greatest power is his voice. By some reckonings, he has come before his time.

I leave you with an eerie quote from the collected wisdom of the Bene Gesserit:

“When religion and politics ride the same cart, when that cart is driven by a living holy man (baraka), nothing can stand in their way.”

Barack, may your campaign chip and shatter.

Democrats had a great time with the “Do Nothing Congress” label during the 109th Congress. Not to be outdone, the new majorities of the 110th Congress have been overwhelmed with partisan bickering and oversight campaigns aimed at the Bush Administration. “Do Nothing Congress” is rearing its rhetorical head once again.

But it turns out that “Do Nothing” isn’t exactly accurate. These Congresses are doing one thing predominantly: They are using parliamentary procedure to gain a political advantage in the next election cycle. Forcing the other side to take ugly votes - at the expense of accomplishing anything - for sensationalized headlines about children or the middle class or veterans or body armor or whatever.

Well hold onto your butts because we are in for a treat this year. If you thought the the vitriol was counterproductive to the process before, just wait until the ante is raised to the American Presidency. For the first time ever, the Presidential Election will be between two sitting United States Senators.

Largely because of its volatile political environment, The United States Senate is a very difficult platform from which to run for President. Unique to the Senate is the parity of power between the majority and minority and the ability of either to make life hell for the other. Consequently, only two sitting US Senators have ever won the Presidency - Harding in 1920 and Kennedy in 1960. Eight others have lost (remember how that pesky voting record burned Kerry in 2004?).

As the Second Session of the 110th Congress plows ever-so-tentatively forward, it looks like the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House don’t expect to and won’t try to accomplish much until they have a friendly ear in the White House. The First Session - an off-election year - was disappointing for them, and this year is a much higher hurdle. The Second Session of the 110th Congress is going to be about political posturing, and with two of their own going head-to-head, the Senate is going to be a bloodbath of difficult votes. Ultimately, it is Congressional Leadership that will play the most important Role in the 2008 Election.

From the relative safety of the minority Reid and Pelosi were quite adept at this game - running circles around Frist and DeLay. The result contributed to the dramatic election of 2006. But both have proven ineffective as majority leaders and the new Republican leadership has adapted quickly. Even in the House, where the minority has virtually no standing, Boehner has stymied Pelosi at every turn. In the Senate, where the minority has a real power, a years worth of blunders by Majority Leader Reid have taken their toll.

So here’s the scenario. Two college football teams with decent records. No BCS Bowl this year, but each team has a Heisman favorite on the roster. With a National Championship out of the question, the goal of the program centers around winning that trophy. And the two teams are suiting up against each other in the final game before the Heisman ballots are cast.

Reid is a quarterback coming off a season of interceptions, fumbles and field goal attempts on drives that should have been touchdowns. Even so, he’s the quarterback and the Democrats are playing offense. Reid has structural power to determine the agenda - to call the plays and to run audibles. Reid will call his game to run right over the top of John McCain and he’ll get the ball into his nominee’s hands as often as he can.

On the other side of the ball, McConnell is fielding a technically proficient defense with a killer game plan. When they’re not intercepting the ball or forcing fumbles, they are driving the offense into long-yardage situations and forcing punts. McConnell and the Republicans have to play a reactive game, but they can sustain a filibuster and force votes on germane amendments. Used wisely - and in conjunction with the self-imposed PayGo rules that force Democrats to curb their spending addiction or support tax increases - amendments can steal the rhetorical thunder from a policy. McConnell is going to spy the Democrat nominee is while sending McCain wherever the action is to boost his stats.

2008 in the Senate won’t be about winning any games; there’s always next season for that. This year is about winning a Heisman. So now you’ll know what I’m talking about when I identify a “Heisman Vote”

Heisman Vote (n): a politically motivated vote forced upon the opposing party not intended to achieve implement of the policy. ex: The Democrats called a Heisman Vote on the SCHIP Veto Override.