A Chicken Is Not Pillage

A Response Concerning The Universalizing Of Single Issue Voting.

I received an email from someone I do not know chiding me for my 'defense of Steve Bullock' in my last post.  Since it appears that it was sent in good faith, I will not repost it or expose the author here.  It did raise a few questions or concerns that have been occupying my thoughts here of late, so I'll post what response I can.

First, I was not defending Steve Bullock.  Some of my opinions were posted yesterday, so allow me to flesh them out here.   (Wait.  You don't have to allow it because this is my forum.)  My opinion is that Bullock's response to the question was fueled by surprise at being asked a question that doesn't much pass his radar.  He responded as a candidate to a question he didn't expect, about an issue that is not very big to him, and informed himself only by his legal training.  A Governor should not be in the business of overturning the will of his constituents.  Those who think the response thoughtless have every right and reason to do so, especially as it affects them personally.  I'm not defending that response at all.  In truth, I thought it kind of thoughtless as well.  To me, it was also understandable, and not of much substance.  That is not a defense, it's rather pointing out the obvious.

The rest of the email can be boiled down to one question, in a couple of parts.  'How can you write that GBLT marriage rights are of no concern to you when it is a matter of civil rights?'  That is actually a fine question, the one that demanded this response, one I have no problem answering when seen for it's parts.

First, how can marriage equality not affect me?  Back in 2004, when Montana was considering it's defense of hetero-normity amendment, we were all inundated with the rather 'pragmatic' argument that gay weddings would cheapen, kill, blaspheme and destroy traditional marriage and our moral standing in the world.  The correct and appropriate response to that was also very pragmatic and honest.   Nope, gay people getting married won't influence or affect me one single iota.  Not even a smidgen.   Yet now that the amendment became a part of the Constitution of Montana, I am being asked to admit that it does affect me.  No.  No it doesn't.  Whether or not GBLT people have wedding rights will not change my life at all.  Not one bit.  I'm not doing a 180 on this.  My answer in 2004 is the same as my answer in 2012.  It won't affect me either way.  However, there are those that it will affect in very dramatic ways.  And that is the root of single issue voting.

Those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that a single issue will affect them deeply given it's outcome are single issue voters and by all correct thinking, they should be.  Where problems arise (one of many ways) is when single issue voters use that issue as an appeal to universalize voting itself.  A bigger problem is when multi-issue voters use the single as a rallying cry to attack the person, rather than the issue.  Witness this:  Dave Strohmaier put out an advertisement promoting his support of marriage equality in Montana.  The self-appointed liberal watchdog of Montana living in Colorado pulled his best Admiral Ackbar impression and warned us all that Strohmaier was likely deceitful, using a wedge issue to manipulate our votes.  What's funny to me is this, a politician bringing up a wedge issue designed for single issue voters is to be suspect, but a poor response about a single issue thrown at a politician is cause for sharpening pitchforks and lighting torches (with all due non-violence, of course.)  It seems to me there is something wrong with that.  Claiming that something affects all people when it doesn't really isn't true.  It often doesn't even ring true on reading.

What is wrong is confusion.  It is using a single issue in effort to universalize it to all voters.  That is what has happened with GBLT rights.  Gay marriage is not the actual issue.  The issue is civil rights.  On that score, I don't think Bullock failed, despite himself.  Ted Kennedy famously argued in the Senate that if rights were to mean anything, they could not be open to the will of voters, and especially could not be defined or denied by the states in this unified Republic.  I think, my opinion, that many if not most, Puritopians have forgotten that simple truth.  What the AG or Governor in Montana argues for or does not means little to the rights we all should have.

Yes, that affects me, just not on any level that will actually affect my life or the way I live it.  Sad paradox, isn't it?  Boiled down, GBLT rights are a matter of principle.  Civil rights are a matter of principle.  But when the rubber meets the road, telling anyone that a principle that will not affect them in even the smallest bit is more important than causes and effects that will alter their life is a poor strategy.  It is begging one to agree with the universal nature of a cause that really isn't universal at all.

I'm not a single issue voter.  I've yet to encounter a single issue that affects me so very much that I will pin my hopes on electoral success.  At no point do I or will I fault those who do.  Nor will I be told that a single issue defines my life or beliefs just because it might be falsely universalized.

 

A Terrific Way To Spend an Hour

It's doubtful that anyone who will read this here hasn't already been informed, but ...

You really need to be listening to Kevin Hamm's podcast, PoliticktickBOOM!  I've just listened to the last two episodes, and they're terrific.  The host is engaging, the guests are informed and enjoyable.  This is a worthwhile expenditure of your ear time.

A Few Predictions

And no, I really truly don't care if I'm correct.  Whatever will be will be.  Change is inevitable; to struggle is an option.

1)  Republicans will take weak control of both houses of the Montana legislature.  The Montana press, against all reason, will hail this as some kind of 'sea-change'.

2)  Pete Talbot will win his bet with Big Swede.  Dennis Rehberg made a huge mistake in his lawsuit, and it will cost him.  He will likely retain his seat, but he will not get 60+% of the vote.

3)  Mike Comstock will lose to Larry Jent in SD 32.

4)  Nick Landeros will lose, epically, to Franke Wilmer in HD 64.

5)  The Teabaggers will claim victory regardless of their obvious defeats.

6)  The San Diego Chargers will win the AFC West and likely be the 1st or 2nd seed in the playoffs.  It won't matter.  They won't make the Super Bowl.  *AGAIN*

7)  Max Baucus will continue his death spiral into douche-baggery.  And though many will make much hay of it, few will actually care because Max isn't up for reelection for 4 years.

8)  Montana Cowgirl will become a favorite among Montana websites, as it prolly should be.  When she's wrong, she gets called on it.  And she deals with it well.  This is one to watch.

9)  Mark T will continue his same tired refrain with many words that affect ... nothing.  He will hail the Republicant Montana victories as a vindication of his stances, and no one will even bother to point out to him that he still doesn't get anything resembling what he wants.  We'll be too busy face-palming.

10)  And this is the biggie.  Despite the prognostications of others, the Democrats will lose control of neither National house of Congress.  The Senate will likely remain at about 54-46-who cares, with at least 10 of those 54 being beyond useless Blue Dogs.  We're going no where, folks.  Be sure to strap in.

VOTE! Tomorrow, That Is.

Just my normal nag to get out the vote.  I'm posting it a day early, though for a very good reason.

Gallatin county has consolidated voting precincts (mine went away completely)  and changed polling sites for some of us.  If memory serves, Missoula county did the same.  BE AWARE OF YOUR POLLING PLACE!  If you need help locating it, then go here, the Secretary of State's website and use this handy search feature thingy.

I must, however, admit to disappointment that there aren't more interactive map type gizmos (or any) online where those of us who are visual learners can see more clearly where everyone votes.  Maybe in the future.  Regardless, find your polling spot and vote.

This Politician Thinks You're An Igner't Pup

Steve Eschenbacher is running for office.  He thinks that the people he is running to represent are stupid.  He thinks that they're a bunch of commie pinkos.  And now we find that Steve Eschenbacher, idiot for HD 96, thinks that those who support and work to elect Barack Obama are just dumb little kids.

That money would be put to better use elsewhere, along with the staffers, those sweet young innocent naifs who actually believe in (Obama) because they don't know any better.

That's right, Missoula.  If you support Barack Obama, Steve Eschenbacher thinks you're a idgit pup who just don't know any better.

I'm not going to waste any more time insulting him than he wastes insulting you folks, and insulting himself.  I'll just remind you that Steve is an elitist that thinks you're a tool.  Vote accordingly, Missoula.

Mansfield Metcalf Dinner Part 1

Let's call this part The Beginnining.

The journey with my beloved to the event in Butte (by way of Dillon) got off to very sour note.  On Saturday morning, the Bozeman Comical ran a lead story that was little else but a Republican hit piece.  It described in garish fantasy how the visit from the Democratic Presidential candidates was ... get this ... bad for state Democrat and a *good thing* for Republicans.  The central theme was that Montana Democrats are afraid to identify as such, and that secretly we all want to be and vote Republican.  Oh, and obviously McCain will win Montana in November.  It was truly a biased op-ed masquerading as journalism (a claim born out when we got to read the fuller version of the AP story in the Montana Standard later in the day.  I tend to view such journamalism with rather derisive humor (especially when they identified Matt Singer as just a "liberal blogger" instead of the CEO of Forward Montana.)  My beloved took it rather more ... harshly.  I guess I should remind her more often that the introductory rate we got for our subscription gains the Comical no profit.  The passing of dinosaurs is her favorite theme, and our local fishwrap is just one instance of the extinct  misunderstanding their own obsolete nature.

So, we booked off to Dillon to pick up the rest of the crew and head to Butte.  We go to Butte.  Driving driving ... (this is the part of the story where there should be a montage to indicate the exciting passage of time.)   And we get in line to get in.  Folks, I am not lying when I say that that line was approaching  a quarter mile long, if not well more than that.  And it was cold.  As amusing as it would be, I won't wax descriptive of the wait to enter, mostly because it wasn't that amusing.  What I will happily say is this:  there were one helluva lot of strong determined people who wanted to enter that event, and nothing was gonna stop   them.  For an hour and a half, we all froze together, joked together, distrusted and trusted each other.  But very damn few, if any, called it quits and left.  There were several people I knew who walked past to get in for floor seating, including Monica Lindeen and Matt.  And dude, would please get a better jacket?  The retro look is cool and all, but you're somebody now, and you ought to dress the part ...  The high point was when the Obama cavalcade drove by.  Cops, SUVs and a bus.  Most of the crowd thought that a way cool thing.  I loved it because when the bus went by it was a way warm thing.  Yeah I was excited too, but still.  It was warm for a second and certain human things come first

On the way through the door, I got to do something I've been waiting to do for just shy of three years.  John Parker, who is running for Attorney General of Montana, was passing out stickers right at the entrance.  And I got to shake his hand.  Ya' see, three years ago John Parker had had enough of Roger Koopman's crap, and let him know it.  I've wanted to shake his hand and thank him ever since, and now I have.

Let's call this part of the narrative The Eventening.

Of course I got pulled for the raised-arm-scary-dude security check.  My belt buckle set off the alarm.  I told security that it would, but still, I got the wand.  If I get cancer in my balls, I'm suing somebody; that's for certain.  We all, upon re-meeting, fled up into the stands to find good seats.   Let me just say that the Butte Civic center stadium seating  *sucks rocks*.  It is cramped.  There are no walkways.  The seat-backs add to the aforementioned problems.  It is a poor venue.  But, and that's a huge bootay but, the people were mostly great.  We helped each other get situated, we made room.  There were a few folks who got pissy about pass-through, or stepping on seats, but most  of the people there were common in cause, and very polite.  While I was trying to arrange dinner boxes for our group, I ran into a co-worker (very excited to be there, and probably very cold from the wait) as well as my state representative, Franke Wilmer, looking beautiful and charming as always.

Okay, let's us be honest here.  We all felt somewhat out of place, out of time.   This was a huge huge event.  There was not one person there, great or small including myself, who didn't feel the gravity of what Montana was experiencing.  Our next President was in the house, and was going to speak.  We all felt that awkwardness, that discomfort at socially accepted norms not known, and that simple confidence.  This night was making history.

Throughout the night, I saw many people I knew (most within the 'protected zone').  Some people I've worked with.  Some I have politicked with, and some I still do.  Some I blog with.  I do remain saddened that more social groupings - meetups - get togethers could not have been arranged.  But I was rather heartened by the idea that we were mostly there for common cause.  Let me be honest in pointing out at this point that 10 dollars a seat should not have separated the groupings.   No, I'm not saying that we should have had their food or their legroom.  But we should have not been divided into the center of importance and the masses above.  In that venue, it felt rather artificial and unnecessary.  Throughout the night, I felt that mildly unfair juxtaposition rather acutely, considering the nature and character of the speakers we listened to.

Dennis McDonald is alright by far.  I've never had the opportunity to meet the guy, but I do look forward to the day.  He appears humble, hard-working, humorous and jovial.  He introduced Barack Obama ... and the crowd went wild.    There were many more Hillary signs at the event, but there was no denying the thunder of Obama's support.  I think Obama supporters outnumbered Clinton's by a factor of 3 to 2.  This guy is popular in Montana, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  Obama was very gracious to Montana and his hosts.  I was actually impressed that he admits that he doesn't know what many of us take for granted, fishing.  His praise for our state officials appeared genuine.  This Chicago boy actually seems to like Montana, and his visit here.  I hope that he will fulfill his promise to return, and learn to fish ... though I can think of many who could probably teach him better than our Governor.  I will write more on the substance of the speech later.  And just for the record, though I had planned to do so, I was not the guy who yelled "Freebird!"  during his speech.

When Barack left the stage, a form of chaos ensued.  Word to the wise:  never act with kids or animals, and never follow Obama with a speech of your own.  Jon Tester took the stage, and after an impassioned plea of behalf of Jim Hunt, he introduced Max Baucus.  Max, the video is lame.  Just sayen' ...  Max is not a good mass public speaker.  I've known that for  very long time.  His speech here was ... very lame.  It's possible (probable) that I have a biased attitude but I was not impressed.  He kept saying "I will do thing X.  ARE YOU WITH ME?"  And I kept saying, yeah, but are you with us? 
It's at this point that I have to make enemies by writing the truth.  Good God in heaven; what a rude bunch the people on the floor were.  Most of us unwashed masses in the stadium seating were too confined to noisily talk and socialize while the other speakers were speaking, but not so with the floor.  It was damned hard to hear Max (partly his own fault) and it was hard to hear anyone after him until Hillary.  I guess I'm old school, but I was taught that if you have someone speaking, you damn well better listen.  (I've been struggling with this because I didn't want to offend, but ... the folks in the Forward Montana crowd were as bad as any.  V, you looked sharp.  But the eyes in the sky of the unwashed masses see all, and the party rude was ... well ... rude.)

When the chatter below really got offensive was when Stephanie Herseth Sandlin  spoke.  First, I paid attention because she's hot.  No, really, she's hot.  (Yeah, I know I'm a pig).    Second, I really wanted to hear what she had to say.  She's bright, and there's no doubt about that.  Third, I only heard about 2/3 of her speech because of the noise.  I was not amused.  What I did hear, I can't say I was impressed with.  I enjoyed the western anecdotes.  But, mostly I was left with the impression that she talked much and said little.  I find that sad because I really think she had much to say.  She was to be the keynote speaker, but there's nothing like getting up-staged by Presidential candidates.  I hope to hear more from her in the future.  She's obviously bright, and very committed.  And she's hot ... did I mention that?

The nicest thing about listening to Jon Tester and the Governor Brian Schweitzer is that they didn't need attention or the microphone.  Those guys ... project.  They are Montana, through and through.  It's impossible to be a Democrat in Montana and not adore these guys.  Many would have us believe that it's because they are 'characters'.  Nope.  They're just good people doing a good job, good and loudly.  It's hard to fault that.  And Jag is just too damned cool.

Which brings us to the final act, Hillary Clinton.  She looked good, when she finally took the stage.  The other speakers compressed time, and we found ourselves with dead air at 25 to 9.  Still no Hillary.  At 9, still no Hillary.  Dennis McDonald made the introduction at 5 after.  I was looking at my niece and telling her that one thing that will not thrill Montanans is to keep 'em waiting (with her agreement.)  Still, when Ms. Clinton took the stage there was much energy, and a rather sudden quiet.  Her speech was almost a direct mirror of Obama's, with more Chimpy McWorthless hate, and less standing applause.  She said many good things, but most of us were too tired (or in the case of the floor folk, too drunk) to receive the message quite as enthusiastically.  Still, she is a helluva speaker, and she energized the crowd ... somewhat too often to go home.

I just want to say to all of you folks leaving in the middle of Hillary's speech in order to beat the traffic:  You suck!  How rude can you be?  The speech was not bad, and was actually something you might have wanted to hear.  You folks suck!

I will save my after-thoughts (The Endenning) for later.

A Question Of Decorum

Aha!  I see that Franke Wilmer has indeed filed to retain her seat as the State Representative from House District 64.  Which, of course, leaves me with a very important question.

Hey Franke, since I still have my yard sign from two years ago, can I go ahead and put it out ... or would setting it out this early be considered in poor taste?

Oh Sweet Gods Of Irony

I've been waiting, rather patiently in fact, to see if anyone would notice something peculiar in Jeff Krauss' refusal to sign the Bozeman Anti- Iraqi-War proposal.  It's rather telling that no one, 'til now, has.  Let's go to the tape:

Bozeman Mayor Jeff Krauss said Wednesday that he would not sign the resolution because he did not agree with it, making it one of the rare occasions when he has declined to sign a resolution the commission has voted to support.

"This is one I feel like taking a stand on," Krauss said.

Fair enough, except ...

Krauss said he opposed the resolution for two reasons: he considered it inappropriate for the city to be discussing a federal issue; and U.S. troops' perseverance in Iraq is saving lives.

Wait, what?  He's refusing to sign because it's inappropriate for local politicians to discuss but his refusal is based (in part) on the belief that what we're doing is for the best and he takes a stand to defend that?  (Just for the dim among you {Hi Dave} he is a local politician  refusing to sign as a message about how he won't support the wrong message.)

Imagine my head spinning in Exorcist-like fashion.

Jeff, I like you, and agree with one of your points.  More to the facts, I agree that nothing done at the local level ... any local level ... will change the hard-headed-hearted policy of the Commander in Chimp.  But, Dude, even you've gotta see how silly the irony of your stand looks at this point.

You Gotta Love The Simple Truth

Sarpy Sam cuts right through the bull far better than I ever could.  Read that post and tell me he isn't right.  Better yet, tell him.  I dare ya'.

Building A Road, Or Party Power?

I will once again urge those of us on the more leftward side of issues to read more conservative Montana blogs.  And no, I am not talking about the site'o'stupid.  MTPolitics, The Montana Misanthrope and Montana Headlines are, of course, well within our radar.  The Montana Conservative and The Western Word should be as well.  It is the latter, to which I address this post.

It seems our resident REO fan has to take issue with Senator Baucus because Baucus procured funding for the rebuild of the Going to the Sun highway, without making certain that all the money would come to Montana companies.  Montana companies that apparently don't have the qualifications required are ... unhappy ... about this turn of events.  How tragic.  The Federal Highway Administration has set the baseline of requirements so high that Montana firms are excluded from being the general (prime) contractor on the project.  It looks for all the world like only two US companies have the qualifications required.  Jack the Blogger (who annoyingly refers to himself in the third person) appears to think that this is some kind of outrage on the part of our Senior Senator.  Wulfgar the Blogger's response is a hardy "SO WHAT"?

Here's our points of agreement:

1)  The Going to the Sun road needs repair/rebuild.

2)  It is, exactly as Kaiser described it, a "unique project because it's so mountainous, it's environmentally sensitive, and it's dangerous."

3)  Montana firms will get considerable amounts of subcontractor work out of the 10 year project.

The points of disagreement are rather more telling.

A)  Glacier National Park is Federal property.  They (the Feds) can require whatever they wish in a contractor to rebuild Federal property.  If they want a contractor who understands rose hybridization, they have the right and duty to request such.  Baucus has no say in that.

B)  It's kinda icks me out that Montana business persons would whine so much about not receiving pork.

C)  If Baucus had procured rules that favor Montana contractors, it would be seen (and really would have been) nothing more than a pork project.  Does Jack the Blogger really favor such things?

D)  Jack writes:

the Feds have written the language so restrictive that Montana companies cannot compete for the job as prime contractors. They can only pick up slivers of the multi-million contract as subcontractors.

???  Slivers?  It's a 50 million dollar project.  I'd take "slivers" of that in a heartbeat.  Subcontractors can make significant amounts of money on any project.  Please, let's define the slivers before we bitch, okay?

E)  Bird in the Hand.  More Montanans will get jobs out of this project.  Period.  That's a given.  But Jack laments:

hundreds of jobs for Montanans are lost over the next 10 years because of the “more powerful” Federal Highway Administration.

How in the hell do you know that?  You don't.  There's nothing in the article written that says that.  The Montana contracting firms interviewed are pissed because they could have made more money (profit)  as the general contractor.  There is nothing to suggest that Montanans will lose jobs (or more accurately, job opportunities) because of this.  Get real.

Nope, I think if you look at it rationally, Jack is playing party politics.  If we had Burns in place, then the fantastical might have happened.  Who the hell knows.  What is certain is this.  The GTTS rebuild will bring tourist dollars.  Montanans will get jobs rebuilding the road.  Montana firms will prosper because of this project.  And, we all agree, it needs to take place.  I'm having a hard time seeing the downside here.