In one word, how would you describe the electorate of Montana, you know, the voting public? And yes, touchstone, I do mean ONE word. Hehe. (Okay, so I'm more verbose than you are ... pot, kettle, yadayada, but still ...)
My word would be,
Wary.
Check it out. Matt Singer did the homework that the media should have done. He's attempting to find an answer to a question that the Morrison campaign insists on hiding from. Why didn't Morrison recuse himself from his office's investigation of the guy who's fiance Morrison adulterously boned?
What's been interesting, to me at least, is the response to Matt's work. So far, it has been identical to the response from the GOP concerning Conman Burns and his votes-for-dollars dealings with Jack Abramoff. I posted an abbreviated version of the response in a comment at Matt's place, but here is the blowback, slightly more fleshed out:
1) Scandal? There's no scandal. There was no malfeasance at all ... the press said so.
2) The opponents can’t win, because our guy has a good record and more money.
3) The scandal is overblown (MSM! MSM! BLOGGERS! DISTRUST! BE AFRAID!) and people really won’t care. Nope, even though polls show they do, they really won't care. Nope, not a story. (I call this the Ostrich defense.)
4) The opponents can't be telling the truth, because they have an agenda (with a quite piquant and lovely chaser of the Appeal To Authority fallacy).
5) The Opponent is just playing dirty! Voters care more about that than integrity in there elected officials! Why don't you, you haters!?!
6) It’s really about the issues. Why won’t the opponent cover the issues?
Ouroboros spins; rinse and repeat. I wrote, not very long ago at all, that Morrison is just Burns with a D behind his name. We’re watching the evidence of that fact roll in right now. The tactics of his online supporters are identical to those of the GOP in defense of Burns. Your guy is dirty, tainted, so you do anything you can to obfuscate the truth.
It's really pretty simple. Months ago, many of us, online and otherwise, were calling for Morrison to take a stand on issues beyond health care. He ignored that call. Now, many are calling for Morrison to simply explain himself and his actions before Burns buries his ass with the consequences. And what do we get? Burns' style spin. No honesty, no honor, no integrity. That's what the Morrison campaign offers. What you will get is a Burns win, and more Democratic excuses for how "we" are all to blame that we wanted honest representation over a pretty candidate.
Some jerk-wad over at Left In The West actually had the brass cajones to intimate that Tester is a bad candidate for pointing out that he doesn't suffer from these ethical lapses and the consequences that they will bring. That kind of idiocy just convinces me all the more strongly that I have backed the right horse. Jon Tester is the man I want working for me in Washington, because he's the guy who will.
Now, being as I am required to make more predictions (it's not just a local thing, I think it's a federal law about political websites, actually) I offer this:
You will see a terrific rise in the polls, Tester v. Burns as opposed to Morrison v. Burns. And it likely won't matter. Morrison will get the nod, not based on any of the bullshit coming from his defenders, but rather based on Republicant crossover voting in the primary. The only thing that will stop this is if Democrats wake up, and realize that Morrison is, indeed, the horny little loser that Burns' well-funded machinery will paint him out to be. We can continue this nightmare belief in "electability", and keep voting for the guy who gosh-oh-gee he seems like he might put up a little fight, or we can actually vote for a working man, a guy who represents the strengths of the Democratic party. I'm not voting for the guy who gives a self-interested hat tip to opposing the GOP while agreeing with their lies and process. I'm not voting for the guy who quivers with fear to even declare himself a Democrat. I'm voting for the guy like me. I'm voting for Jon Tester.
Commentor na waffled around a lot, but ultimately clung to two inconsistent positions. 1) John Morrison is "more" electable that Jon Tester, and 2) Jon Tester is unelectable.
Regarding number 2, that's not so likely. Tester polls beyond the margin of error above Conman Burns, at this point. Of course, so does Morrison (who so few of his supporters can even get his name's spelling straight at this point). But the logic is clear: Tester would win against Connie Burns. Now, how is that "un-electable" again? It isn't.
As regards the first point, John Morrison does poll better than Jon Tester against the Conman Burns, but that is not an argument to vote for Morrison, unless you think that a larger margin of victory is somehow a "greater victory". Hmmm. Not so much. A win in an election is absolute. So, you really only have a choice between winners, given the information at this time. This time is before the primary. John Morrison is still open to attack from the GOP for his infidelity and possible malfeasance in office. Jon Tester is ethically open to attack on ... nothing. Between winners, the only choice is who will maintain their quality until the race is over.
What's funny (okay, not) to me is that not one single person from the Morrison side of the devide has been able to profer an argument that their candidate should win other than the now debunked idea that their candidate is the only one who would win. Now, it becomes quite simply what I have seen it as all along: this is a race of comparative advantage. If we buy into the myth that Tester and Morrison would both beat Burns, (me being completely convinced that Morrison wouldn't) then who would you rather have as a representative in the Congress?
Which, sadly, brings us back to the money. John Morrison has been better at fundraising than Jon Tester, no doubts due to his party insider connections and his associations with moneyed interests (attorneys). I refer to this as sad, because of a particular illusion that it promotes among the more gullible of Democrats. Na made the claim that fundraising is proof of favor among Democrats, but (somehow mysteriously) not among Republicans. I'm not to rehash the idea of the magic and loving holy Democratic funding fairy ... suffice it to say that half an ounce of thought will show that to be bullshit. Ten well-heeled party folk can give more than one hundred concerned and supportive citizens, but that will still only equal 10 votes vs. 100. The guy with 100 votes wins, and the pixie-dust-money-spreading funding fairy can bite it.
However, politicians spread lies. The reason that na was so gobbling at the trough of the funding myth is because it's a likable myth. We're Democrats, and we like to think that we are somehow better than Republicants. "Our" money means something, where "theirs" doesn't. "Our" money buys truth while "theirs" just pays for lies. Nope. Not the case, kids. Our money buys just as much exposure and bullshit as their's does. Right now, John Morrison is starting to spend his moneys to purchase a lie, that he is more electable than Jon Tester. He's selling his name, and a lot of people will buy it because they see it. Morrison's spending is working not because he's "more" electable; we've already established that he isn't. If Jon and John are both electable, and either candidate could beat Burns, then Morrison is selling a debunked lie; that a vote for him will favor your interests. In short, money buys lots of lies, and the lie here is that John Morrison will be better against Burns (because he can outspend Tester).
That's a lie of the Devil, but it will work. Even Eric Coobs sees it as a sham, but many Democrats won't. So, I offer this advice to the Tester campaign; take it or leave it as you wish. Your enemy, at this point, is not Conrad Burns. You have his corrupt ass beaten and whipped. Your enemy is John Morrison. John Morrison is lying to the very people who would favor a citizen farmer over another politician who will be bought by special interest within a year (and some would argue, already has been). Reach out to the people who have been spoonfed "Morrison" and didn't realize that they had a better choice. I'm a believer. Quit mailing me. Mail my in-laws (staunch Democrats of terrific working stock). John Morrison sends them tons of junk-mail, and they will vote for him because that's the only voice they've heard. Jon Tester reaches out to Montanans, while Morrison reaches out to Democrats. I know which is a stronger binding tie. Spend your money against Morrison, because Conrad is already toast if he has to face an ethical opponent.
And, Tester campaign, keep this in mind. John Morrison is counting on people like me to hold their nose and pencil his bubble come November. Simply put, I won't. It would be strategically wiser for me to vote for the soon to be indicted Burns, and let my Governor decide who will take his seat. But many will vote Morrison just because he isn't Burns. That isn't what our governance was supposed to be about, and that isn't the campaign that Tester has run. We have a choice here, to be made about a month from now. Time is running out. It's time to run against the opponent before you, and let the other sweat until it's time to take him down. That means party wide mailings, yard signs, and letting people know that Tester doesn't stand for the status quo. Spend the money now, and more will come for the fight against Burns.
My faith lies in Jon Tester, as opposed to the guy who's agenda clearly favors his own prurient interests. I will favor the citizen farmer over the political user any single day. John Morrison will not get my vote in the primary. It is highly doubtful that he will get my vote in the general. After all, if Conman Burns wins, then I can hope for his indictment and a Governor's well chosen appointment.
Tester can beat Burns, and he will beat Burns. Only the timid would favor Morrison at this point.
All you brave and desperate Democrats out there should keep this in mind; only one of the current crop of Democratic Senate candidates was vociferously in favor of the defense of marriage amendment. That would be adulterer John Morrison.
I'm tired of playing it safe and watching the Right Wrong win elections because we're too damn scared of standing up for what's really right. Get this straight right now, it is not okay that Morrison will defend the holy sanctimony of marriage against the gay threat, while masking his own infidelity. If you want to support civil rights offered to same sex couples, then quit pretending that Morrison's stance was anything other than the worst of hypocrisy.
Damn. I've been dying to get that off my chest. Now I'll really be disfavored by Montana Dems, but at least I'll have written the truth.
UPDATE: Welcome to the readers from Daily Kos.
I don't blog about work. There are times, though, that I wish I did, simply so that others might know some of the reasons that I'm getting very short tempered, here of late. Of course, other reasons have nothing to do with work and are simply fair game.
Let's take this for an example. John Morrison decides that speaking for himself in Missoula is beneath his campaign stategery.
"Mommy, Wulfgar's being unfair to John Morrison again!"
Oh, really? I don't think so in the least. Take a good look at the strategy so far. Boot Burns! (Not updated since March, by the way.) Show up in Bozeman and say little enough that the GOP laughs and the stalwart Democrats have nothing to hang on him, good or bad. Pretend that the press defines the truth. Refuse almost every single opportunity to engage the people who's votes he will count on in November. Raise money and hope that people notice the huge ... war chest. And worst of all, rely on the Democrats to be afraid to talk about what we don't like about John Morrison. I think that there's a terminology in deeply academic political science for such a candidate. That term is ...
PUSSY.
And now, the GOoP attacks again, with the claim that Democrats won't take a stand, or that they take the wrong one. Jon Tester has answered that charge before it was ever made, and so the GOoPers have to make up lies about him. Morrison's response? *Whimper*. An opportunity presents for Morrison to come out swinging (on someone else's dime, no less) and he politely declines and stays hidden ... exactly what the GOP accuses him of. I swear to GOD, at times think this guy is running as a Republican plant.
Truthfully, I've been part of the problem. I've been trying to be "open-minded" and "polite" and concerned for the needs of the Democratic party in Montana. Consider that the past. I'm done being the nice guy about this. When the opposition wants a candidate to win the primary as much as the friendlies do, you have to take a step back and wonder why. There aren't many possibilities. 1) The Republicans are insane! Morrison polls better against Burns than Tester does. They must be nuts to want Morrison ... except that the polls are early, and they know that Burns has yet to unleash the attack ads bought with 6 million out of state bucks. 2) They think that Morrison is more defeatable based on the attacks they already level than Tester is. Hmmm (sarcasm), Ya think? They are already lying their asses off about Tester, and the lies ain't sticking. Of course they want Morrison. Against him, they have some truth.
Since political blogs are required by the Weblog Administrative Council Of Weblog Administration, which requires that political blogs make wild predictions, I am required to make a few here. Keep in mind that in Montana, you can only choose one party ticket for the primary election. Since you don't have to register a political affiliation, there is no stricture against choosing the opposition party's ballot. Just sayin'. So:
1) "Republican" primary turnout will be surprising less than expected.
2) "Democratic" primary turnout will be surprisingly more than expected.
3) John Morrison will win by a surprising large margin, partly due to the higher than expected Richards vote, and partly due to an inordinate number of votes cast for Morrison. Hmmm.
4) Conrad Burns will win his primary, but by a much smaller margin than originally expected. It will be blamed on the Abramoff scandal, but see number 1 above. Hmmm.
5) Burns will blow Morrison right out of the water in the general election, and all the blubbering, tear-streaked Democrats will be able to muster as a response is that "John was so electable ... he was pretty. We liked him. And Burns was, like , like, so corrupt. What went wrong? We don't understand why the public didn't like our guy, you know, the one they never saw. How could they dislike such a shadow of a man? Did I mention that he's pretty?"
Jee-sus-Kee-Rist. This is Montana, people. We don't want pussies elected to higher office. You can like our governor or not, but you can't call him a wimp with any credibility. That's why he got elected. Agree or not, he stood for sumpthin'. Take a good long look at Montana's elected officials and that's what you see; bold people who stand for sumpthin'. Liberal, Conservative ... it doesn't fricking matter. What we want as a state are people of vision, and the majority of us will vote for them every time over someone who comes of as safe as milquetoast. Morrison is milk toast.
To the Republicans, if you wish to be served, go ahead and vote for I-never-met-a-lobbyist-Ididn't-like Burns. You are betraying your state. Enjoy. If you actually wish service in the name of our lifestyle and our culture, consider Jon Tester as your man.
To the Democrats, quit wimping out and supporting the guy who *looks* like a candidate. Remember what the hell we stand for, and where we live. Morrison won't "save you" from Burns. He can't even stand up to his opponents before the primary. How in the hell do you expect him to stand up to the Senators who challenge him on the big stage? And, for the love of God and your state, consider this: maybe those of us "blawgs who all seem to favor Tester (waah)" do so because he's the better candidate. Ya' think?
I was actually falling asleep in my computer chair when I finished writing yesterday, so there were definitely some unfinished thoughts. I'd like to attempt to finish them now.
Touchstone, in this comment makes a good point:
Still, it feels like your opposition to Morrison is based on...intuition? A lot of the crit you offered against him was of physical impression -- hands, words -- and some emotional reaction to what he said. Tho' Morrison's comments on Mexicans and meth labs was pretty offensive, I admit. But then I think Tester's plan for illegals is impractical.
I agree that Tester's stand against amnesty is impractical, and indicated my disagreement with him on the issue in my summery of the debate. Just clarifyin' is all.
As regards my opposition to Morrison, in the last post I was trying not to show overt opposition to anyone. I wanted to present impressions more than a personal stand. I hope that I accomplished that. I prefer to think of myself as favoring Tester, rather than opposing Morrison or Richards. However, the logic of the voting choice is clearly exclusory; favoring one over another is objectively opposing that other. Which brings me to a comment that I heard from two different attendees to the debate: "wouldn't it be great if we could press all of these men into one candidate?". In some respects, of course it would. That would be the super candidate for every Democrat in Montana; Tester's determination with Morrison's easy eloquence and Richards' popular idealism. However, some of the qualities of these men would not mesh well with the others, and that is why I do objectively oppose Morrison, and to some smaller degree, Richards.
I strongly urge everyone to read Mike's terrific take on the campaign to unseat Burns. I can't say that I agree with all of Mike's points, but I do agree with many of them. My problem with Richards is the Utopian nature of his idealism. As Mike indicates, it borders on closet socialism, and to that degree is unrealistic in any kind of practical setting. I like Paul's idealism, and if I thought there was a ghost's chance in hell that we could implement perfect security of transport, absolutely free higher education, and a fully working socialist health care system without bankrupting the country or violating many of our civil rights, I'd probably be in the Richards camp with full throated support. Unfortunately, perhaps, I don't believe in fairy tales, I don't believe the full blown socialist utopia is possible in America, and I cannot support a candidate who will go to Washington and be ineffective.
Morrison, on the other hand, offends because he is trying so damned hard not to offend. We already have two Senators who tend to take the path of least resistance. I won't trade one for one much of the same mold, just because the new-guy has a D behind his name. Mike is absolutely correct, and I've said it before this debate: if Morrison wins the primary, then Conrad Burns will eat his liver with some fava beans and a nice chiante in the general election. And that will happen only partly because of Morrison's dalliance outside the marital vows. Mostly it will be because Morrison talks a hell of a lot, real pretty like, even, and yet he doesn't say anything. Gwen Florio of the GF Trib noticed it, and so did I, in spades. Morrison failed to answer many of the questions put to him, but yet he did so with the best of political speech. That is a truly uninspired resume for failure.
Notice this, the primary attack being used by the Republicants takes two forms: the Dems have no ideas, and the Dems won't take a stand. Morrison might as well go hunting with Cheney as to take his current tact in this campaign. He's going to get blasted in the face either way. He has no ideas and he won't take a stand. That may have worked for Baucus in the 70's, but it sure as hell won't work for Morrison in 2006. If he doesn't come out boldly with issue statements and a clear agenda, he will lose, period.
And here's my thing, why should we, as Democrats, want him? Yes, he's pretty, and yes he speaks very well. But yet he does nothing to inspire my confidence that he will do jack to work for me. His silence about stances and his evasion of things that might appear negative to some allows for intuitive judgement, as touchstone notes, but it also sends a clear message that this guy wants to be elected more than he wants the job that he will be elected to. Add to that the fact that he is willing to play every hypocritical canard on the table and you have an unappealing candidate. As I indicated previously, the only candidate to bring up family values, spousal support and fear-mongering in the debate was John Morrison.
(John, should you read this, please keep in mind that I found you to be a helluva nice guy. I'd love to join you for beer, and I appreciate the work you've done as state auditor; but if this is your campaign strategy, I don't trust or want you to represent me in the US Senate. I doubt you'll understand that, but I hope that you'll try.)
The values that Paul Richards appealed to were the values of the liberal. I like those values. The values that Jon Tester appealed to were the values of the land, the values of freedom and the values of the American pioneer ... the values of Montana. I like those values even more. If Montana is going to send a man to the Senate to represent Montana, then that one had better damned well share those values, the values our state was built on, and shares to this day. Yep, there's some ideological ugliness there; but that's our history and will be our future. That's why I support Jon Tester, and oppose Paul Richards and John Morrison.
Which brings me to the final point I wish to make. The debate on Monday left me somewhat afraid for Jon Tester, because of Paul Richards. It is a simple fact of politics that split votes favor the less appealing candidate. To this day, the Repugs blame Ross Perot for the 8 years of prosperity that they suffered under Clinton's penis. I still blame the 98,000 morons in Florida who voted Nader for electing the President most diametrically opposed to their agenda in the history of this country. Split votes hurt, and accomplish bad things. It's the nature of the game. At this moment, I am very concerned that those who follow Richards down the path of Utopia will defeat Tester in the primary, far more than Morrison ever could or ever would. I make this prediction, not because I find it appealing, but because I am a realist of cynical bent. The future convict Conman Burns will be re-elected because many Montanans are smart enough to know that Burns is bad, but not smart enough to realize that money and purty speech doesn't win elections, and neither does supporting la-la land rhetoric. Jon Tester should beat Conrad Burns. Jon Tester can beat Conrad Burns.
The only question is, are Montanans willing to put on the gloves, go to work, and help him do it?
I went to the debate between the Democratic Senate candidates last night, held up on campus. I wasn't going to go, because I started my work week with a serious sleep deficit, and of course it's much worse now. So, I apologize if this post rambles a bit.
The MSU College Democrats and the Gallatin County Democrats sponsored the direct meeting of the minds between the Democratic party candidates running to unseat Conman Burns in November. The lovely and talented Sheena Rice coordinated the show, and did a terrific job as far as I am concerned. Those candidates in attendance were Jon Tester, Paul Richards and John Morrison. For the press take (which I will mention as the occasion arises) please see the Bozeman Chronicle article linked above, and the Great Falls Tribune article here. What I give you now is my personal take. It is mine, and mine alone; keep that in mind. I'm not a journalist, I don't need to be impartial and I already believe in Jon Tester as the best man we can send to Washington. Keep that in mind as well. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you shouldn't be reading this post.
First off, I don't appreciate the headline of the Chronicle article at all. Those of us who've been paying attention know full well that the candidates have been defining themselves, and the only "seeking " that they need along those lines is to differentiate themselves clearly from one another and from the GOP lies that they mirror the "East Coast Elite". Anyone sitting in that room last night understands clearly that each man there has his own demeanor, his own take on Montana and his own deeply held belief that Conrad Burns has betrayed this state and must be stopped from doing so some more. Here's the point where I might start pissing people off. Last night's meeting was between the elements of Earth, Water and Wind . Or, if you like and understand dogs, it was a show with a mastiff, a border collie and an afghan hound. The one thing that brought unity to them all, is that Burns has got to go.
From the opening statements it was clear that we were seeing three very different men. It's kinda odd that in a debate, you expect them to thrust and parry with each other, but there was little of that. You expect that the issues would be the largest factor of focus. But in a situation breeding enormous irony, it wasn't the issues as much as the deportment of the three candidates that truly stood out. Paul Richards said, and I agree, that he was the most issue-driven of the candidates. Indeed, he was. This guy wants to serve Montana. He believes strongly in the ideals he promotes, and, as Walt was sure to notice, received the bulk of the applause from the crowd. He reminded me a lot of Dennis Kucinich in the 2004 Presidential race, a guy who holds idealistically to the values that we Democrats desire. I found myself liking Paul Richards ... alot. If you take a look through the links up above, you'll see that I even had my picture taken with the guy.
Then there is Jon Tester. I've met Jon before, so I had a fairly good idea of what to expect. He is straight forward, no nonsense, no quibbling. He knows what he wants for Montana, and he best exemplified that he is in a position to kn0w. He is a Montanan of the land, and not prone to pipe dream or equivocation. Paul Richards said that he was willing to admit when he didn't know something. Jon actually had ideas on how to learn and figure these things out. Soft and straight spoken, Jon was the pragmatist to Paul's idealism. He was all about the can-do, and when you listened to him, you believed it. Unlike Paul, who I believe has some of the right ideals, Jon strikes one as a guy who can actually accomplish what he sets out to do. What he wants right now is to become a Senator representing the fine state of Montana. If you don't know who Cincinnatus is, you'd best look him up, and think Jon Tester.
John Morrison is an impressive man. He is eloquent, slick and politically savvy. He's also very wordy, (and yes, I know that that's the pot - kettle thingy). He comes off as very intelligent, very interested and very cunning (no, you haters, that's not a pejorative ... cunning is a good thing). He certainly didn't have the earthy credibility that Jon and Paul were able to promote, but, as much as Montanans like the image of the working class hero, Morrison was able to promote himself as the representative that we need in an environment that doesn't respect the working class hero ... politics. Somewhat to my surprise, Morrison came off as a very caring man. Good or bad (depending on your personal view) John reminded me of the young Max Baucus, and was probably the one most suited for the stereotypical role of "statesman".
Now, on to the issues. If I can get a transcript, I will happily distribute it at will and you can decide whether or not you think my impressions are full of shit. That said, I reiterate that these are my impressions, and only that. It's difficult to know the precise form in which to present them, though, so I will simply deal with one candidate at time.
Paul Richards: He is adamantly against the war in Iraq. It costs too much and gains us so little. He promoted the idea of universal health care, going so far as to applaud the Canadian system of federalized health provision, something that may not sit well with some people. He wants government funded higher education, a noble goal in my view, but unrealistic. He promoted the idea that the war on drugs is silly at best, (HOOAAA!) and that we can't fight meth while imprisoning marijuana offenders. His take on immigration was very focused on transport of goods and security. Paul said little about immigration when faced with that question, simply acknowledging the security risks. He did, however, have the best answer to a question all night. One of the audience supplied questions was actually a 3 in 1: Are the NSA wiretaps illegal, should they be stopped and investigated, and should Bush be censored for circumventing the Constitution? Paul picked up the microphone and said forcefully yet bashfully, "Yes" and then set the microphone down. Realizing that more was required by the venue, he picked up the microphone and explained a bit further, but he already had the crowd at "yes".
I'm an ex-debater. I understand clearly when I'm being snowed by pretty words, and John Morrison did that aplenty. He speaks very well, but as Gwen Florio of the Trib noticed, he tended to say a lot without answering the questions. He went over time more than any one else in this debate. As I said, John is very slick. He dodged the question of Iraq, saying that we need a consistent mid-east policy. What? We need to protect the troops, but how? Seriously, it was on foreign policy that Morrison was weakest. He was much better at health care, promoting ideas of business related solutions for insurance coverage. On the issue of immigration, Morrison offended me. He engaged in fear mongering. Apparently the Mexicanlistics have huge meth labs that we need be terrified of, cranking out tons of youth destroying speed for our gullible young folk. Them damn mexicalistics! No succor for the Americanist haters who come here to work! I'm not so sorry, but Morrison didn't impress on this wedge issue.
I'm going to admit something awful here, as well. I found myself angry that Morrison would attack Conrad so personally on issues of integrity, given Morrison's own foibles. Don't get me wrong, I don't give one salient shit about what Morrison did with his dick before this race. But the only candidate in this debate who brought up hearth and home, family and spousal support was Morrison. I found that wrong. I like this guy, except when he expects me to forget who he is and what he's done. I can't, andI 'm sorry.
Jon Tester was a pit-bull. On Iraq he wants our troops out of harms way, given the civil war that can't be denied (except by the administration of the poorly favored incompetent). Jon wants Montana favored because of our ability to produce alternative fuel sources, and say "Phhht" to the middle east. I don't agree with Jon on immigration policy, because he wants secure borders and no amnesty for law breakers. Jon had the right (only right) idea on meth, and that's that meth will remain a problem until we have living wages to serve as alternatives to drug pacification. Tester was very into working across the aisle (something he promoted doing in the Montana legislature) to promote policies that favor compromise. I don't find this to be a bad thing. And he councils prudence and knowledge regarding the administrative power grab. That's wise. I like that idea.
A few one off notes:
In his closing statement, Morrison pointed out that he has the best chance of defeating Burns. No. We decide that. He doesn't.
I really had a problem with Morrison's hands. They're just really very girly. I know that's a really stupid thing, but I did. Sue me.
Richards was at a disadvantage because he doesn't have the state record that Morrison or Tester have. Keep that in mind.
We need to beat Burns. That is first and foremost. Clearly.
I've been perusing the comments at the Billings Gazette concerning the recent news about our state auditor, John Morrison. There's more than just a few that raise interesting questions (well, interesting to me, at least).
The one that really sticks in my head is this one, from Question - I'm Confused:
"What are the ethical rules that govern those who hold political office? I don't understand how John Morrison could avoid a conflict of interest by hiring an outside attorney. He still employed the outside attorney, he still supervised his office staff in their duties, and he participated in settlement discussions. Apparently, despite the conflict, he was still involved in the case and the people he hired and whom he supervised were still involved in the case. So, how did he avoid his conflict of interest. I wish someone could explain that to me. The entire "outside attorney" things just seems to be window dressing."
Call me cynical, but that appears for all the world to be a very astute observation. It wasn't just avoiding the appearance of impropriety, but rather avoiding the appearance of the appearance of impropriety that Morrison appeared engaged in. Let's be clear, if there was a conflict of interest for Morrison, then he should have backed all the way out; completely recusing himself from the investigation. No involvement, no conflict. However, he remained involved but acquired a certain small degree of plausible deniability. I remain somewhat uncomfortable with that, actually. Apparently, I'm not the only one. Ethical Lapse wrote this:
"Morrison's affair was apparently years ago. I'm more concerned with his more current ethical lapse. Morrison had a conflict of interest, but remained involved in the case even attending meetings involving settlement discussions. Morrison showed very poor judgement. He and his office should have recused themselves and he should have allowed the Justice Department and the SEC to handle the case. "
I don't favor the harsh tone, but agree that when the chips were down, a full recusal should have been offered.
I've seen no evidence that Morrison did anything "wrong" (other than the obvious affair) but I really don't like the way this smells. That has nothing to do with the Securities investigation, and everything to do with Morrison's response to it. He reacted appropriately, just like I would expect a politician to do. And that's really kind of the problem for me. Hiring an outside lawyer to investigate under the watchful eye of another lawyer who may have a stake in the outcome smacks far too much of the foxes deciding how best to raid the henhouse while blaming the dog. It seems a move of political expediency, and not one of concern for silly things like honor or integrity.
I'm certain that anybody who reads this will make up their own mind, and well they should. But I just remain troubled by it. Troubled, indeed.
Okay, just because Matt bitched that I'm getting too quiet, I will repost a discussion that should happen over here. John Morrison's Senate campaign just got a lot more interesting. Matt asks questions:
Who is behind it? This question seems to be on a lot of minds. At this point, I’m not sure anyone is behind it. I’ve been hearing this story from a lot of quarters for a while now. Rumors spread. People talk. I think it’s safe to say that a number of Democrats and a number of Republicans were very aware of this story, as were David Tacke and his wife. A number of those people would have their own motivations for tipping media off. And sometimes, the motivation for tipping media off isn’t ulterior. Someone may have thought there was a real, major scandal here. Someone may have simply wanted to be a source. Who knows. I have heard that various outlets have been working on this story literally for months. This isn’t a breaking development. This has been a long time in the works. Finally, let me say that while I can’t guarantee that neither Jon Tester nor his campaign were responsible for this, I’ve been pretty close with that campaign and I have every reason to believe they weren’t. An attempt to burn Tester over this is an attempt to divide the Democratic Party into warring factions over this story.
1) Who really cares? It is inconsequential. I am rather disturbed by those who promote “rumors” that this is a Tester camp move. Of all possibilities, it is the very least likely, and it’s only use is to damage Tester in the face of facts. That’s a Republican move that Democrats should not engage in at all.
Is it just adultery? Is adultery the full story here? Is it true that Morrison did nothing wrong in his office? I don’t know. Dave Hunter, a man I respect, says so. If it is just adultery, is Jen Hensley right that we shouldn’t judge? I don’t know. I’ve never cheated on anyone I’ve dated. I’m proud of that fact. Do I think adultery is a disqualification for office? No. But is it inconsequential? I don’t think that’s quite right, either.
2) Yes, it is, and to anybody with a sense of moral rightiousness, that is enough. Two things here: Regardless of whether or not someone is damaged/guilty personally or not, most won’t miss the opportunity to see themselves as better than a public adulterer. Think Clinton. And the second, what allows someone to feel morally outraged will trump reason almost every time. I’m predicting right here and right now, Morrison is toast, if not in the primary, then definately in the general. Doing the right thing as a public official may make headlines, but if the last 12 years have taught us nothing else, we should have learned that votes come from passionate subjective concern. The real question should be “Is it just about possible public malfeasance?” Nope, that will hardly be considered beyond polite conversation of the topic, just like we’re having here. What will get blood flowing is that this guy cheated on his wife and will be judged by the court of public opinion.
Is this the whole story? I again don’t know. I do know that I find it surprising that Morrison won’t say that his conflict-of-interest was enough reason for him to pass the case to outside counsel and that he repeatedly disputes his former fling’s version of the facts, even as her version is only minorly more damning (and slightly more believable). It feels a bit like he’s still fighting to cover his ass (sorry, but I think that if he called her to say he’s running for Auditor, he probably also made sure she wasn’t going to make the affair public, that’s just what any sane politician — which Morrison is — would do). I’d feel better if I got the impression he was being completely honest. Some commenters have hinted that Morrison leaked this himself. That’s possible. I have good reasont to believe that isn’t what happened, not least of which is that he still doesn’t strike me as being fully honest about what happened.
3) Does it really matter? It will take proof of public malfeasance for anything to trump the adultery in most people’s minds. Proof that the story goes no where, and that John Morrison acted responsably for the people won’t matter at all. It really will be all about the adultery.
Should this affect how people vote? That’s a tough question. I’m not a fan of adultery, but I’d be hard-pressed to say that anything in this story in any way comes close to the corrupt operation that Burns has been steering. Does it affect Morrison’s electability? I don’t really know that either.
4) Of course not, if every action taken by Morrison as state auditor proves to be legal and up front (as I’m positive it will). But “should” is one of those tricky words, implying a comparative advantage to possible alternatives. It directly appeals to the subjective sense of morals felt by every voter. Objectively, I’d rather have a past adulterer representing me than a crook who supports child labor in the Marianas all for his own profit. Sadly, I don’t think this will be an objective choice. I’m likely to piss off any Morrison partisan who reads this, but if you don’t think that the GOP will spin a Morrison-Burns match as the wizened provider against the man-whore, then you aren’t thinking about this at all.
Let's be clear here, Conrad Burns is more pathetically corrupt than any person serving in the Congress right now. If you think I'm wrong, say so, but say so over here. Morrison would be a good choice to replace him, and Jon Tester would be a great choice to replace him. We're Democrats, struggling for the same honest representation. I'm glad that Matt is concerned about my vocal nature, webwise, but we all need to meet at the source, and the source is left in the west. State your peace, people.
There's a couple of folks I've taken a real liking to here of late. The first is Monica Lindeen. I got to meet her about a week and a half ago, and I was very impressed with her intelligence, her ease with people, and her firm grounding in what she wants for Montana and how we can achieve those goals.
I know, that sounds like your typical political plug. But here's the thing. I was in a barn full of people, the vast majority of whom I didn't know. I tend to get very tense in crowds, and I'm deceptively poor at dealing with social situations. But I was there to support a man I believe in, and I was gonna suffer through regardless of the tension pains growing in my shoulders. Out of the blue, a woman amicably and whole-heartedly smiled and said "So you're Wulfgar", and within seconds I felt right at ease talking to her. That was Monica Lindeen. I ended up monopolizing her time for at least a quarter hour (impressive time at a such a meet'n'greet). She's smart as a whip, realistic, honest and committed to her people and her campaign. That's everything I want in a Representative, and everything that Denny Rehberg isn't.
The other person I'm getting mighty fond of is Russ Feingold, Senator from the state of Wisconsin. He's the one that actually has the courage to let our unpopular President know that Americans won't stand for his bending the rules to compensate for his own incompetence. That right there is enough to convince me that Fiengold is my kind of leader.
What's really fun is that these two people are coming together to work for us. Feingold is the honorary chair of the Progressive Patriots Fund. That PAC is currently holding a vote to show support for the top 8 progressive candidates deserving funds in 2006. Most of the PACs choices are from big-money races in big-money states; most, but not all. One of their choices is Monica Lindeen, running for the at large House seat in the fine state of Montana. So, I'm asking anybody who reads this to show your support. Go to the vote website and vote for Monica. And you might want to throw her some extra coin, just because she deserves the win, and Denny deserves to be back home with the goats. (Poor goats ...)
