Bozeman Democratic Senate Debate

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.

Comments

[Jeff]

Thanks for sharing. I'm still pissed that I couldn't go.

[V]

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. ... I like this guy, except when he expects me to forget who he is and what he's done. I can't, and I 'm sorry.

LOL

[Mark]

"In his closing statement, Morrison pointed out that he has the best chance of defeating Burns."

The "anyone but Bush" strategy gave us Kerry, a resounding, well-earned defeat, and four more years of Bush. If we fall back on Morrison because he has the best chance of beating Burns, while ignoring issues, we'll likely get a resounding defeat and six more years of Burns.

[tim huffman]

Feminine hands could be a problem in Montana. Just remember what happened to Lil' Boots Taylor in 2002.

[touchstone]

Nice summary, Wulfgar!

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.

[sheena]

Thanks for the compliment.

While I still find myself neutral in this race, I find myself leaning into the Tester category for one reason only.

Morrison would not take a stance on the NSA, and then criticized the 1978 FISA statute as out of date. What he didn't say is that the statute is reveiwed every year and more often then not expanded on. Also if these are known terrorists, then why would there be a problem getting a warrant? Moreover the FISA court is very flexible in authorizing warrants from 1979-2004 over 18,000 wiretap warrants were authorized with 5 being rejected.

This is a very important issue to me, and I got to say I think Morrison blew it.

[Eric Coobs]

I wish it would have been televised, for those of us who were too busy to go to Bozeman.

Good summary - although it surprises me that they didn't go at each other a little bit, since after all, two of them will lose the primary.

[sheena]

I tried to get it televised, but to be honest few people take a college girl with a weird name seriously. I was pleased with the press that it got.

You're right about two of them losing the primary. But you missed the point that they are united to defeat Burns and are thus not going to go after each other. Its self-defeating.

[steve kelly]

Need a factual reason to doubt Morrison? He voted over 100 times with Racicot and Martz on land board timber sales while Bud Clinch (DNRC director, former timber lobbyist, and currently a coal industry lobbyist) almost doubled the annual "sustained-yield" logging target (quota) on school trust lands. When it comes to state forests, the mill owners come first with John Morrison. No question about it, this guy is very Baucus-like on the environment.

- steve kelly

[Wulfgar]

Thank you, Steve. That's the kind of information I've been casually looking for in the media ... and found it sorely lacking.