Gettin' Awfully Short Tempered

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?

Comments

[AKA wacko lib]

Are you listening to this, "Democatic establishment"? PAY ATTENTION.

[moorcat]

As I have said many times, I have been throughly unimpressed with Morrison. I have no idea why he decided not to show for the Missoula debate but it will not help him with the Democratic voters. I was pretty put off by Morrison when he wouldn't answer any of my emails. Even Conman Burns will answer most questions if you ask.

Unfortunately, I think you are probably right about the primary results. Unless something radically changes between now and the Primary (like charges actually being filed against either Burns or Morrison), it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Republicans voting on the Democratic Primary ticket to put Morrison out front. I am somewhat surprised that you didn't mention the ethics questions about his handling of the Taske case. That, to me, seems a lot more important than Morrison's affair. You can be guarenteed that the Republicans will make a lot of use of it. Notice that they haven't yet?

I don't want to see a large scale battle between Democratic Candidates but at this point, it almost seems inevitable. Morrison would do his party a great deal of good by withdrawing. If he can overcome his negative press in two years, he could always run against Baucus.

Moorcat

[moorcat]

So here is a question I have been meaning to ask but keep forgetting. You (Wulfgar) may know. What happens if a candidate withdraws (either voluntarily or is forced to) after the primary? What about after the election?

I ask this because both Burns and Morrison have some very serious legal questions to answer....

Moorcat

[Wulfgar]

By my reading, if a candidate withdraws having been nominated by the party, or is forced, from the primary then the seat is considered uncontested. That would be why Burns hired a lawyer now, to my thinking.

[moorcat]

Now that would truly suck....

Moorcat

[Matt Singer]

It depends when the candidate leaves. If it's early enough, the party apparatus picks a replacement. If it's late enough, the party is forced to stick with the name on the ballot.

[Pogie]

I can't help but wonder why it is that Democrats keep falling for the illusion of electability. Issues, honesty, directness. That's all I want from a candidate.

I'm sure not seeing any of those from the Morrison campaign.

[Mark]

Max Jr.

[moorcat]

Max Jr... I have seen this title given to Morrison a number of times and I am wondering why. Max Baucus was a GREAT Senator for Montana. He was the first Montana Senator I voted for. Back in the day, he was ideological, hard working and had an intuitive understanding of what MONTANA needed in representation. He was the product of the Melcher/Mansfield/Metcalf era and they accomplished great things for Montana.

Today I see Baucus as simply getting tired. He has been "fighting the good fight" for decades. As much as I REALLY like Baucus for what he has done for Montana, there comes a time when the torch has to be passed to new blood.

I currently see Morrison as more of a "Slick Willy" politician. He is photogenic, slick toungued and polished but he uses a lot of words to say very little. His ethics are questionable at this point and I don't see him as a good representative for Montana.

So where does the Max Jr. come from?

Moorcat

[fred]

You should do happy hour with some liberals. Drinking Liberally.

Email them and start a Drinking Liberally!

[Wulfgar]

I would stop short of calling Max a "great" Senator for Montana. He has been, always, a political animal. He's done some really good things for the state, but also some really bad things, most egregious among them being quiet when he should have used the position to speak out. I wouldn't call John Melcher a great Senator, but at least he did that much. Max ... not so much.

The things I admire about Max are the things I know for certain: he idolizes Mike Mansfield, but cannot live up to that lofty legacy. Unlike Burns, he actually gives a shit about Montana, as opportunity allows. He often takes stances that favor the majority Montana opinion, which is sometimes contrary to the role of elected representation for anyone who believes in ideals or values beyond the will of the mob. Lately, it seems for all the world that he protects his position above all things.

Calling John Morrison "Max Jr." is an insult, but not so much to Max as it is to John. Morrison embodies the worst traits of our senior Senator. I will agree with you this much; as much as Max pisses me off right now (Max, why can't I quit you?) Morrison appears hardly worthy to carry his briefcase.

[Wulfgar]

fred, we were doing DL in Boeman for a brief time, but then I got busy and dropped the ball. Hopefully this summer we can revive the practice, though I'm not likely the most favored son in the area at this point.

[Fogey]

How about someone talk Paul Richards into stepping out of the race in favor of Tester, with the deal that we all will back him for a primary run against Max in 2008?

Doesn't matter if he can win against Max, but I for one am sick of holding my nose and voting for the bastard just to keep some republican from winning. Any more, if it wasn't for the D after his name, you wouldn't know Max even sat on the left side of the aisle...

[Wulfgar]

Fogey, from your fingers to God's ears ...