If Roll Call is to be believed, Dennis Rehberg has just handed Montana Democrats the best opportunity imaginable to let Jon Tester rid the U.S. Congress of two of the worst representatives Montana has sent to Washington. Although the story relies on some terrible anonymous sourcing, it would make sense for Rehberg to announce his bid while the Tea Queen was in town, staring off to the side.
Jon Tester absolutely can win this race, and frankly, I’m surprised to see Rehberg willing to take the risk of running. Despite a historically bad year for Democrats and an energized Republican base in Montana, polling between the two was incredibly tight–and Rehberg’s penchant for gaffes and embarrassments will hurt him much more in a closely scrutinized race.
Rehberg has won exactly one close race in his life. Every other time he’s faced credible opposition, he’s lost. There’s little reason to believe he has the intellect or ability to win a tough race this time.
The real loser, though, has to be Steve Daines. It’s pretty hard to look like a decisive leader when you duck out of a
race because Denny Rehberg scares you out of it. I’m not sure that the new Daines campaign sign is likely to inspire voters to look his way.
I have to wonder who Politico’s David Catanese is relying on for this assertion from yesterday:
GOP Businessman Steve Daines has been running for two months, but the popular six-term Rep. Denny Rehberg is an all-but-certain entrant in the coming weeks, posing a considerable threat to Tester’s reelection.
I don’t think Rehberg has the courage to run for the Senate, though millionaire subdivision ranchers are crying out for more representation in the Senate and naming post offices has to easier from the Senate chambers.
As the Egyptian Army refuses to crush the current unrest, it becomes clearer what the US needs to do about the situation, and what I believe we have already done.
The real kingmaker in Egypt is still the army – in choosing to stand down, they have shown that they have lost faith in Mubarak. They have shown another thing as well. Mubarak doesn’t control them – the US effectively does. The Egyptian military relies on the US for most of its weapons systems, so when Obama says ‘don’t use force’, it turns out his words mean something – probably more than Mubarak’s. He more than any Egyptian general or president has leverage over the Egyptian army, because he controls their access to the weapons they need to feel safe right next to Israel. This may be seen as an imposition on Egyptian sovereignty, but it also may be seen as a key factor in keeping these protests from becoming a massacre.
So the next step? Make it clear to the military that under whoever wins democratic elections, military aid will continue undeterred as long as human rights are respected and the truce with Israel is upheld. This will remove any incentive the army has to interfere in who becomes the next leader – any ideological preference they might hold is not likely to be stronger than their desire to keep receiving advanced weaponry (and, perhaps more acute, the need to keep receiving parts and support for the weapons it has). Best case scenario is probably a situation like in Turkey, where the army has a more active role than anyone would like to acknowledge but cannot suspend Democracy for any significant length of time because it in turn depends on the US and NATO. And compared to the status quo, that’s a pretty good best case scenario.
The last thing to consider – precedent. If the American-funded Egyptian military stands down in exchange for continuing its supply of goodies, the possibility opens up of the same occurring elsewhere. In the grand scheme of things, it is safe to assume that a stable, peaceful, human-rights respecting state will be better off than a similar state that is undemocratic and lacks respect for individual rights. Thus, in the long term, if the US pressures armies with which it is aligned not to get in the way of democratic movements, those countries will be better off than countries like Uzbekistan that choose to align with China and Russia so as to continue with their sovereign right to massacre their citizens.
The front page story in today’s Lee papers has the commenters and legislators buzzing because it seems to suggest that there has been some sort of massive expansion of state government under Brian Schweitzer. A quick look at math makes it pretty clear that the story just isn’t that important.
- How many people lived in Montana in 2004? 926,865
- How many live here today? 988,415.
For those of you who don’t believe in math or science, that’s a growth rate of 6.64%. The massive growth rate of state government highlighted in the article? A whopping 8.8%. A 2.2% difference is easily explained by factors that the article does mention: expanded programs like CHIP, the Office of Public Defender, and the “growth industry” of Corrections.
Perhaps the rate of growth in state government is something to look at it, but it’s hardly the crisis this sensationalistic story suggests. If the Legislature wants to advocate focused, appropriate cuts based on research of needs, that’s one thing. To overreact and make massive cuts would simply ignore demographic reality.
Update: It’s also worth noting that Montana has fewer public sector employees per capita than North Dakota, Idaho, and those known socialists in Wyoming, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
While it’s incredible to see Egyptians finally standing up to Hosni Mubarak after years of repression, it is also important to keep an eye on the danger definitely on the horizon if things go sour. Here’s my biggest fear –
For the last months, Coptic Christians (about ten percent of the population) have been understandably worried about their safety. That was before.
Now, there are massive protests , increasingly encouraged by the Muslim Brotherhood threatening to topple the government that has traditionally been a secularizing influence.
Meanwhile, the vote is in – Southern Sudan has voted for independence. The government in Khartoum has promised to respect the vote, but has also promised to enforce Sharia law more strongly in the remainder of the country, which is sure to lead to at least some conflict immediately to the South of Egypt.
I’m not saying more Muslim-Christian violence is inevitable in North-East Africa, but I think its worth keeping an eye on as the US decides how to deal with protests in North Africa and the creation of a new country in Sudan.
Dave McLean, commander of the Anaconda American Legion Post 21, responded to one of the lies in GOP Chair Wil Deschamps’ recent hit piece about Max Baucus and health care reform today in the Independent Record.
The particular lie that McLean debunks is the idea that veterans will see increased taxes on their healthcare costs:
Mr. Deschamps claimed that the new health care law “taxes medical devices like wheelchairs, crutches, hospital beds, MRI machines, etc., with no exception for injured vets.” Well, that will get your attention. Taxing wounded vets! Hadn’t heard that one before — and that’s because what Mr. Deschamps writes isn’t true. The fact is that wounded veterans and active duty troops receive their health care and prosthetic devices from the VA or military health care systems (TRICARE) at no cost. In other words, free. It’s pretty hard to raise taxes on something that’s provided for free, don’t you think?
While I’m glad that the IR ran this response, I have to ask why the Lee Newspapers (I believe the Deschamps piece appeared in every daily) ran an opinion piece that contained falsehoods. Certainly, a newspaper should be a place for lively debate from both sides, but shouldn’t a newspaper fact check claims made my political hacks?
When a newspaper publishes a piece, it’s fair to assume that readers believe it’s at least been vetted for basic honesty. While this correction is great (though it only ran as a letter in the Montana Standard), it won’t change the opinions of those who only saw the original piece or those who now think there is some debate about this issue. There isn’t.
Newspaper should bring the debate to our doorsteps—or our monitors—but only when the facts are true. Shame on Wil Deschamps for lying to Montanans and shame on the newspapers that gave him the platform to do it.
