While Senate Republicans are blocking progress on the critical highway bill to continue their war on women in the form of the Blunt Amendment, Senator Baucus stood firm for health care coverage that impacts 62,000 Montana women. Speaking against the Amendment, Baucus said:
“The current policy preserves the integrity of a woman’s right to access health care services while also protecting the legitimate religious liberties that so many Americans – myself included – value. However, the Blunt Amendment would allow any company to deny health care options to deny access to any service for any moral objection. In Montana we’re very proud to have sent the first woman to Congress in 1916 – Jeanette Rankin. We have a strong tradition of respecting women and supporting women’s health. When we support women’s health, we are supporting healthy communities that can be strong for our kids and grandkids.”
Another version of his direct remarks to the Senate is available on YouTube:
Republicans have simply gone too far. In their efforts to demonize Planned Parenthood, family planning, and personal autonomy for women, they’ve turned their sights on basic access to care—under the guise of religious freedom, a freedom which seems only to extend to their right to impose their religious views on others.
Today, Senator Olympia Snowe announced that she will not be seeking re-election. No doubt, many of us have disagreed with some of the votes and positions elected officials like Sen. Snowe have taken. Read the comments on this blog (and others) and the same could be said about almost any Democrat serving in congress.
Senator Snowe is retiring because of the extreme partisanship that has dug its nails into our society. “I do find it frustrating…that an atmosphere of polarization and ‘my way or the highway’ ideologies has become pervasive in campaigns and in our governing institutions,” she said Tuesday.
Snowe’s retirement is great news for Democrats looking to keep control of the U.S. Senate, but it should also serve as a moment of reflection for our Party.
From Sen. Specter to Sen. Snowe, Republicans are leaving the GOP, are being pushed out of GOP, or feel that the GOP has left them. Where will these “moderate Republicans” go?
Democrats can either choose to embrace moderate Republicans or Democrats can shun them just like the TEA Partiers and extremists that banished them.
I encourage we Democrats embrace them. This is a pivotal moment.
We both extend our hand and build a party based on reasonableness and responsibility or we shut moderates out and become just as insolated, incestuous, and out-of-touch as the GOP of today.
Of course, extending our hand means compromise, but it also means we have a better chance of defending and expanding our most cherished institutions and ideals.
Simply put, we should avoid litmus tests and embrace those who are abandoning extremism.
Many have argu…okay, no, really it was just Mark. But I do believe that he represents many non-voters who don’t vote because they believe that large corporations buy politicians and that therefore there is no difference between different candidates. The specific statement was – why would JP Morgan invest in Tester if they didn’t think they’d be getting something back?
I don’t see why that logic is any less relevant when applied to, say, the League of Conservation Voters, Tester’s actual largest donor? They aren’t stupid. They probably don’t agree with everything Tester does (like, supporting Keystone XL). Nonetheless, they recognize he is a better bet than Denny Rehberg. Or his second largest contributor, Thornton and Naumes, a law firm that makes a living getting suing extractive corporations that hurt people (you know, the sort of corporations that might contribute to Denny Rehberg).
In short? I’m not an expert, nor even particularly well educated, on domestic politics. But the folks making these ‘investment’ decisions probably are. Perhaps there’s a reason to expect that Tester will continue to be the better candidate for both the environment and for the people.
A couple of candidate forums the past few days make it a fair question, as the thirty or so Republicans running for the honor of losing to Steve Bullock seem awfully committed to proving just how reactionary they are.
Consider these quotes from the forum in Hamilton, collected by Ravalli Republic reporter Whitney Bermes and from the Great Falls forum, collected by Great Falls Tribune reporter John Adams. Presumably a more detailed story will follow tomorrow, but these tweets certainly capture the essence of what it means to be a Republican in Montana today—and I’m even being nice enough to leave out the truly deranged ones.
Jim Lynch is not only willing to offer his life against an imaginary threat to the Second Amendment, he believes in a UN-led conspiracy to destroy America. No, really. Finally, he offered his insight as a climatologist.
Neil Livingstone, disappointed that he wasn’t able to profit from the war in Libya wants to start one with the federal government and environmentalists:
Ken Miller seemed content to show that he lacks a basic understanding of the issues that face Montana:
One assumes that Corey Stapleton was off collecting donations during the events.
There are many people, many of my personal friends included, who believe that local elections are far more important than national or statewide ones. They reason that since national elections are financed by those with a lot of money, the two parties are never far apart in their positions. It’s an oversimplification, but there is some truth to it – local politics are more personal, generally have a more direct effect, and often present more widely divergent viewpoints than the big ticket races. But it is becoming clear that the ghosts of Republican Administrations past continue to haunt Montana and deprive us of the freedom to govern our state as we see fit.
The biggest example is obviously Citizen’s United, where 2 W. appointees, one appointed by his father and two appointed by Reagan, handed down a ruling that overturned a century old Montana law.
But to add insult to injury, another Reagan appointee struck down another Montana law, which seems eminently reasonable, disallowing knowingly false statements during a campaign.
Whoever is president for the next our years will likely make at least one supreme court appointment and multiple appointments to Federal courts. We cannot afford that person to be Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Moreover, we need the senate that will advise and consent to these appointments to be composed of reasonable people, not obstructionist ideologues like Denny Rehberg. Even if Obama’s other actions are not progressive as some activists would like, his Supreme Court appointments have been consistently better than any Republican president in memory, and there’s no reason to believe that if given another opportunity in the next four years, they will be any different.
UPDATE: For example, I’m not sure Obama would have nominated this guy.
Catch the Oscars this evening? Well, Rehberg made at least two appearances during the 3 hour program. The ad called out Rehberg on the issue of public land access, which is becoming an increasing problematic issue for the Congressman. Remember these three spots? Rehberg: Public land is my “Privately owned land” and No Rehberg Land [...]
Highlighting some of the most interesting and provocative posts in the past week at Montana blogs. It’s hard not to love this story at the Button Valley Bugle about the efforts of the good legislators in Wyoming to protect the state in the event of a nuclear holocaust or zombie attack. Hell, they’re even willing [...]
While American Partnership Tradition is doing its best to destroy political accountability in Montana, the state still does have strict restrictions on the reporting of individual contributions to political campaigns. Montana’s rules about these donations are quite clear: when a person reaches an aggregate total of $35 dollars in donations to a campaign, that amount [...]
