The Montana Republican Party likes to pretend that the bad press they received during the last session was simply an example of liberal media bias rather than an objective look at just how out of touch with reality their proposals often were.

Joe Read, representative from Ronan and internationally renowned climatologist, believes that the UN insidiously undermining America, one city council at a time:

David Howard, representative from Park City, shared this nuanced commentary about his political opponents:

It’s tempting to dismiss these as nothing more than the inane ramblings of a few fringe lunatics, but this is the face of the Montana GOP—a party so out of touch with both the political mainstream and reality that comments like these pass without question.

I can’t believe that these are the viewpoints of most conservative Montanans. When they vote for the candidate with the R after his or her name, they’re voting for a party that may not have existed for the past 8-10 years.

Heading in 2012, it’s critical that Democrats keep reminding Montana voters just how extreme these views are.

While the ongoing farce of John Boehner’s default meltdown in Washington has led every single political leader in the nation other than Denny Rehberg to take a position, back home, today’s news provided a stark illustration about the difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to budgeting.

The Democrats believe in using facts and honest revenue calculations; the latter believe in using distortions and being deliberately obtuse to deny workers small raises, the needy social services, and children better schools.

Let’s look back at the session, shall we?

Republican House Speaker Mike Milburn, in February:

What he is doing is making our job difficult, because we have a responsibility to do. We still are short and we are short a lot of money and it is not looking that good into the future….We are doing better, but we are doing it at a less rate of growth than we have seen in the past. We have to deal with that, those are real numbers we have to deal with that, we can’t play games, we can’t play politics.”

Republican Budget Guru Dave Lewis in January:

Sen. Dave Lewis, R-Helena and chairman of the Senate Finance and Claims Committee, said Democrats, including Gov. Schweitzer, are being too optimistic. He said most Republicans believe the economy isn’t ready to take off, and that state spending must be reduced to match what they believe may be depressed tax revenue for some time.
“I could be a little less hard on that issue if I thought the economy was improving, but I just don’t see it,” Lewis said. “I think that’s the big policy debate of the session.”

Throughout the session Democratic leaders like Carol Williams, Jon Sesso, and Governor Schweitzer made it clear that a fact-based examination of tax revenue made draconian cuts and broken promises entirely unnecessary.

And they were right. How does the state look today? $340 million in the bank:

Schweitzer says Montana will start this new fiscal year with about $340 million dollars in the bank.This is the largest amount of money the state has ever had set aside for emergencies.

It’s bad enough that Montana Republicans acted the way they did during the session. It’s even worse that they couldn’t be bothered to be intellectually honest while they did it.

As Representative Kerns mulls his political options going forward (the GOP gubernatorial field could certainly use another candidate, and one nicknamed “Doc” would be a perfect fit), I have to say that it’s quite commendable that he is quite clear about the positions he takes on issues—no matter how ill-informed and dangerous those positions might be.

His latest broadside? Claiming that America is overrun with Marxism, including the socialistic schemes named Social Security and Medicare. Kerns writes, in typically understated fashion:

In 1936, by a vote of five to four in the Butler case, the US Supreme Court ruled Congress could tax and spend money for any cause it considered beneficial. This was the first shoe. Prior to Butler, constitutional scholars had held all revenues must be spent equally among the populace, so this was a monumental leap advancing Karl Marx’s theory of “from each according to his deeds; to each according to his needs.”

The year after the Butler ruling, the second shoe dropped. President Roosevelt’s massive wealth redistribution program called Social Security. The third shoe came in the form of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. Incrementally, these massive wealth redistribution programs soon permeated every corner of American society. With complete disregard to the impossibility inherent in every Ponzi scheme, citizens demanded benefits to which they felt entitled.

Although Representative Kerns may benefit from reading any basic college textbook about political theory or even looking in a dictionary for the terms “Marxism” and socialism, a more pressing concern might be his ability to budget correctly. He claims:

By next year, 2012, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the interest payments on our national debt will consume 100 percent of all tax revenues.

Not so much.

Having spent five years in Laurel some time ago, I just can’t believe that the people there really believe that Social Security is a Trotskyite menace or that we should leave the elderly to their own devices in order to assuage the fiscal paranoia of someone who wants to punish the poor for their poverty and the elderly for their age.

Laurel, you can do better.

One of the elements of Western movies that always puzzled me was the frequent assertion that no one in the West cared where a person had come from; all that mattered was the person they were in their new community. Growing up in relatively small towns like Shelby and Laurel, it seemed that the exact opposite was true. When someone new came to town, we wanted to know everything about him or her and we pried like hell to find out whatever we could. But the other half of the story was true: once that person arrived, all we cared about was that the new person did her job, treated her neighbors well, and shoveled her walk in the winter.

Once you became part of our town, your private life was your private life, and it wasn’t anybody’s business who you loved and/or slept with.

People like Harris Hines and and Dallas Erickson never seemed to learn that, though. For reasons that perhaps only a trained psychiatrist could explain, they seem obsessed with who someone sleeps with, and quite uncomfortably, how they do it. They hate people who are gay, lesbian, or transgender so much that they’ll lie about them, spew vicious invective at them, and even suggest that the death penalty would be appropriate for the crime of loving someone of the same sex.

Now they want to make sure that a community can’t decide to resist that hate.

The good people of Missoula know that discrimination against GLBT Montanans still exists, in overt from people like Himes and Erickson, and in subtler forms from others, and so, their city council passed an ordinance to protect citizens from discrimination in housing and employment for “actual or perceived” sexual orientation.

It’s an ordinance that I wish didn’t need to exist. I’d like to believe that we’ve moved past hatred and fear based on sexual orientation, but we’re not there yet. Gays and lesbians face discrimination daily, and while this ordinance is unlikely to solve that, it at least gives people the tools to redress wrongs done them and access to the rights our constitution gives every Montanan.

Intellectually, it’s easy to attack Representative Hansen’s bill because it’s a complete reversal of her party’s belief in local control, because no one wants to attack another person for bigotry. That’s too easy, though. This bill is more than hypocrisy; it’s bigotry at its worst.

I don’t know Mrs. Hansen, but I do know bigotry when I see it, and HB 516 is nothing but legalized support for discrimination. If Dallas Erickson helped draft it, you can be sure of that. This bill, if passed, will legalize hatred, fear, and discrimination.

Local control matters, but human rights matter even more.

We can’t stop people from wondering about the new person on the block, but the law can—and must—protect their rights to move and live there freely. GLBT Montanans are your your friends, your firefighters, your ministers and your teachers. Is so much to ask that they be legally protected as your neighbors, your co-workers, and your community members?

Absolutely not. Let the Senate Committee know that Montanans don’t support bigotry. Come to the Capitol, Room 405 at 3:00 tomorrow. If you can’t make it, be sure to send a message to the Senate Local Government Committee.

D. Gregory Smith says it much better (and more directly) than I did. Read what he had to say.

Over the weekend, I listened to the nearly three hours of testimony about HB 456 and came away both inspired by the passion of young people who spoke the truth and disillusioned by adults who seemed almost incapable of it. As the testimony went on, it became increasingly clear that the Montana Legislature should reject this ill-conceived, poorly-written mess. Instead of pandering to the Jeff Laszloffys of the world, the Montana Legislature should do what’s right for Montana students: allow teachers and health professionals to educate them.

The Bill is Poorly Worded

If passed, this bill will make class discussion in Social Studies and English impossible. Hell, math is probably imperiled because students are often exposed to the suggestive wiles of “multiplying.”

It’s that bad. The bill requires that schools notify parents 48 hours in advance and get permission before any “instruction of any type that involves human sexual education, human sexuality issues” takes place in the classroom. It’s hard to imagine a curricular area that wouldn’t be impacted by this incredibly vague language. Would a science teacher need to pause and get permission before discussing the reproductive system? Would a history teacher need to pause and get permission before discussing ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia? Would an English teacher need to pause and get permission before discussing Romeo and Juliet?

Given the bill’s incredibly poor wording, they absolutely would. Once again, it appears that the Montana GOP’s only job creation program is creating jobs for lawyers and the judicial system, which will soon be filled with frivolous cases. Don’t believe me? Just look at Helena, where zealots have filed two lawsuits without merit in the just the past year.

Certainly, someone should have paused before presenting this bill.

The Bill Violates Local Control

This bill is nearly identical to two other bills this session in which a local minority who lost a decision wants to impose their will via statewide legislation. Just like the stream access bill and Missoula anti-discrimination bill, proponents, who frequently trumpet the cry of local control are ignoring their principles simply because they lost. Rather than pursuing local democratic action, which takes energy rather than ideology, they’re hoping the big, bad state will do the work for them.

Montana has a proud, important tradition of local control of schools. We don’t have state-mandated curriculum and we don’t impose the vision of Helena politicians and bureaucrats on local schools. Who’s best positioned to deal with thorny issues of health education? The local officials who are closest to the people in their communities.

The Proponents Misrepresented the Truth

Jeff Laszloffy, professional provocateur for personal profit and head of the Montana Family Foundation, lied to the committee, suggesting that the large meetings were only attended by opponents to the bill, which is absolutely untrue. There were hundreds of Helena parents, students, and teachers who testified to the Board in favor of the proposed curriculum.

Mykal Wilkerson, the wife of former School Board member Trevor Wilkerson, and the person who has clearly most enjoyed her moment in the spotlight, lied about condom distribution at Helena High.Mrs. Wilkerson claimed that defective condoms (stapled with cards attached) were distributed to over 300 freshman students by the school. The truth? Some senior students threw them on the ground around the school as a senior prank and school staff members quickly gathered them up and threw them away.

Many of the Helena proponents of the bill asserted that they represented a huge majority of the local community, a statement that’s absolutely false and unsupported. If they’re right, one has to wonder why it’s the same small, loud group of people who appear in frivolous lawsuits, interviews on Fox News, and book-banning meetings. Though they’re fond of calling themselves the “Silent Majority,” a more apt title would seem to be the “Disgruntled Dozen.”

P.S.: Nixon was a bad guy.

It’s a good general rule that when people have to lie to make their argument, it’s a bad argument. I can’t help but question the integrity and motives of people who were willing to lie to legislators to advance their agenda.

We Should Trust Our Teachers, Administrators, and Boards

Teachers are professionals who have chosen their careers because they believe in educating children. Instead of demonizing them and fear mongering, we should trust that they will make educationally appropriate decisions for their classes. If they violate that trust or go outside the bounds of their curriculum inappropriately, local boards and administrators can–and should–take action.

Planned Parenthood Provides Vital Services

A final, disastrous component of this bill is that it would prohibit any abortion service provider from offering education in schools, effectively removing Planned Parenthood from the schools, despite the fact that 97% of the work that Planned Parenthood does is prevention and education. As so many of the articulate teenagers noted, students desperately need medically-accurate information about sexual health to prevent disease, abuse, and pregnancy. Banning Planned Parenthood might make a good sound bite for the radical right, but it makes for incredibly poor policy for children.

Representative Knox has been out of the news the past few weeks at the session, but I presumed his silencehad been to conduct a comprehensive examination of the citizenship status of his fellow legislators. It turns out I was wrong: Mr. Knox has been busy attacking other Republicans, suggesting that his “followers” harass a critic, and potentially trying to hack into a blog account. You can view the forwarded e-mail here.

We’re not talking about human rights advocates here or liberal bloggers. We’re not even talking about employees that Knox failed to pay. Knox is attacking fellow conservatives and Republicans in a manner entirely unbecoming a public official, especially during a floor session of the House. I, for one, am glad that the Legislature provided Knox a personal laptop for this critical government function.

I think the good people of House District 47 have already realized that one term is one too many for this clown.

In the spirit of Washington’s Birthday, I thought I’d write up my thoughts about a better way to elect candidates for office in Montana: a system like that in place in Washington, in which the top two candidates from a primary advance to the general election, rather than the winners of the respective party primaries. If two Republicans are the leading vote winners in the spring, then two Republicans square off in the fall. If it’s two Democrats, then they square off. There wouldn’t be any changes to the election calendar required, just a new way of thinking.

Why should political parties get to have the state pay for elections run for their benefit, rather than for the benefit of voters as a whole? A “top two” system will put elections back to what they are supposed to do, selecting the best candidate for an office.

Better Representation of the Electorate

I’m prepared to concede the Montana is a more conservative state than it often appears to be from my vantage point here in Helena; however, I’m not willing to concede that it’s as conservative as the legislators running the current mockery of a session seem to believe. Why are they so far to the right? Because of a primary and general election system that generates candidates on the extremes, rather than those who represent the views of the districts they “represent.”

The current party primary system empowers people like Roger Koopman, who can blackmail candidates by attacking them for being insufficiently “Republican” or “conservative.” It creates Legislatures during which which nullification schemes, concealed weapons in bars, and militias can receive serious “debate,” and even passage. It rewards extremism rather than pragmatism.

The system is broken if it’s meant to represent what the voters really think—and a “top two” would lead to more candidates being elected who represent the values of their districts.

Better Educated Voters

The current system simply makes it too easy on voters. Wait for the general election and simply vote for the candidate identified as a D or an R if you haven’t taken the initiative to research the candidates or had the opportunity to hear their messages. I think we can all admit to having voted for a candidate simply because of her party affiliation—a top two system would require voters to make more educated choices, perhaps even between two Democrats or two Republicans.

Ravalli County just elected a county treasurer who basically couldn’t count, largely because of party affiliation. The “top two” system would absolutely make candidates have to work harder to inform voters and voters work harder to learn about those they vote for.

Better Odds of Bipartisan Compromise

Having tracked a lot of votes during this session, it seems like many are either nearly unanimous or almost entirely party-line. More legislators operating outside of the ideological extreme seem much more likely to be willing to compromise. I know that there are people in both the House and Senate right now who could work to forge common-sense shared solutions to some of the state’s pressing issues, but the hyper-partisanship created by the current primary system makes such compromise nearly impossible to imagine.

Better Candidates, From Any Party or None At All

Maybe the best feature of a “top two” system is that the best candidate can win an election, with or without party affiliation.  In some parts of the state, that might mean a Tea Party candidate, in others a Green candidate. Better yet, some candidates may be elected without party affiliation. Compare that with the current system, in which merely winning a party primary practically ensures a general election win, no matter the quality of the candidate.

I would love to see the kind of extended campaign that might take place between two Democrats in a Missoula district or two Republicans in a Havre district. The party composition of the Montana Legislature might not change at all, but the quality of those members would have to increase.

Better Primaries

A “top two” system would make primaries matter and increase voter turnout. All too often, voters don’t even have a choice right now during primaries and don’t bother to head to the polls. A system that encouraged Montana voters to get educated and vote twice during the year will be good for candidates and the electorate.

Both conservatives and liberals like to imagine that their views make them the heirs of the Founding Fathers, but perhaps we should look more closely to the ideas of the first President, who built a Cabinet of political and personal rivals, chosen for their talents rather than their political affiliation. Washington famously warned against the development of parties in his farewell address to the nation, arguing that reliance on parties would lead to bad governance:

They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

If the current session of the Montana Legislature isn’t proof of Washington’s fears, I wonder what else could be. Perhaps it’s time for those who want to be the heirs of Jefferson and Hamilton to consider making our elections about the best candidates once again, rather than a game played by the parties.

Cody Bloomsburg, from the UM School of Journalism, has posted a fascinating look at the self-proclaimed Constitution Caucus at the Montana Legislature, a group of troglodytes headed up by the likes of Krayton Kerns, Greg Hinkle, and James Knox. What Bloomsburg’s story reveals is a group of arrogant idiots, so bound by their narrow ideology, that they would actually vote against helping children who witnessed domestic violence.

The Constitution Caucus led the fight in the House to block a bill intended to provide mental health services to these children, because, according to Kerns, “the constitutional vote on this is no because it will grow government.” Presumably, Kerns and his ilk drove to Helena on private roads, reject their government laptops and health insurance, and refuse to use the desks provided for them in the session. After all, none of those things are specifically, literally listed as government function in the Constitution, and must be rejected.

For these politicians, the term “constitutional” is much like the way in which they see “family values” or “patriotism”: there is only one definition of each term and it just happens to be theirs. No matter how narrow or unsupported, their vision of the Constitution is the only one that matters, even if the mental health and futures of children need to be sacrificed along the way.

And that’s the irony. These self-appointed defenders of the Constitution and the vision of the Founding Fathers were exactly the kind of people that Jefferson and Madison, Franklin and Adams would have not wanted in charge of government. They rejected unthinking ideologues and imagined a country governed by thoughtful leaders, willing to compromise and provide for the general welfare of the nation. If the health of children isn’t part of general welfare, it’s hard to know what is.

When I visited Washignton D.C. this Christmas, I was struck by the words on the southeast wall of the Jefferson Memorial:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

The human mind has progressed since 1787, and Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were wise enough to realize that we would become more enlightened as American history progressed. It’s unbelievable that people like Kerns and his crew of Beck-inspired patriots want to go the other direction.

Dave Lewis, Republican Senator from Helena, has long been known as a pragmatic member of the Montana GOP caucus, so his decision to introduce a resolution urging withdrawal from the United Nations was a surprise. Two sources have told me that Lewis told them that he introduced the resolution to avoid a primary from a Tea Party backed candidate, certainly a disappointing decision that reflects the growing power of the far right fringe in Montana politics.

I asked Senator Lewis to comment, and his response indicates that the Tea Party certainly has  influence, as does Denny “keep the federal government out of state government” Rehberg:

I had discussed this in 2007 with a constituent and had gotten a draft done.  At that point, one of Congressman Rehbergs staff asked that I not introduce it because he felt it be awkward for the Congressman if we passed it.  I pulled the resolution and did not introduce it.  I susequently (sic) felt bad about backing out and discussed it with the same constituent this time.  He urged me to proceed.  I do support the concept.  I think the proposal has merit because the UN costs us a lot of money and it has little or no positive results for Montana.  I was asked by a small group at a tea party meeting last winter if I would introduce it and agreed.  It may have helped to assure that I did not have a primary, but I really do not know that.  I did not do it for that reason.  I felt it was unfinished business from 2007.  I think it is a good resolution and look forward to the hearings on it.

Birchers and Birthers, oh my!

It’s hard to accept Lewis’s position at face value. No credible foreign policy analyst thinks it would be to the benefit of the United States to leave the United Nations—that’s the kind of talk one only hears at militia meetings and conspiracy conventions. Does Senator Lewis really believe that losing our veto power at the Security Council would better protect American interests? That withdrawing from a global forum for economic, political, and health issues would enhance American influence and relative power?

Of course not. This resolution has no chance of passing, would bring no impact other than national and international mockery if it did, and represents the worst kind of frivolous resource wasting by our political leaders who should be focused on Montana’s economy and the budget.

What’s troubling is that Dave Lewis isn’t some marginalized fringe figure like Ed Butcher. He’s a respected party leader who sits on some of the most critical committees in the Senate. Maybe some enterprising reporter should ask him if he doesn’t have a better way to spend the time of the staffers in Legislative Services.

Just a couple of thoughts about tomorrow’s primary in a few statewide and local races, from my narrow vantage point. If you haven’t yet, be sure to vote. You can check your registration status and polling place on this handy tool at the Secretary of State’s page.

Democratic Nomination for Congress

I think Tyler Gernant wins this race narrowly tomorrow. While Dennis McDonald certainly had an advantage in name recognition and connection to the party establishment, Gernant’s had a much more energetic and visible campaign. Here in Helena and driving around the state (admittedly the Western part for the most part), I’ve seen more signs for Gernant and he has been much more active in the traditional media and the the ‘net. It’s going to be close, but I think Gernant wins with 50-55% of the vote in a four person race.

If Gernant does indeed win, it’s time for the traditional labor power brokers to reconsider their approach a bit. I don’t think they have the influence in Montana progressive politics that they used to—or still seem to imagine that they do. A Gernant win would be a further sign of that diminished role.

Why haven’t I endorsed either candidate? To be honest, both would be such an improvement over Representative Rehberg that I’m happy to support either in the fall. I’ll be casting my vote for Mark French tomorrow, anyway.

Republican Nomination for Congress

While I don’t share the views of the astute observers on Montana politics at Fox News about tomorrow’s race on the Republican side, it’s been interesting to watch Rehberg scramble to smear his hypocritical “constitutionalist” opponent while simultaneously appealing to the Tea Party fringe.

Rehberg wins this contest easily, but with around 70% of the vote. The real question will be whether or not the constitutionalist  fringe will stick with Rehberg in the fall or follow their principles and reject his socialistic ways.

Local races below the fold.

Senate District 40-Democratic

The most hotly contested race in Helena has to be the Democratic primary in SD 40 which pits Representative Dave Gallik against Representative Mary Caferro. Both are hard-working, energetic candidates who have the interests of working Montanans at the top of their agenda, and both would make excellent Senators. I think Gallik wins the nomination by the narrowest of margins.

House District 78-Democratic

I think Democrats would be better served if Molly Severtson won the primary, but name recognition will be a huge plus for Joe Cohenour. Even though he hasn’t been terribly successful in past runs, through previous campaigns and his wife’s elections, more voters in a relatively quiet primary are likely to vote for him.

House District 78-Republican

This is certainly a tough race to call. You’ve got Phoebe Williams, who is running on no issues and the most annoying radio ad in campaign history. You’ve got  Bowen Greenwood, who simultaneously hangs out at Tea Parties and decries government spending while appealing to potential East Helena voters by saying he won’t cut state jobs and would support the state funding the Historical Center in Helena. Finally, you’ve got Steve Gibson, who has been relatively quiet during this primary following a particularly nasty fight with Jill Cohenhour in 2008.

I think Greenwood’s unique job that offers unmatched time to campaign will give him the edge tomorrow.