GUEST COMMENTARY

Montana Democratic Platform Convention: The Wrap Up

Pete - I'm glad to see someone talking about this debate on the blogosphere, but I feel you've mischaracterized the essence of the debate on civil union recognition.

The debate you've drawn your quotes from was on a motion to change language using the word "marriage" and a significantly longer "should do" message to language that would, effectively, do the same thing. Either language would recognize civil unions as having the same legal rights and access as married couples.

Both paragraphs would recognize the sanctity of civil union. One was longer than the other, and used the "word"...and therefore the debate.

As I stated on the floor during the debate, if I were to write a treatise on my personal beliefs, strong language would be included regarding gay marriage. The debate was not about me, however, and it wasn't about our ideal world. Platforms, are about politics - not policy. It's grody to say out loud, but it's helpful to do so.

I am a resident of a state where a constitutional ban on gay marriage passed with 67% of the vote - which means that many, many Democrats voted for it. Know what that tells me? That I have not, personally, done a good enough job educating my friends and neighbors about the issue. It also means that it would be arrogant for me to argue for inclusion of language in our platform that is directly contrary to so many Democrats' beliefs.

Instead of insulating myself in my bastion of Democratic politics - instead of rolling my eyes at those fools who feel good about restricting rights through constitutional amendments - this next year I plan on taking action to change the minds of Dems who don't think that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. I will seek out smart people who disagree with me. I will not speak down to them. I will listen to what they say, and I will work to convince them that I am right. I encourage all who read this to do the same.

AND - the party leadership to which you refer had Tester and Lindeen...and ONLY Tester and Lindeen...in mind when they fought the fight they did. They were right to do so. Our chair and Exec. Dir. are professionals, and are doing a stellar job.

I was not there but heard that a public financing of elections plank was shot down. This has nothing to do with controversial or private virtue fights like gay rights or abortion rights. It's about taking our country back from corporate control. So why would so-called "leadership" be against that?

feral cat - have you read the new platform? you don't have your facts straight...

A resolution was added to the judiciary plank that said the party supported publicly funded judicial (read:non-partisan) races. It passed on the floor.

And...your passive aggressive "so-called leadership" comment is weak. I will assume from your misinformation on the previous issue you get most of your news second/third hand. I invite you to actually participate next time.

Pete,

It would be nice if a candidate needed a majority of votes to win ("50% of the voters plus one person" as you write). That is, however, not the case according to article IV section 5 of the state constitution: In all elections held by the people, the person or persons receiving the largest number of votes shall be declared elected.

If three or more cadidates are vying for a lone seat, the winner could collect far fewer than a majority of votes. I'd like to this changed so that a majority of votes was required to win.

Once again the Democratic party is more interested in pushing their agenda and beliefs on moral Montanans, than listening to what the people have already said. What ever happened to a government for the people - not AT the people?!?

I am well aware of the platform and have worked on the platform before. I am well aware of the party supported public funding of judicial races. I am referring to a proposition that was presented for public financing of statewide races similar to the successful campaigns in Maine and Arizona. The California Nurses Assn got a public financing initiative on the ballot and Angelides has endorsed it. If Californis could pass this, it would be a big win for all Americans who are sick of the money in politics. Public opinion is definitely moving in that direction. And the "independents" that Peter mentions are also interested in anything that will shake up the broken system we have. To be out in front on this to me would have shone Montana's independent spirit.

You are right, the "so-called leadership" might be construed as passive aggressive which I rarely am. Who are leaders and what is leadership should be a separate discussion and a very interesting one. When do you take "baby steps" and when do you forge forward with big bold ideas that independent minded folks are looking for? How do you "hitch the new to the tried and true?"

A lot of people I know are firmly behind public financing which I have been studying for a long time, so I was curious what the arguments might be against it. I am always interested in finding the new idea out of a spirited and intelligent discussion amongst a large group of informed people. That's because I am a believer in small "d" democracy. Yes, I am a Tom Painite/Tom Jeffersonian and not a follower of the Hamilton/Adams side of the discussion which does not trust the grass roots/ the common sense of the people to make decisions.

So what did the platform say about:
protecting the environment?
securing a sustainable, renewable energy supply?
paying for education & health care?
building an economy based on sustainable jobs?
assisting the poor, etc

It is hard to imagine that the platform addresses one issue.

The new platform is currently being entered and formatted, and will be available on-line soon. The 2004 is currently up.

Look for it at http://www.montanademocrats.org/

maybe the website should read http://www.montanarepublicrats.org

Democrats stand for equality and the protection of civil rights, they are obviously not in Montana.

Sid, it's too bad that a Democrat like Joe Lieberman who has been a strong advocate of the Bill of Rights and progressive social policy, while giving his life to public service, has been excoriated by fellow Democrats and the Democratic Party. Senator Lieberman has been very consistent over the years. His positions are essentially unchanged since his VP bid in 2000 when his party universally acclaimed him. Will the Montana Democratic Party and its platform swing 2 standard deviations to the "left" and throw overboard the values and principles of good people like Senator Lieberman or will it truly capture the heart and soul of centrist, pragmatic Montanans like Governor Schweitzer?

Whoa Nelly, Sid. This is a false choice that you pose. Sad to say that Joe Lieberman was not thrown out by Connecticut voters for being a moderate, but having lost touch with the voters of CT. Rural and Suburban voters, and the poor in New Haven and Hartford voted heavily for Ned Lamont. It was more about choosing between insiders like Lieberman who have gotten too cozy with money interests like the pharmaceutical and financial services industries and a challenger to that status quo, Lamont, coming from the people. The NY Times called these Ct. voters "irate moderates". (Schweitzer too ran as an outsider challenging the status quo). The irate middle of America wants out of Iraq, single payer health care and a rein on corporate power so as to stop the hemoraging of jobs out of the U.S. And a return to fiscal sanity.

Every six years we re-evaluate what our Senator has done. In the last 6 years, Joe Lieberman has lost touch with the people of Connecticut and has become a shrill and scolding apologist for the failed policies of the Bush Administration. There is a big difference between compromise and conciliation. And that's what Joe has done. He's become a collaborator. And look at it this way, If the other side doesn't give you anything, what's the point of you giving them political cover? So you can brag about being a nice guy? No, it was all about Joe and not about the people. It was about an elite holding on to his power.
What irks a lot of liberals too is that Lieberman has criticized his party time and time again, but won't allow Democrats to criticize Bush. For Ct voters, He has lost his judgement and lost his way. A vote here and there for good social issues that don't have any impact was not fooling the voters in Connecticut anymore. He may want to "stay the course" in Iraq, but the voters saw clearly that he was steering them off a cliff.

Feral, you wrote: "It was more about choosing between insiders like Lieberman who have gotten too cozy with money interests like the pharmaceutical and financial services industries and a challenger to that status quo, Lamont, coming from the people."

That doesn't pass the giggle test. Ned Lamont is worth somewhere between $90 and $300 million, AND has investment interests in Halliburton and Wal-Mart. Lamont didn't take his cigarette money, buy a lottery ticket, wake up rich, and move out of his double-wide.

Dear Craig,
My reading of events and recent polls indicate that most Americans want a change in direction for this country. Joe represented the status quo and a Congress that rubber stamped Bush's policies even when they have failed over and over. Joe represents a Congress that is just not doing its job from Katrina to Iraq to high gas prices and high energy costs. We're in a barrow pit spinning our wheels. Congress is also supposed to be a check and balance to an overreaching executive. They haven't done this either. Looks to me like the American people want to clean house and they started with Joe, but it won't end there for any incumbent that loses touch with the people back home. If in 6 years Ned Lamont has become too cozy with corporate interests, then the people of Connecticut will vote him out.

Elections are the way the American voter can make their voices heard rather than having term limits.
Like a peer review or an evaluation of your boss every so often, we the people look at how our representatives and judge whether they are working for us or somebody else.

As far as these two particular candidates, I am not talking about either of their personal bank accounts and how they earned their money and what mutual funds they have invested in in the past.
Ned Lamont is a newcomer and has no record of bowing to Big Money Interests and voting for them.
But Joe Lieberman does. People in both parties that I've been talking to are tired of the coziness with Big Money interests that most of our Congress critters have. Being funded by these monopolies have produced bad bills like the pharmaceutical companies yielding a bad prescription drug bill in which the government is not allowed to negotiate for lower price. The finanacial services sector aka credit card companies helped write the terrible bankruptcy bill aimed at the middle class while corporations can declare bankruptcy and screw their investors with much more ease it seems. Joe and Jean Public are smart enough to make the connection between Enron and World Com going bankrupt and Joe and Jean going bankrupt. Joe and Jean can make the connection between record oil profits and what they are paying at the pump and how their representatives have voted time and time again to give the oil companies huge tax breaks.

Until we have public financing of campaigns, we are stuck with a legal but corrupt system where only millionaires like Ned Lamont can challenge the "pigs at the trough". In Arizona and Maine, public financing is letting ordinary citizens not only run for office, but spend all their time talking and listening to their constituents instead of raising money and shaking down corporate and special interests.

Lieberman has and still embraces Bush's failed policies. The angry middle of America has spoken loud and clear.

Feral, you wrote: "Ned Lamont is a newcomer and has no record of bowing to Big Money Interests..."

Ned Lamont is the great-grandson of the former chairman of JP Morgan & Co. It's hard to get more Big Money Interest than that. His voting record on a local level doesn't lend itself to the inference you make since the local issues were local. It did not escape my attention that you conviently 'left' out the corruption by Big Money Labor.

Given the direction of your argument that business interests corrupt politics are you suggesting that Governor Schweitzer is part of the trough feeders since he promotes coal development and ehtanol, ADM's new darling honey pot?

What I found interesting about Ned Lamont's ancestry was his great-grandfather, Thomas, who was JP. Morgan's partner was also a negotiator at the Treaty of Versailles for President Woodrow Wilson. His great-uncle, Corliss was a leader in the ACLU who successfully sued the C.I.A. for domestic spying. His father, an economist, worked on the Marshall Plan after WWII and worked for the Nixon Administration in HUD. Though raised a Republican,He became a Democrat because of Bobby Kennedy. That's kinda my story although my father was an independent leaning sometimes left since he saw how his father struggled on the Ford Motor Line during the depression. My mother was definitely a Republican and I grew up in a very conservative community. Bobby Kennedy made me think of new ways to create a better America thru community development programs and other local groups. He also asked us to define America's progress not by GDP, but by the quality of life for all its citizens. I'm hoping that Ned Lamont will be a good leader. I'm an optimistic realist and hope for the best. I think he may be a terrific thoughtful leader.

I didn't mention labor but, yes, I would include labor as well as groups like the Sierra Club, NARAL, the NRA, and other special interests as having influence on our representatives. However, it's been a long time since labor has had much influence on policy. Rather the reverse. Labor has lost all kinds of battles from relaxation of OSHA rules to no minimum wage raise to closing of textile mills and Maytag factories to an assault on pensions at Delphi and GM to taking away overtime pay from nurses. It just goes on and on.

The ability to corrupt a politician is not restricted to corporations or special interests. The ability to be corrupted is not restricted to Republicans or Democrats.

It is important for we voters to continue to hold all our officials' feet to the fire.

Feral, you have the smooth, silky, and slippery rhetorical style of Marc Racicot. I say that as a compliment. Now, how about Governor Schweitzer's Big Money Interest projects? How about Harry Reid's ties to Big Money gambling interests?

You previously claimed that Ned Lamont is a man of the people. His type of people are born to silver spoons in their mouths and trust funds from old Big Money. They go to private schools and receive every advantage from family connections that back scratch each other. They live in lavish upper-crust communities such as Greenwich with the wealth to afford espousing far left ideology for "others" to live by. (Do you remember that one great line by Howard Hughes in "The Aviator" at dinner with her family?) They have nothing in common with the people they seek to rule. Just my opinion.

Feral, in addition to Governor Schweitzer's ties to coal development and ethanol it seems he has a Holcim problem. See: http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/10772/C396/L396

Yikes. This Holcim deal looks really bad for Montanans' health. I do believe that the huge rise in Austism and Asperger's and ADD has something to do with metals somehow. We are being poisoned every which way. You're right. If the scientists are correct and this plant pollutes, then we need to have them fix it or send them packing. Hope the Governor does the right thing.

I don't think the Montana Department of Environmental Quality would have issued its approval without running it by the Governor. It paints him with the same brush. http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/08/02/montana/a11080206_01.txt

How is it in the same MDP and platform that Governor Schweitzer is pro-coal, pro-Highwood coal plant, and pro-Holcim while Jon Tester is against these vary same development and business interests? Which of these two gentlemen actually represents the interests of Montanans and the MDP?