Tuesday's Election: Win. Win.

With Max Baucus and Brian Schweitzer leading the way with blow-out wins, Democrats running in Montana for statewide offices did very well on Tuesday, capturing statewide office except its Congressional seat. That comes next.

Precisely why Democrats did not fare better in legislative races is a matter of great debate and hand-wringing.

On balance, that was really the only bad news. After all, Obama consistently polled within the statistical margin of error. Disappointing? Sure. But, Sarah is still governor of Alaska. That’s the best news coming out of Tuesday.

Elections elsewhere yielded more, although less visible, victories for Montana, although it will take time to translate into tangible "wins."

With a combination of wins and losses, there will be a dramatic shake-up in the seniority in the United States Senate, a place where seniority means everything. Because both Max and Jon are both D’s, Montana stands to win, a lot.

Under Senate rules, seniority means everything: the more seniority, the more power. But, being a member of the majority party is advantageous. Most significantly, senators are given preferential treatment for committee assignments based on seniority.

As of this writing, Max ranks 10th overall in seniority. Those ahead of our senior senator include Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Joe Biden, and Pete Domenici. You’ve probably noticed: Their names have been in the news lately.

At worst, Max will move up two slots (Biden – elected VP; Domenici – retired). A Stevens loss, Max is 7th. [The Stevens-Begich race has not been called. If Stevens happens to win, depending on how the Senate deals with Ted’s felony conviction, Max could also move up.] Obviously, all Americans will watch Senator Kennedy’s recovery with great concern.

Jon Tester, moves up even more. OK. So, he was 100th after his 2006 win over Conrad and had no where to go but up. Right now, our junior senator ranks 98th.

These more senior senators have retired or have been defeated: John Warner; Larry Craig; Wayne Allard; Gordon Smith; Chuck Hagel; John Sununu; Liddy Dole. The farmer from Big Sandy moves up at least seven spots. #91.

Additionally, Barack Obama won an important election in his own right. Depending on the person appointed to fill this seat, the organic agriculturalist could move up another notch.

Norm Coleman’s race will be recounted. He currently stands at 77th overall. Lose and the former President of the Montana Senate moves up one spot.

It is likely that Saxby Chambliss (#71) will be forced into a run-off election in Georgia in December. Depending on the outcome of that race, Mr. Flat-top could move up one more place.

Best case: 88.

Couple this with names that have been rumored in conjunction with positions in the Obama administration and Jon Tester could rank in the mid-80’s.

Ok. So?

Max’s position as chair of the Senate Finance Committee benefits Montana immensely. In terms of seniority, he's just about maxed out. But, his committee can literally touch any legislation it chooses.

With Robert Byrd’s announced retirement as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, combined with a larger number of D’s who will serve on the committee because of a larger Senate majority, improves the chances of Tester winning a coveted seat.

Here again, Senators, who serve on the Committee and who leave to assume positions with the incoming administration, create even more opportunities. Members of the Committee who either retired or were defeated on Tuesday (or who may not return for other reasons) include: Stevens; Domenici; Craig; Allard.

During a campaign visit to Montana on Tester's behalf in 2006, Harry Reid sort of "promised" Montana that, if elected, Jon would serve on the Committee.

So far, that hasn't happened.

Be interesting to see how this plays out, after all Tester made campaign appearances on behalf of candidates in many of the states where D's picked up Senate seats.

Regardless, by turning back the McCain bunch and thanks to the electoral misfortunes and ineptitude of R's across the country, Montana won in ways it has not yet begun to appreciate.

Mr. Schweitzer Goes to Washington

It seems unlikely, but, just what if Brian Schweitzer were to go to Washington, DC?

Stranger things have happened. Like Sarah Palin being picked to be #2.

The speculation is based on the long-known fact that Schweitzer will win with with around 62 percent of the vote and the increasing likelihood that Obama will win.

The dog days of October are upon us.

Schweitzer would probably not leave prior to the '09 session. After all, Obama is not sworn in until January 20, 2009. Between November 7 and January 20, Obama would most certainly name his top Cabinet posts before: State; Defense; Health and Human Services; Homeland Security. After the first of the year, it's anybody's guess.

Yes, like you, I have read the stories: Brian “ain’t gonna be nobody’s secretary.” But, there other positions called “director” and “commissioner.” If Schweitzer were to accept something other than cabinet level position, it would have to be something extraordinary. Ambassador? Brian Schweitzer? Nahhhhh.

OK. So, he misspoke and agrees to lower himself into “that cesspool” as he called Washington (DC) politics in his first year as Governor. It's interesting that Brian has not repeated that quote, evidently being sensitive to the Democratic Congressional majorities.

So, let's say Schweitzer is on the short lists for Agriculture, Energy and Interior.

Then what?

There would be loads of speculation, replete with fanfare and Brian Schweitzer in the middle. Can't you just hear the quotes and sound bites?


Two places outline the process of gubernatorial succession: The Montana Constitution and state law to implement the constitution.

The constitution actually does not say the lieutenant governor becomes governor when there is a vacancy.

Article VI, Section 2 says “ . . . the offices of governor and lieutenant governor are voted upon together in primary and general elections.”

Article VI deals with vacancies in (2) the office of lieutenant governor or (2) both the office of governor and office lieutenant governor simultaneously.

Article VI. Section 6. Vacancy in office. (1) If the office of lieutenant governor becomes vacant by his succession to the office of governor, or by his death, resignation, or disability as determined by law, the governor shall appoint a qualified person to serve in that office for the remainder of the term. If both the elected governor and the elected lieutenant governor become unable to serve in the office of governor, succession to the respective offices shall be as provided by law for the period until the next general election. Then, a governor and lieutenant governor shall be elected to fill the remainder of the original term.

Summary: If the office of lieutenant becomes vacant, the governor appoints the successor for the remainder of the term. If both offices are vacant simultaneously, state law kicks in.

Not just a good idea, it's the law.

2-16-511. Vacancy in office of governor and lieutenant governor. (1) If the offices of both the governor and the lieutenant governor become vacant, the president of the senate shall become governor and shall appoint a lieutenant governor. (2) If the president of the senate is unable to assume the office of governor, the speaker of the house shall become governor and a lieutenant governor shall be elected in accordance with the provision of 2-16-512.

While this is not going to happen in this eventuality, the law underscores the importance of the majority party in both the Senate and House if it ever were to occur. [Under a tragic series of events guys like Bob Keenan, Doug Mood and Scott Sales could have been governor. We can only shudder about whom they would have appointed as their #2.]


Scenarios

1. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican, ascends; Bohlinger appoints his choice of lieutenant governor. [Are you kidding? Schweitzer is still in control, baby.]

2. Schweitzer resigns; Bohlinger, a Republican ascends and appoints his successor that is actually (but, unofficially) Schweitzer’s choice. ["]

3. Before Schweitzer resigns, Bohlinger, a Republican, ‘retires’ to spend more time with his bride; Schweitzer appoints his choice to succeed Bohlinger; after a cooling off period, Schweitzer resigns; the newly-appointed governor ascends and names his successor who is actually (but, not officially) Schweitzer’s choice. [" "!]

There are other variations, but you get the drift.

Regardless, Brian Schweitzer, the sly, coy one, doesn’t just ride off into the sunrise. [Riding east to DC and ‘into the sunset’ are not possible.] The only thing Schweitzer likes more than self-promotion is speculation that promotes Brian Schweitzer. Just as he has so far, he will play it for all it’s worth, even if he not a serious candidate.


So, then, who is #2 in a Bohlinger administration?

Energy: The Last Frontier

It’s official. The Montana GOP energy plan is out. It’s a lot like the one favored by some Democrats - - - they just haven’t gotten around to calling it a plan.

It’s called: Dig it! Drill it!

DiDi?

It was good enough for Alan Olson, an R running for the Public Service Commission, to earn the labor [AFL-CIO] endorsement last June.

They say DiDi is all about energy independence and jobs. Not going to cow-tow to a bunch of 'olive-skinned' Middle Easterners. What did our Governor once call them? Raghead dictators?

While the R’s complain about the permitting process and environmental regulations, the truth is that state every law and review process has been written to the complete satisfaction of industry. Oh, wait, there is one they want: Anyone who challenges the sufficiency of an administrative (regulatory) proceeding or initiates a court challenge against a ‘project’ or permit for any reason, must post a bond. A really, really big one. That one hasn't passed just yet - - - something about due process and impeding one's right to access the courts.

Roy Brown says DiDi is about funding for education. Mining companies pay taxes on the coal they produce and there's a lot out there. In fact, Montana sits atop the largest coal reserves in the western hemisphere. Sometimes, outsiders even call Montana the ‘Saudi Arabia of Coal.’ I’d just as soon go without that handle, thank you.

What DiDi is really all about is lunacy.

We all know oil and even coal are going to run out one day. They are finite fossil fuels. Our rate of consumption is growing exponentially and no new coal and oil have been produced, not in our lifetimes anyway. What happens when it all runs out?

And, the there is the little problem called global warming. Some dare refer to it as ‘climate change.’

Yes, science is not 100 percent convinced that we have climate change. As Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer winning, free-marketeer, puts it, only 98 percent of the scientific community agrees that the planet is warming and the increase in temperature is caused by the human production of carbon dioxide.

Let’s say our worldwide atmosphere is your child. Your child has symptoms of a serious illness. So, you go to your family doctor. The diagnosis is the child will die without treating and changing how some systems are functioning.

You love your child and you want to be absolutely certain the recommended treatment is correct. So, you seek a second opinion, and a third, and a fourth and so on until you’ve seen 100 doctors.

Two of them say nothing’s wrong. Just wait and see.

Who do you believe? What do you do?


The cruel truth is that Coal is King. Economies worldwide are built around it because it is abundant, cheap and, although cursed as dirty and unhealthy [black lung and mercury poisoning], thought acceptably benign. It will enjoy a long rule even if we agreed today to phase its consumption down to zero as quickly as politically, economically and all of the other "-icallys" you can list, possible.

So, we continue to mine it and burn it and make electricity in Montana.

Or, we mine it, rail it to buyers elsewhere who burn it and make electricity. The quality of Montana coal [and its distance from markets and the higher transportation costs that result], not out taxes, make it less attractive to buyers than coal from, say, Wyoming.

But, wait a minute. What about 'real' energy independence? After all, we need fuels to run our trains, planes and automobiles.

That’s the coal to liquids caper.

You build a plant and liquefy coal. There aren’t many in operation. Try South Africa. The so-called Fischer-Tropsch was perfected by the Master Race in Nazi Germany. Using the Fischer-Tropsch method, one ton of coal produces 1.5 barrels of diesel fuel. If you are keeping score, a barrel is 42 gallons.

Or, we could turn coal into a gas.

The first thing to note about these processes: They cost zillions of dollars. When the economy was booming, the real question [although not posed this way] was, who is going to the first one dumb enough to build one outside of Africa?

Second thing to note about these processes: They consume massive amounts of water. Years of drought conditions [maybe, just maybe brought on by a warming of the climate] and little precipitation mean the rivers barely run through coal country these days. What little there is belongs to senior water rights holders, ranchers, farmers, municipalities and reserved in-stream flows. Perhaps, instead of going meatless, the humans can go waterless. The fish and wildlife? Gosh, let's see . . .

Third thing to note: They produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Sell it, we're told. Yes, pipe it to compressor stations where it pressurized then forced underground to squeeze crude oil out of once-thought-to-be-depleted oil fields. [And, when the oil is depleted completely, what happens to the CO 2?] Better yet, how about storing ( aka: sequestering) the carbon dioxide underground, a new, but completely untested idea? If I recall correctly, for hundreds of years, didn’t we think the best way to rid ourselves of certain industrial waste by-products was to flush them down a river or heat them up and expel them into the air? That didn’t work out so well.

Fourth thing to note: They consume massive amounts of electricity. Through a whirling dervish of activity, these plants can be trained to sit up and co-generate electricity - - - the process itself consumes roughly 40 percent of the electricity produced. The investors can only hope the cost of the remaining, unused power can be produced at a cost that makes it competitive enough to be sold profitably on the open market.

Earlier this year, the Governor nuzzled up to investors from Australia who, pretty much without any state involvement, concluded an agreement with the Crow Nation to build one of these plants. Although, come to think of it, the media didn’t mention Fischer-Tropsch. [The Aussies do have their own problems with genocide of the Aborigines.]

When the topsy-turvy financial markets and an inadequate supply of water doom the project, the Governor can fade away. Roy, you ask? I don’t know - - - has he actually said he supports these damned things? [Tragically, once again, the White Man’s words will pierce impoverished hearts, souls and stomachs in Indian Country.]

When you enter the frontier, you had better have a real plan. Otherwise you might just be stuck with DiDi: damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Hardly a way to survive.

Hardly a legacy to leave our ancestors.

Which Way to Go?

I’ve been asked more than once: Why should I vote for a Democrat in 2008 for the Montana Legislature?

Given that the Legislature meets for less than four months every two years, the question deserves a full-fledged discussion. So, in response, I usually pose a series of questions.

How much would you be willing to pay to ensure that homeowners and small businesses ( v. multi-national corporations) are treated fairly when tax policy is being set? To see to it that the State of Montana pays its share for funding our Kindergarten through Grade 12 system of public education? To make strategic investments in our colleges of technology and University System? To seriously confront the real costs of more than 145,000 Montanans without health insurance to our state and the remainder of us who have the good fortune of having coverage? To diversify Montana’s energy portfolio by requiring an increasing portion to be derived from renewable resources? To effectively address the causes of climate change and to faithfully perform our responsibilities as stewards of the land?

Those who yearn for a progressive agenda usually say, “A lot.”

How about one hundred and sixty dollars? $160.00 for each closely contested race?

These days you'd have to live under a rock not to know what these races are.

In the next two weeks, that's what it may take. Last-minute responses to late hard-hitting, negative fliers are expensive. And, let's face it, negative, attack mail works [unforunately].

And, then, how about investing a day or two assisting with the get-out-the-vote efforts?

These days, the only way Montana will have progressive policies is to elect a majority of Democrats to the House (at least 51 needed) and the Senate (at least 26 needed).

In the 2005 and 2007 legislative sessions, Democrats managed to hold slim majorities in only the Senate. In each of those sessions, working with Governor Schweitzer, the Senate overcame the obstructive tactics of House Republicans to address and to move an agenda each of the issues included in the questions listed above. The antics of the GOP leadership beginning on the first day of the ’07 session and continuing the last day, complete with Mike Lange’s vulgar tirade, are well documented.

That behavior was mean spirited and destructive, not to Democrats. No, it was destructive to the voters who send legislators to Helena to conduct the public’s business and to safeguard Montana's present and future.

While holding huge legislative majorities in both houses from 1995 through 2003, as well as the Governor’s office, the GOP ran the state into the ground. The Racicot years were marked by a budgetary hocus pocus, under-funding schools, deregulating electricity, gutting water and air quality standards, and shifting huge property tax burdens onto homeowners by extending massive tax cuts to, which went directly to the bottom lines of out of state corporations with no tangible return to the state. Judy Martz stumbled through her four years, but still managed to oversee the effective demise of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Major Facility Siting Act in 2001 and the introduction of massive inequities into Montana’s income tax system in 2003.

Industry got what it demanded and promised to deliver. Exactly what it was supposed to 'deliver' to Montana was clear. But, I am certain it was "a lot."

To the surprise of almost no one, none of it worked, at least not for Montanans trying hold down a decent job, to raise and family and educate their kids. The chicanery was exposed for what is was and Montana careened from one crisis to another.

While Governor Schweitzer and Democrats have made measurable progress, there is still a lot to do. They just need the opportunity. But, it takes legislators who go to Helena prepared to roll up their sleeves and find the common ground in setting policy that is so vital to Montana’s future.

Saying that we must elect Republicans to Helena to help balance things out only works if the GOP allows its members to stray from its hard core, extreme right-wing ideology, something that never occurred in the House during the 2007 session. In fact, in the 2006 election cycle, the GOP specifically targeted and defeated two moderates, Bernie Olson and Mark Noenig, who had the audacity to occasionally vote with Democrats. Ideological cleansing at its best (or worst).

A progressive agenda has begun to blossom.

The question now really is: Do we continue or turn back?

How much would you pay a lobbyist to persuade Republicans to be a part of moving Montana forward? And, if they continue their obstructionist ways, how much will each lost opportunity and setback cost us and future generations?

Let’s get it right starting now.

Questions about Democrats’ ability to manage the state’s finances have been answered. Despite Chicken Little proclamations that taxes would go up in 2005 and 2007, each session was characterized by a fiscal discipline that produced sustainable investments without an increase in taxes. That discipline and attention to the basics produced a surplus and, in 2007, each income taxpayer received a check for $400.00.

There is work to be done in the areas of the Montana economy and the creation of good-paying jobs with benefits, education, health care, and energy.

Each of these will be addressed in future postings. The frame of reference will be: The operations of the House and Senate will be controlled by individuals who are elected into leadership positions or appointed to chair committees. Of the two teams competing to control the process and the agenda in each house, which is better suited to move Montana forward?