Montana's Gubernatorial Race
- Thread starter onpoint
- Start date
Schuyler,
Glad you responded. Please feel free to keep up the dialog.
1.) I typed out a lot of stuff but lost it so, excuse the bullet list in response.
2.) Bullock has a proven track record of bringing disparate interests together to find common ground. Sage Grouse is a great example, as is timber. By bringing industries together with conservaton & sportsmen, Bullock has established better relatonships within those constituencies, and that work has kept sage grouse from being listed under the ESA and it's moved management of public lands in a positive direction. Gianforte has surrounded himself with the same people who attack those collaborations. If Bullock surrounded himself with the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Center for Biological Diversity, then I could see your point. Right now, your point is a false equivalency.
2.) Yes, we were able to kill the lion's share of those bills in committee, thanks to the hard work of hundreds if not thousands of Montanans who have taken the time to fight against the GOP dominated legislature. However, many bills, budget line items and amendments have been pushed forward that required the veto pen. It's also important to note that many legislators will work to pass a bad bill they know will get vetoed just because they think that getting vetoed is some kind of political point to be made later. Others still have told me that they're going to vote for a bad bill because they know it will receive a veto and therefore they can trade votes on that to get something else. Log rolling, or vote trading, is a long accepted if somewhat non-public means of getting bills passed and killed for purposes other than passing a bill. I've worked in 11 legislative sessions with 5 in Montana and 6 in Wyoming, as well as worked on several congressional campaigns and this is just how it works. Having the Governor there with the veto pen is a mighty tool that helps keep our legislature in check. Under Gianforte, that backstop is gone.
3.) Gianforte has given money to UPOM, PERC & AFP. All organizations who support the transfer and/or sale of public land. PERC & UPOM have also sued to end our stream access law. The proper corollary would be if Bullock had donated to CBD, PETA or Defenders of Wildlife, not worked with sportsmen's organizations and conservaton groups who share a moderate philosophy on land use and designations. Not all groups are equal. I'd work with the MT Stockgrowers any day of the week and find a way for everyone to be happy at the end (As I did in 2011 with the Bison bill, SB 212). UPOM has no middle ground and pushes an extreme agenda every session that would harm public land hunters.
4.) On the Budget - In 2015, The House sent over a budget that constitutionally invalid and, to use the parlance of our times, a hot mess. Senate Finance & Claims had to spend far too much time fixing it and negotiating with the Gov's office because the House Approps leadership basically said F U to everyone who wasn't a TEA Party adherent. That negotiated budget had to pass both the R led legislature and the Gov's office. It's how GOv't works: People work to find common ground and advance good policy. It takes two to tango, and the GOP, whether you want to admit it or not, voted to support the negotiated budget.
5.) Gianforte's positions and lack of clarity or understanding of public lands & public wildlife are one of the biggest reasons I won't vote for him. Other reasons are that his tax plan would break MT, he consistently lies during the campaign about small stuff like meetings with facebook, which county commissions said what, or attacking tribes. He's proven that his ideas are no different than any one else on the far-right of the party, has openly supported white supremicist candidates, sued to eliminate a stream access easement, doesn't support public education or union workers, hired dark money lawyers to help run his campaign, lies about Syrian refugees coming to MT and what role the Governor actually has in the issue and is clearly working against sportsmen through his donations. Knowing that, I'm pretty confident in my pick of Governor.
I have never hid who I am or how I intend to vote in this election. From a fiscally prudent standpoint, from a christian standpoint and from a citizen of the state of Montana standpoint, Steve Bullock makes a lot more sense than Gianforte. Right leaning people should be scared away from Gianforte because of his extreme positions on education, healthcare, access, public lands, public wildlife, taxation and basic governance. He has not demonstrated any proficiency that would make him a good executive when it comes to actually governing people. Steve Bullock has, and there are a lot of Republicans who feel the same way.
Glad you responded. Please feel free to keep up the dialog.
1.) I typed out a lot of stuff but lost it so, excuse the bullet list in response.
2.) Bullock has a proven track record of bringing disparate interests together to find common ground. Sage Grouse is a great example, as is timber. By bringing industries together with conservaton & sportsmen, Bullock has established better relatonships within those constituencies, and that work has kept sage grouse from being listed under the ESA and it's moved management of public lands in a positive direction. Gianforte has surrounded himself with the same people who attack those collaborations. If Bullock surrounded himself with the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Center for Biological Diversity, then I could see your point. Right now, your point is a false equivalency.
2.) Yes, we were able to kill the lion's share of those bills in committee, thanks to the hard work of hundreds if not thousands of Montanans who have taken the time to fight against the GOP dominated legislature. However, many bills, budget line items and amendments have been pushed forward that required the veto pen. It's also important to note that many legislators will work to pass a bad bill they know will get vetoed just because they think that getting vetoed is some kind of political point to be made later. Others still have told me that they're going to vote for a bad bill because they know it will receive a veto and therefore they can trade votes on that to get something else. Log rolling, or vote trading, is a long accepted if somewhat non-public means of getting bills passed and killed for purposes other than passing a bill. I've worked in 11 legislative sessions with 5 in Montana and 6 in Wyoming, as well as worked on several congressional campaigns and this is just how it works. Having the Governor there with the veto pen is a mighty tool that helps keep our legislature in check. Under Gianforte, that backstop is gone.
3.) Gianforte has given money to UPOM, PERC & AFP. All organizations who support the transfer and/or sale of public land. PERC & UPOM have also sued to end our stream access law. The proper corollary would be if Bullock had donated to CBD, PETA or Defenders of Wildlife, not worked with sportsmen's organizations and conservaton groups who share a moderate philosophy on land use and designations. Not all groups are equal. I'd work with the MT Stockgrowers any day of the week and find a way for everyone to be happy at the end (As I did in 2011 with the Bison bill, SB 212). UPOM has no middle ground and pushes an extreme agenda every session that would harm public land hunters.
4.) On the Budget - In 2015, The House sent over a budget that constitutionally invalid and, to use the parlance of our times, a hot mess. Senate Finance & Claims had to spend far too much time fixing it and negotiating with the Gov's office because the House Approps leadership basically said F U to everyone who wasn't a TEA Party adherent. That negotiated budget had to pass both the R led legislature and the Gov's office. It's how GOv't works: People work to find common ground and advance good policy. It takes two to tango, and the GOP, whether you want to admit it or not, voted to support the negotiated budget.
5.) Gianforte's positions and lack of clarity or understanding of public lands & public wildlife are one of the biggest reasons I won't vote for him. Other reasons are that his tax plan would break MT, he consistently lies during the campaign about small stuff like meetings with facebook, which county commissions said what, or attacking tribes. He's proven that his ideas are no different than any one else on the far-right of the party, has openly supported white supremicist candidates, sued to eliminate a stream access easement, doesn't support public education or union workers, hired dark money lawyers to help run his campaign, lies about Syrian refugees coming to MT and what role the Governor actually has in the issue and is clearly working against sportsmen through his donations. Knowing that, I'm pretty confident in my pick of Governor.
I have never hid who I am or how I intend to vote in this election. From a fiscally prudent standpoint, from a christian standpoint and from a citizen of the state of Montana standpoint, Steve Bullock makes a lot more sense than Gianforte. Right leaning people should be scared away from Gianforte because of his extreme positions on education, healthcare, access, public lands, public wildlife, taxation and basic governance. He has not demonstrated any proficiency that would make him a good executive when it comes to actually governing people. Steve Bullock has, and there are a lot of Republicans who feel the same way.
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
I lean right on almost all issues but I have hold my nose and vote for Bullock. That is after he single handily screwed us in Eastern Montana on an infrastructure bill, after he has sat back and did zero to fight for good paying jobs that will be leaving Colstrip due to the State of Washington liberal whack jobs closing Montana coal fired power plants. After he has literally increased my work load to where now I work for free on about 1 in 4 people who come into my office to sign up for health insurance, after he has cozied up to Hillary, I am still voting for him due to the public lands issue. It is a deal breaker for me.
I don't like admitting it but this election my ballot will look like a six year old's doodle pad by the time I write in candidates and hopscotch across it voting for the lesser of two evils in every race. Makes sick to think about.
Nemont
I don't like admitting it but this election my ballot will look like a six year old's doodle pad by the time I write in candidates and hopscotch across it voting for the lesser of two evils in every race. Makes sick to think about.
Nemont
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 500
Or you could just more simply look to Bullock's outright veto of a infrastructure bill in 2013
You mean the one that would have cratered our rainy day fund and not helped much else out side of a few communities?
Nemont
Well-known member
Ben,
I was there for some of it and the difference was $25 million in cash. He had about $17 million in other bills that he knew he was going to veto. So the total difference was really $7 million in cash plus the dead bills he vetoed. He then backed out of the deal he made with the speaker and crapped backwards on every eastern Montana county that is impacted by the Bakken boom. They could have funded the bill and had the rainy day fund still fully funded.
So he isn't Saint Steve in my book, I am still going to vote for him and then go the local brewery and get the hoppiest, most bitter IPA they brew, down 48 ounces of it in 15 minutes to try and get the taste of voting for him out of my mouth.
Nemont
I was there for some of it and the difference was $25 million in cash. He had about $17 million in other bills that he knew he was going to veto. So the total difference was really $7 million in cash plus the dead bills he vetoed. He then backed out of the deal he made with the speaker and crapped backwards on every eastern Montana county that is impacted by the Bakken boom. They could have funded the bill and had the rainy day fund still fully funded.
So he isn't Saint Steve in my book, I am still going to vote for him and then go the local brewery and get the hoppiest, most bitter IPA they brew, down 48 ounces of it in 15 minutes to try and get the taste of voting for him out of my mouth.
Nemont
I don't think he's a saint either, but it takes two to tango and the Leg has done everything they can to make sure that they are just as ineffective as congress. On SB 416 last session, it literally came down to 1 vote. When Staffanson realized he cast the vote that killed infrastructure, he desperately tried to reconsider so he could push it over the edge. The House of Representatives, especially the leadership, killed infrastructure in 2015.
Here's a chunk of the info from 13: https://governor.mt.gov/Portals/16/...Impact and Infrastructure Project Release.pdf
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Forthright statements, Carbon, Ben Lamb and Nemont. Similar to Carbon, my lifelong Montana Republican voting and political posture has been drastically altered by the past several legislative sessions, during which Republicans no longer represented my views and interests.
Aside from the critical public lands issues, Gianforte presents a concerning approach to governing in stating that he would replace all state department directors and direct state agencies to either ignore or eliminate policies and regulations in place which create any delays in business because of existing due process in acquiring permits. Seemingly, his position ignores that many of the regulations and policies are derived from and by federal laws. Most state department directors, although likely with personal political attitudes, strive to avoid politicizing their respective department work. Furthermore, to cast aside those upper level, highly experienced, knowledgeable, and dedicated state administrators would create serious problems for most agencies.
As someone who has financially supported and advocated strongly for private schools, Gianforte would very likely support using state funding for private schools, which is contrary to my strong support of public education and furthermore contrary to the Montana Constitution.
Although it is only fair to respect Gianforte's right to form his own opinions regarding religion, discrimination, private schools, evolution, and other oft contentious topics, yet to learn of his radical views is disconcerting when considering him as someone who could be Governor of Montana.
Aside from the critical public lands issues, Gianforte presents a concerning approach to governing in stating that he would replace all state department directors and direct state agencies to either ignore or eliminate policies and regulations in place which create any delays in business because of existing due process in acquiring permits. Seemingly, his position ignores that many of the regulations and policies are derived from and by federal laws. Most state department directors, although likely with personal political attitudes, strive to avoid politicizing their respective department work. Furthermore, to cast aside those upper level, highly experienced, knowledgeable, and dedicated state administrators would create serious problems for most agencies.
As someone who has financially supported and advocated strongly for private schools, Gianforte would very likely support using state funding for private schools, which is contrary to my strong support of public education and furthermore contrary to the Montana Constitution.
Although it is only fair to respect Gianforte's right to form his own opinions regarding religion, discrimination, private schools, evolution, and other oft contentious topics, yet to learn of his radical views is disconcerting when considering him as someone who could be Governor of Montana.
Nemont
Well-known member
The legislature has been a shit show for a while now. It isn't like the Gov did diddly squat to try and get the money together to help us out here on the east coast of Montana so I am not going to say he did. He was more interested in getting money to build a new museum in Helena than in a water project in Vida.
While $45 million is nice, it doesn't even pay for the impacts in just Culbertson and Bainville let alone the rest of the area impacted. They have no problem expecting the revenue to flow when an oil well is drilled but the Butte mafia and the Helena first bunch doesn't give two shits about anything east of Great Falls until they want to shoot a few roosters or bitch about farmers and ranchers locking their gates to sportsman and Bullock is in lock step with them. Ask the guys and gals in Colstrip how much the Gov. has done for them.
Like I said I have made up my mind to vote for him, the sad thing is that it isn't because he is great as being gov. he simply sucks less then the other guy.
Nemont
While $45 million is nice, it doesn't even pay for the impacts in just Culbertson and Bainville let alone the rest of the area impacted. They have no problem expecting the revenue to flow when an oil well is drilled but the Butte mafia and the Helena first bunch doesn't give two shits about anything east of Great Falls until they want to shoot a few roosters or bitch about farmers and ranchers locking their gates to sportsman and Bullock is in lock step with them. Ask the guys and gals in Colstrip how much the Gov. has done for them.
Like I said I have made up my mind to vote for him, the sad thing is that it isn't because he is great as being gov. he simply sucks less then the other guy.
Nemont
Last edited:
respectfully, I think that's not quite true. It's certainly the narrative out in your part of Montana, but that doesn't mean much when 150 villages end their mensa candidates to craft policy. We're a state that is supposed to work together. One party has taken a no prisoners approach to everything. So much so that there is a massive split in that party now.
If it makes you feel any better, the Butte Mafia was denied their Veterans Rest Home, so EMont legislators have that to be proud of.
Regarding Colstrip - I wish I had job security for the next 6 years. That's basically what those guys have, and to think that the Governor should tell private business that they have to stay in business is anti-capitalist, isn't it? The companies that own Colstrip don't want it. It loses money for them. Washington State also has the right decide what they do and don't support when it comes to energy markets as well as what they ship from their ports. Don't they? Should the Colstrip workers be more important than the guys who own rafting companies in Gardiner, Pray or Livingston? Which jobs matter, and which ones don't?
Bullock has worked to find balance on both climate and energy. He's made a lot of people angry on both sides of the aisle. He's worked with Ankney to find a path forward, and I would remind you that it's Colstrip & Butte Legislators who are working solutions for the workers, and even trying to nationalize the plant so that it continues to provide heavily subsidized jobs.
Nemont
Well-known member
I am going to agree to disagree with you. Bullock isn't a great gov and unfortunately we are stuck with him.
Are you sure that Colstrip is unprofitable due market forces or due to government intervention and dislike of coal? If it was just the free market making it unprofitable, hey I am a free marketeer let it die a natural death due to the market saying no. That isn't even close to the reality of why they want to shut down Colstrip 1 and 2.
Why do voters in Washington state get a say in what kinds of goods are exported from their ports when those goods cross state lines? What happens if they decide wheat, peas, lentils, corn and beef are also major polluters of the environment? I thought I read in some document that goods that cross state lines are governed specifically by the Federal government and not by the states? In fact I believe the power of congress over interstate trade absolute.
Way off topic and I will cease after this post but if the State of Washington gets to decide they don't want Montana coal, then what happens if we don't want their apples or the smelly, gauged eared tattoed hipsters? Can we ban them also since we should be able to decide what we can and cannot accept here in Montana.
I am out.
Nemont
Are you sure that Colstrip is unprofitable due market forces or due to government intervention and dislike of coal? If it was just the free market making it unprofitable, hey I am a free marketeer let it die a natural death due to the market saying no. That isn't even close to the reality of why they want to shut down Colstrip 1 and 2.
Why do voters in Washington state get a say in what kinds of goods are exported from their ports when those goods cross state lines? What happens if they decide wheat, peas, lentils, corn and beef are also major polluters of the environment? I thought I read in some document that goods that cross state lines are governed specifically by the Federal government and not by the states? In fact I believe the power of congress over interstate trade absolute.
Way off topic and I will cease after this post but if the State of Washington gets to decide they don't want Montana coal, then what happens if we don't want their apples or the smelly, gauged eared tattoed hipsters? Can we ban them also since we should be able to decide what we can and cannot accept here in Montana.
I am out.
Nemont
Last edited:
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 500
Since you brought it up, the rainy day fund is presently cratered, so where was Bullock's financial conservatism this last session? SB 416 was a mix of cash and bonds, and had it passed, would have eaten away most of what remains in the rainy day fund today? If Bullock truly cared about the "rainy day fund" and it wasn't just a coveneint excuse for his 2013 veto, shouldn't he be thanking the GOP reps for stopping SB 416?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No, in fact Gov Bullock advocates for an increased minimum in the rainy day fund balance, which far exceeds that suggested by Gianforte. State budget gurus postulate that Gianforte's suggested balance would create mid year deficits. Fiscal conservatism seems to be a matter of perspective.
Bullock will get my vote...Don't forget about another very important race....the supreme court. Juras will kill stream access and has said she is against it. Sandefur vows to protect it. I have been Republican my whole life but Republican party has lost me with their plan to wholesale dispose of MY, YOURS, OUR public lands. I will be voting democrat in legislative races as well.
It wouldn't have cratered the rainy day fund like the cash only proposals the right wing of the GOP wanted, especially in conjunction with the tax breaks they wanted to give. His veto in 2013 was about the ending balance. Which, btw, is still over $300 million in the bank today.
MooseCaboose
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2014
- Messages
- 500
Billings Gazette 9/7/2016
"That ending fund balance, which acts as a cushion against revenue shortfalls and unexpected spending over the state's two-year budget cycle, stood at $255 million at the beginning of July. Legislative fiscal analysts said the fund could drop below $120 million by mid-2017."
http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_736e0b1c-c81c-5a22-a9c3-0d9cf2db2667.html
onpoint
Well-known member
I stated I would not reply, so I'll call this an observation
I'm pretty damn liberal - if you want to brand me with a pathetically inadequate label - Have and use a lot of guns, dislike welfare of ANY sort, college educated, flyfisherman who thinks the real fisherman are bait dunkers, 2003 truck driving, nonreligious, hunt and shoot most critters, river rat, little league world series loving, antisocial, opinionated, pissed off 'cause I seem destined to never get a Mtn Goat tag ......
Being that "liberal" - I, like Nemont (heh-heh) will grudgingly vote for Bullock. He's been a part of a few things I'm not fond of. But he doesn't scare me the way a Gianforte/GOP legislature does. I don't feel compelled to explain anymore. I have lost the gumption to argue about politics - The polarization seems so complete I think it's a waste of time. I think we (outdoorsman included) have arrived at the time "it's us against them"... That sucks.
Straight Arrow is never going convince whoever the hell Rammac is to change his mind or vice versa.
One thing I know for sure, any asshat that even exhibits a hint of leaning towards taking away what is ours will never get my vote.
I just really hope that I'll always get to vote against one of 'em.
I hope that wasn't a reply.......
I'm pretty damn liberal - if you want to brand me with a pathetically inadequate label - Have and use a lot of guns, dislike welfare of ANY sort, college educated, flyfisherman who thinks the real fisherman are bait dunkers, 2003 truck driving, nonreligious, hunt and shoot most critters, river rat, little league world series loving, antisocial, opinionated, pissed off 'cause I seem destined to never get a Mtn Goat tag ......
Being that "liberal" - I, like Nemont (heh-heh) will grudgingly vote for Bullock. He's been a part of a few things I'm not fond of. But he doesn't scare me the way a Gianforte/GOP legislature does. I don't feel compelled to explain anymore. I have lost the gumption to argue about politics - The polarization seems so complete I think it's a waste of time. I think we (outdoorsman included) have arrived at the time "it's us against them"... That sucks.
Straight Arrow is never going convince whoever the hell Rammac is to change his mind or vice versa.
One thing I know for sure, any asshat that even exhibits a hint of leaning towards taking away what is ours will never get my vote.
I just really hope that I'll always get to vote against one of 'em.
I hope that wasn't a reply.......
