DownWithTyranny!: An Opportunity In Montana-- A Chance To Swap Out John Walsh For Progressive Icon Franke Wilmer?

UPDATE: John Walsh officially dropped out of the race this morning.

When the DSCC under Schumer tried to insert a Beltway-oriented corporate DLC hack, John Morrison as the Democratic candidate against floundering Republican incumbent Conrad Burns in 2006, Montana Democrats rose up and slapped Schumer down by nominating insurgent populist John Tester (now Senator John Tester). Though Schumer made sure Morrison could outspend Tester two to one, Democratic voters gave Tester a 65,757 (61.8) to 38,394 (35.5%) drubbing and then went on to win a seat that the pundits said would be "impossible." Rasmussen consistently reported polling numbers for Tester that "proved" he couldn't win-- 38%, 44%, 48%… until Nov. 3, a couple days before election day when they finally acknowledged what was about to happen and reported he was leading Abramoff-crony Burns 50-46%.

This cycle, the DSCC pushed to get another Beltway corporate centrist, John Walsh, into the Senate race. When Montana's ultimate corporate whore, Max Baucus, conveniently resigned his seat to take an ambassadorship, the DSCC didn't have to face Montana Democrats; they maneuvered to get Walsh appointed by the governor… and Montana Democrats were stuck with him-- a candidate who could not possibly win-- against a dreadful Republican hack. And then Walsh melted down in a plagiarism scandal while he was at the U.S. Army War College. All three of Montana's biggest newspapers have called on him to withdraw his candidacy by August 11th so that the state Democratic party can pick someone else to run against Daines by August 20, the cutoff date. From the Missoulian editorial:

Plagiarism is a big deal. It is an act of deception that has serious consequences-- not the least of these being a loss of trust… Walsh’s paper did not just incorrectly attribute a few statements. It lifted entire passages of works from other sources without citing them.

…Montanans simply cannot-- and won’t-- trust a senator who portrayed the words and ideas of others as his own for his own personal gain.

And since Montanans deserve a true choice between candidates this November, Walsh should bow out of the Senate race immediately. With each passing day that Walsh remains in the race, Montana Democrats lose time to replace him with a more viable candidate.

Walsh could resign his Senate seat immediately. Bullock could then appoint a temporary replacement who isn’t running for election, as many Montanans had hoped he would do earlier this year, before he went with Walsh. That replacement could see that the legislation Walsh supported received continued support.

But if Walsh doesn’t do that, at a minimum, he should drop out of the Senate race. He has until Aug. 11 to do so and get his name removed from the ballot, which would allow the Montana Democratic Party to name a replacement candidate by Aug. 20 - just in time to make sure that candidate’s name appears on the ballot.

Indeed, that might be the party’s best hope of getting a Democrat elected, because as it is, Walsh stands very little chance of winning in November.

Polling has been miserable for Walsh and yesterday GOP pollster Vox Populi released a new one showing Daines beating him 47-34% (while Democrat John Lewis is closer to Republican Ryan Zinke in the at-large House race, 44-37%. Skirting the definition of a push poll, they included these two questions:

This week he started canceling campaign events without explanation. Politico reported yesterday that Walsh "is engaged in internal deliberations with his political team about whether to stay on the ballot this year." Politico tossed out a bunch of Beltway-oriented non-starters like Stephanie Schriock from EMILY's List and bankster Dirk Adams. In Montana people have been mulling Missoula state Senator Dave Wanzenreid, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Denise Juneau and Bozeman state Rep Franke Wilmer. Many see Wilmer as the intellectual engine of the Montana Democratic Party's populist/progressive wing. She's been a longtime Blue America fave and we hope she'll agree to run. I November 2011 she did a guest post for us explaining why she chose to become a Democrat:

My parents were Republicans-- and they were right about the importance of individual responsibility, hard work, and sacrifice. Having lived through the Great Depression as young adults those values enabled them to survive hard times. They were working class people, but they were also privileged because they were white. I don't recall hearing them talk about justice or injustice.

My mother was from Terry, MT-- where the federal government lured homesteaders to settle on the railroad line by telling them that if they planted enough crops the climate would change-- that planting more corn would make it rain more. The government called it "agricultural science."

Many in eastern Montana to this day don't trust the federal government and many don't trust “government backed” science either. This mistrust is based on the lived experience of their parents and grandparents. My grandparents gave up after 3 years of drought followed by a fire that destroyed their homestead. They took the railroad east, all the way to the eastern shore of Maryland, where they started over doing what they called "dirt farming." They brought their mistrust of government with them.

I became a Democrat during the civil rights movement because Democrats were right about civil rights. I have a passion for justice-- liberty and freedom are imperfect without justice and fairness. Fairness is a core value for Democrats. The fear among conservatives is that advancing justice diminishes freedom, and they have a point. We should always ask whether, when justice is being advanced, what's being diminished is freedom or privilege. Ending racial discrimination in employment opportunities, for example, could make those who previously enjoyed employment preferences based on race feel as though they lost something. But what they lost was a privilege, an unearned advantage that disadvantaged others. There’s a difference between liberty for all and privileges for some that diminishes others.

What is this "American Dream" we say is being destroyed and needs to be rebuilt? The American Dream is not about rich people getting richer. It's not even about poor people becoming millionaires. The American Dream is about everyone having a fair chance, through hard work and sacrifice, to make the most of their talents and abilities and to make a decent life for themselves and their families.

The key words are everyone and fair chance. Everyone has a fair chance… Not an opportunity determined by arbitrary circumstances or characteristics like race, gender, or economic class. Making the most of one's talents through hard work and sacrifice-- the only limits are the limits of one's own talents and willingness to work hard and make sacrifices.

I often hear my conservative friends (as well as several Republican presidential hopefuls) say, "Life's unfair. Get over it." True-- we should not let the unfairness of circumstances be an excuse for failure or for not working hard and being willing to make sacrifices in order to improve our circumstances. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't also try to do something about unfairness when it is caused by human behavior and public policies.

Who would say to Martin Luther King Jr. "Life's unfair. Get over it"? But where would civil rights be today if Dr. King had said, "Well, it is unfair that I am denied opportunities just because I am black and I cannot change that." His willingness to make sacrifices in the name of justice make him a patriot and an American hero. He believed deeply in the vision of what America could be and he died moving us toward it.

We all have our reasons for loving this country. Unlike other countries, this country was intentionally founded as a democracy, however limited it was at the time of its founding to a privileged class, race, and gender. What is so remarkable is that our founders created a system that would enable us to progress, to create a more perfect union, a more just society in the future. And that promise is also a challenge, even an expectation that we, collectively, can be better people than they were, collectively.

We ended slavery, enfranchised women, and have made progress toward ending many forms of discrimination. There are still many issues on the frontiers of justice today, but the one coming increasingly into focus and a flashpoint for mobilizing mass discontent is economic injustice.

Democrats today must fight the injustice of policies that are making the rich richer and diminishing opportunities for everyone to have a fair chance to develop their talents and make a decent life for themselves and their families. That’s what restoring the American Dream means and that’s why I am still a Democrat.