Meanwhile, Back In Montana…

When John Bohlinger comes into any town in Montana to talk policy, it is news. Veteran journalist Mike Dennison interviewing Bohlinger last week on a campaign policy tour

Beltway Democrats decided their best chance to hold the Montana Senate seat would be to replace Max Baucus-- who was given a plumb job as ambassador to China-- with the conservative John Walsh. Walsh gets to run as an incumbent against radical right extremist Steve Daines, a congressman. At the end of 2013 Walsh had $435,549 in his campaign kitty. Daines had $1,897,935. And the Koch brothers and other fat cats and anti-democracy plutocrats will spend handsomely to capture the seat. Remember, the close race that McCain won in 2008 wasn't all that close in 2012, when Romney beat Obama 55-42%. Democrat Steve Bullock was elected governor that day, though, 49-47% and Democrat Jon Tester was reelected to the Senate over Denny Rehberg 49-45%. Very purple. But can an appointed corporate shill of the Beltway Democratic Establishment win this race? Almost unimaginable!

Although the DSCC tried, Walsh doesn't have the Democratic nomination wrapped up. They attempted to push Schweitzer's Lt Governor, John Bohlinger (who we've talked about before), out of the race… and that backfired. The mnore they pushed, the more he became convinced that he owed it to Montana to stay in the race.

Walsh also has a primary challenger in John Bohlinger, a quirky, bow-tie wearing former two-term lieutenant governor in the Brian Schweitzer administration who is positioning himself as the progressive alternative. Democrats expect Walsh to prevail in the June primary, but Bohlinger’s name recognition in the state can’t be underestimated.

…He’s campaigning on public campaign finance system, a minimum wage hike, an increase in Social Security benefits and greater protections for gays and lesbians-- but also as the insurgent who wouldn't step down for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who told him last fall he didn't want a primary.

With a fair-minded reputation and a grandfatherly demeanor, don’t expect Bohlinger to sling mud at Walsh-- “I’m not going to make much about what our differences our … I want to talk about what I’m for,” he says.

But he hits a nerve when he charges that his real problem with the senator is that he doesn’t know what he truly stands for.

“I really can’t comment on his politics because I have not heard him articulate his views on things. I really don’t know where he stands. I think a lot of Montanans would say we really don’t know the guy,” Bohlinger says. “I suppose that somebody will tell him what to say.”

Meanwhile, if Walsh got a bump with the voters from the appointment, it has yet to show up in any polls. While there hasn't been any public polling on the primary since PPP had both in the 30s in Dec, it remains basically 1/3 for Walsh, 1/3 for Bohlinger with the rest up for grabs. This is a single digit primary, and I've heard reliable chatter that Bohlinger is even within the margin of error in Walsh's DSCC polling.

He's just been keeping his head down and putting in a ton of highway miles. Our old friend Franke Wilmer has introduced Bohlinger twice in Bozeman in the last 2 weeks, both times explaining how she first met him when he was the only legislator at gay pride parades in the early 1990s. There's one primary debate scheduled on May 3 and many Democrats are taking a second look at Bohlinger after realizing Walsh can't beat Daines, regardless of what Beltway insiders want. Like another populist western Democrat the Beltway insiders is wary of, South Dakota's Rick Weiland, Bohlinger is campaigning on getting the big money out of politics. And that's been something he's been pushing for years and for which he has a two-pronged plan:

1. Implement I-166 and strengthen the US Constitution by explicitly declaring that corporations aren't people and money isn't speech.

2. Pass the Government By the People Act of 2014 to create a system of public financing that candidates could choose instead of relying upon DC lobbyists and PACs.

I'm sure you're familiar with I-166, you were probably among the 74.7% of Montanans who voted for it in 2012. But have you read up the Government By the People Act that Congressman Sarbanes introduced in February? It already has 141 cosponsors, despite not having any from the Montana delegation.

You come away from looking into Bohlinger with the certainty that-- unlike Daines or Walsh-- he can't be bought by lobbyists. On policy matters, he talks about expanding Social Security, not cutting back on it. Montana is a grey-haired state and over 20% of all Montanans are on Social Security. This messaging resonates so perfectly on the stump that every Democrat in the country should run on this. That and single payer which, we are told, gets the most applause in every single town and after the very successful Schweitzer-Bohlinger health care record, is something Montana Dems take seriously.

The primary is June 3rd, absentees go out 30 days earlier and the majority of votes will be cast before election day. If Bohlinger can beat Montana's weak appointed senator in the primary, nobody is going to doubt whether he can beat Montana's unpopular GOP congressman come fall. If Walsh is the nominee, Democrats will lose the seat and maybe the Senate. The way to win is to run on the Schweitzer-Bohlinger successes. That's resonating with more and more Democratic voters.

16 Democrats Ready To Join Republicans In Selling Out American National Interests

Who's afraid of AIPAC? Apparently a shitload of craven Democrats in the U.S. Senate. So far 59 senators have signed on as co-sponsors of legislation that was ostensibly written by 2 non-Jewish AIPAC shills, Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) but initiated by Joe Lieberman and Israel's far right Likud Party and clearly meant to torpedo the peace process. Senators of questionable loyalty to America in matters regarding Israel-- including 16 AIPAC-owned Democrats, particularly Menendez, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Ben Cardin, Michael Bennet, Bob Casey, Mark Begich, Kay Hagan, Mark Pryor, Chris Coons, Mary Landrieu, Mark Warner, and, of course, Joe Donnelly and Joe Manchin.

Maybe they remember how AIPAC, whose first loyalty is always to Israel and never to America, systematically set about to destroy the careers of patriotic American congressmembers Earl Hilliard (D-AL) in 2001 and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) when they tried to remind people that Israel isn't the 51st state. In 2002 AIPAC and its big-spending allies knocked out Hilliard in a primary run-off with conservative corporate whore Artur Davis and the same year they engineered the defeat of McKinney in a primary battle with AIPAC lackey Denise Majette, marshaling a big Republican crossover vote.

As USAToday opined Monday in an editorial against the Menendez-Kirk legislation, the bill "would almost surely torpedo the peace bid" and "dictates terms of the final agreement-- specifically, that Iran must halt not just its nuclear weapons program but rather stop all enrichment of uranium, including any used for nuclear power."

That is precisely the issue that makes the negotiations extraordinarily delicate. Iran is so publicly committed to its right to enrich that its negotiators could not give in to such a dictate even if they want to.

Nor does the bill stop there. It expresses "the sense of Congress" that if Israel decides to attack Iran, the United States should provide military support. The provision doesn't quite outsource American war decisions to Israel; Congress would still need a second vote to turn its dubious "sense" into action. But the implication is hard to miss.

The bill is useful only if held in reserve. The fact that it has so many sponsors is sufficient to deliver the message to Iran. Passing it, on the other hand, virtually guarantees an end to negotiations and a quick path to war. The Iranians are already committed to walking out if the bill passes, despite President Obama's promise of a veto, and they appear to be within months of a nuclear capability that both Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have said that they will not allow.

There is only one sensible strategy. Everyone on the U.S. side agrees that success requires the credible dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. And no one, including Secretary of State John Kerry, believes that objective can be easily attained.

What's missing is agreement on the definition of credible dismantling. That is best left to the negotiators, and judged at the end of their work. Congress will still have its say then. For now, Congress would better serve the country-- and those who would fight the war that its hawks invite-- by rattling its sabers rather than plunging them into the negotiators' hearts.

Steny Hoyer, long one of the House's worst and most contemptible AIPAC shills, attacked President Obama Tuesday for his efforts to prevent war with Iran. Leaders against this abomination in the Senate have been Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Murphy seems to have persuaded his Connecticut colleague, Richard Blumenthal to rethink his support and back away from the toxic bill. John Bollinger, the progressive candidate for the Montana U.S. Senate seat Max Baucus is giving up sent this video to his supporters yesterday:



Later he told me that "We need to give peace a chance to work. Of course, Washington, DC politics are tilted toward war. But after more than a dozen years of war, we should be war weary. If I were in the US Senate, I would fight against the push for increased sanctions to derail the disarmament framework… It's time to bring our troops home. Our modern military can deploy to any hotspot on the globe in 72 hours, we don't need troops deployed to 150 countries. It's time to rebuild America. We can't afford to rebuild America if we go on another military adventure in the Middle East. We need US Senators who will give diplomacy a chance to succeed, not repeat the same mistakes again. America is ready for a peace dividend."

And even self-proclaimed hawks see the Menendez-Kirk legislation as counterproductive. No one would argue that Jeffrey Goldberg, one of the Bush-era shills who helped lie the public into war with Iraq, is anything but a bloodthirsty warmonger. Yesterday he penned an OpEd opposing their bill.

For years, Iran hawks have argued that only punishing sanctions, combined with the threat of military force, would bring Tehran to the nuclear negotiating table. Finally, Iran is at the table. And for reasons that are alternately inexplicable, presumptuous and bellicose, Iran hawks have decided that now is the moment to slap additional sanctions on the Iranian regime.

The bill before the U.S. Senate, which has 59 co-sponsors at last count, will not achieve the denuclearization of Iran. It will not lead to the defunding of Hezbollah by Iran or to the withdrawal of Iranian support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. What it could do is move the U.S. closer to war with Iran and, crucially, make Iran appear-- even to many of the U.S.'s allies-- to be the victim of American intransigence, even aggression. It would be quite an achievement to allow Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, to play the role of injured party in this drama. But the Senate is poised to do just that.

…The most dangerous consequence of these Senate sanctions would manifest itself in places such as Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul and New Delhi. In order to work, sanctions must have the support of the world’s main industrial powers. If countries such as China and India decide that the U.S. is making a concerted attempt to subvert negotiations, their enthusiasm for sanctions will wane dramatically.

The time may come when additional sanctions are necessary-- say, after six months of fruitless negotiations (six months, it should be noted, during which Iran will be closely monitored to ensure that it has kept its nuclear program frozen). At a certain point, two or three months from now, it may become obvious that the talks are destined to fail, at which point more sanctions would be appropriate. But for now, new sanctions, just as negotiations are starting, would be provocative and escalatory and would undermine the administration’s attempt to denuclearize Iran without going to war.

Guest Post From John Bohlinger, Montana's Progressive Candidate For The Senate-- And An Ex-Republican

This week I visited with John Bohlinger, the progressive in Montana's U.S. Senate race. A former Republican state legislator, John switched parties from the GOP to the Democrats and I asked him to explain why. I'm always curious about what make someone switch. Sometimes-- like Charlie Crist or Patrick Murphy in Florida-- it's just opportunism. But it wasn't opportunism for Elizabeth Warren or for Jason Thigpen when they became Democrats. Sometimes, it's about values and a vision for the country, not about careerism. So I asked John, whose race we've already been covering here to write a guest post introducing himself and telling everyone what made him switch parties.

Growth in Political Thought
by John Bohlinger, Montana Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate

I became of age politically when David Dwight Eisenhower ran for the Presidency in 1953. During his 2 terms he led the Republican Party and their progressive agenda that included such things as deficit spending to strengthen the economy, and increasing taxes to balance the budget. He was also a proponent of expanding the role of the Government in areas of public health and human services, as well as running his Administration on sound business principles.

His leadership influenced many progressive thinkers to find a home in the Republican Party. I did not wear the label well, in that I think of myself as Moderate, and chose to support candidates whose agendas came closer to matching mine.

For many years, I wanted to be a candidate for office, but delayed that decision because I had 6 children at home, and had a business to run. I did not think it would be fair to my family if I chose to run for office, nor would it be wise for me to take positions that might offend half of my customers.

After my children were raised, and I had sold my business, I was now able to run for the Montana Legislature. I chose to run as a Republican, because there was still room for Moderates in the Party of Ike. I was elected to the Montana House of Representatives in 1992, and after my first term, realized that I did not fit in their caucus. I got little support for the issues I brought forward from my Republican colleagues. I thought about jumping ship and running as a Democrat in the 1994 election cycle, but was talked out of it by a friend and political reporter from the Billings Gazette. He told me to stay and be a conscience for the Republican Party.

I stayed in the Republican Party, where I was elected to 3 terms to our House of Representatives and 2 terms to our State Senate, but always with Primary opposition. During my time there I brought forward Bills that cleaned up air quality standards for SO2 emissions, a school weapons Bill, a Bill that would add to our Human Rights sexual orientation, a Bill that would make pimping a felony, and many others.

It was in the 2001 Session we were debating HB 2, the General Fund Bill. It was crafted in the Republican controlled House, and omitted funding for 3 important Human Service efforts of previous Legislatures. It was their plan to no longer buy drugs for the mentally ill, or day-care services for young mothers, but the straw that broke this camel’s back came when they proposed to reduce their commitment to the Meals on Wheels program.

I stood on the Senate floor I told them I couldn’t support the budget bill because I felt purchasing drugs for the mentally ill allowed them to go to work and have a normal life. If we discontinued this program, they would find themselves in our jails or the emergency rooms of our hospitals. I told them that paying for day-care allowed these young women to continue their education, rather than stay home and take care of their babies. The Meals on Wheels Program allowed elderly people of lesser means a source of sustenance. God tells us to feed the hungry, this is not optional!

I came 7 votes short of the bold move of collapsing the Session, which would have allowed me to bring forward some revenue Bills, but it did get Brian Schweitzer’s attention, who appreciated my courage to speak out on these important matters. Brian was a declared Democratic candidate for Governor, and looking for a running mate. He and I formed a partnership that reached across the aisle to bring Democrats and Republicans together.

We were elected Governor and Lt. Governor in 2004 and re-elected in 2008, in what has been called the most effective administration in Montana’s history. When we came into office in 2005 we inherited an ending fund balance of almost $50 million, when we left office in January of 2013, we passed off an ending fund balance of $450 million. We did so without raising taxes, we put historic amounts of new money into education and the human services functions of government. We developed our natural resources and we put Montanans to work.

It was in the Democratic Schweitzer administration I found my political home, one that looked like Ike’s. It is my experience there is no room for Moderates in today’s Republican Party, they have been crowded out by the Tea Party Members. Moderates have either become Independents or Democrats, and I choose to become a Democrat.

If you look at trends in political thought, you will find the electorate is progressing. For instance, look at marriage equality… the country has progressed on the issue. Look at health care, Americans want universal health care: we do not have to do polling to discover that.

I have been part of this journey of progress over the past 20 years. I can empathize with those who have yet to cross the bridge, and in this campaign I hope our leadership can bring others on this journey of progress, for a more just and prosperous future.

We need greater numbers of people to overcome the special interests and their enormous sums of money. Having made the journey myself I am the best messenger to bring more people along with us.

Together, we can beat the Tea Party nominee in November and hold Democratic control of the US Senate. Then together, we must get right to work fixing DC. Brian Schweitzer and I have a success story, we saved Montana. Now it’s time to save our country.

Will The DSCC Try To Force A Weaker Candidate On Montana Democrats Again?

Having been mercilessly smeared for 6 years by right-wing media, Obama is now profoundly unpopular in red states. The ultimate "gotcha" moment for Republicans was when they were able to paint the president as dishonest in the "you can keep your healthcare if you like it" statement. Anyone who ever wanted to hate Obama now has all the reason they ever wanted. In Montana, his approval rating has sunk over 10 points since Tester and Obama were running for reelection last year and is now a dismal 34%. Democrats in red states and red districts aren't mentioning him. Smart ones, like former Montana Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger, an ex-Republican now running for the Senate as the progressive in a 3-man primary, are following the lead of progressive thinkers like Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders. Watch that video up top: "The first bill that I will sign onto," promised Bohlinger, "is S 897, Senator Elizabeth Warren's bill, titled 'the Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act'."

Bohlinger, who is running on a platform that highlights core progressive values-- from single payer universal healthcare (basically, Medicare for anyone who wants to buy it) to a tough position against unconstitutional domestic spying, is slightly ahead of the Baucus machine candidate, John Walsh, in head to head match-ups against likely Republican nominee Steve Daines. Daines leads both but his margin over Walsh is 52-35% but only 51-36% over Bohlinger. Ironically, it is progressive Democrats-- self-described liberals-- who are most wary of Bohlinger, knowing only that he's an ex-Republican and not that he's the progressive in the race while Walsh in the conservative corporate Dem with a cozy relationship with sleazy lobbyists and entitled Big Business executives.

Bohlinger would like the DSCC to stay out of the primary and let Montanans decide for themselves who their nominee should be, the way they did when they picked Tester over a Wall Street-oriented schnook named Morrison the DSCC tried dumping on them in 2006. As Gov. Schweitzer said last week, "Don't listen to the bullshit you hear in Washington, D.C. If the election were held today, John Bohlinger would win 2-to-1 over John Walsh. He's not going to raise the money Walsh is because D.C. has selected Walsh as their candidate. ... But the election isn't right now, it's next year, and the Democratic Senate machine in Washington, D.C. has their sights set on John Walsh, so he'll have a lot more money than John Bohlinger."

Yesterday Bohlinger launched a petition at MoveOn urging the DSCC to stay neutral until after the primary.

Montana Democrats should decide our senate nominee, not Washington, DC party bosses.

We believe the DSCC should abide by the Montana Democratic Party's ban on party intervention in the primary.

Philosophically, it makes no sense for political parties to boss political primaries.

But the objection is not just philosophical, it is pragmatic: DC usually backs the wrong candidate.

Here in Montana, our state party rules ban intervention in primaries. We let the voters decide and it is a smart policy.

But the Washington, DC based Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is trying to boss our 2014 senate nomination. The Senate Majority Leader even tried to prevent voters from even having a choice.

Adding insult to injury, new Public Policy Polling results show the candidate the DSCC is backing has *worse* poll numbers for the general election, in a race that could decide control of the US senate.

Washington, DC wants somebody who won't rock the boat. Washington, DC wants somebody who won't mention "single-payer" and talk about health care as a fundamental right. Washington, DC wants somebody who won't mention "Snowden" and talk about the need to restore the Fourth Amendment. Washington, DC wants somebody who will follow orders, not fight to fix the filibuster.

Montana voters deserve a choice. And Montana Democrats should be the only ones deciding who will represent us in the November general election.

Does Max Baucus Get To Choose His Senate Successor?

Brian Schweitzer: "Don't listen to the bullshit you hear in Washington, D.C. If the election were held today, John Bohlinger would win 2-to-1 over John Walsh."

-by Bob Brigham

The last time there was on open US Senate seat out here in Montana was in 1978. As your author was in diapers, I didn’t get a choice. Those who did sent Max Baucus to Washington, where he’s remained to this day.

With poll numbers that have been in the toilet since he let health insurance lobbyists write his health care bill, Max Baucus announced this spring that he would not running for reelection. This set up the first open senate race in Montana since the one Baucus won thirty-five years ago.

It looked like popular former Governor Brian Schweitzer would run. Progressives were thrilled that a single payer supporter was the frontrunner to replace Baucus. But alas, the good guv didn’t run.

There are now two main candidates in the Democratic Party primary. John Bohlinger, who was Schweitzer’s Lt Gov for all eight years. And John Walsh, who since January has been the current Lt Gov under Governor Steve Bullock.

Max Baucus is backing John Walsh and bankrolling his campaign.

The DSCC is going along with Max Baucus, publicly backing John Walsh as senate leadership’s chosen successor to Max Baucus. Harry Reid even tried to get Schweitzer’s Lt Gov to drop out.

Unfortunately, the DSCC and DCCC have been all too successful at clearing primaries and denying grassroots Democrats a say in the direction of the party. They just assumed that Max Baucus’s chosen successor would be fine so there was no need to even have a vote.

Their scheme might have even worked, were it not for one critical flaw: John Bohlinger thought it an affront.

This came as no surprise to Montana political observers. David Sirota worked with Bohlinger and Schweitzer, he tells this story:

That’s the John Bohlinger that Montanans are familiar with. The last two decades of Montana politics are but a series of stories of political adversaries assuming that because he wears a bow tie and has a grandfatherly smile, John Bohlinger must be a pushover. Every single time they’re proved wrong. He was the only guy in Montana tough enough to be Brian Schweitzer’s second in command.

So when the consultants came up with a scheme to keep the Baucus gravy-train rolling despite his retirement, it should have surprised nobody that John Bohlinger did not abide.

And by the mere fact that Bohlinger is willing to stand up to the DSCC and Harry Reid, he’s won what Matt Stoller called, “the bar fight primary.”

So there’s going to be a primary. A Democrat named John facing a Democrat named John. This might sound familiar, in 2006 there was also a contested Democratic Party primary in Montana with a guy named John running against a guy named Jon.

In 2006, DC also lined up behind a candidate and ensured he had vastly more money. And DC’s candidate lost in a 25 point landslide.

While the DC power brokers have been very successful at minimizing the number of primaries, when they do occur, there may be no worse turf for them in the country than Montana. In Montana, there is an extremely low point of saturation after which spending even more money has returns diminished to the point it’s no better than just setting it on fire.

In Montana, the ante to compete against DC is very low.

Back in 2004, a full 23 months before Conrad Burns, Markos started pushing Jon Tester (although he spelled his first name wrong in his national introduction). In that piece, Markos quoted me saying:

Westerners want candidates with spine. You could probably run on gay marriage in Montana if your campaign plan was to bar-fight your way across the state-- people would respect that.

Liberals have been portrayed as pencil-necked spinless wimps for too long. Montana Democrats are showing the benefits of running with a spine, and while their state-level success doesn't translate to federal success, the potential is clearly there.

Nine years later, we have a chance to translate the bold populism of the Schweitzer administration to the federal level. And the success of the Schweitzer administration has made the state much friendlier territory for Democrats. And while the poll numbers may not be there yet for marriage equality, nobody thinks John Bohlinger and Brian Schweitzer’s support for marriage equality is going to hurt much in the general.

And already, progressives should be delighted by the two major fault lines have accented how this rare senate primary is going to be a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.

HEALTH CARE

For the last decade, Brian Schweitzer has butted heads with Max Baucus over health care. Schweitzer made a name for himself pioneering the bold campaign tactic of taking busloads of seniors to Canada to get their prescriptions filled cheaper. Baucus on the other hand, is PhRMA’s top guy in the senate. Brian Schweitzer has been one of the country’s leading voices for single payer. Max Baucus took out the Public Option and replaced it with the Individual Mandate. And in this senate primary, Baucus’s hand picked successor is sticking with Baucus while John Bohlinger is changing the dialogue to health care as a right and trumpeting the success of the Schweitzer state health clinics for public workers.



Health care isn’t the only major fault line in deciding the future direction of the senate caucus.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Another big issue is the role of money in politics. Here again is a major split between the visions of Schweitzer and Baucus. Hilltop Public Solutions, the consultants trying to keep the Baucus Culture of Corruption going, are notorious purveyors of Dark Money (seriously, you must read this expose). In a separate bizarre scandal that came about by not using Free Conference Call dot com, last year’s Bullock/Walsh campaign listed on their finance reports, expenses for conference calls with Hilltop. While Hilltop was doing a ton of supposedly independent expenditures. There’s an complaint at the Commissioner of Political Practices on the scandal.

That’s quite the contrast with John Bohlinger. Last year, Brian Schweitzer and John Bohlinger lead on a grassroots citizens’ initiative, I-166. The initiative went after the legal fiction of corporate personhood, charging Montana’s congressional delegation with amending the US Constitution to clarify that corporations are not human beings entitled to constitutional rights. The initiative passed with over 74% of the vote. And Bohlinger is now running to go to DC and part part of the amendment fight.



It’s not often that we get a contested primary for a winnable senate seat. These truly are where we decide the direction of the party. And the fact this primary is occurring in Montana means progressives could give this fight the resources necessary to beat DC. It’s one to watch. And if every week is as exciting as the first week was, it’s going to be the most exciting Democratic primary of the cycle for political junkies.

If you want to keep up with how Schweitzer’s Lt Gov is doing, John Bohlinger’s campaign is on twitter and Facebook and has a website to sign up for emails: BohlingerForSenate.com.