Showing posts with label Brian Schweitzer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brian Schweitzer. Show all posts

Friday, August 8, 2014

Will a Democratic candidate for Senate in Montana please stand up?; Update: Candidate found?

WillaDemocraticcandidateforSenateinMontana

Will a Democratic candidate for Senate in Montana please stand up?; Update: Candidate found?

posted at 10:01 am on August 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Theoretically, Senator John Walsh’s withdrawal from the 2014 election left the Democrats enough time to find another candidate to put on the ballot. They have until August 20th to nominate a candidate, so Montana Democrats don’t have to find a judge to allow a Torricelli Switch. With less than 90 days to go, however, no one seems to want the job, including the one man who would have given them the best opportunity to remain competitive:

Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer says he won’t run for U.S. Senate after Sen. John Walsh dropped his election campaign Thursday. …

Schweitzer announced that he wouldn’t run on Twitter and confirmed it to The Associated Press. He said in a Facebook post that he was flattered his name was considered, and that he’ll support whoever emerges as the candidate.

Earlier Thursday, Walsh said in a statement to supporters that he is leaving the race but will keep the seat he was appointed to until his term ends in January 2015.

This was Schweitzer’s second demurral. He had an opportunity to run for this seat long before Walsh got appointed to fill out the remainder of Max Baucus’ term and get a leg up on the midterms. Schweitzer passed at the time, as most presumed he wanted to run a populist campaign for President. Then came his “gaydar” comment about Eric Cantor and a few other impolitic bon mots, and now Schweitzer apparently just wants some obscurity for a while.

While Democrats in other parts of the country may breathe a sigh of relief for avoiding the burden of Schweitzer’s comments, their brethren in Montana have to lament losing their best shot at offering a competitive challenge to Steve Daines, who was favored to beat Walsh even before the plagiarism scandal. After Plan B collapsed, so did Plans C, D, and E, according to Rebecca Berg at the Washington Examiner:

The candidate will need to launch a campaign with only three months until Election Day, for a Senate seat most Democrats have given up on winning. “I think it’s accepted as a lost cause at this point,” said one Democratic strategist with ties to Montana.

These Democrats have said they won’t run, but at least some people in their party are floating the idea in one last effort to keep the Senate seat in play[.]

Berg goes down the speculative list that emerged when Walsh suspended his campaign earlier this week. EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock declined yesterday, while former NARAL president Nancy Keenan hasn’t commented. Keenan just came back to Montana after 13 years in Washington, though, and even while Allahpundit is correct in that the anti-abortion impulse may not be as strong in Montana, neither is NARAL’s abortion-on-demand-at-any-point absolutism, either. Berg notes two names not on Politico’s list, former legislators Carol and Pat Williams, who are also married to each other — and both of whom declined to jump in. The only name left besides Keenan is John Bohlinger, who couldn’t get to 25% in the Democratic primary this year.

At some point, Democrats have to give strong consideration to conceding the seat to Daines. He’s going to win it anyway, and putting up a candidate without any name power in Montana will force them to spend money on the race to maintain their credibility. Why waste the resources, especially for either a Democrat who lost by 50 points in his own party’s primary or for an all-but-carpetbagging abortion absolutist in a red state? Just tossing anyone up against Daines would have a strong whiff of desperation that might infect the rest of their races in Montana — especially if the nominee has to jump belatedly into a campaign and falls flat on his/her face. Schweitzer was their best opportunity to maintain the façade of credibility, even with the “gaydar” comments. They should take a hint from his withdrawal and cut their losses.

CNN’s panel notes that there wasn’t a rush to get in the race after Walsh’s exit:

That should tell them something, too.

Update: Democrats may have a candidate after all, but their odds look longer than ever:

Montana state Rep. Franke Wilmer (D) is moving towards a bid for Sen. John Walsh’s (D-Mont.) seat less than a day after Walsh announced he’s dropping his campaign.

Wilmer, who lost a 2012 House primary, is a Montana State University professor and favorite of some progressive activists in the state. She’d face very long odds of defeating Rep. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who has run a strong campaign and led Walsh by large margins in recent polling.

That’s putting it mildly. Montana is already a deep-red state, where Democrats who appeal statewide usually take a centrist line. A progressive academic is about as good of a fit there as in, oh, Texas. Putting that kind of a candidate on the ticket in Montana might allow the GOP to nationalize the race in a way that will hurt supposed centrists in Georgia, Kentucky, and elsewhere, too, especially if she gets significant press.

Democrats have to make a choice at their August 16th convention. “None of the above” might still be their best option.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Will a Democratic candidate for Senate in Montana please stand up?

WillaDemocraticcandidateforSenateinMontana

Will a Democratic candidate for Senate in Montana please stand up?

posted at 10:01 am on August 8, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Theoretically, Senator John Walsh’s withdrawal from the 2014 election left the Democrats enough time to find another candidate to put on the ballot. They have until August 20th to nominate a candidate, so Montana Democrats don’t have to find a judge to allow a Torricelli Switch. With less than 90 days to go, however, no one seems to want the job, including the one man who would have given them the best opportunity to remain competitive:

Former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer says he won’t run for U.S. Senate after Sen. John Walsh dropped his election campaign Thursday. …

Schweitzer announced that he wouldn’t run on Twitter and confirmed it to The Associated Press. He said in a Facebook post that he was flattered his name was considered, and that he’ll support whoever emerges as the candidate.

Earlier Thursday, Walsh said in a statement to supporters that he is leaving the race but will keep the seat he was appointed to until his term ends in January 2015.

This was Schweitzer’s second demurral. He had an opportunity to run for this seat long before Walsh got appointed to fill out the remainder of Max Baucus’ term and get a leg up on the midterms. Schweitzer passed at the time, as most presumed he wanted to run a populist campaign for President. Then came his “gaydar” comment about Eric Cantor and a few other impolitic bon mots, and now Schweitzer apparently just wants some obscurity for a while.

While Democrats in other parts of the country may breathe a sigh of relief for avoiding the burden of Schweitzer’s comments, their brethren in Montana have to lament losing their best shot at offering a competitive challenge to Steve Daines, who was favored to beat Walsh even before the plagiarism scandal. After Plan B collapsed, so did Plans C, D, and E, according to Rebecca Berg at the Washington Examiner:

The candidate will need to launch a campaign with only three months until Election Day, for a Senate seat most Democrats have given up on winning. “I think it’s accepted as a lost cause at this point,” said one Democratic strategist with ties to Montana.

These Democrats have said they won’t run, but at least some people in their party are floating the idea in one last effort to keep the Senate seat in play[.]

Berg goes down the speculative list that emerged when Walsh suspended his campaign earlier this week. EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock declined yesterday, while former NARAL president Nancy Keenan hasn’t commented. Keenan just came back to Montana after 13 years in Washington, though, and even while Allahpundit is correct in that the anti-abortion impulse may not be as strong in Montana, neither is NARAL’s abortion-on-demand-at-any-point absolutism, either. Berg notes two names not on Politico’s list, former legislators Carol and Pat Williams, who are also married to each other — and both of whom declined to jump in. The only name left besides Keenan is John Bohlinger, who couldn’t get to 25% in the Democratic primary this year.

At some point, Democrats have to give strong consideration to conceding the seat to Daines. He’s going to win it anyway, and putting up a candidate without any name power in Montana will force them to spend money on the race to maintain their credibility. Why waste the resources, especially for either a Democrat who lost by 50 points in his own party’s primary or for an all-but-carpetbagging abortion absolutist in a red state? Just tossing anyone up against Daines would have a strong whiff of desperation that might infect the rest of their races in Montana — especially if the nominee has to jump belatedly into a campaign and falls flat on his/her face. Schweitzer was their best opportunity to maintain the façade of credibility, even with the “gaydar” comments. They should take a hint from his withdrawal and cut their losses.

CNN’s panel notes that there wasn’t a rush to get in the race after Walsh’s exit:

That should tell them something, too.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Walsh looking for the exits on Senate race in Montana?

WalshlookingfortheexitsonSenaterace

Walsh looking for the exits on Senate race in Montana?

posted at 12:41 pm on August 6, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Ever since allegations of plagiarism arose two weeks ago, Sen. John Walsh has made himself scarce — and even scarcer yesterday. The Walsh campaign started “postponing” campaign events without warning, and without explanation:

Sen. John Walsh of Montana on Tuesday postponed at least two upcoming events as his campaign declined to answer questions about whether he planned to remain in the U.S. Senate race amid allegations that he plagiarized a research paper.

The Walsh campaign notified Gallatin County Democratic party members that he would not attend a backyard meet-and-greet in Bozeman hosted by Women for Walsh that was scheduled for Wednesday or a Friday talk on public lands at the county party’s new headquarters.

The campaign did not give a reason why, said Billy McWilliams, a member of the Gallatin County Democrats’ executive committee.

“Nobody’s talking,” McWilliams told The Associated Press. “It happened pretty quick this morning.”

Everyone knows the reason why, but no one wants to admit it … yet. Politico reported last night from unnamed sources that Team Walsh has begun discussions on whether the man who was specifically appointed to fill Max Baucus’ Senate term to get a leg up on the midterms could survive long enough to make the strategy work:

Montana Sen. John Walsh is engaged in internal deliberations with his political team about whether to stay on the ballot this year, sources said Tuesday, in the wake of a plagiarism scandal that has tarnished the appointed Democratic lawmaker’s standing. …

Another Democratic source said Walsh has been resistant to stepping down, and some expect he can weather the political storm by pointing to his long military record. But some top Democrats in the state fear that his remaining a candidate will cost them dearly in down ballot races. They worry that Walsh’s vulnerabilities could hurt, for instance, Democratic House candidate John Lewis, who has a real shot at winning the seat opening up with GOP Rep. Steve Daines running for Senate.

There’s also fear that Republicans could use Walsh’s weakness to pad their majorities in the state House and Senate. A redrawn legislative map has given Democrats some good pick-up opportunities, and the party has fielded candidates in all 100 House districts and all 25 Senate races.

The problem with “pointing to his long military record” is that it now includes the allegations of plagiarism. This was not a youthful indiscretion at a college decades ago, but a paper written for a master’s degree from the Army War College in 2005. The charge is serious enough — and so fraught with political overtones — that the Inspector General for the Department of Defense has announced that the IG’s office will oversee the probe into Walsh’s behavior. An unfavorable outcome, which seems likely from what the New York Times found and published, would almost certainly result in disciplinary action of some sort from the Department of Defense, or at least the AWC. And that will be part of Walsh’s military record, which makes it a flawed shield against attacks from Republicans on his integrity.

Another problem with fighting through the scandal is Walsh himself. He already tried to do that and failed miserably at it in the first few days of the scandal, first using claims of PTSD as a mitigating factor and then disavowing the undiagnosed condition as any excuse. Needless to say, that didn’t impress veterans with or without PTSD, which one might assume would be Walsh’s target demographic for the election. Any strategy for soldiering on in the race has to rely on Walsh’s talent as a campaigner, evidence of which has been in short supply.

Whatever they do, though, they have to do quickly. Walsh has until Monday to withdraw if Democrats are to have a chance to replace him on the ballot. They’d have to make that choice between Monday and August 20th, and they have few candidates from which to choose, all of whom would be a disaster for Democrats:

A few names are being mentioned as potential replacements for the state Democrats to pick from: Nancy Keenan, former national president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock; or John Bohlinger, who got 23 percent against Walsh in the June 3 Democratic primary.

Other names mentioned, but which are not taken seriously by top people, are former Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who has lots of baggage and passed on running last year, as well as Dirk Adams, who has a history in banking that Democratic strategists say makes him unelectable.

Schweitzer would have been the obvious choice — until he shot his mouth off about his “gaydar” and told National Journal’s Marin Cogan that Eric Cantor was gay:

(It wasn’t the only time Schweitzer was unable to hold his tongue. Last week, I called him on the night Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in his GOP primary. “Don’t hold this against me, but I’m going to blurt it out. How do I say this … men in the South, they are a little effeminate,” he offered when I mentioned the stunning news. When I asked him what he meant, he added, “They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say—and I’m fine with gay people, that’s all right—but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he’s not, I think, so I don’t know. Again, I couldn’t care less. I’m accepting.”)

So yes, it’s probably too soon for Schweitzer to overcome that, but he looks more viable in Montana than two hard-core pro-abortion activists or a dreaded banker. The easy dismissal of Adams shows how extreme “Democratic strategists” have become, too; how is being a banker more of a deal-killer than heading organizations that demand abortion on demand?

If Walsh gets out, I’d expect to see Schweitzer take his place, despite the “gaydar” comments. He may have baggage, but he’d be the only one on that list who could compete with Daines.

Update: A new poll from Vox Populi shows Daines up 13 over Walsh now, 47/34. Obama gets a 38/62 job approval rating, while Walsh does a little better at 44/56. The math on this poll is a little weird, though: a plurality of 42% say the plagiarism scandal will have no impact on their vote in the Senate race, but 32% say it will make them much less likely to support Walsh and 31% say somewhat less likely, which adds up to … 105%. That doesn’t count the 4% oddball fringe who claim that the plagiarism scandal will make them more likely to vote for Walsh, either.

It also alludes to another scandal involving Walsh:

A report from the Inspector General of the Department of the Army found that while Adjutant General of the Montana National Guard John Walsh improperly used his position for private gain. How does the report affect your likelihood of voting for Senator Walsh?

Interestingly, this one stings Walsh a little more, with only 36% saying it would have no impact on their voting decision, while 34% said it would make them  much less likely to vote for him.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Sad blogger news: Schweitzer 2016 probably not gonna happen

Sadbloggernews:Schweitzer2016probablynotgonna

Sad blogger news: Schweitzer 2016 probably not gonna happen

posted at 2:01 pm on June 19, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

It was fun while it lasted … if you didn’t blink. With Hillary Clinton stumbling in her long-prepared book launch and tour, speculation on who might challenger her for the 2016 nomination had shifted to the gubernatorial ranks of the Democratic Party. Former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has made no secret of his desire to play on the national stage, and got a sweet perch for it at the 2o12 Democratic National Convention. Given his interior-West libertarian leanings and otherwise liberal-policy instincts, Schweitzer might have provided a colorful and dynamic challenge to the establishment of both parties, plus some real executive experience. His presence would have at least been a boon for political bloggers until he either wised up or flamed out.

Schweitzer appeared on Morning Joe last week and discussed his greater authenticity in relation to Hillary Clinton:

Unfortunately, the latter happened long before the former, and at least a few months before any serious thought of campaigning. In a lengthy National Journal profile titled “The Gonzo Option,” Marin Cogan revealed that Schweitzer thought Eric Cantor was gay, and that Schweitzer’s pretty impressed with the accuracy of his “gaydar”:

(It wasn’t the only time Schweitzer was unable to hold his tongue. Last week, I called him on the night Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in his GOP primary. “Don’t hold this against me, but I’m going to blurt it out. How do I say this … men in the South, they are a little effeminate,” he offered when I mentioned the stunning news. When I asked him what he meant, he added, “They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say—and I’m fine with gay people, that’s all right—but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he’s not, I think, so I don’t know. Again, I couldn’t care less. I’m accepting.”)

For the record, Cantor and his wife Diane have been married for 25 years, and have three children.  Cogan added this as a parenthetical almost at the end of the article, but the NJ editors knew to highlight the quote in one of its graphic bars in the piece. The gonzo thus released, Schweitzer began to reap the whirlwind, mostly from the base he’d have to win over in a primary fight:

He also called Dianne Feinstein a whore, as the Huffington Post noted, although in his defense he meant politically:

Schweitzer compared Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to a sex worker for the intelligence community, Cogan wrote.

“She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees and now she says, ‘I’m a nun,’ when it comes to this spying I mean, maybe that’s the wrong metaphor — but she was all in!” Schweitzer said of Feinstein.

The New York Daily News suggested that his standing as a potential opponent to Hillary Clinton may have been affected by “his recent candor” regarding Cantor and his gaydar. Aaron Blake puts it more bluntly at the Washington Post:

Why Schweitzer felt the need to make these comments is anybody’s guess. What’s pretty clear is that he’s got basically no filter. So what seems folksy and spontaneous one day could just as easily turn into campaign-ending gaffe the next day.

Add to that Schweitzer’s odd decision to attend Mitt Romney’s confab over the weekend and his comments critical of President Obama, and the list of questionable actions grows.

Anybody with illusions that Schweitzer could be a major player in the 2016 presidential race should probably re-evaluate themselves.

Especially Schweitzer, it seems. Political pundits will also have to re-evaluate the potential for fun in the 2016 Democratic primary, or hope that Schweitzer’s lack of self-awareness extends to his political ambitions.

 


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

Openthread:Sundaymorningtalkingheads

Open thread: Sunday morning talking heads

posted at 8:01 am on January 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Today’s star Sunday show guest: Mitt Romney, of course. Wait — Mitt Romney? He’ll be on “Fox News Sunday” to talk about … ObamaCare, I guess? Or maybe the NSA for some reason? He’s sure to get a question about Melissa Harris-Perry and her panel mocking his family’s racial composition, but the moment for righteous indignation over that has largely passed. She broke into tears yesterday morning in apologizing to him for it on the air. Expect gracious forgiveness, not a harsh counterattack.

Rand Paul, meanwhile, will be on “This Week” to discuss his new class-action suit against the NSA. If you tune in, stick around for former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. He’s the likeliest candidate right now to launch a primary challenge to Hillary from the left and a vocal proponent of single-payer. The left’s destined to drift that way too once they’re done having to defend ObamaCare before the midterms. Here’s his chance to win a few early votes. The full line-up is at Politico.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair