Sometimes it seems that the two major political parties not only sit on opposite sides of the aisle, they are at opposite ends of the earth -- or maybe on different planets altogether. Witness the opposing guest columns that appeared in today's Gazette, here and here.

Corey Stapleton's piece accuses the Democrats of aiming at "confiscating or 'condemning'" assets from PPL and possibly other companies. The Democratic article by Jon Tester and Dave Wanzenried proposes no such thing -- indeed, it proposes almost nothing substantive. Instead it "promotes" diversification, "calls for" conservation and a Montana-based solution, "encourages" better technology and "benefits" Montanans. At one point, the two Democratic legislators came dangerously close to using a verb that actually requires action: the plan "gives" Montanans -- but Montanans are given only a say, not any actual energy plan.

If you look at the real plan, you become slightly better informed. There the Democrats straightforwardly propose that a cooperative or public power organization should purchase and manage NorthWestern Energy's Montana system. Democrats are less straightforward about PPL than they appeared to be in a news conference last Monday. They say in the plan only that PPL's hydropower should be "dedicated" to Montana use. If Democrats have a plan for how to do that, I couldn't find it. Instead, they propose to form an Energy Action Group to determine how to proceed.

So is Stapleton attacking a straw man? Probably even he doesn't know for sure. If Democrats have a real plan lurking behind that Sunday op-ed piece, then it remains in the shadows. And voters who might actually be willing to support a genuine plan are in the dark, too.

UPDATE: In his upcoming Unplugged column (see Nov. 20 Outpost), Pat Dawson notes that Republicans don't have much of a plan either.