Outpost endorsements are here. By far the toughest was the Rehberg-Lindeen race.
On one hand, I've gotten to know and respect Rehberg a bit over the years. I think he has gotten better as time has gone by, and I think he listens to his constituents. On the other hand, I have a very tough time endorsing anyone who voted for the war in Iraq and who sat by as the Bush administration assaulted liberty and institutionalized torture. The entire Montana delegation has been pathetically weak in standing up for liberty.
I guess the consolation is that our endorsement is likely to have little effect either way. But in my heart, I still am not sure how I will vote.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Pretty harsh on the Lindeen/Rehberg endorsement. At least you gave justification... that he has voted poorly but campaigns well.
I would quarrel with your description of Rehberg's '96 race against Baucus as "inept." Denny came close enough to give Max the scare of his long political life, for a seat that should have been safely Max's without much of a challenge if only for seniority reasons. The gap was narrowing by the day during the final two weeks of that campaign. Rehberg just ran out of time.
Whatever your opinion of Rehberg's politics, his knowledge of campaigns is far from inept. He managed the upset Senate victory in '88, over a seemingly safe two-term incumbent, of a no-hope challenger named Conrad Burns.
Rehberg has never seen an inane issue or one pushed by Baby Bush that he won't support. And he's too cheap to rent an apartment in D.C., so he lives on the taxpayer in his office.
As an added thought, Dave, you may have given us the best reason to vote against Rehberg.
Dave,
I wasn't really thinking of how close Rehberg came to winning, just of how much his campaign made me dislike him. Any candidate who makes me root for Max Baucus has got a problem.
I doubt if blog comments very often change any minds, Chuck. Mostly they just give people a welcome chance to vent. You and I have been locked in for years on cancelling each other out. Neither of us would bet the house that our arguments can get the other guy to finally come to his senses.
I suspect Rehberg's campaigns have been more likeable to you since 2000, David, because they have either been for an open seat or as the incumbent. Challenger campaigns, such as the one he had in '96, have to try to drive home to the electorate some strong reasons for throwing the alleged rascal out. It can be a pretty thin line between "critical" and "ugly." What is ugly and over the top to backers of the incumbent is merely the truth to backers of the challenger.
Your endorsment of Tester is no surprise.
Liberals typically endorse liberal candidates.
I can understand not endorsing Monica Lindeen, as I doubt she'll get better than 40% of the vote anyhow.
I think your endorsements will have an effect. Because I pay attention to them, and I Do More Than Vote!
Eric,
The ease with which the liberal label gets tossed around always surprises me. What does it mean?
I support free enterprise, the Constitution, a balanced budget, restraint in foreign affairs and humility at home. I oppose artificial turf and the designated hitter rule. I'm a veteran, I vote, and I pay my taxes. What makes me a liberal?
David, I label you as a liberal simply because of your political views.
I'm not using the term as a slam.
If you support Jon Tester, you certainly can't be labeled a conservative, can you?
If my usage is incorrect, and you don't consider yourself a liberal, or a conservative, how would you describe yourself?
Er, uh, Eric - David just layed out for you a set of views that are conservative. If that label means anything, then he is one. The honorable label has been co-opted by radical right wingers -
Post a Comment