Montana Politics

Bucy Campaign Dishonest About Public Access

Shares

The Bucy campaign has been at Obama-level saturation of campaign e-mails lately, so I have to admit that I haven’t paid a great deal of attention to them, but the latest is yet another example of the campaign simply refusing to tell the truth. In the latest e-mail, signed by Ms. Bucy, she claims that she is the only candidate talking about protecting public lands in the AG race:

bucy

Now, that would be an issue which would cause me to reconsider my support for Jesse Laslovich, were it true. Of course, it’s not.

The very first issue listed on Mr. Laslovich’s issues page says this:

I SUPPORT MONTANANS HAVING ACCESS TO OUR STREAMS, RIVERS, AND PUBLIC LANDS TO FISH AND HUNT.

In his endorsement of Laslovich, former Attorney General Mike Greely wrote this:

As Attorney General, I know Jesse will continue to protect our access to public lands, rivers, and streams; I know Jesse will continue his work to protect seniors from scam artists; and I know Jesse will continue to crack down on sexual predators.

At public events across the state, Laslovich has stated his commitment to protecting access.

The wide range of people involved in conservation, fishing, and hunting in Montana who have supported Mr. Laslovich make it quite clear that he is committed to protecting our access to public lands and streams. There’s no question about it.

It’s a small point, but it gets to the heart of my real discomfort about the Bucy campaign: rather than focusing on substantive differences of policy and experience, the campaign has far too often gone the easy route of personal attack, innuendo, and even outright dishonesty.

Democrats (and Montanans as a whole) deserve better in their primary contests.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is a seventeen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.

His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.

In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

31 Comments

  • “I SUPPORT MONTANANS HAVING ACCESS TO OUR STREAMS, RIVERS, AND PUBLIC LANDS TO FISH AND HUNT.”

    Who could not support that statement? It’s an ink blot masquerading as a plank.

    • Im not sure that was the point of the post. I think the pout is that Jesse has talke about public access throughout this entire campaign and has a voting record supporting public access.

    • My point is that the Bucy campaign is once again suggesting something that’s simply not true. To suggest that Jesse Laslovich is not committed to protecting public lands would require ignoring his statements at campaign events all over the state, his web site, and his endorsements.

  • Unlike most I’m willing to use me name. If we want to talk of falsehoods how about Jesse saying he was a Laborer and a operator? False he is a part owner in a non union construction firm 20 miles from the birth of Montana’s labor movement. How many employees do they have, or are they all independent contractors? And to all that want to bash have the guts to do it with a real name and quit hiding behind alias

  • Follow up. Yea I understand why the MCV endorsement sent people To support Jesse. But fact is Jesse tried like heck to get the MCV endorsement as well. Ask him or anyone from MCV and they will tell you he did.

    • Get a life, Jim. Aren’t you the head of the same organization that endorsed Rehberg a few circles back? Classic.

      • True dat! Teamsters 190 endorsed Tea Party Rehberg and gave him cash! Rehberg just voted against PLAs this very week. So using TeamsterJim logic; Teamsters like Rehberg and Rehberg hates unions and Teamsters give him money so the Teamsters of Eastern Montana support people who dont support unions. Now they support AG candidate thats endorsed by enviros that oppose union projects like Keystone Pipeline that could put Teamsters to work. Laughable.

  • Hello: This isn’t related to any particular race here, but I’d like to point out that making statements in support of “public lands access” is not the same thing as making statements in support of “protecting public lands.”

    I’ve mentioned this dynamic a few times in the past as it has related to campaign literature and campaign statements from both Dem’s and GOP’ers, as I’ve seen an increase in the melding of the two statements. Ironically, in some cases, supporting “access” to public lands actually has an on-the-ground result of not “protecting public lands.” Think: Motorized recreation, as one possible example.

    • Indeed – and I think that’s where you see majorities that support some protection of land disappear when the question turns to rigorously protected specific tracts. When you want to keep land protected from private development, you can often string together a majority between environmentalists, conservationists, and the fishing, hunting, ATV, etc. crowd. However, when you want to conserve public land more securely and thus cut off access to the latter group, your majority is likely to disappear. Most people want to see our public land kept public precisely because they want to use it as they see fit (tragedy of the commons be damned), but only a smaller group of people want to see wilderness preserved for its own sake.

      • Agreed! People are going to have to grow up and do both. Play and conserve land and wilderness. It can be done. The reality shouldn’t smack us in the face, after we destroyed pristine nature for the what…. thousandth time?

  • 1. Koehler is right. Protecting public lands access is not the same as protecting public lands.

    2. Where are the pictures of Jesse hunting and fishing on his website? Pam’s has photos of she and her family utilzing the state’s public lands.

    3. The alerts and letters sent to me this election have names of folks in the environmental and conservation communty supporting Pam. These are folks I respect and they helped me make my decision who to vote for. I haven’t received anything like this from Jesse.

    • 1. There is no policy distinction between the two candidates on this issue. I think you’re misreading what Mr. Koehler is saying here.

      2. I’m not sure that photographs of hunting make the case better than a record of protecting public access.

      3. I respect former AG Mike Greely. I respect people like this John Gibson, Mary Caferrro, Daryl Johnson, and Carolyn Squires.

      http://laslovich.com/conservationists-and-laborers-united/

      I think you might want to look harder. 🙂

      • I tried to be tactful but it doesn’t seem I made myself clear.

        I’m not sure Jesse has ever hunted or fished in his life, let alone, understands the issues that are facing Montanans who do.

        Based on what I’ve seen and heard in this primary, Pam Bucy walks the walk and doesn’t just put statements on her website.

        I just filled out my ballot for Pam Bucy and am very happy to have done so.

        • If a candidate supported women’s choice and was in favor of decriminalizing Marijuana, would you insist that they have had an abortion and smoked weed?

        • Well, it wouldn’t be a post about the Bucy-Laslovich race without a Bucy supporter coming on the site to make an unfounded, anonymous claim, would it?

          Take a look at Ben Lamb’s post below, “Anteloper.” While I’m supporting a different candidate in this race, had more of Pam’s supporters acted like him, it would have been a much more difficult choice.

    • I’m not sure you’ve been paying enough attention to both campaigns. No only has Jesse been talking about public access, but he has a record of protecting public access.
      The point of this post is pretty simple: for Bucy to say she’s the only one talking about public access is ridiculous.

  • Don,

    Pam’s been running a sportsmen’s campaign and has made it a central focus of her campaign for a helluva long time. It’s also been a focus of her career both at the county level and state level. Tony Schoonen, JW Westman, Chris Tweeten, Pat Sweeney, Charlie O’Leary, Jared White and a very large number of active, engaged and motivated hunters and anglers have been actively campaigning for Pam because we’ve seen what her commitment is to public land, and public land access throughout her career. She’s been clear as a bell on this so far as a campaign issue: Montana’s Attorney General is our best defense when it comes to public access and defending the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation. The AG’s role on the land board is critical when it comes to putting people ahead of special interests.

    As much as I like Jesse, Pam’s who I chose to endorse because of her tenacity and dedication to our outdoor heritage.

    The difference in these two candidates is clear when it comes to access and issues that matter to Montana’s hunters and anglers. Pam’s got the chops, and earned them in the courtroom and at the legislature defending stream access. Pam’s been an avid hunter her whole life, and came to it like so many of us; honestly and as a need to help fill the freezer. Hunting and angling is more than just a past time to Montanans, we all know that. It’s well on it’s way to become like the east coast or Texas where only the monied few get the privilege of hunting and angling. We need someone who can stand up to the privatization of wildlife and wildlife habitat, and will not just support public access, but fight for it.

    As to Koehler’s comment – Pam co-wrote the Roadless Area Conservation Rule brief that was used to argue the case up to the MT Supreme Court. That’s a pretty good commitment to protecting public land.

    Pam’s a fighter, and has the experience and ability. She also has publicly stated that she’ll work towards passing Sesso’s HB 290 that got stuffed in House Judiciary last session. She’s offering real world experience and an aggressive platform to help keep people on public lands.

    Detail, experience and dedication. That’s what we need in the AG’s office when it comes to access. I’ve worked in conservation and sportsmen’s issues for a decade, and when you come across a candidate who gets this issue so clearly, it’s important to stand up and support them.

    • Ben-

      Thanks for the comment. I’ve chosen to support Jesse Laslovich and I’ll list my reasons later today, but I appreciate your taking the time to write a detailed case for your candidate.

  • The local endorsed in 2002 and I quit the local the next day. Anyone who knows me knows I despise Denny Rehberg. And anyone at Dem convention knows how I feel about the tea party.

    • Teamsters 190 endorsed Rehberg. You’re the Business Rep. for Teamsters 190, right?
      In any case, I find your comments cheap and lacking in any substantive logic. You’re throwing around accusations you know AREN’T true.

    • So you quit the union instead of staying and trying to make it better? Took your marbles and went home? Then you either worked rat after that or stayed in your Teamster job without being a member and were a scab. Which was it black kettle?

    • It’s called “insinuation,”Jim. You said:

      “False he is a part owner in a non union construction firm 20 miles from the birth of Montana’s labor movement. How many employees do they have, or are they all independent contractors?”

      Plain and simple insinuation with no factual backing. You know you’re blowing smoke and it’s sad and desperate. Anyone that has followed this race knows that when he worked in for his family’s construction company it was him, his dad, and his brothers — should the Laslovich boys have unionized themselves to bargain with their dad? Come on… Although, that would have been pretty funny.

      Seems like you’re union brothers and sisters seem to think Jesse is just fine (he’s running away with the union endorsements: http://laslovich.com/endorsements/). He also has a great voting record with the AFL-CIO.

      As someone who comes from a union family, I find your attacks close to shameful.

  • I’ll say it again… don’t bring the mudslinging over to this blog. The point of the post was that the Bucy campaign is misrepresenting this campaign. Laslovich clearly has a record of standing up for public access. I’m sure both candidates would be good on public access as AGs, but for Bucy to say she’s the “only one” talking about public access is a stretch.

  • Lega. They are still in business and are still nonunion. Pretty sure the kids are grown up. So post what you want I’m done arguing with a coward who won’t use their name.

    • Yeah, family businesses tend to be that way, Jim. And my name, if you’re curious, is not hard to find.

  • Arguing who is the better advocate for stream access is a waste of time, Jesse has proven himself a friend to sportsmen during his legislative career and Pam has some nice pictures, therefore she “walks the walk.” So we can assume they will both protect public access. The real problem is the petty misrepresentation of the facts by the Bucy campaign. That bothers me, and from several discussions with friends, neighbors and co-workers I know I am not alone.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: