Thank you, Dan Cox

Shares

And not because you helped Jon Tester win. In fact, it looks like Tester would have won either way. Tester was 1.6% from getting a straight majority, so only if 80% of Cox’s votes would have otherwise gone to Rehberg (as opposed to being blank) was Cox the deciding factor. So the first thing I’d thank him for is allowing me to get a good night’s sleep last night, confident by 4 AM that Tester was in a good position.

But more importantly, I’d like to thank Dan Cox for putting the Montana GOP on notice that a restrictive government disguised as conservatism ill not fly in Montana. While I don’t agree with Libertarian philosophy, I respect it for at least having some internal consistency, which stands in sharp contrast to the “small government except in the case of the PATRIOT Act, forcing people to carry around birth certificates, women’s bodies, or plants we don’t like” platform of the GOP.

Hopefully Republicans will remember this in the next legislative session, and if they still refuse to properly take care of the most vulnerable of us, they won’t compound the problem by telling us how to live our lives as well. Now, again for my own peace of mind, I’d request that the Libertarians run a candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction next time, as well.

If you appreciate our efforts to hold Montana Republicans accountable and the independent journalism here at The Montana Post, please consider supporting our work with a small pledge.

About the author

The Polish Wolf

30
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
25 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Mal GillsThe Polish WolfjeffdJag Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Don Pogreba
Admin

Excellent point about Tester nearly having a majority. There’s just no reason to believe that Rehberg would have received four out of five votes from Cox.

He lost the libertarian right when he voted against their values repeatedly.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

Montana’s remaining timbered roadless lands are laying awake awaiting their final solution. Jon’s got a pocket full of timber money and a brand new chainsaw.

It has been fascinating and deeply troubling to watch the wild-eyed support that Democrats receive when they do the exact things that you jeer at Republicans for doing. Tuesday was a horrible specter of manipulation of low-information voters. We’re a silly place.

NamelessRange
Guest
NamelessRange

To say that the low information voters were manipulated, and to imply that a vote for Tester is nothing more than a vote for Rehberg in sheep’s clothing, is nothing more than fallacious oversimplification. Equivocating. Conservation values are not Binary, they exist on a continuum. For example, regardless of how you feel the FJRA fails, it certainly doesn’t fail to the level of the Roadless Area Release Act. Whenever we hear this equivocating, implying the parties are equally bad, I am reminded of Asimov’s quote. “when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth… Read more »

Rob Kailey
Guest
Rob Kailey

Thank you, NR. That was well said. The reduction of complexities down to personal assumptions is one of the more sophisticated forms of arrogance.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

B/W thinkers, as your stripe tends to be, Monty, should not lecture on complexities or what is “sophisticated,” which incidentally has the same root as “sophistry” and “sophomoric.”

Rob Kailey
Guest
Rob Kailey

Which is specifically why I wrote that you were attempting the arrogance of “sophistication”.

Quit bringing up the “Monty” thing unless you wish to look the fool yet again. The evidence is on my side and always has been. You screwed up, Mark. Leave it, or look like an idiot … again.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

Listen, Monty: This is disturbing behavior on your part. You and I know what you did. I wonder now if you have made a lie into truth in your mind, as pathological liars would.

Eesh! You’re a creep.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

Oh no, I mean what I said. Names of bills change depending on the constituency of the person introducing it, but the underlying substance does not. Tester is carrying forward with Burns’ agenda, merely repackaging it. It is perception management, nothing more.

NamelessRange
Guest
NamelessRange

Mark, your hypothesis seems to be: When Conrad Burns pulled an election favor in 88 and convinced President Reagan to pocket-veto The Montana Wilderness Bill, he was actually prepackaging Jon Tester’s Wilderness Bills, which create hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness. This seems unlikely. You are giving a disproportionate weight to similarities, while ignoring dissimilarities. (Amid the cries of, “But it’s not REAL wilderness!”) Having read yours and other’s objections to HR4089 or any of Tester’s Wilderness attempts, I’d agree there are valid objections. Genuine attempts at compromise -attempts to meet at the midpoint of the value spectrum- will… Read more »

jeffd
Guest
jeffd

I couldn’t have said it better. Recognizing the political realities of the country and doing some positive good is a far more responsible and intelligent approach. It is simply arrogant to be unwilling to see any value in a solution other than your own. To not be able to see the difference between Tester and Rehberg and understand the potential impacts is inexcusable.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

Nonsense. The goal of the timber lobby has not changed over the decades, but the faces of the people carrying their water has. If you really think that Tester is serving the public will, I have a bridge to sell you. You seem to be using far more complex jargon than necessary, as if a simple matter needs complex thought levels. That indicates to me some level of professionalism in your Democrat-ness. You’ll use well-worded sentences to justify Tester’s behavior. You would use equally well-worded verbiage to attack the bill had it been Rehberg who repackaged it, changed its name,… Read more »

NamelessRange
Guest
NamelessRange

Hardly an academic, I am just a Montanan making less than the median state wage in a non-professional, temporary job.My improper use of punctuation should tip you off. But I do pay attention to policies, especially those pertaining to public lands, because they are my passion. I wrote my senator about what concerned me in the FJRA. But you didn’t address a damn thing I’ve written. You confuse logical possibility with probability, and anchor it to hyperbole. This isn’t the place to have a lengthy discussion about FJRA, but your assertion that the FJRA is “a code name for the… Read more »

Mark Tokarski
Guest

You’re not seeing the forest very well. The underlying impetus of Burns, Baucus and now Tester was that having roadless wild lands is a “problem” that needs to be “solved.” That is called “framing the debate,” and once you step into that framework, you have lost. Environmentalists are quite familiar with this play book, as Burns and Baucus have used it for decades. We refuse to step into the framework, which infuriates them. This is why Tester called us “extremists.” We refused to play the Burns/Baucus game. he was suppose to deliver to the timber lobby, and right away saw… Read more »

NamelessRange
Guest
NamelessRange

Mark, you said: “the very fact that you resort to name calling (“asshattery”) in an attempt to mystify perceptions without regard to specifics tells me that you are not a dabbler in politics” Calling someone “manipulated low-information” because they voted for Tester, is asshattery. What do you mean I wasn’t specific? I was painfully specific. Again. There are a multitude of logical, rational reasons to favor Tester over Rehberg, depending on one’s personally prioritized values. Treat that sentence as my premise. From an acceptance of this premise follows the conclusion that calling someone “manipulated low information” simply for voting for… Read more »

Mark Tokarski
Guest

You’ve stopped talking about FJRA now. Now you’ve gone broad and ethereal, talking about philosophical reasons for voting for Tester. Most annoying is how you fall back on public opinion to justify his behavior. You’ve got some political chops. You know better.

So let’s go up one step on the ladder. I say that either a Democrat or Republican can serve the same agenda while creating opposite-appearing voting records. You are no fool. Wanna go there?

NamelessRange
Guest
NamelessRange

As I have made clear, what you call the “same agenda”, are two different agendas on a spectrum of value. Different “Degrees of wrongness”. Your hyperbole doesn’t allow for a recognition of the truth. When a voter views the probabilities of likely outcomes of an election, they more often than not vote for those “agendas” that are closest to their position on the spectrum. You seem lost on this, instead commiting your words to an unrealistic Nirvana Fallacy. The rational voter would have recognized it was either going to be Rehberg or Tester. The rational voter would then act accordingly… Read more »

NamelessRange
Guest
NamelessRange

If you can’t see the differences between the two candidates and what they’ve done and what they support. Actual differences that genuinely have impact on the lives of real Montanans, I don’t know how you can justify it.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

My IPad displays now as a column of words about two feet deep. See below.

Jag
Guest
Jag

Why are you against FJRA? Why are you against new jobs and new wilderness. You are the arrogant person who clearly does not understand how most Montanans think.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

This is a large part of the problem – the language of public relations. You have to know how to translate, as when oligarchs speak in public they speak in code. “Jobs” means “profits”, “recreation” means roading, “public” means special interests and “special interests” means public benefit. So FJRA is a code name for destruction of our remaining roadless lands for the benefit of the timber lobby, and a new player since Conrad Burns pushed these bills, ATV and snowmobile manufacturers. Burns, Baucus Rehberg, and now Tester have been working toward the same objective for decades. When it is Baucus… Read more »

Mal Gills
Guest

I don’t think you can pin the blame on Jag for this one. You could certainly call him an idiot for trying to suggest he understands how “most Montanans think” because he excludes the portion–albeit the small portion–of the Montana population that would evaluate the FJRA with an open-minded, rational thought-process, like you or me. The problem is that my generation (the twenty- and thirty-somethings) don’t fight legislation like the FJRA tooth-and-nail like my father’s generation has been doing since the seventies. Organizations like MEIC have been seeing a decline in membership for decades. What my generation thinks is that… Read more »

Mark Tokarski
Guest

You make very reasonable points with this exception: Voters know very little about these issues, and have their opinions handed to them by opinion makers. This is the greatest failing of Democrats – they don’t lead, they don’t make any attempt to supply those opinions, as they are working for the lobbyists. They then turn around and blame voters for their failure to lead. Best of both worlds.

Mal Gills
Guest

This is, of course, in stark contrast to Republicans, who made a great showing of their depth in ability to “supply the electorate opinions” by winning so many races in 2012, right? It’s the job of the electorate to increase their own and others’ efficacy to the point of being able to take a candidate’s accomplishments and failings at face-value. I don’t help to elect politicians so that they can feed me opinions. I don’t consider that leadership, I consider it demagoguery (tell me the GOP’s tired appeals to a pro-life, anti-tax agenda aren’t the cookie-cutter example of that, buddy).… Read more »

James Conner
Guest

Rehberg received 16,740 fewer votes than Tester. If 54 percent of Cox’s 31,318 votes had flipped to Rehberg, Denny would have won. Rehberg ran 3.4 points behind Burns. Tester ran a half point behind 2006. Cox ran 3.9 points ahead of Jones. Cox deprived Rehberg of a majority. Had this been an instant runoff election, I believe Rehberg would have won.

jeffd
Guest
jeffd

Of course, you assume none of the Cox votes go to Tester. This just isn’t realistic considering Rehberg’s support for Patriot Act, etc. Many true libertarians see the personal freedom agenda of the Dems and lean towards them as much as repubs. Rehberg needed to get 75% of Cox’s vote if the remainder went to Tester.

James Conner
Guest

“This just isn’t realistic considering Rehberg’s support for Patriot Act, etc. Many true libertarians see the personal freedom agenda of the Dems and lean towards them as much as repubs.”

If you’ve got some sound data supporting this, it would be most helpful if you put it online.

The Polish Wolf
Guest

Perhaps,and I’ll admit my math isn’t good in the post (also written before all the ballots were in), but I don’t think Cox was a true spoiler. But there’s a couple of factors that make me think otherwise. First of all, how many Libertarians would have showed up to the polls if they didn’t have a candidate on the ballot? At least 14,000 voted Libertarian for each race; they probably voted Libertarian top to the bottom of the ticket. It’s hard to argue that without a Libertarian on the ticket, they would have bothered to vote at all. Second, there’s… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

An instant runoff system would settle the question.

I do think Libertarians were drawn to the ballot by initiatives such as I-124, that many would have voted because of those issues even if Libertarian candidates were not on the ballot. In those circumstances, would they skip a Democrat v Republican only choice, or vote for the candidate closest to their Libertarian views?

An analysis of voter falloff in downticket contests might reveal whether Libertarians who voted in the senate race also voted in downticket races where there was no Libertarian alternative.

James Conner
Guest

I don’t know why the above post is attributed to Anonymous. It should be attributed to me.

Mark Tokarski
Guest

Nameless, I really can’t concede on any issues because you’ve been ethereal to the point where we are not talking about issues, but rather perceptions. Since I say that politicians engage in perception management, and then you get all verbose in describing how I am wrong because my perceptions are mixed up, all I can say in response is “case closed.” Your notions about public opinion and voting behaviors are professional condescension. This is the way that political professionals manage them, by appealing to nonexistent thoughtfulness. I did not say I thought you were an academic. I said you sounded… Read more »

Support Our Work!

Poll

What would be the most appropriate nickname for Matt Rosendale?

Follow Us on Twitter

Subscribe Via E-mail

0 /* ]]> */