I haven’t been paying too much attention to Montana politics for the past couple of days on my vacation, but I happened to see a couple of posts from US Senate candidate Dirk Adams that were certainly puzzling, if not downright troubling.
In the first, Adams makes what appears to be an entirely specious claim about Senator John Walsh receiving donations from BP.
There’s no context for the assertion that Walsh contributors were responsible for the spill, no evidence to support the claim, and no reason to believe Adams at all. Making entire untrue accusations may be the modus operandi of the other “Democratic” Senate candidate challenging Senator Walsh, but I’d like to be able to expect more from Mr Adams, who has enough troublesome donations in his past to call into question the veracity of his claim to be a progressive environmentalist.
In the tweet before that, Adams again bizarrely claimed that he didn’t support the Citizens United decision. It’s certainly possible that Adams has changed his mind, but as recently as last fall that he supported the decision, telling the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that, despite the flow of money into Montana, he didn’t oppose the decision. According to the paper:
“He watched the money that poured into the state during last year’s Senate race. Still, he said he doesn’t oppose the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.”
What Mr. Adams is doing is much like what we’re seeing from John Bohlinger: two candidates trying to position themselves as the “progressive alternative” to John Walsh in the Democratic primary. What’s unfortunate is that both seem willing to say almost anything to attack Senator Walsh to obscure their records as supporters of Republican values, candidates, and policy.
If Mr. Adams wants to explain his claim about Senator Walsh’s donations or his reversal on Citizens United, I’m happy to give him space to do so here. A Senate campaign, after all, probably should explain in more than 140 characters why its claims are true.