Why did Greg Gianforte vote against a measure he claimed would begin”the process of including Malmstrom in future Air Force basing decisions to host aircraft, potentially increasing the number of men and women serving there”?
Because if you take Gianforte at his word, that’s exactly what he did last week.
In a story that was little more than a glorified press release sent to the Great Falls Tribune, Gianforte got headlines for claiming that he had inserted language in the National Defense Authorization Act that would make repairing the Malmstrom runway a higher priority than building a new one somewhere else.
And then Gianforte turned around and voted against the NDAA.
It’s classic Gianforte. Instead of the people of Montana, he puts his party in D.C. first. He’s repeatedly conned the Montana press into running stories about measures he’s supported, knowing perhaps that they will not follow up and note that he voted against actually funding the measure in question.
I don’t actually believe Gianforte’s press release. The language it discusses is far from a guarantee of a renewed Malmstrom mission and Gianforte’s name does not appear on the list of House Amendments to the NDAA, but if the Great Falls Tribune took him at his word that he inserted critical language for the community into the bill, shouldn’t it demand that he explain why he voted against it?
And if I were running a campaign against Mr. Gianforte next year, I’d certainly think using his own words and votes against him might be a pretty effective campaign strategy. Something to think about, Mr. Fox.