While much of the blogosphere has focused on the actions of the Democratic Party establishment in DC, there is important progress being made out west. In the book
Crashing the Gate there is justifiably a great deal of attention given to the Montana and Colorado models of reforming how we win. While both models are important to understand as we seek to reform the Democratic Party, so is the geography where the innovation is occuring. This is important for those taking a short-term approach of figuring out how to win back congress in 2006 along, especially important for those focused on winning back the White House in 2008, but deserves just as much attention from those interested in where we want the Democratic Party to be a generation from now. This is the idea behind the Western Strategy
Former Montana Congressman Pat Williams
recently wrote an Op-Ed that deserves to been seen by more eyeballs. Williams looks at why Bush is bleeding support out west.
Here in the "purple states" of the Rocky Mountain West, President George W. Bush's job approval ratings have fallen lower than a rattlesnake's belly. In five of our eight mountain states, Bush approval has sunk well below 50 percent with his standing in Nevada at an all-time low of 39 and Montana at a rock-bottom 42 percent. Even in the most crimson, conservative states in America -- Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho -- the President's 2004 election night approval has now collapsed by an average of 10 percent with a dizzying loss of 14 percent in Vice President Cheney's home state of Wyoming.
It has become clear that the buyer's remorse here in the Rockies is due to more than simple disagreement with Bush's policies. Westerners have developed serious doubts about Bush's judgment and character as well.
Pat Williams knows a thing or two about winning out west. After the 1990 census, Montana's two congressional seats became one, pitting two incumbent congressman in a legendary statewide battle that Williams won. Looking at what he identifies as Bush's faults could provide Democrats a lesson in what not to do if we want to win out west.
However, the Bush collapse among folks out here may have less to do with policy disagreements and more with growing concerns about George W. personally. Time is always required for people to take the measure of their leaders. The last three two-term presidents are Reagan, Clinton and now George W. Bush. Although westerners often opposed many of Ronald Reagan's policies they continued year after year to support him personally. With Bill Clinton, we recognized his competence and a majority often agreed with many of his policies, however, we had more than ample evidence that to protect himself, he would lie to us. Here in the West that personal flaw did him in.
After watching Bush into his second term, westerners find much that concerns them. He seems halting, has to read every speech and even then bungles the words. Bush is demanding, preachy, stubborn, unable to admit even his most obvious mistakes. Even in supposedly unscripted public appearances -- be they a teleconference with troops in Iraq or a healthcare meeting here in Montana -- we are surprised to find out that Bush's handlers had carefully pre-selected the crowd and then actually scripted the questions people were allowed to ask the president. Westerner's prefer leaders who can stand on their own two feet and, when necessary, shoot from the hip -- straight, that is.
For a time we westerners seemed impressed by the tilt of the Bush Stetson. Then we learned that his "ranch," purchased just in time for his 2000 presidential campaign, doesn't have a single horse or cow. Real cowboys have cows. What they don't have are unscuffed, tailor-made boots with embossed insignias; they don't swagger, aren't bullies, and try not to start brawls they can't win. And they never declare "mission accomplished" until the other guy hollers quits.
Competence, telling it as it is instead of saying the most politically expedient, over-production of campaigning, spine, conviction and authenticity -- could these be concepts that Democrats should seek to understand better?
There could be a potential for a critical re-alignment out west if Democrats can take advantage of the opportunity and provide western voters what they want, instead of what DC Democrats are willing to give. John S. Adams wrote a new piece in the Missoula Independent where he looks at the stakes in 2006 Montana senate race when it comes to capturing this potential:
[Center for the Rocky Mountain West Senior Fellow Dan] Kemmis says the impacts of Montana's Senate race go beyond Big Sky Country and the Capitol Hill. There's a larger political realignment underway in the Rocky Mountains, and this race could have a decided impact on how blue the Rockies could get.
By 2000 the eight Rocky Mountain states had become a virtual one-party region, with no Democratic governors, only three Democrats in the Senate and only three legislative houses controlled by Democrats. Six years later, New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona and Montana have Democrats in the governors' mansions, and substantial victories in Montana and Colorado in 2004 gave Democrats control of both of those states' legislatures.
With only a handful of delegates and electoral votes, Montana is negligible in the presidential picture, but if Western states send more Democrats to the Senate, they will wield a more powerful regional voice. A repeat victory for the Democrats in 2006 could have resounding impacts for the party and the region.
As November draws near, the rest of the country will keep a watchful eye on which party this once-red state sends to the Senate in 2006. It will be up to the Democrats to not only take advantage of Republican weaknesses, but also to prove that they can step into the void and offer something new.
Something new.
Democrats know what doesn't work, we've been doing it for some time out west. Schweitzer was something new, and now he has one of the highest approval ratings of any Governor in the land.
Like Schweitzer, Jon Tester is an authentic, bold leader who says what he means and means what he says. Instead of reinforcing an unfortunate charachature of Democrats, Tester has the personal strength to connect with people in a way that they will give him a chance.
Burns may be so weak that he could lose to a gopher in November (he just extended his lead as the most hated senator). But Tester is the type of candidate who not just be around when Burns loses, but win a victory that helps re-align the Rocky Mountain states. With the way Tester connects with people, having him in the U.S. Senate could be a huge advantage for the 2008 presidential nominee has he can break down the sterotypes that many westerners have of Democrats and get people to give a listen to who is at his side.