In 2004, the buzz-word with blog campaigning was nationalization. In 2006, the trend seems to be localization. Several states are doing an amazing job at building local blogospheres that work as a team to advance common goals. From the Ohio blogs that made it so we all know the name Paul Hackett, to the Connecticut blogs that catapulted Ned Lamont, to the Washington state blogs' support for Darcy Brunner there is amazing stuff going on locally.
On Tuesday, Democrats in Montana will go to the polls in a primary election that could decide control of the U.S. Senate. The Montana bloggers have been pushing to beat Senator Conrad Burns for over a year, and in the final week there is a lot of great blogging going on.
Left in the West has been to the Montana Senate Race what
OH-02 blog was to Paul Hackett -- the source for daily information and analysis on the race. For the final week of the campaign, Left in the West created a box at the top of the blog for breaking news, which currently reads:
Breaking Primary News: Ochenski and Wilson: Tester Has the Big Mo' ... Richards Withdraws, Endorses Tester ... Former Morrison Staff Endorse Tester ...
I think this is a great way for readers to instantly see what is moving in the campaign (and things are moving fast). Another Montana blog -- Intelligent Discontent -- put together a great Official Endorsement of John Tester:
CI-96
John Morrison's support for CI-96 tells me a lot about him. It tells me that either he believed in institutionalizing bigotry in the Montana constitution or that he was willing to sell out a group of Montanans for the sake of gaining a few votes from social conservatives. In contrast, Jon Tester acted like a leader, and one who believes that the Constitution should protect the rights of all Montanans. I'd much rather vote for a civil rights leader than a reactionary or opportunist.
Iraq
Jon Tester has a more clearly articulated (and correct) position on the Iraq War. He has long supported a withdrawal plan by the end of 2006 and support for focusing our attention on true concerns: like the threat of Osama bin Laden, homeland security, and our economic interests. In contrast, Morrison has never moved past vague criticism of permanent bases in Iraq. He doesn't even list the Iraq War, the most important foreign policy issue facing the nation today, on his issues page. The war matters, and voters deserve to know if we will have a Senator who will stand up to the neocon's imperialist ambitions, or just go along. Jon Tester will fight for our security, and better treatment of the men and women in our armed services; what would Morrison do?
In General
Morrison's Iraq problem is symptomatic of a broader lack of specificity in this campaign: voters just don't know what he stands for. This description at MyDD sums it up best:
Morrison has gone with the "electability" campaign route: locking himself in the call room, making sure he doesn't say anything that could offend anyone, and dialing, dialing, dialing.
Jon Tester is a better candidate on the issues that matter to progressives and Montanans. He opposes CAFTA, he supports specific proposals for renewable energy, and he is committed to the interests of working Americans. John Morrison's campaign has simply been more focused on very specific parts of his resume as Auditor, not the things he will do as our Senator.
Like most political pundits, they conclude that Jon Tester is the only candidate who can beat Conrad Burns in November. Considering this seat could decide control of the Senate, this is a very, very important point:
John Tester has the best chance of defeating Conrad Burns in November. No question. While the polls say that both men would beat Burns today, it seems unlikely that Morrison will be able to prevail in the long run for two reasons. First, his own ethical lapses will make it impossible for him to attack Burns' most important vulnerability. Frankly, he has been dishonest, evasive, and, according to the attorneys who formerly supported him, unethical. More importantly, it seems like Morrison won't be able to handle a tough campaign. If anything, the Tester campaign has been criticized for being too soft on Morrison, and he hasn't handled that challenge very well. From running from a public radio call-in show to really ineffective attacks against Jon Tester, Morrison just hasn't show the kind of campaigning that will allow him to withstand the inevitable, relentless negativity from the Burns staff.
Finally, Jon Tester is going to appeal to a broader range of Montana voters. From John Melcher to Paul Richards, liberal college students to Eastern Montana farmers, Tester can appeal to a much broader audience. Anyone who thinks that Morrison will cut into Conrad Burns' rural base doesn't understand Montana politics.
Democrats have a clear choice next week. We can choose a well-intentioned, manufactured DLC Democrat, or we can select a candidate who represents our values-and can win. Please give Jon Tester your support. His committment to the real values of Montana and the Democratic Party have clearly made him the best choice.
Intelligent Discontent is stirring things up, not just in the blogosphere but by writing letters to the editor:
Given the controversy over the Morrison-Tacke scandal, I was gratified to read that John Morrison and his staff had written an eight-page "Fact Check" [Outpost, May 11] answering some of the allegations in the Missoula Independent. In fact, Morrison's campaign manager, Tylynn Gordon, said that the document was available for anyone who asked, but that no one had.
So I did ask. And now, almost two weeks later, I haven't received the document, or even a response. It's often said about political scandals that the real casualty comes not from the event itself, but the response of the candidate, and that couldn't be more true than in this case. Why should I believe Morrison's claims that the case was handled properly when I can't believe him in his responses about it?
It's unfortunate in a number of ways that this story hasn't been pursued more aggressively, and that Mr. Morrison has not been more forthcoming. Voters in the Democratic primary deserve to know the whole truth, and the ability of a candidate to hide behind the major newspapers of the state undermines the pursuit of that truth.
I was long a undecided voter in this primary. John Morrison's ethical lapses in 1998 and 2001-2003 didn't cost him my vote; his obfuscation and dishonesty since they were exposed has. Montanans have had enough of senators who will do anything to win; let's select a Senator who will make us proud.
And Tylynn, if you are reading this, I am still waiting for the fact check.
Jon Tester has been doing great in the press, but he is also getting a lot of support from the bloggers who know Montana best. Keep your eye on the Montana Bloggers over the next few days, this race will be a photo finish!