Judge may release investigation report in Flathead Lake boat crash before Nov. 6 election

Flathead County District Judge John McKeon, of Malta, will consider whether to release the pre-sentence investigation report that was part of the criminal case against former Montana State Sen. Greg Barkus, R-Kalispell.

McKeon ordered all sides in the case to respond by Oct. 23 to a non-profit watchdog group’s  request that the court release the pre-sentence investigation report related to the 2009 boat crash which left Barkus, Congressman Denny Rehberg and three others seriously injured. The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, wants the documents released before the Nov. 6 election in which Rehberg, a Republican, is challenging incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Tester for the U.S. Senate.

According to CREW’s Oct. 10 press release:

“CREW requested the PSI to shed light on the true facts surrounding the crash, including the extent to which those facts differ from the version offered by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), a passenger on the boat who denied Sen. Barkus was impaired in any way.”

Rehberg’s campaign did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on CREW’s request or McKeon’s order.

UPDATE: Rehberg’s campaign manager, Erik Iverson, said in a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon that his boss has no control over whether the report is released or not because he is not a party to the case in question.

“Denny was a witness and has no rights or privileges different than any other witness,” Iverson said. “That said, it doesn't matter to Denny what the judge decides. He has no problem with the documents being released at all. He has not seen them or read them, but either way Denny is fine with whatever the judge decides to do."

Barkus, who was the House majority whip at the time, was behind the wheel of the boat that on Aug. 27, 2009 slammed into the rocks on the shore of Flathead Lake near Wayfarers State Park. Court records revealed that Barkus’ blood alcohol content was .16, twice the legal limit of .08, nearly two hours after the crash. Rehberg, two of his staff members and Barkus’ wife were passengers on the boat, and all were seriously injured in the crash. Rehberg denied being impaired himself and said he “saw no signs of impairment” in Barkus.

(You can download the complete audio from Rehberg’s hour-long press conference two weeks after the crash here).

Barkus was charged with criminal endangerment and negligent vehicular assault. McKeon rejected prosecutors’ original plea agreement with Barkus, which called for a three-year deferred sentence, a $4,000 restitution payment and unsupervised probation. McKeon instead imposed a $29,000 fine and a four-year deferred prison sentence.

On Oct. 1 CREW asked McKeon to release the pre-sentence investigation report that the court used to determine Barkus’ sentence. According to court records, the report includes:

1. photographs of the crash;
2. witness statements;
3. the investigating officers’ reports;
4. toxicology reports;
5. the report of the accident reconstruction expert;
6. written or transcribed statements of the the boat’s occupants;
7. a history of Barkus’ 2004 conviction on traffic offenses, including the circumstances surrounding the reckless driving conviction in which he was originally charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

Under state law, McKeon cannot disseminate the pre-sentence investigation report to CREW without first finding “that the demands of individual privacy do not clearly exceed the merits of the public disclosure.”

CREW chief legal counsel Anne L. Weismann argued that the Barkus case involved people in positions of public trust. Barkus was a sitting state senator at the time of the crash and Rehberg, a sitting U.S. Congressman now and at the time of the crash, is running for the U.S. Senate. CREW argued there is “significant public interest in disclosure” to understand the circumstances of the crash and how those circumstances relate to the integrity and judgment of the public officials involved in the crash.

Barkus’ case was ongoing when Rehberg sought reelection to the House in 2010. The case was scheduled to go to trial more than three weeks after the election but the settlement was eventually reached and finalized in January 2011, after Rehberg started his sixth term in Congress.

Top Santorum funder expects to back Rehberg

According article in the latest issue of The New Republic (subscription required) the “eccentric Republican billionaire” Foster Friess will, “for sure,” spend some money in Montana this election cycle.

Friess, now of Jackson, Wyo., made a fortune managing a multi-billion-dollar mutual fund. Now retired, Friess is a prominent financier of conservative causes and he’s GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum’s biggest financial backer. According to the The New Republic Friess has pumped $331,000 of the $730,000 raised by Santorum’s Super PAC, the Red White and Blue Fund and is responsible for a third of the $150,000 raised by Leaders for Families, another Santorum Super PAC.

According to The New Republic’s Molly Redden :

Rich eccentrics are nothing new in politics. But, thanks to the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and the unlimited Super PAC donations it allows, these eccentrics can now sustain campaigns that would have otherwise dropped out of view long ago. Newt Gingrich has Las Vegas magnate Sheldon Adelson; Ron Paul has PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel; Santorum has Friess. And, no matter what ultimately happens in the GOP presidential primaries, Friess is already beginning to contemplate which races he might be able to influence next.

One of those races is likely to be Montana’s very own U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Jon Tester and Republican challenger U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg.

Redden reports:

…Friess is hoping to haven an even bigger impact on several crucial races for the fall. He told me he plans "for sure" to give to eight or ten key Senate races. His favored candidates include Denny Rehberg, who is currently locked in a virtual tie with Montana's vulnerable Democratic senator, Jon Tester; Josh Mandel, who is challenging liberal Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown; and Dan Liljenuist, a far-right primary challenger to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. In all three races, a large cash infusion could make a big difference.

If Foster Friess’ name sounds familiar, it’s probably because of the headlines he generated last week when he weighed into the debate over contraception in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell:

House measure would expand Homeland Security powers, waive environmental laws

I decided to post this article on my blog since I’ve received so much feedback on it. It appears there’s a lot of interest in this topic. This version will stay live after the original story has been archived on the Tribune’s website. – JSA

A controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the United States' border is making its way through Congress.

The proposed measure, called the "National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act," would let Homeland Security waive 36 major federal environmental protection laws in order to facilitate border patrol activities on public lands.

Supporters of the bill say it would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents more control in securing the nation's borders. Opponents argue that the measure is overly broad and would give Homeland Security unchecked authority to disregard major environmental laws on public lands, including wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges among others.

Congressman Denny Rehberg, one of the 49 50 Republican co-sponsors of the measure, said the bill is aimed at giving border patrol agents the tools they need to secure the border.

"This bill is about ending a dangerous turf war being waged between various federal government agencies - and it's a turf war that is threatening America's national security," Rehberg said. "The simple idea of the bill is to provide the border patrol with the same access on federal land that it currently has on state and private land. There is nothing about this bill that creates any new authority to intrude into the lives of Americans."

Critics, including Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, say House Resolution 1505 is on par with the Patriot Act and REAL ID, in terms of granting the federal government unprecedented and overreaching powers.

"It's a federal land grab at its worst," Tester said. "I just can't see how any lawmaker would think it's a good idea to allow the Department of Homeland Security to make sweeping decisions about our land and ignore our rights without any public accountability."

The bill would give the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders. Under the proposed law, DHS would have immediate access to, and control over, any public land managed by the federal government for "purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment)."

In Montana, the law would impact nearly the entire northern third of the state, including Glacier National Park; portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests; The Flathead, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy's, Fort Belknap and Fort Peck Indian reservations, the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and tens of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.

The measure also waives 36 major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Air Act.

Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said the agency does not comment on the specifics of pending legislation.

Kim Thorsen, deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management at the U.S. Department of Interior, testified to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that the Obama administration opposes the measure.

"We recognize the significant ecological and cultural values of the extensive lands Interior agencies manage near the borders, and we strive to maintain their character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the American people," Thorsen said in written testimony to the committee. "We also believe that these two objectives - securing our borders and conserving our federal lands - are not mutually exclusive; we are not faced with a choice between the two, instead, we can - and should - do both."

According to Thorsen, HR 1505 would have a significant impact on the Interior Department's ability to carry out its mission to protect natural and cultural resources on federally managed and trust lands.

"As drafted, this bill could impact approximately 54 units of the national park system, 228 national wildlife refuges, 122 units of the National Wilderness Preservation System managed by Interior, and 87 units of BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, resulting in unintended damage to sensitive natural and cultural resources, including endangered species and wilderness," Thorsen wrote.

John Leshy, a University of California - Hastings, law professor and a former committee staffer, told the committee that compared with other legislation he has seen, HR 1505 is "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."

"I have grave concerns, not only about its wisdom as a matter of policy, but also its constitutionality as a matter of law," Hastings told the committee.

He also said that under the bill, Homeland Security's actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.

Supporters of the measure say that's exactly the point.

Zack Taylor, vice chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the foundational components of border security are national security and public safety. He said no other laws - including environmental protection laws - should ever supersede those foundational principles.

"What has happened is the importance on the environment has come to rule everything else," Taylor said in an interview last week. "In our view, the people are more important than the porcupine or the wolverine or the wolf or the grizzly bear."

Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. Public Lands for the Pew Environment Group, said the measure is part of a "disturbing trend" in Congress to undo environmental regulations in the name of public safety or national security.

"Anti-environmental bills that would never pass under their own merits are now being recast as solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems," Danowitz said. "We all care about national security and protecting our borders, but waiving core conservation measures is not the way to do it."

Supporters say the criticisms of the bill are overblown.

"HR 1505 isn't about creating new enforcement authority. Rather, it's about making existing laws actually work as intended by alleviating the regulatory burden of certain environmental laws," Rehberg said.

Rehberg said the bill is not just about preventing terrorists from entering this country, it also is about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling and the abuse of public lands by criminals and drug cartels.

"At the end of the day, I never want to have to tell a Montana family that their loved one was killed by someone on drugs that got into our state because some federal bureaucrats couldn't work together to control the border," Rehberg said.

Tester said the bill has far greater implications than its supporters acknowledge.

"This is a whole lot worse than just granting agents access to certain federal lands. It gives one federal department the ability to run roughshod over the rights of law-abiding Americans and seize vast swaths of land we all own and use - with no public accountability," Tester said. "This nation is very capable of fighting terrorism without turning into a government police state, but that's exactly what this unpopular plan would do."

According to the bill's sponsor, Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, the measure could see a mark-up before the end of the year.

Liberal bloggers feuding over Tester’s record

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, once a darling of the Montana and national liberal blogosphere, appears to be having some trouble with the netroots as he embarks on a tough reelection campaign against Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg.

On issues ranging from wilderness to immigration reform to wolves the past several months have seen liberals’  irritation with Tester go from a slow simmer to a rolling boil in the blogosphere. 

National blogger Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos fame—one of Tester’s most ardent and influential netroots supporters in the 2006 election—slammed Tester in December for voting against the DREAM Act, a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens who were brought to the United States as children. The bill was a top priority of Congressional Democrats last session, but Tester and fellow Montana Sen. Max Baucus joined three other Senate Democrats and in voting against the measure, which Tester referred to as “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

Wrote Kos:

“Not only will I do absolutely nothing to help his reelection bid, but I will take every opportunity I get to remind people that he is so morally bankrupt that he'll try to score political points off the backs of innocent kids who want to go to college or serve their country in the military.”

More recently a fiery debate erupted on the Missoula blog 4&20 blackbirds over a post by frequent anonymous liberal blogger JC. In the post JC criticizes Tester for breaking key campaign promises dealing with wildness protection and the use of legislative riders and accuses the senator of marginalizing liberal policy critics by calling them “extremists”:

During Jon’s first term in office he took two actions that have explicitly gone against his promises: 1) he has introduced his Logging Bill, which would release certain lands protected as wilderness under current statutes and management practices; and 2) he inserted the wolf delisting rider into the 2011 Budget Bill.

Both pieces of legislation have been heavily panned by those who supported [former progressive Democratic Senate candidate] Paul Richards in his withdrawal from the primary race, and endorsement of Tester–and by many, many others. And for that vocal criticism of Tester’s legislation, Tester labeled his former supporters “extremists.” I guess their position once upon a time wasn’t too extreme for him to shake hands with. And Jon invited “extremist” Paul onto the stage for a victory salute. But those supporters have not changed their principles, policies, or politics. Jon Tester has.

But Tester supporters were quick to fire back arguing, in part, that Tester never pretended to be the liberal the netroots hoped he’d be, and that criticism of Tester is only aiding Republican Denny Rehberg’s effort to unseat the one-term Democrat.

Wrote commenter Jake:

We must remember that the lines have been drawn and our primary focus has to be to get Jon re-elected. The alternative is not in any way acceptable. Intellectual squabbling is a waste of energy, especially as some have estimated, it could be a close race.

Helena educator and 0ne-time Democratic gubernatorial candidate Don Pogreba (well, he filed for governor anyway), picked up the discussion on his blog Intelligent Discontent where he provided a lengthy rebuttal to JC’s post on 4&20 blackbirds. Pogreba says he’s troubled by the “developing trend in which progressives seem a lot more interested in tearing down a moderate-left Senator like Tester” than in attacking his opponent.

Writes Pogreba:

“The fact remains that Senator Tester is who he represented himself to be, not the person we progressives want him to be all the time. Montana’s not going to elect Bernie Sanders; it’s not going to elect Russ Feingold (hell, Wisconsin doesn’t even elect Russ Feingold anymore). What we can do is to support a Senator who looks out for the working class, did his best to create a Wilderness Bill that balanced environmental protection with political and economic reality in the state, and who has worked to protect small businesses and family farms here in Montana.”

The comments sections of each of the blog posts I reference above are well worth reading, if not lengthy. It’s too bad I don’t have the time or space to highlight them all here.

However, one interesting nugget stood out from comments on the 4&20 blackbirds piece.

Wilderness advocate Matthew Koehler, a staunch critic of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, was invited in November to become a front page author on the prominent Montana Democratic blog Left in the West.  He got the gig from Rob Kailey, a.k.a. Wulfgar!, who took over administrative duties of the blog after longtime administrator Jay “Touchstone” Stevens left in November, followed shortly thereafter by blog founder Matt Singer. 

In announcing Koehler’s elevation to front-page post status, Kailey wrote:

His issues may often be singular, and his statements may not always meet with approval. I don't care. He has a great deal to say of importance to the left.  That I do care about.

But according to  a comment Koehler left on the 4&20 blackbirds post , he apparently lost  front page posting privileges on LiTW after openly criticizing Tester for attaching a rider that removes grey wolves from the Endangered Species Act to a must-pass spending bill.

Some might argue all of this blog squabbling is much ado about nothing.

That may be true, but it’s hard to deny that the netroots played a integral role early on in Tester’s rise from obscure Montana dirt farmer to U.S. Senator…as Tester himself said in an August 2006 interview shortly after his surprising defeat of presumed front-runner John Morrison in the Democratic primary:

“I’ll tell you, I think [blogs] are critically important to this campaign…They’ve brought more people into the political process, and I have nothing but high praise for what they’ve been able to do and what they’ve given me.”

An overstatement? Maybe.

But During the 2006 Senate campaign Act Blue donors raised $342,823 from over 10,000 individual online contributions for Tester’s campaign, mostly from blogs. ActBlue donations to Tester’s 2006 campaign outnumbered donations from any single PAC, according to OpenSecrets.org.

There’s no question that an incumbent Senator—in what is likely to be one of the most hotly contested U.S. Senate races in the country—will rely less on netroots  enthusiasm and activism as he will on the the traditional party resources.

What remains to be seen is whether Tester—a candidate lefty bloggers almost universally fawned over in 2006—will electorally suffer from the divisions flaring up among what was once his most active and vocal base.

Possible 2012 contenders?

The Capitol is abuzz following the news that Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg is planning announce his bid for the U.S. Senate.

Rep. Franke Wilmer, D-Bozeman, confirmed Tuesday that she plans to seek Rehberg’s House seat.

Bozeman businessman Steve Daines, the only Republican to officially announce his intent to run for the Senate, is expected to announce on Thursday that he’s stepping out of Rehberg’s way in order to pursue the House instead.

No others have officially announced their plans, but here are some of the names floating around the Capitol for possible 2012 U.S. House bids:

Tyler Gernant, D-Missoula

Gernant, a Missoula attorney, mounted a respectable challenge to eventual Democratic Party nominee Dennis McDonald in 2010. Gernant has run a state-wide campaign, so he should have some name recognition among the party faithful. Gernant said he has been considering another run for the House even before the news that Rehberg would likely seek the Senate, but he hasn’t made a decision yet.

“It’s something I’ve thought about, but I’m going to check around before I make a decision,” Gernant said. “A lot of good could come from that seat and I don’t think Montanan’s have gotten much in the past 12 years.”

Sen. Kim Gillan, D-Billings

Gillan is the minority whip for the Senate Democrats. She served in the House from 1997-2004, and was the minority leader in the 2001 Session. Originally from El Cerrito, Calif., Gillan is the Workforce Development Coordinator for Montana State University-Billings.

“I will wait until after the session before I make any decisions," Gillan said. "My constituents sent me up here to work on jobs, business equipment tax reform and I've got my anti-bullying bill. I don't want (constituents) to think I'm distracted from the job they sent me here to do."

Sen. Shannon Augare, D-Browning

Augare was first elected to the House in 2007 and was the Democratic Whip in the 2009 session before running successfully for the Senate in 2010.

Augare said he, too, is thinking about a possible House run.

"I think every politician has considered running for higher office," Augare said. "I've had some conversations about the House, but I really don't know where I'm at at this point in time. There are some opportunities on the horizon."

Neil Livingstone

Livingstone is co-chairman and CEO of Executive Action, a Washington, D.C.-based crisis management firm. He’s considered an internationally recognized terrorism expert, and he’s probably the most intriguing of the possible 2012 contenders.

According to his official bio:

He is a familiar face on the nation's newscasts as a commentator on terrorism, intelligence, and national security issues. A veteran of more than 1300 television appearances, he has appeared on such programs as "Nightline," "Meet the Press," "Today," "The Early Show," "Crossfire," "Newsmaker Sunday," "The Charlie Rose Show," "Hardball," "Dateline," "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer," "The O'Reilly Report," and the evening newscasts on all of the major networks.

According to multiple news reports (<-three separate links there), Livingstone is said s also said to be considering a run for office in Montana. He purchased a house here in 2009 and registered the Internet domain livingstoneforgovernor.com.

Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer's term ends in 2012 and he can’t run again due to term limits.

A spokesman for Livingstone could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

A Montana GOP source said Livingstone’s name is still being tossed around as a possible state-wide or congressional candidate. It’s not clear whether Livingstone would challenge the popular Rehberg, take on Steve Daines in a Republican House primary, or seek the Governor’s seat…if any.

Rep. Krayton Kerns, R-Laurel

Kerns, a Tea Party Republican, is also been mentioned as a possible candidate for the House or Governor seats. Kerns, who ran unsuccessfully for Speaker of the House this session, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

2012 here we come! Senate race to be a bruiser

Roll Call beat Congressman Denny Rehberg to the punch last night, reporting that the six-term Republican would announce his bid for the U.S. Senate on Saturday.

Quoting an unnamed source in the Rehberg camp, the article stated:

“It’s happening Saturday,” said a knowledgeable Montana GOP political operative. “He’s running. There is a lot of support and enthusiasm back home, and Denny knows he can win.”

…

“The operative offered some internal Rehberg polling numbers showing the Montana Republican in a statistical tie with Tester in a prospective 2012 matchup.”

Rehberg’s campaign is mum on the issue, but you can read between the lines in this statement from Rehberg spokesman Brian Barrett:

“Denny has received a lot of support and encouragement to run for the United States Senate in 2012.  He is weighing all of his options carefully and will announce his decision Saturday.”

UPDATE: I just received this statement from Tester spokesman Aaron Murphy:

“Jon is running for another opportunity to serve Montana in the U.S. Senate, not against anyone. He looks forward to comparing his record of the past four years with any challenger. Jon’s known for creating jobs, cutting spending and working together with his colleagues to get substantive things done for Montanans, and nobody is going to outwork him. We look forward to beginning an honest debate following the 2012 primary a year and a half from now.”

Montana’s Primary Election is Tuesday, June 5, 2012.

Meanwhile, back in Helena, Rep. Franke Wilmer, D-Bozeman, a political science professor at Montana State University, announced she plans to seek Rehberg’s (presumed) open seat. If elected, Wilmer would be the first woman to hold that seat since Jeannette Rankin.

In an interview with Capitol reporters this afternoon, Wilmer, a three-term member of the House,  said she considered running for Congress a decade ago. She said she has the experience, qualifications and the common sense ideals to be an effective legislator in Washington, D.C.

Wilmer said her campaign will be built around three major themes:

1) Reducing the Deficit – “There are some good bi-partisan ideas out there. This is not a partisan issue.”

2) Health Care – “If health care reform is going to be declared unconstitutional then we’ve got to get on with the program and fix it because we need it.”

3) Energy: “Montanans don’t like having to make a tradeoff between developing new energy and protecting our natural resources. It’s shouldn’t be one or the other.”

Wilmer said her decision to seek the House seat hinged, in part, on whether Rehberg would stay in the race:

“It’s hard to beat an incumbent that has such widespread support. I don’t know if I’d want to push that rock up hill.”

As far as I know, no one else is publically talking about running for Congress on the Democrats’ side, but apparently at least a handful of state lawmakers are testing the waters.  It’s unlikely that Rehberg will face any serious primary opposition from a Republican.

Bozeman Businessman Steve Daines, who ran for Lieutenant Governor on a failed gubernatorial ticket in 2008, announced in November  that he would run against Tester.  However, a  Montana GOP  insider told me then that  Daines was prepared to step aside from the senate race if Rehberg decided to throw his hat in the ring. In that scenario Daines would then run for Rehberg’s House seat, the source said.

Thus it came as no surprise to see this statement from Daines’ campaign in my e-mail inbox this morning:

“U.S. Senate candidate Steve Daines will make a major campaign announcement Thursday February 3rd.”

Will Daines announce he his switching races to run for the House?

Most likely. Stay tuned.

Now that Roll Call spilled the beans about Rehberg’s plans the story has gone national. Political guru’s are already handicapping the Tester/Rehberg race and it’s possible implications for the Senate in 2012. According to the Cook Political Report, via Jennifer Rubin at WaPo:

Rehberg's entry vaults this contest that had been in the Likely Democratic column to Toss Up, bringing the total number of Democratic-held seats in that column to five. Sens. Ben Nelson (NE), Jim Webb (VA) and Joe Manchin (WV) as well as the open seat in North Dakota are already in the Toss Up column. . .

Speculation over Rehberg’s 2012 plans has been rampant for years. I think it’s safe to say that most political insiders for quite some time expected Rehberg would challenge first-term Tester. After all, Rehberg was the only Republican to ever come within striking distance of Max Baucus, losing to Montana’s senior senator by a mere 5 percent of the vote in 1996, and he’s been politically untouchable in his six House races winning by wide margins in each.

Rehberg fueled speculation about a possible Senate run throughout his 2010 reelection campaign, where he spent almost as much time attacking Tester as he did his opponent in the race, Democrat Dennis McDonald. Rehberg held some 23 “public listening sessions” on Tester’s signature piece of legislation, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, throughout his campaign. At a debate in Bozeman, Rehberg not-so-subtly attacked Tester for the way in which the proposed legislation was created: 

“I want to point out the difference between collaboration and consensus. (Tester’s bill) was a collaboration effort. Those were selected people that came together around a table and decided and then wanted to go out and try to convince everybody else it was a great idea. That’s different than consensus. Consensus is actually getting out now before the legislation is introduced and sitting down and listening to them.” 

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was the first group to rush to Tester’s defense on Tuesday.

DSCC Communications Director Eric Schultz released the following statement:

"Congressman Rehberg has been in Washington for ten years and has nothing to show for it. He's got a record long on spending but short on accomplishments. Rehberg has taken on 9/11 heroes and sued Montana firefighters. Montanans rejected the last career politician who took on the firefighters, and we expect them to ultimately do the same this time."

The Montana Democratic Party was also quit to attack, bringing up, predictably, a certain boating crash on Flathead Lake:

"This is turning out to be one of the worst-kept secrets in Montana," said Ted Dick, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party. "Despite his near-fatal boat accident with a drunk driver, his frivolous lawsuit against Montana firefighters, years of deficit spending and voting against Montana, and an embarrassing record of, well, nothing, Dennis Rehberg wants a new job. He's going to have a tough two years ahead of him explaining to Montanans why he deserves it."

Let the fireworks fly!

Political insiders tell me they expect a flurry of news in the coming days regarding the 2012 elections, including the possibility of other candidates jumping into the race.

Tester: “widespread bi-partisan support” for forest bill

I received an e-mail this morning from Sen. Jon Tester’s office regarding the “widespread, bipartisan support for Sen. Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.”

Click on the image below or here to see the full “Who supports the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act?” file included in the e-mail. 
 
UPDATE (12-14-10, 4:40 p.m.): I just received a modified version of the chart above from Mike Garrity at the Alliance for the Wild Rockies [the source of the document is Denny Rehberg’s office] listing quite a few more opponents. Clink on the image below to see higher-resolution image:

UPDATE (12-15-10, 2:30 p.m.): just received another update to this chart:

First off, it’s worth pointing out that the bill that was attached to the Senate Omnibus Appropriations Act, now titled the “Forest Jobs and Restoration Initiative,” is not the same bill as the one Tester introduced in July 2009, then called the “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.” As I posted yesterday, the final version included in the omnibus bill contains a number of significant changes from the original bill introduced in 2009. You can read about those changes in this post. 

You can view the entire Senate omnibus bill with links to Tester FJRI in an easy-to-use DocumentCloud viewer here.

The e-mail also referenced a an Aug. 2009 poll by Harstad Research  that found “73% of surveyed Montanans support FJRA based on bill’s description.”

Here’s the poll question Harstad Research asked participants of that poll:

Q 7. Let me briefly describe the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, which would do the following:

• Create jobs in Montana by directing the Forest Service to use light-on-the-land logging and forest restoration projects aimed at improving forest health and reducing forest fire risk;
• Employ forest stewardship contractors to restore Montana’s damaged streams, forest roads, campgrounds and trails;
• Guarantee that motorized vehicles will have access to designated recreation areas;
• Protect Montana’s wildlife habitats and watersheds by designating certain places as Wilderness areas in the Beaverhead Deer Lodge, Lolo and Kootenai National Forests.

Do you FAVOR or OPPOSE the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act that I just described?
Results: Favor--73 percent; Oppose--15 percent; no answer--12 percent.

It’s also worth pointing out that the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign is not a single organization, but a campaign that 16 conservation organization from Montana and 39 conservation organizations from around the nation signed-on to. You can see the complete list of groups associated with the LBPWC here.

Here' are the Montana-based groups that signed the official Senate  testimony opposing Tester’s FJRA:


Alliance for the Wild Rockies (MT)
Big Wild Advocates (MT)
Buffalo Field Campaign (MT)
Central Montana Wildlands Association (MT)
Conservation Congress (MT)
Deerlodge Forest Defense Fund (MT)
Friends of the Bitterroot (MT)
Friends of the Rattlesnake (MT)
Friends of the Wild Swan (MT)
Montana Rivers (MT)
Swan View Coalition (MT)
Western Montana Mycological Association (MT)
Western Watersheds Project (MT)
Wilderness Watch (MT)
WildWest Institute (MT)
Yellowstone Buffalo Foundation (MT)

Also notably absent from the list of opponents Tester sent out this morning is former Democratic Senatorial candidate Paul Richards, who accused Tester of breaking key campaign promise by introducing the FJRA. Richards dropped out of the Democratic Senate primary race in 2006 and threw his support behind Tester, who polls showed was deadlocked with state auditor John Morrison. According to Richards, Tester earned his endorsement by agreeing to certain terms, which Richards posted on his campaign website on May 31, 2006.

According to Richards, the top two terms of that agreement were:

1. Help stop the Iraq War, withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq, and work for peace.
2. Work to protect all of Montana’s remaining roadless wildlands.

As one Lowdown reader pointed out in an e-mail to me this morning, the Senate omnibus bill containing the Forest Jobs and Restoration Initiative “also contains another $158 BILLION for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…the wars Jon Tester vowed to not fund when he ran for office.”

On another note, I’ve received an e-mail from Wayne Hirst, a staunch supporter of the bill who appeared at the unveiling of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act at RY Timber in in Townsend last summer.  Hirst takes issue with criticisms leveled by Matthew Koehler of the LBPWC and Mike Garrity of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies:

   As the person on the "timber" portion of Testor's bill here on the Kootenai, I must point out some facts that Matt Koehler and Mike Garrity seem to avoid, or outright tell falsehoods about:

   1.  There in NO mandated logging in the bill.  The word "logging" is not there.  The bill mandates "treatment" of these acres, and I have personally discussed this with local USFS people as to just what kind of treatments they will do, or envision.  Logging is one "treatment" for sure. But there are many other "treatments" as well, (now, 1" brush, as well as needles even are considered "merchantable" and fit in the bill) and the bill defines "treatment" as just using a "tool".   Now, since that definition was simplified to using a "tool", there will be court arguments over just what is a "tool" I am sure.

   2. There is no "allowing" motorized use in IRA's in this bill.   I don't know about the Beaverhead, although we were just told Monday nite that there is none of this allowed on the Beaverhead, but here on the Kootenai, it has always been clear, due to Judge Molloy's rulings, that nothing can ever be done in IRA's, as they must be managed as wilderness. Any statement that motorized use in IRA's can be done on the Kootenai is just plain false.

  But, I never knew that Rehberg agrees with Mike Garrity and Matt Koehler.  Who would ever have thought that could occur?

UPDATE: Matthew Koehler responds at length to Hirst in the comments section of this post.

UPDATE: Congressman Denny Rehberg is holding an "Emergency Tele-Town Hall Meeting" to discuss Tester's bill tonight. Click this link for more information.

UPDATE: Another opponent not on Tester’s list: Ruby Valley Stock Association. Montana Standard guest column here.

Again, I urge anyone with thoughts on this bill to e-mail me or post your comments in the comment section below. You can reach me at mtlowdown(at)gmail.com. I’ll continue to post comments as I receive them.

The Lowdown : News and notes from the Montana capital. http://www.mtlowdown.com http://www.greatfallstribune.com

GOP candidates lining up for 2012

Former Republican Congressman Rick Hill on Monday announced his bid for Montana Governor at a kickoff event in Clancy.

Hill, who served two terms in the U.S. House in the late 1990s before a problem with his eyes kept him from running again in 2000, said revitalizing Montana’s economy tops his agenda.

Hill joins former state Sens. Ken Miller of Laurel and Corey Stapleton of Billings in the race for the GOP nomination for the post currently held by two-term Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer cannot run again in 2012 due to term limits.

In other news, sources told me on Monday that Bozeman businessman Steve Daines, who ran on Republican state Sen. Roy Brown’s gubernatorial ticket in 2008, intends to announce his bid for the U.S. Senate in the coming days.

Daines was traveling in Australia on Monday and unavailable for comment.

According to one Montana GOP insider, Daines is prepared to step aside from the senate race if Rep. Denny Rehberg decides to throw his hat in the ring to challenge Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. In that scenario Daines would then run for Rehberg’s House seat, the source said.

Rehberg has long been rumored to be gearing up to take on Tester and has been vocal in his criticisms of Montana’s junior senator. According to Politico, Rehberg was spotted exiting the National Republican Senatorial Committee's Capitol Hill headquarters just two days after Republicans’ huge showing in last Tuesday’s midterm elections.

CORRECTION: The Politico story I referenced was published in November 2009, not last week as I stated in my post. So the rumors of Rehberg’s alleged 2012 senate have been circulating for at least a year. Regardless, I regret the error.

Montana’s Senior Senator, Democrat Max Baucus, weighed in on subject, saying:

"I don't think it would be wise" to challenge him, Baucus said.

The continuing saga of (former) Montana tea party prez’s offensive Facebook comments

After filing my story and blog post about the inflammatory Facebook comments made by the now former president of the Big Sky Tea Party Association, I promptly left town on vacation.
In case you missed it, a lot has happened in the days since we first reported Tim Ravndal’s comments in the Tribune.
In the interest of keeping Lowdown readers up to speed on developments in what has turned out to be a story of national interest, here’s a quick timeline of events for those who have been living under a rock (or in my case, the Wilderness) for the past few days:
Thursday, Sept. 2: Blogger D Gregory Smith first posts a screen shot of this shocking exchange between Big Sky Tea Party Association President Tim Ravndal and Facebook user Dennis Scranton (who has since removed most of the content from his Facebook page).
Friday, Sept. 3: The above comments are brought to Tribune’s attention late in the afternoon. The Montana Human Rights Network demands that the BSTPA board remove Ravndal as president. Ravndal, when contacted by the Tribune capital bureau, apologizes for the comment, saying he “never made the connection” between Scranton’s comments and the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, the 21-year-old college student whose gruesome death became a national symbol of hate crimes against gays. Scranton, reached at his home, declines to comment, telling the reporter “F*** you!” before hanging up.
Saturday, Sept. 4: The report about Ravndal’s comment and the backlash surrounding it runs in the Great Falls Tribune.
Sunday, Sept. 5: Jim Walker, chairman of the Big Sky Tea Party Association, issues the following statement announcing that the board voted unanimously to remove Ravndal as president and member of the non-profit organization because of unacceptable comments made on his personal Facebook account:

“Our Board learned about the situation from an article in the Great Falls Tribune on Saturday. We immediately called an emergency meeting for the following morning. We are extremely disappointed by Mr. Ravndal’s commentary. The discussion in that Facebook conversation is entirely outside the position of the Big Sky Tea Party. Even though Mr. Ravndal was having a personal conversation and made no reference to our group, we felt strongly that swift and decisive action was required as we can not accept that sort of behavior from within our membership, let alone from an officer of the corporation. We continually make it known that we will not tolerate bigoted dialog, behavior or messages at our functions, our meetings or within our ranks. If a person demonstrates bigotry relative to race, sex, ethnicity, etc they are not welcome in our organization. The Tea Party movement is about standing up for individual freedom for everyone.
I do believe Mr. Ravndal when he explained that he was in no way intending to promote violence and that he was not thinking about nor condoning the murder of an innocent victim in Wyoming in 1998 when he responded to some very disturbing comments made by another individual. However, no matter how we considered the commentary, it was clear to us that he was participating in conversation which was overtly bigoted and we cannot have an officer of our corporation engaging in such behavior.”

Monday, Sept. 6: While standing atop Stuart Peak in the Rattlesnake Wilderness, my new “smart” phone buzzes. I see that I have an e-mail from the Big Sky Tea Party Association and I read Walker’s statement. I immediately forward the e-mail to the Tribune newsroom before my phone’s battery dies. I continue hiking. Political blogger MTCowgirl.com reports that Big Sky Tea Party Association secretary and Helena-area GOP legislative candidate Kristi Allen-Gailushas declared “war” on the gay community on her Facebook page.
Tuesday, Sept. 7: News of Ravndal’s ouster makes front page headlines across the state. Allen-Gailushas quits the group, telling the Helena Independent Record that the organization’s board members…
“…didn't even listen to Tim and what he had to say. They were just worried about the [Montana] Human Rights Network and the ACLU and what they were going to say."
According to the Helena IR, several tea party members protest Ravndal’s ouster and defend their former president at a meeting of the Big Sky Tea Party Association. Acting board chairman Roger Nummerdor says board members will meet soon to consider reinstating Ravndal’s membership in the group, but he doesn’t set a date for the meeting. Board members Tom Baird, Bobette Madonna, and Bob Connor backtrack from Walker’s statement that the board “felt strongly that swift and decisive action was required as we can not accept that sort of behavior from within our membership, let alone from an officer of the corporation.”
From the Helena IR:

“What happened to Tim is cruel, it’s unnecessary,” said Madonna. “They’re making a fool of people who are responsible and decent.”
Board member Bob Conner cast one of the votes for Ravndal’s dismissal, but said he did so reluctantly and now favored reconsideration.

Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg, a member of the House Tea Party Caucus, issues a statement through an aide in support of the Big Sky Tea Party Association’s decision to dismiss Ravndal.

***

That pretty much brings us up to speed on this saga. There will undoubtedly be more to come.
In the meantime, there’s plenty of discussion about Mr. Ravndal’s comments out there in the Internet ether.

Montana ranks third in per capita stimulus spending

Montana has taken in more federal economic stimulus dollars than all but two other states, according to data compiled by the investigative website Pro Publica.

Montana raked in $1,744 of recovery dollars for every citizen. That's 33 percent higher than the national average of $1,170 per capita.

Only Alaska, at $3,145, and South Dakota, at $1,781, received more dollars per resident from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act than Montana.

According to Pro Publica, Montana received $1,687,028,601 in stimulus funds.

Residents of sparsely populated Carter County, in the southeastern corner of the state, benefitted the most from federal recovery funds. That county, which has a population of about 1,230 and an unemployment rate of 3.5 percent in 2009, received $11,064,503, or $8,966 per capita. The vast majority of those funds, $10.9 million, were allocated to paving State Secondary Highway 323 between Ekalaka and Alzada.

Lewis and Clark County, with a population of approximately 61,000 and an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in 2009, received the most money of any county in the state and the second highest per capital dollar amount, at $7,267. The $442,754,721 that county received accounted for more than a quarter of all stimulus funding received by the state, according to Pro Publica's figures.

The reason so many recovery dollars flowed through Lewis and Clark County is because it is home to the state's capital, where most state agencies are headquartered.

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services received $197,518,886 for items such as Medicaid payments, low-income childcare, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, weatherization assistance and foster care. The Department of Environmental Quality took in $70,017,920 for things such as energy conservation programs, clean drinking water programs and environmental cleanups. The Department of Labor and Industry took in $55,815,027, mostly for unemployment insurance benefits.

Cascade County was ranked 21st in the state for per capita stimulus spending at $1,203. The federal government pumped $98,660,809 in recovery grants and loans into that county.

The bulk of that money was funded through the Army and Air Force.

The Army contracted San Diego, Calif.-based Sunstar LLC to perform $23,861,200 worth of repairs to foundations on 179 Minuteman Village houses on Malmstrom Air Force Base. Two other contractors received $165,435 for their part in the reconstruction project.

The Air Force spent another $19,047,332 on other repairs and renovations at the base.

Garfield County, in east-central Montana, received the least amount of federal recovery dollars in the state, at $27,132, or $23 per capita. All of that money went to the Jordon School District to improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet state academic achievement standards.

A spokesman for Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, said it's no surprise Montana is high on the list of per capita stimulus spending, given the unique geography of the state.

"In rural states like Montana, we have more roads that need repaired, longer distances to deliver drinking water, a vast border to secure and a lot of small communities whose physical infrastructure is falling apart," Tester spokesman Aaron Murphy said. "Jon supported the Recovery Act because it's creating jobs rebuilding rural America and Montana's economy."

Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican who voted against the act, said the success of the stimulus shouldn't be measured by how fast it spends borrowed money, but by the number of jobs it creates.

"Since the so-called stimulus passed, unemployment has swelled to nearly 10 percent and millions of American jobs have been destroyed. And while the unemployment rate in Montana continues to rise, the only sector that's seen steady job creation is the government," Rehberg wrote in an e-mail. "By any measure, this stimulus has not done what it was meant to do and has put America further in debt."

Montana U.S. House candidates square off in first debate

UPDATE: Here's a preview of the story that will appear in tomorrow's Great Falls Tribune.

The top contenders for Montana’s sole U.S. House seat pulled few punches as they squared off in their first public debate.

If Saturday’s forum set the tone for the remainder of the campaign, then the 2010 election season could be one of most bitter House races in years.

From his opening remarks Democratic nominee Dennis McDonald came out swinging at GOP incumbent Denny Rehberg, criticizing Rehberg’s work ethic and accusing him of voting for policies that lead to the nation’s current financial crisis.

Rehberg, who is seeking his sixth term as Montana’s sole representative in the House, responded by that if McDonald is elected he would be “another ‘yes’ man” for liberal leaders in Washington D.C.

Mike Fellows, the long-shot Libertarian candidate who has run in each of the past four House elections, also participated in the debate, which was hosted by the Montana Newspaper Association. For his part, Fellows said neither party can be trusted to represent the American people.

“It doesn't matter who is charge in Washington, D.C.,” Fellows said. “We see the country continue to grow these deficits no matter if it is the Bush administration or the Obama administration.”

The verbal blows between the top two candidates came early and often throughout the 75 minute debate as Rehberg and McDonald took turns pacing the stage, defending their positions and jabbing at their opponent’s record. Fellows, who was positioned on stage between the Democrat and Republican, remained seated throughout the debate.

The discourse between McDonald and Rehberg took on a confrontational tone from the outset.

McDonald, a former California trial lawyer who has ranched in Montana since the early 1970s, went on the personal attack by criticizing Rehberg for subdividing his family’s ranch near Billings years ago.

“He’s not a rancher. He’s a land developer and a professional politician who spent 20 years eating out of the public trough,” McDonald said. “To turn things around, we need a congressman who doesn’t go to Washington, go to sleep in his office, and do nothing for Montana for the last 10 years. We need a congressman who has a different view, who works hard every day to make sure that Montanans have opportunities.”

Unwilling to let McDonald’s personal attack slide, Rehberg fired back.

“It’s hard not to get a little offended when somebody thinks they know your background and tries to give a little story that may sound cute,” Rehberg said.

Rehberg said one of the reasons he decided to run for Congress was because he had to sell-off parts of his family’s ranch, “just to pay the down payment on the estate tax.”

“You know what I am? I’m really good at managing an agricultural business. That’s the kind of person you want back in Washington, D.C. Not one that can tell cutesy stories but may not be anywhere close to the truth,” Rehberg said.

Wrapping up his opening statement, Rehberg said, “you need somebody who is tested and tried. You need somebody who is not a ‘yes’ man for (Democratic House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi, (Democratic Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid and (President) Barack Obama.”

Read more about Saturday's debate in tomorrow's Tribune. I'll try to post some more observations from this morning's debate Monday. Specifically, I was surprised at how often Democratic Sens. Jon Tester's and Max Baucus' names came up during a U.S. House debate.

But don't take my word for it:

You can download the full audio from the debate by right-clicking here (32 MB, Widows Media) and choosing "save link as," or you can simply click the play button on the media player below. The full running time is 1:16:06.



Take a listen and post your thoughts on the first U.S. House debate here.

New info on Flathead Lake Crash

OK, so I guess the headline might be a little deceiving because quite honestly, there isn't much new news to report at all. The Flathead County Sheriff's Office is still saying very little and State Sen. Greg Barkus, the man behind the wheel of the boat that crashed high on the rocks on the shore of Wayfarers State Park, refuses to talk to authorities or the press.

Meanwhile, we still don't have any indication from the Flathead County Sheriff's Office as to whether they think alcohol played a role in the crash. If you look here, here, here, here, and here (these are just a handful of recent examples) you'll notice that authorities in these cases stated whether or not they believed alcohol was factor in the crash within a day or two of the incident. That's almost always the first question investigators try to answer in an incident like this, and it's usually found in the first or second paragraph of any crash write-up in the newspaper. I would think that after interviewing people who were on the boat, people who were at the dinner party in Lakeside earlier that night and officers and emergency personnel at the scene of the crash authorities should have some indication by now as to whether or not Barkus had been drinking. It's been nearly a full week since the crash--which left five people injured including a sitting U.S. congressman and a state senator and left one victim in what appears to be a coma--and the authorities have still not answered the most burning question about this case. And that's even after said congressman, Denny Rehberg, admitted the day after the crash that he had been drinking at a dockside dinner with Barkus earlier that night.

The issue is whether Barkus was impaired at the time of the crash. Police apparently did not test the victims at the scene. Understandably, their priority was getting the severely injured passengers to the hospital ASAP. Once at the hospital, any blood tests done on Barkus or anyone else immediately becomes part of their medical record, which is protected under the federal HIPAA. Barkus appears to be resisting the release of those records to authorities, because the Flathead Co. Sherrif's Office had to issue a subpoena for them.

Barkus' medical records have been subpoenaed, so hopefully we'll be able to clear this up once and for all by the end of the week.

Here's something to consider when thinking about BAC: it goes down shortly after you stop drinking. So for instance, in Rehberg's case, his BAC was .054, or about .026 below the legal limit, when doctors drew his blood at 12:58 a.m. That was about 2 hours and 40 minutes after the crash occurred. According to the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, BAC decreases at a rate of about .015-.020 per hour. So let's assume Rehberg weighs somewhere between 160 to 180-pounds. For a male that size, in 2 hours and 40 minutes his BAC would have decreased by approximately .03 to .04. So, at the time of the crash, Rehberg's BAC was likely over the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle.

However, I want to stress that Rehberg, by all accounts, was never behind the wheel of the boat, so whether or not he was legally impaired or not is not the issue here. Authorities have already said they don't expect any charges against Rehberg.

But people still have a lot questions that need to be answered.

***

This is an interesting tidbit that the Missoula Independent dug up about Barkus' 2005 reckless driving charge:

We've since learned, through a report with Lake County Justice Court obtained by Indy staff reporter Jessica Mayrer, that Barkus was originally charged with DUI. He was operating a 2000 white Corvette with vanity plates reading "DREAM IT." Barkus was stopped going 84 mph in a 65-mph zone and found to be under the influence.(emphasis added)

He subsequently pleaded not guilty and was convicted of reckless driving, a misdemeanor.

So it appears this isn't the first time Barkus has hired Kalispell attorney Todd Glazier to represent him in a sticky situation.

For those who are interested, here's a copy of the two tickets Barkus received for his reckless driving incident in Lake County:


Also, James Connor at the Flathead Memo has an interesting hypothesis about the conditions Barkus and his ill-fated passengers faced as they left the dock at Lakeside Thursday night. It's worth a read. Here's a snip:

The end of astronomical twilight was still 20 minutes away when Barkus pointed his boat northeast and advanced the throttle. As the U.S. Naval Observatory notes, “…for a considerable interval…before the end of evening [astronomical] twilight, sky illumination is so faint that it is practically imperceptible.” To the northwest, various objects would be faintly silhouetted against against the residual light, but the lake’s eastern shore was much darker. Light from the moon may have provided some help, and there may have been a moon streak on the water that commanded the attention of some on board. Full dark adaptation of the human eye requires 20–30 minutes; longer if exposed to bright light while adapting.

That's all for now. Keep checking back. I'll keep you updated on developments as soon as we have them.