For a while - though most recently - you've known us (me) to be all about that trippin' ('bout that trippin'). But one thing that is not recent and never changes is our (my) passion for politics. Aside from my diploma for Political Science - that I think of mainly as fan memorabilia because it's signed by Former Governor Janet Napolitano - it is usually the only part of the news I pay attention to, and as our family has become more of an opt-outdoors family, it has become frighteningly obvious how much politics has a hand in our abilities to Montana roadtrip and continue to Montana roadtrip. So I'm going to take a slight detour from our Montana roadtrippin' to discuss the other topic of equal importance.
Many people have many different labels for what came out of the 2016 election, but what seemed to be the biggest was shame; fear that if we share who we voted for we will be shamed, and the ease in which we shame others for who they voted for. We need to get back to policy and why it matters more than tabloid politics. So in the hopes of shifting the attention from the DC shit-show, I am sharing who and what I am voting for, and why.
I have paid close attention to the goings-on of the government for years. I have experience working in two different State Houses so I am familiar with procedure and the politics that happen long after you're elected, including the politics that *need* to happen as part of getting the job done. I've worked and volunteered on campaigns and attended political events, and I've read campaign material, viewed ads, read every argument for and against in the Voter Guide mailer, watched network news, watched news commentary, read articles from news sources not blogs, and looked up anything I didn't know or wanted to verify. These explanations are not intended to sway anyone to vote in any particular way; in fact I welcome different opinions on these matters because that means we have begun to shift the focus back to what actually has an affect on our lives and pocketbooks, and that is policy. I feel it's important to stress that although I might have an education or experience that is different from other voters, I am also still just a citizen who used the information that was presented to me to make a decision.
DISCLAIMER: If you chose to debate me on social media for my choices, that is certainly your First Amendment right. But know that the only way to truly refute my opinions is to use your Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty Fourth, and Twenty Sixth Amendment rights.
Jon Tester over Matt Rosendale: Since Trump has taken office, he has signed at least 20 of Tester's bills, which speaks mostly to Trump's inadequacies as a politicians since he's traveled to Montana an unprecedented three times to campaign against Tester, then flies back to DC and signs his bills. A lot of them are bipartisan, proving he is one of the few productive members of Congress. Among these bills, 11 benefit, help, or memorialize Veterans and/or the VA. One bill provides fire grants, which helps rural fire departments recruit and train firefighters and provide necessary equipment, and another honors hometown heroes by requiring the lowering of the flag to half-mast when a local first responder is killed in the line of duty. Tester has mainly stayed out of the spotlight, except when Trump or his sons have dragged him into it, and he has routinely remained neutral, even as Trump continues to attack him and twist the truth. Politics and working in government is a job like any other and I appreciate Tester's performance enough to not "fire" him.
Rosendale's record in the State Senate is not something I want to support or have carried over to Congress. There are bright spots, like voting for Medical Marijuana, until he then voted to repeal Medical Marijuana. Or voting NO on eminent domain. But during his campaign for Congress, he hasn't spoken much about policy issues, choosing instead to stick to the sensationalism. And he has chosen to hitch his campaign's star to Trump which might not end up to be the slam dunk he was counting on. His current brand of fear-based politics is off-putting, especially to someone who knows politics to be about walking the tightrope of cleverly and diplomatically finding compromises to what benefits the population as a whole; it is, "this is how I can help you," not, "this is what you need to be afraid of." In that regard, Rosendale has taken to out-right lying in his campaign material, which is disconcerting because if you can't tell people why your policy is good for them, then you should probably change your policy. Among his record, though, he voted NO more than once on expanding healthcare coverage, and voted NO to expand Medicaid eligibility. He also voted YES to repealing same-day voter registration then voted YES to outright prohibit same-day voter registration. He voted NO to appropriate funds for the Teachers' Retirement System and voted NO on an increase in public education funding. Aside from his record in the State Senate, his campaign presents himself as a man eager to get to Washington and be at Trump's side, while at the same time deriding Tester as a "DC liberal," when that's just not the case. Tester seems to be a bit more in-tune with Montana, rarely mentioning anything about DC in his campaign, except for his legislative record, which includes a great many bills having to do with Montana.
Kathleen Williams over Greg Gianforte: I have down-right not liked Gianforte since he wound up splashed all over every news and talk show after he physically assaulted a reporter for pressing him for details on how he would replace the Affordable Care Act. The action in and of itself wasn't disqualifying, but the fact that he couldn't answer a question on policy was. Then he, literally, got defensive. Gianforte's record isn't too shocking, he voted YES across the board with a couple of exceptions, reminding me of that politician who flits in and out of Committee meetings barely looking up, who meets with their Caucus to be told how to vote on each bill, then strolls into the Chamber long enough to push the green button before heading off to a donor lunch. In that vein, Gianforte's campaign materials are short, vague, lack a serious amount of details, and his television ads against Williams are fear-based, literal lies (no one is ever going to take your gun away, ever). The campaign process is one long job interview for the local, State, and Federal Representatives and there would be a very different outcome if we all lied in our job interviews, so it's hard to respect, much less vote for, someone who relies on misleading information. Additionally, we don't use our time interviewing for our own jobs by trashing the other candidates waiting in the lobby; we use our interview time to explain to the hiring manager why we're the best person for the job.
Williams' campaign materials offer more details and avoids the major talking points. She sticks to the main issues that are actual problems and avoids the hot-button issues that are misleading and used *only* to drive people to the polls with their torches lit. Click on this link to read her detailed and sourced "Practical Steps to Quality, Affordable Healthcare for all Montanans":
https://kathleenformontana.com/healthcare/. In the interest of fairness, here is the link to Gianforte's healthcare proposal:
https://gregformontana.com/issues/healthcare-that-works-for-montanans/, which, after trashing the Affordable Care Act, is two sentences long, and neither of those sentences contain measurable information. Williams' approach reminds me of Tester's in that their focus hasn't swayed from our state, and they seem to have a general interest in the work that gets done. The one, major thing that will keep me from voting for Gianforte - or any politician who includes this on their platform - is his Sponsoring and voting for things like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which runs counter to every Libertarian and Republican principle ever.
Clerk of the Supreme Court, Rex Renk over Bowen Greenwood: I didn't know, until writing this post, what the Clerk of the Supreme Court actually did, that it was an electable position, or that it is a partisan position, which is surprising since it is the person who is in charge of public access to court records. Like Jon Tester, after review of his information, Renk has held the deputy position thus far and I agree with his overall performance. He has a great deal of experience and things to say for himself, whereas Greenwood is hoping for a shot at a job he's qualified to do, though not as experienced. Not knowing much about either person, and after just learning about the position, until I know otherwise, I'm basing my decision on the information presented to me. Surprisingly, though, it has become kind of a contentious race:
https://billingsgazette.com/news/government-and-politics/in-montana-supreme-court-clerks-race-takes-on-a-partisan/article_73d9d123-8c13-541e-ba2f-a1066c74ae9f.html
Colette B. Davies FOR District Court Judge District 13, Dept. 7: There are always these items on the ballot that don't draw the same sort of spotlight as the Representatives and Initiatives, but are no less important. Information on both Davies and her opponent, Thomas Pardy, are slim-pickin's but from what I was able to gather, Davies looks like the better choice. Like the other candidates for District Court Judge, Davies is extremely experienced and qualified, and when given an opportunity to speak about what she'd bring to the position, she was detailed and informative, whereas Pardy spoke a lot about the general roll of the judge position and his personal background. I appreciate someone heading into office with some already strong ideas.
Juli M. Pierce FOR District Court Judge District 13, Dept. 8: For this and the above District Court Position, I'm really just going with my gut. Thomas Pardy, and Pierce's opponent, Ashley Harada's, inclusion of things like, "the only candidate in this race who is committed to interpreting the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers intended..." raises a red flag. While these races are supposedly nonpartisan, similar sentiments have been bellowed in the Legislative branch to support certain policy decisions I don't agree with, so my political instinct pulls me in the direction of Juli M. Pierce.
Robyn Driscoll for County Commissioner: This is one of those rare moments in politics where the decision is difficult because both would be a good fit for the position. And although both Driscoll and her opponent, Donald Jones, have party affiliations, neither have designs on making this particular office at all political. When speaking to the Billings Gazette, both praised the other's accomplishments and obvious experience, and discussed some examples of the things they hope to achieve, like reforming the system to more adequately address the drug problem. And both agreed on the importance of Metra Park to the city of Billings and how that relationship can continue to improve. In this rare, close-your-eyes-and-point moment of politics, I'm going with the Incumbent, Robyn Driscoll.
Scott Turner for County Auditor: Turner and his opponent, Becky Riedl, both agree that County Auditor is not a partisan position, in spite of the D's and R's that follow their names. As with the Commissioner and Clerk of the Supreme Court, I did not know what this job was or entailed, and that a campaign is not a necessity. The Gazette pointed out, "Turner...isn't campaigning actively for the auditor's job, which he has held since late last year when the Yellowstone County Commission appointed him to serve the remainder of Debby Hernandez's term." In a perfect example of what I said before regarding Gianforte and trashing other job applicants, Riedl and Turner have not spoken ill of each other and the Gazette opined, " We salute Riedl, who has been going door-to-door to meet voters and talk about the auditor's office. Turner clearly has the greater experience and applicable skills for the auditor's post, but we hope Riedl will find another opportunity to serve her home community with the energy she brings to this race." I choose to vote for Turner, however, because apparently this is one of the smallest offices of any elected official and it could be combined with another office and still be effective. If this is true, and it saves the County money, then I throw my vote to him.
State Representative: Ming Cabrera over Dale Mortensen: I am about to out myself as a big hypocrite here, but that speaks to a larger, overall issue of taking each candidate, Initiative, Referendum, etc. separately on its own merit. I stated with Rosendale that I didn't appreciate his lack of details on his policy issues and Ming Cabrera's webpage is, literally, one page with a picture and short note from himself. He has, however, come to our door and spoken on issues with us personally, which I can appreciate since I did some canvasing in my day and it - in a word - sucks. But I feel strongly that we need to return to grass-roots politics if we truly want to stop complaining about how much money funnels through the government by lobbyists, and if we're serious about campaign finance violations. Mortensen is up for re-election and even before looking up his voting record, a look at his website already has me concerned. This particular bullet-point is especially troublesome: "Develop Montana's natural resources to grow the economy and create jobs." There are no additional details, which is also disconcerting. His record wound up not being too surprising, but like I said with Gianforte, I can't vote people into office who Co-sponsor or vote for bills that place restrictions on abortion procedures. That is a deal-breaker issue that doesn't belong anywhere in government or politics.
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:00
MState Representative Ming Cabrera over Dale Mortensen: I am about to out myself as a big hypocrite here, but that speaks to a larger, overall issue of taking each candidate, Initiative, Referendum, etc. separately on its own merit. I stated with Rosendale that I didn't appreciate his lack of details on his policy issues and Ming Cabrera's webpage is, literally, one page with a picture and short note from himself. He has, however, come to our door and spoken on issues with us personally, which I can appreciate since I did some canvasing in my day and it - in a word - sucks. But I feel strongly that we need to return to grass-roots politics if we truly want to stop complaining about how much money funnels through the government by lobbyists, and if we're serious about campaign finance violations. Mortensen is up for re-election and even before looking up his voting record, a look at his website already has me concerned. This particular bullet-point is especially troublesome: "Develop Montana's natural resources to grow the economy and create jobs." There are no additional details, which is also disconcerting. His record wound up not being too surprising, but like I said with Gianforte, I can't vote people into office who Co-sponsor or vote for bills that place restrictions on abortion procedures. That is a deal-breaker issue that doesn't belong anywhere in government or politics
Jennifer Merecki over Douglas Kary: The exception to my hypocrisy is voting for Jennifer Merecki over the seasoned Doug Kary. Whereas I stated above how Kathleen Williams has laid out her plans in detail, Merecki's information isn't quite as thorough, but her website offers some detailed explanations of her ideas; like the Leslie Knope of Montana. And it just so happens that, also like Leslie Knope, I agree with a lot of her ideas and would support them coming to fruition. For example, "she will substantially fight to improve the processing of Veterans' claims for compensation, assist expanding the VA's Caregivers Program, expand mental health services for veterans, make comprehensive dental care available to all veterans at the VA, and look to alternative therapies such as cannabis for PTSD, anxiety, and opioid dependence." Kary's webpage is under construction. But his record in the State Senate is pretty much what you'd expect from the party he belongs to. Aside from that, however, I found Kary's record on campaign finance reporting to be a bit of an eye-brow-raising find, specifically Co-sponsoring a bill that would exempt religious organizations from campaign finance reporting requirements.
YES on Legislative Referendum (LR) No. 128: This Referendum is up for renewal every ten years and I am voting for it. Known as the 6-mill levy, "it provides direct support for the degree programs at our state's four-year and two-year colleges and universities..." The arguments against this Referendum claim it is a tax increase, though it has been stressed that it is not. I also take issue with the argument that schools are too fancy these days, lest anyone forget that putting money into schools is a *good* thing. "Fancy" means updated technology, livable dorms, livable meal prices, new edition textbooks, accredited professors, class and degree choices, up-to-date technology, etc. There is also very little substance and a lot of conjecture, and this argument is especially confusing: "...2nd Amendment advocates may object to ill-advised university policies which disarm innocent students, leaving them defenseless and advertising that defenselessness as an open invitation to some crazed, cowardly killer." There is also this rebuttal, which I understand in theory, though I disagree with and think would be detrimental in the long-term: "...why pump out three times as many teachers and social workers as can find employment in Montana, while Montana is desperate for machinists and nurses? Perhaps a more market-oriented funding mechanism would correct these errors." Limiting the education and subsequent jobs would not only encourage people who don't want to be machinists and nurses to leave the state to study then work elsewhere, but former Montanans might not come back, and it discourages out-of-state tuition for people who want to be teachers or social workers. It also puts the state at a great disadvantage to other states in terms of research and development, and diminishes us as being a well-rounded society; if every bee in the hive is a pollen-collector, nothing would ever get done. There is value in all education and work, and crossing state lines is more beneficial in the long run.
YES on LR-129: This Referendum places restrictions on who can collect and deliver official election ballots to polling places, specifically limiting other people handling your ballot to family members, household members, close friends, election officials, caregivers, or an acquaintance you gave permission to. This is a new issue that apparently sprung out of several people reporting to the Secretary of State's office. I was not one of those people, but this issue has happened to me personally, which is why I am voting YES.
It feels like every election since Obama's second has been more contentious than the last. During one such election, my doorbell rang by a young man offering to collect our ballots and turn them in for us. At the very least, we hadn't filled them out yet, but my husband was immediately suspect and said no. Although the arguments against this Referendum claim the opposite, this Referendum does not prohibit, as they say, "neighbors helping neighbors." It
"will make it illegal in Montana for strangers to come to your home and request that you hand them your absentee ballot." Literally, the very thing that happened to us.
YES on Initiative 185: For as long as I can remember, legislatures have been trying - in vein - to raise taxes on cigarettes and chewing tobacco, and this Initiative would do just that. With what we know, and continue to learn, about the affects of smoking and chewing, this Initiative will direct the added revenues to health-related and anti-smoking programs. Opponents argue that this will be a new entitlement program when it clearly states that it, "dedicates a percentage of these increased tax revenues for: health-related programs, including Montana's current Medicaid program, Veterans services, smoking prevention and long-term care for seniors and people with disabilities." Opponents also argue against the mere fact that it is unabashedly a tax increase, and the ballot language admits that revenues may decline as fewer people use tobacco. I choose to vote for this Initiative, though, because of the long-term affects. Health issues related to tobacco are only getting greater, more complex, and costing more money. These tax increases will either reduce smoking, thus reducing tobacco-related diseases, thus reducing the cost of overall healthcare; or - more likely - people will continue to smoke because, as Neil Cavuto once accidentally pointed out when asking if people will really pay an extra $.50 for their Big Mac that would subsequently support a hike in minimum wage, that, yeah, they really will pay a little extra for the things they want (or are addicted to), which would mean a some-what sustainable revenue source. I do agree with one argument against this Initiative, however: "it dedicates only 4% to anti-smoking programs. If we are going to force Montanans to pay...new taxes, then more of the money should go towards helping them quit or keeping kids from starting." I agree, it should be more. But this a good place to start.
YES on Initiative 186: This "requires the Department of Environmental Quality to deny a permit for any new hard-rock mines in Montana unless the reclamation plan provides clear and convincing evidence that the mine will not require perpetual treatment of water polluted by acid mine drainage or other contaminants." Relative to everything else we're talking about, the price tag for this Initiative is $115 to $118-thousand, give or take a few hundred. Mining is an important part of the Montana economy and the arguments against this Initiative have been swift. The major argument is that it will prevent new mines, leading to a loss in jobs, but the objective of I-186 is to place requirements on new hard-rock mines, not eliminate them altogether. They also argue that this measure is unneeded and redundant, but the proponents point out that there aren't currently any guidelines for denying permits for hard-rock mines that would "leave behind perpetual pollution from acid mine drainage, arsenic, lead, and mercury." Also, this will only apply to new mines, not existing ones, and the "costs are associated with more staff for environmental review for mining permit applications..." Opponents also argue that it will limit revenue from these, and other mines, and while the market might show initial signs of trepidation, mining isn't disappearing from Montana any time soon. But mining isn't the only driver of the Montana economy, as anyone who has been here on vacation will tell you. "Clean rivers and streams account for more than 71,000 jobs and $7-billion annually in consumer spending." Being environmentally conservative is also being fiscally conservative, which is why I am voting YES.
Well, there you have it - in all its glory or train-wreck, the who and what I am voting for, and why. This isn't designed to sway anyone to change their vote, just an attempt to get back to voting for the right reasons. I don't claim to know everything, and my arguments for or against a candidate or position obviously don't include every detail that I agree or disagree with, but is instead an overall representation of the focus I would like my elected officials to maintain.
Getting back to to the basics of politics - the issues - can help eliminate our shame or the need to shame others for our votes. It boosts our confidence in the Democratic process that our votes actually do equal our voices, and that they are being used effectively. And in this era of too-much-information, we need to keep focused on the basics of what truly matters. Pericles said, "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you," so lets let go of the tabloids and get back to the politics.
"Great minds discuss ideas..." and, well, you know the rest.
Happy Smart Voting! November 6!
Although Jacob was born in Montana and spent most of his growing-up and early twenties here, there were many areas that he hadn't heard about; or had heard about but not seen, like Natural Bridge State Park.
Water going in...
A couple of milestones were made on this (short) hike: 1) Zoey carried the backpack full of water (and maybe a beer or two for Mom and Dad) the entire way without complaining; and 2) Holden wasn't - or didn't ask to be - carried the entire trail. And since this wasn't anything too steep, long, or rocky, it was also the first time that Louis ventured onto the trail with us.
The shadow makes it a little difficult to see the sheer rock face that makes this canyon. It's just vertical enough and just high enough to be a popular place for practicing rock-climbing. Or so I've seen on Instagram.
Water goes out...
Yup, just lookin' over the edge while Mom is a good five-feet away and breathing heavily. Admittedly, this was not my most favorite place because the edges blend in quite nicely, and where giant rocks are, they aren't certain to remain. In fact, the park issues a stern warning that walking around on the actual natural bridge is not recommended because parts of it could give way at any moment, depending on the time of year that you're deciding to take your life in your hands. But, being the enormous nature-hypocrite that I am, when we went back this last summer (2018), we walked around on the bridge and I got closer to a ledge than I ever have before, and on purpose.
My fear of heights is still rather insane, and I have no desire to do any sort of conquering of any of my fears any time soon; you won't find me holding a butterfly or a bird, either. But my ever-increasing desire to see more and more things now brings me closer to edges than I ever thought I'd be outside of my re-occuring nightmares.
Yes, now I *give* myself re-occuring nightmares but that somehow makes it better.
Walking the opposite way back down the trail to see the canyon and bridge from the other side.
A steep, grassy mountain side, yes. The place where we stood to see the water coming out of the Natural Bridge, also yes.
From this trip to the start of January, I was sure each hike was going to be our last. As it happened, our longest stretch of not venturing into the woods was from January until April, and we even got snowed-out of our hike on June 9th.
