Montana Lieutenant Governor John Walsh is going to run for Max Baucus’s Senate seat. He’s the former adjutant general of the state, meaning that he was the highest-ranking member of the military in Montana. He served in Iraq and earned a Bronze Star. He was just elected in 2012 on a ticket with progressive-minded Governor Steve Bullock, but I don’t really know anything about his politics.
What can we glean from this?
“We all know it’s going to take a sense of duty to stand up for what’s right. The idea of selfless service, to put our country on the right track again, and the courage to tackle the national debt and defend those who don’t have a voice: Our seniors, our veterans, our children,” he says in an announcement video touting his military experience. “I’m ready to do what it takes to put the people of the great state of Montana first.”
Because senators serve six-year terms, it’s incredibly important to win as many seats as possible, regardless of the ideology of the candidates. Lt. Gov. Walsh seems like a strong candidate, but I wish I knew whether or not he has an ideology that I can support. It would be hard, however, to be as annoying as Max Baucus.
Hmm — bringing up the debt issue in his first campaign statement is not a good sign.
Exactly my first thought as well. I remain unconvinced. Assuming he’s running as a Democrat?
Yes.
Yeah, that worries me too. Especially since Bob Brigham(Boo knows who that is) is so high on Walsh. Except for guns, Bob is a big time DFH.
Back when I used to attend Netroots Nation conventions, Bob was my main drinking buddy.
How was that? Sounds like it could have been a lot of fun.
Heh. He’s a little crazy.
In a good way.
could be because it’s a big issue for constituents; he doesn’t say what his approach is
So much awesome.
LOL. That will get people’s attention.
Baucus was annoying because he talked one way but was totally sold out to K Street and any lobby that was affected by the Senate Finance Committee.
This guy’s statement is meaningless and nothing but tired and threadbare buzz words and slogans of required ambiguity: “right track again” “tackle the debt”, “put Montana first”, etc. The idea that veterans and seniors “don’t have a voice” in DC is risible (and tired). So “tackle that debt”, but keep that strong national defense, I’ll wager.
I’d say you can glean he’d be a weak link Dem, like every possible Dem we could ever get out of MT. It’s much better that he wins than loses, just like Manchin, I suppose.
you have no idea. do you spend any time at all in states with a predominantly rural consituency?
As a SD D and previous state office candidate, I can assure you panty-waisted liberal socialists that nobody who can win in MA can win in MT. In SD, we had Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. She is a very good example. She had 3 good elections (04,06,08) where she had pretty good majorities. In 2010, she lost by 3K to Kristi Noem. She lost for 2 reasons: It was an R year, and she lost the enthusiasm of SD D voters due to her tepid PPACA response. In 2012, we had Matt Verilek, who was Tim Johnson’s office manager. Matt was a good candidate, but simply could not lay a glove on Kristi. Me, I think he was too nice, but you need to be careful in rural states in how much mud you kick up.
In MT, D results have always been a little unusual. Schweitzer, Tester, Baucus – all statewide winners. In rural states, the only way these days that a D can win is statewide, in my opinion. You need to get out the city folks, the indians, and the students, and you need big turnout. A D can win in MT, but a very MOTR D. A DINO, in short.
I spend alot of time in some predominantatly ag based states, mostly NE and SD and it distresses me no end that urban commenters as far as i can see have no concept of what matters in ag based states and take “their experience as normative” – this is a big mistake.
How is the time I have spent in MT relevant to understanding this MT Dem’s statement? I’m well aware it’s a (mostly) rural Western ag/resource extraction state.
Perhaps you can explain what exactly you disagree with, especially since you approve DG’s excellent summary below. As far as I can see, his analysis conforms to mine. Do you think there’s a high likelihood that Walsh would be the next Harkin? Or just the next Tester?