Missoula On Fire

U.S. Forest Service smoke jumpers and local wild land firefighters, along with Missoula city fire crews, will be digging fire lines through the evening to help contain a mysterious fire that burned a good portion of the face of Mount Sentinel this evening.

Known by most Montanans simply as the "mountain with the 'M' on it", Mount Sentinel is a widely recognized western Montana landmark and place near and dear to the hearts of local hikers, a few dozen who were safely evacuated during the fire without harm.

According to local sources, the fire is likely to be contained quickly, due to greener than normal grass conditions and the lack of timber in the burn zone.

“We're lucky there's not a lot of heavy timber and that the grass is still pretty green,” said Missoula Assistant Fire Chief Mike Painter just before 9 p.m. “I'm cautiously optimistic that we're going to keep the fire on this side of the ridge."

Wow - isn't that alone the argument for responsible forest thinning?

While this is probably not the start of the full-blown fire season, the Scoop does predict that this will ignite the local climate change alarmist movement, which has been smoldering since last September under 30 feet of snow. A protest is probably being planned (or held) right now.

Also a source of great speculation?

The cause of the fire, which is under investigation.

It appears we only know the time and location where it was started, which has been identified by the Missoulian as "just before 7 p.m. at the base of Mount Sentinel behind the University of Montana's married student housing complex."

Adding fuel to our burning theories, our local fire chief referred to the cause as potentially "suspicious in nature". Hope nobody reading this was barbecuing out behind the dorm tonight.

And... just when you think things get too weird...many observers began to question the strange shapes created by the fire, including a large ring in the middle of the mountain that continued to burn long into the evening.

Even though it is still dark outside, the Scoop has been able to map out some burn coordinates and create the following simulated photo, based on eyewitness account of some front-line firefighters and some friends that were watching from the community concert in Bonner Park. It is possible they had a little too much wine.

I guess we'll be able to see for ourselves in the morning.

Just remember where you heard it first.

---------------

P.S. - God bless our firefighters and local responders who were able to keep everybody safe. Let's pray they remain so themselves as they contain this fire.

Montana Starbucks Threatened?

Today, Starbucks made an announcement that is another first for this fast growing corporate titan - the closure of 600 not yet named stores.

Corporate observers suggest that the poor economy is having an effect on the company, with fewer people willing to shell out $6 for a a morning latte and scone. $4 gas prices are said to be hurting sales, with fewer people willing to leave home just for a fancy cup of Joe.

Maybe Suzi Orman finally got enough people to figure out that a $4 cup of coffee each days adds up to roughly $1450 annually, certainly money better spent on food, gasoline or new Wii games. Particularly this one.

The Scoop wonders if any of these will be the relatively new stand-alone stores in Montana, including locations in Billings, Helena, Great Falls and Missoula.

Bloomberg reports that 70% of the stores under consideration have been opened since 2005, with most being opened in late 2005 through 2006. 50% of these locations included the new drive-through concept. According to the press release the stores are located "in all major U.S. markets."

Could it be that we are saying goodbye to some of the Montana Starbucks, opened during that time? Or, will it be some of the stores opened in the big cities that are just a few doors down from each other? *

I'm sure our local coffee shops wouldn't mind.

Holding a Starbucks cup in downtown Missoula is still worse than wearing a Bush-Cheney t-shirt. My bet is that if any store in Montana closes, it will be the downtown Missoula store.

Either way, I'd better use up that gift card I got for Christmas from the Mrs. Scoop.

But, just to be safe, I think I'll use it at the Reserve street location.

-----------------------
*Reminds me of one of my favorite movie scenes, from Best of Show, attached for your viewing pleasure.

Water, Water Everywhere...But Not a Drop to Print

The Scoop has a question that has been playing on me like Chinese water torture:

How the heck do they measure the precipitation levels printed every day in the Missoulian?

Is it as simple as putting out a container and measuring the number of inches, or fractions thereof, every day?

Or, is some other sophisticated tool involved?

I really, really want to know. Seriously, because my simple method for measuring shows very different results than the paper…and I only live about a mile from the airport, the location where the National Weather Service collects local samples.

As of today, the Missoulian lists that we have received only 2.58” of precipitation since the beginning of the month, and only 6.77" since the beginning of the year.

But hasn't this been a year of record snow?

Or is it as the paper prints, and we are actually BELOW AVERAGE for precipitation when compared to normal?

In the same newspaper issue, stream levels are up 20-40%. When last reported, snow pack was up to 120-160% of normal in all Western Montana ranges.

This year, I had to shovel my driveway more times than I can easily remember. Certainly we had to have more than 4.19 inches of moisture from Jan 1 to May 31? Didn't we get almost two feet in just one snowfall?

Or could it be that the airport is situated in the only arid, micro-desert in Western Montana?

Since all forms of physical evidence seemed to contradict the official reports, I did what any self-respecting reporter would do.

I went UNDERCOVER!

Or undercover, undercover, as I was already undercover as the Scoop. You could say it was a deep cover, so secret that not even Mr. Googles knew what I was up to. At times, I wasn't even sure what I was doing!

Ok, you get the idea.

So what did I discover? Something so weird it makes the Dharma Initiative look normal.

Over a three day period earlier this month (June 9, 10 and 11), I measured precipitation, as collected in a glass and/or rain gauge, on my back deck. All were containers empty when I started measuring. A different container was used for each day. These containers are pictured above (the glass pictured is exactly three and one-half inches deep).

After three days I measured six and one half inches of rain - more than double what the paper reported for this month, and close to what they report for THE ENTIRE YEAR. And this was only for a three day period.

Unfortunately, I had to stop measuring because my wife was sick of all of our glassware being on the back deck. My cover was shot!

So, my question is simple.

What am I doing wrong...

...or could it be that someone else has a thumb over their rain gauge?

A Day (in the Flathead) to Remember

If today was any indication, we may be entering one of the nicest summers in recent history, with the heavy snows and wet spring expected to extend the green season beyond the beginning of July.

To experience some of this beauty, the Family Scoop traveled north to the Flathead valley, for a picnic, swim and day of early summer adventure.

Here is our (abbreviated) photo journal.

Near St. Ignatius - still fun to see this much snow in the Mission Mountains for this time of year. Photo taken from the new turnoff at the top of the Ravalli hill.

A beautiful day at the lake - warm, clear and sunny. You can almost see all the way to Big Mountain...err... I mean the "Resort at Whitefish something or other". Whatever. This picture is from just outside Polson looking north and snapped at the vantage point just off the highway. (Thus ends our tour of western Montana highway vantage points).

A farmer just outside Polson collecting bales (or doing something...not totally sure.) This is the farm just adjacent to the new sub-division near the recently remodeled Safeway at the junction of Highway 93 and the East Shore Route (as the old timers call it). Maybe he is racing to the bank?

There were lots of boats on the lake today - similar to the number you would see around the 4th of July weekend. People must be getting an early start this year, especially now that the lake is finally up to full level. I guess gasoline prices haven't kept everbody from summer recreation. This picture is taken from the East Shore looking towards Bird Island, located at the northern tip of Finley Point.

Not sure if you will be able to see this, but the air was filled with cotton from the Cottonwood trees that line the lake. The little white flecks are pieces of flying cotton. Mr. Googles thought it was snowing. Of course...

...you can't blame the little guy, as this was what it was doing at our house just a short two and a half weeks ago. Mr. Googles, and the whole Family Scoop, hopes you got to enjoy the nice weather and beautiful outdoors today as well.

McCain Clear Pick on Energy for Mainstream Montanans

When it comes to energy policy, Montanans have a clear choice this election– back the presidential candidate who has a sensible and forwarding looking plan that will secure our energy independence and unleash an era of economic prosperity for our state, or back a candidate that is a solid supporter of the radical environmental movement that has resulted in our dependency on Middle East oil and the disappearance of many once high paying jobs in our state.

Montana, and the country, need a pragmatic, balanced and noble energy policy that acknowledges that fuel technologies like clean coal, oil and nuclear can be done safely, efficiently and cheaply.

The irony? John McCain represents this pragmatic change while Barrack Obama and the “new politics of change” offer just the opposite - a retreat to a Carteresque approach that is ill-informed, misguided and dangerous. Last time we tried this we were all waiting in line for gas…or at least Momma Scoop was.

This week, McCain boldly outlined an energy plan for the next twenty years – one that will focus on proven domestic solutions (like oil, clean coal and nuclear) while blending in a strong mix of alternative energies like solar, wind and alternative fuels. Meanwhile, Obama can’t wrestle himself free of the liberal-progressive interest groups that have a stranglehold on energy policy reform.

The only word from the Obama camp on his plan?

“No”… on anything and everything related to fossil fuels. No exceptions. Obama’s lack of action means he will continue the current stalemate that has lead to ever increasing gas and fuel prices. Somehow he thinks this type of bullheaded leadership is a break from the Bush years.

It seems that the best response Obama can muster is that drilling for oil off the coast of Florida and California will not produce oil for at least five to ten years.

So instead, Obama bets the farm on solutions that are twenty to fifty years away from having any real ability to replace fossil fuels, if ever. And his near-term plan? Tax the hell out of oil company profits, slap other corporations and individuals with a carbon tax, and completely ignore ways to make our current solutions cleaner and greener.

All he has to do now is give a little speech about our own malaise and the formula will be complete.

So why is Obama doing this? The only entity to gain from his approach is the federal government, which will become the new central force in the energy economy, doling out resources and penalties according to their political philosophy and agenda. The Democrats have been wanting to do this for years, admitting in private that Carter was only missing a better marketing plan. This policy fits into the master plan - build government and you build a solid democrat majority.

McCain is comparing his visionary plan to the challenge President Kennedy gave our nation to send a man to the moon, which is a just comparison for this equally noble mission. According to his plan, it will take at least that amount of effort and focus to slowly when ourselves off foreign oil totally by 2025.


McCain rightly understands that developing a long-term energy policy that keeps our country secure while leading us into a future of new, cleaner fuels is the defining issue of our times.

Montanans are beginning to understand that our past policies have not only been bad for the country, but limiting to the prosperity of our state.

That’s one reason why we should support McCain in 2008.

To learn more about the McCain energy plan, visit the Lexington Project.

Or watch highlights of the McCain Energy Security speech...

"In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."

- John McCain, June 25, 2008

Mini-Meal Me? Man Loses 86 Pounds Eating at McDonald's

Like many, the Scoop got a little pale after reading 2001's anti-fast food tome Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. You may remember the media storm it created, spawning the documentary "Super-Size Me" where the the maker decided to see what would happen if he ate every meal at McDonalds for a month.

As if nobody new what the result would be.

So it was to much media surprise that, after just a short thirty days, the subject gained 24.5 lb (11.1 kg), a 13% body mass increase, and his Body Mass Index rose from 23.2 (within the 'healthy' range of 19-25) to 27 ('overweight'). He experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and liver damage!

Not surprisingly, there was nary a mention that previously the subject was a strict vegan.

It also took the subject fourteen months to lose the weight he gained and at least as long for the media to pass this story.

But, outside of some insights on nutritional standards and food processing, these works were mostly left-wing propaganda aimed squarely at corporate America.

It was that so familiar liberal theme: the <insert industry name> is secretly and intricately designed to take advantage of kids, parents and low-income folks for a profit.

These helpless folks completely lose their minds when exposed to the sophisticated marketing machine that is McDonald's: parents can't resist the oasis that is the indoor playground, kids succumb to Ronald McDonald and his merry friends, and the low income are immune to the 24-hour attraction of the 99 cent menu. We uncontrollably pilot ourselves to these alters of over consumption and order a double cheese burger with blue-cheese crumble, bacon and barbecue sauce...all unaware this is a poor food choice.

My main criticism of the book? It overlooks the number one underlying issue that casuses the problem. PEOPLE NEED TO MAKE BETTER DECISIONS THEMSELVES, not the government. Chapters dedicated to this topic: zero.

Regardless of what the authors say, the Scoop is not immune to the nefarious advances of Grimace and the Hamburglar, and neither are you.

I do have to credit these authors for helping educate America about the health impacts of low-nutrition, crap-filled food. The resulting public outcry has led to what legislation cannot - the addition of healthy options to the menus of these restaurants because of the newly informed action of consumers.

So the Scoop was not at all surprised to see a news segment from today also reveals the false stunt behind "Super-Size Me". Apparently, a man looking to lose weight has lost 86 pounds eating at McDonald's since December.

His recipe for success: he chose healthy options like apples over Big Macs.

How did he fight off the Big Mac Attack? By having a desire to improve his situation and an informed plan on how to make this happen. (Now that is a book I would be willing to read!)

This is a simple approach that has provided much for our country, and one we need to remember entering this election cycle.

Let's not make personal responsbility, and the freedom it affords, another victim of the "new" politics.

Have You Been Blacklisted?

Over the last two years, as climate change advocates have watched their poorly fortified arguments collapse into the rising tide of general awareness, many moderately minded people still postulate on the fence with this familiar sounding argument:

“Even though we know that most man-made solutions will have little effect on reversing global warming, what’s the harm in implementing some of these solutions?

At worst, these actions would be an insurance policy against the very small likelihood that these apocalyptic fantasies are possible.”

If this is you, mark your calendar, for today is the day this once pragmatic argument unquestionably tumbled into the sea.

In a radical speech to the National Press Club in Washington, Dr. James Hansen, a rouge NASA scientist and leader of the global warming movement, called for the heads of the world’s largest oil companies to be put on trial in a global tribunal.

“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual," said Hansen.

"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

While this sounds utterly fantastical, I am not making this up. He actually said this. In front of a really big audience…with television cameras…from networks other than PBS and MSNBC. In a few days, we'll probably find out this guy roomed with Obama at Harvard.

So, in case you need someone to spell it out for you, the reason we shouldn’t let unproven opinions and emotional arguments guide our decision making is because, once down this path, the burden of proof becomes too easy a causality. We don’t need to look any further than the stories of the vigilantes or McCarthyism to understand the importance of having a fair trial based on the facts.

Under this line of thinking, anybody who buys or uses oil, gasoline or diesel could be an accessory to a crime…an amazing statement coming from someone who has chosen to associate themselves with such a clean and green organization as NASA.

Apparently, nobody told Dr. Hansen that the carbon footprint needed to design, build and launch the space shuttle is slightly more than zero (especially if you take into consideration the 835,000 gallons of liquid propellant used to place it in orbit). Even nasa.gov doesn’t hide the fact that the Space Shuttle and Titan rocket programs account for a quarter percent of man-made carbon emissions per year. This is almost equivilent to Al Gore's house!

So what has made Dr. Hansen the unbiased arbitrator of humanity rather than a co-conspirator in the cold-blooded murder of nature?

Could it be that he has active political ties to both Al Gore and John Kerry? Could it be that he has received over a million dollars in grants from the Heinz Foundation and the Open Society Institute, a political organization funded by George Soros? Could it be that he is protected by governmental employment practices that abdicates accountability?

Or, maybe it is because mainstream Americans haven’t paid close enough attention.

Sadly, the Scoop thinks it is the latter.

Are you guilty?

Why Obama Misses the Mark on Free Trade…Again

It seems that very little has changed with the lefty blogs during my winter slumber. As Budge and Wiley were quick to note earlier today, Anna at LITW posted what might go down in history as one of the most unreflective commentaries since the creation of that site, which is really quite an accomplishment, just given the sheer volume of material from which to choose.

At issue, was her statement that Obama’s recent flip-flop on NAFTA was a refreshing “level of self reflection unusual among most of the politicians I've known.”

A funny post? Absolutely. Politics as usual? Bulls eye. Does Anna need to cut the umbilical cord? I hope for her sake her therapist is working on this one.

But a surprising post given the analytical skills of the site in question? Not so much.

More surprisingly, nestled in the article was something very revealing about Obama. Not only was his original rhetoric on NAFTA out-of-step with mainstream American values, so was the flip-flop.

After calling NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake” that requires immediate unilateral renegotiation, Obama re-nuisanced his position. He now believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

So what has Obama missed?

Only the whole economic point of free-trade.

Like freedom, free-trade benefits all parties. There is no figuring out how to make it work for all people…it already does.

As the Fortune reporter astutely points out, non-partisan studies show that free-trade has a mild positive effect on the entire economy. In the U.S.,for every $143.3billion in jobs and capital that shift outside the country under a free trade agreement, $170 billion returns in spending on U.S. exports. This is a net positive of 26.7 billion annually and an almost 19% return.

What Obama doesn’t like is that free trade doesn’t impact people equally. Or, probably more accurately, his boys aren't getting what they think is a fair share of the pie. So to deal with that unequal outcome, Obama wants the government to re-cut the pie, even after government takes its share of the increased taxes generated on the trade.

So, what threatens free trade? The same things that threaten your individual freedom. Just like free speech, free trade is another reflection of our ability to interact with whom we choose as long as our speech does not infringe on the rights of others -- no harm, no foul. The same should be said for free trade.

The real threat to our freedom comes in the form of nanny-state legislators like Obama that feel their elite status provides them judgement that should replace that of everyday Americans. Quite simply, he feels he can make better decisions about you than you.

This doesn’t mean the Scoop supports zero regulation to free trade, but common-sense regulations can happen without redrawing the entire economic argument, and thus neutering the result.

For example, regulation is necessary to safeguard shared resources like the environment. Government can also help play a role in providing a safety net to workers who may be temporarily displaced, including unemployment, retraining and job replacement support (But, it should not be a program to award benefits as if certain Americans are entitled to any type of job.) Some regulation needs to protect industry and technology that are essential to our national security.

And, it doesn't take a genius to see that some international trade organizations are given powers that undermine our national sovereignty, and thus our individual liberty. (This is about the only thing Ron Paul has right about free trade, having chosen to jump head first into the isolationist bunker with Obama and Pat Buchanan.)

But this is not what Obama is talking about. He is just finding a new way to sell an old concept for redistribution of wealth, and in the end, saying nothing new at all.

No wonder the Clinton folks were worried this guy would take a pounding.

It really is refreshing, isn't it?

Obama Lags, Targets Montana

Recent polls show that the Obama campaign continues to defy campaign traditions - this time forgoing the traditional bounce that a candidate receives after besting the primary field!

Political observers are starting to ask: "Why hasn't Obama opened up a bigger lead?"... especially at a time when he should be at the top of his game.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Obama, D-Ill., leading McCain, R-Ariz., by a margin of 48 percent to 42 percent.

It is a surprisingly small lead considering that the incumbent Republican president George Bush is at record lows and public opinion overwhelmingly feels the country is on the "wrong track".

Adding to that deflating feeling previous known as Obama-mania, the Real Clear Politics national poll average shows Obama clinging to a scanty 4.0 point lead, with Obama at 46.3 and McCain at 42.3. (Nothing like dancing along the margin of error to produce a feeling of comfort.)

But, normal politics this season is not. All but abandoning a 50-state strategy outlined weeks before, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe has declared a new unconventional strategy that includes targeting Montana.

"You have a lot of ways to get to 270," Plouffe said. "Our goal is not to be reliant on one state on November 4th."

Plouffe and his aides are weighing where to contest, and where chances are too slim to marshal a large effort. A win in Virginia (13 electoral votes) or Georgia (15 votes) could give Obama a shot if he, like Kerry, loses Ohio or Florida.

Plouffe also has been touting Obama's appeal in once Republican-leaning states where Democrats have made gains in recent gubernatorial and congressional races, such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota.

The last poll conducted in Montana had McCain up by 8 points...at a time where McCain was not at his strongest, and right as Obama was spending a record amount on state-wide television advertising. Of course, that has not stopped the national press from buzzing about a Democrat hostile take-over.

While the Scoop applauds Plouffe for thinking outside traditional boundaries, the idea of Obama winning Montana seems distant, if not totally implausible.

This is especially true if Obama's strategy rests solely on confusing people about his position as an advocate of gun control and as a panderer to the hard-working Montana farming community with overblown big-government solutions to a wide-range of problems that do not exist.

Even Time Magazine, in their over-the-top leg-humping article of last year on western Democrats noted that Hillary and Obama defy the mold of the libertarian, plainspoken type that have recently won in the Rocky Mountain West.

In fact, the real flaw in the Rocky Mountain Blue electoral fantasies is that the Democrats' leading candidates, especially the junior Senator from New York, elicit groans in the Rockies.

"I just don't get this Obama thing, either," says Orbanek, the Grand Junction newspaper publisher.

New Mexico's popular Latino Governor Bill Richardson will probably try in 2008, but Richardson has spent most of his career in Washington and sometimes tries a bit too hard at playing the Western card: his cowboy boots are ostrich skin, which is permissible but fancy. Richardson certainly can't compete with Republicans John McCain or Mitt Romney, either of whom would easily sweep the region.

Of course, this clear thinking was before Obama-mania set in.

Maybe Boise native Jim Messina (hey...I thought this guy was from Montana?) can give him a clue. Or, better yet, maybe they will target Idaho.

I haven't seen this much nonsense since working in Silicon Valley in the early 90's and overhearing a group of prominent business leaders declare an end to the old rules of corporate valuation.

I think they said it was all about momentum rather than results.

The Scoop thinks this election will be about issues...and who has a proven record of reform. This, at least, is what we'll be talking about at here.

Missoula City Council Elections - Preliminary Results

UPDATE- NEW NUMBERS

Given turnout will probably be above the 40% mark, these totals can only be seen as a portion of the vote; maybe a little more than half of the cast ballots. If forty percent is 20,555 ballots, 66% of the ballots have been counted; less if turnout is higher.

The Scoop thinks it will be awhile until we know the final results...and who is going to win some of the closer races...like Wards 2 and 3. Looks like Armintrout fell to the liberal-progressive turnout machine in the Rattlesnake, which worked overtime to distribute marching orders since the primary.

The others, probably too early to tell

-----------UNOFFICAL RESULTS----------------

Total Voters 51388
Votes Counted 16539
% Reporting 32.18%

Ward 1
Armitrout 714 34.76%
Weiner 1309 63.73%
Write-In 31 1.51%
Total 2054

Ward 2
Nicholson 767 49.81%
Walzer 759 49.29%
Write-In 14 0.91%
Total 1540

Ward 4
Ballas 859 46.33%
Hellegaard 965 52.05%
Write-In 30 1.62%
Total 1854

Ward 3
Harrison 701 41.80%
Rye 954 56.89%
Write-In 22 1.31%
Total 1677

Ward 5
Mitchell 946 53.87%
Prescott 782 44.53%
Write-In 28 1.59%
Total 1756

Ward 6
Lewie 499 45.95%
Childers 573 52.76%
Write-In 14 1.29%
Total 1086

War Initiative
For 6487 64.30%
Against 3601 35.70%
Total 10088

The Unsinkable Roy Brown

The Scoop came out of his sugar-induced coma today to attend the announcement tour of Montana Republican gubernatorial candidate Roy Brown, who criss-crossed the state introducing himself to voters.

While I have admired Brown from afar for years, I have never really met or heard him speak, except for an informative, yet brief, talk he gave during the 2005 legislative session.

His presentation was too short to make much of an impression, and sandwiched into a series of legislative updates that were poorly planned and executed. (Not unlike the ASUM-MontPIRG debate the other night on campus, except that Brown was speaking at a non-partisan event, not paid for by state money.)

I remember being impressed that he could prevail over the terrible format, much like our mainstream city council candidates did on campus the other night. (Bravo!)

So, I approached today with both great hope and trepidation, attending mainly due to the coverage Brown has received from his level-headed hometown blog, Montana Headlines.

Like most Montanans, the Scoop has been frustrated of late. It seems that outside of Rehberg, and since Racicot, Montana Republicans have lacked smart and articulate candidates that can inspire both the rank-and-file AND mainsteam voters. Today I was half expecting a dud, but instead was inspired, energized and quite frankly, surprised.

While the Scoop believes Republicans have a built-in advantage with Montana voters, they need a strong candidate to attract the independents and conservative democrats necessary to build a mainstream coalition. Roy Brown has that appeal, and is everything you would expect in a would-be governor.

Brown is bright, energetic, visionary, and an talented communicator. He is approachable and funny...an everyday kind of guy. He has a tremendous knowledge of the diversity, history and challenges of our state. Brown also has a tested political strength, having been the target of a left-wing, $100k spending offensive that tried to take him out during his last legislative run (the most expensive in the state) .

The result: Brown spent one-third the amount of his Schweitzer funded and backed opponent... and won handily...in a district that leans democrat.

Brown is also everything that our current governor is not: a gentleman, classy, civil and humble. He is style AND substance. He is what our current governor promised to be during his last campaign, but somehow forgot on his way to the statehouse.

Brown is quite simply the anti-Schweitzer, at least when compared to the one that governs.

No wonder they were trying to sink this guy!

To top it off, Roy Brown has a spot-on message: Schweitzer has recklessly increased state spending by over 40%, putting Montana's economic recovery at risk and setting the state up for inevitable future tax increases, all without fixing any of our substantive challenges like children's health care and education.

And, unlike the mainstream Montana media, Brown is not afraid to call Schweitzer out on his long list of unkept promises, such as his election-time commitment to make state government "leaner and meaner." Instead, our governor has increased state spending by $40,000 for every Montana family of four, and has hired over 1,000 employees into the very departments he once claimed needed the heavy hand of an efficiency seeking manager.

But, as I hear is typical Brown fare, his focus today was not on our failed governor, but on his own qualifications and vision for Montana. In short, he promised four things:

1. To promote Montana over himself. (So long, Jag!)

2. To focus his efforts on long-term property tax relief and elimination of the equipment tax.

3. To raise our campaign finance grade from an "F" to something more deserving of Montana voters.

4. To replace the out of control spending frenzy that dominates Helena with more responsible fiscal management.

Brown also showed off his civility and class. Rather than having Schweitzer read about his challenge in the newspaper, Brown felt compelled to call his office and speak to the governor personally. Unfortunately, and is often the case, Schweitzer was on an out-of-state trip, so Brown did the following...

"I left a message to tell the governor that I will run an honest and spirited campaign and that I will avoid any negative, personal attacks."

A message we are sure that our current governor will be eager to return...in the form of multiple 30-60 second hit pieces paid by for by his well-heeled, out-of-state buddies.

But, the Scoop thinks he may have met his match in the unassuming yet accomplished Roy Brown. If we tune off his last political dual with Schweitzer, he may just be the unsinkable Roy Brown.

Edwards: The Problem with Class Warfare

The AP is running an interesting story today about the hypocrisy that is John Edwards. Seems that a campaign spokesman for Edwards has taken offense at a video uploaded to the Internet by a student journalist, and they have been pressuring the student and school to pull the video from You Tube.

"I was completely shocked to get a phone call from the Edwards campaign saying that the story was straight from the Republican Party and that we needed to take it down," said student journalist Carla Babb, who produced the piece for a UNC-Chapel Hill student newscast. Babb stands by her story, stating she is just a student that is preparing for a career as a newscaster, and not a Republican political operative.

Babb's faculty advisor, C.A. Tuggle, had this to say of the Edwards campaign: "My gosh, what are they thinking? They're spending this much time and effort on a student newscast that has about 2,000 viewers. They're turning a mountain into a molehill."

The Scoop knows why Edwards wants to eighty-six the piece; it exposes the Herculean flaw of his class warfare message. If there are really two America's, it doesn't take much examination to determine the one that Edwards comes from, expolited to make millions, and that he'll represent.

You only have to look at his house. Or in this case, his campaign headquarters.

He can't even fool a twenty-three year old journalism student. And while we are on the topic, how many trees did he cut down to build his house? (pictured above) In Montana, we would call that a clear cut. Not at all out of line with his stance on global warming.

Anyways, in the event you want to make this molehill a little larger, here is the video.

Which currently has ~81,000 views on YouTube.

6 hour update: ~111,000 views, only 109,000 more than the student broadcast itself!

24 hour update: ~145,000 views and counting.

Neighbors In Need

As much as Montanans roll their eyes for what passes for normalcy in California, we can't forget that in tragic moments like this, we need to come together as Americans. I am sure many of you, who have lived through the big Montana fires, have been as stunned as the Scoop by the magnitude of the inferno consuming parts of southern California.

The figures are staggering: 500,000 people evacuated from 350,000 homes; 1,250 homes destroyed; another 68,000 immediately threatened; 65 mph winds moving fires up to a mile in a matter of minutes; 300,000 acres burned in a short three-day period.

It is by the grace of god that only two people have died.

Today I heard a story about a CNN reporter, who just yesterday afternoon was covering the fires about 15 miles from his San Diego residence. He returned home late last night to tell his family of the heart-wrenching stories about hundreds of families losing their homes. Less than twenty-four hours later, his family was evacuated and his house burned to the ground, as he watched and reported from street outside.

Soon enough the wild fires will give way to the political ones.

We'll question why so many people live in such a small area, and why they build their homes over oceans and cliffs and each other. Elected officials will point fingers at who is to blame, especially if anyone was more than two seconds to late to the scene of the fire. The government will undoubtly send in aid, probably with the same well-intended yet wasteful results as the Katrina clean-up. The global warming movement will take a break from their fire-line cheerleading just long enough to pin the blame on man-made CO2. A Hollywood celebrity will say something so mind-boggling stupid that some of us will wish the fire was still burning in Malibu.

Regardless of our political proclivities, most of us will end up thinking equally unproductive thoughts. But the real truth is that some people will never recover their homes or their loved ones.

The political aftermath of these events never brings out the best in people. Given this, let's try to set aside the political analysis for now...at least until we can take care of those most affected.

Let's also remember to reach out with our hearts and our hands...and pray that tomorrow brings more moisture and less winds.


The Red Cross Southern California Wildfire Response Website


THE WILDFIRES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - Fall 2007



THE FOREST FIRES OF WESTERN MONTANA - Summer 2003

Best Lines of the Florida Republican Primary Debate

The Scoop is just starting to tune into the race for the Presidency, and thinks that there were two really strong performers in the Florida Republican Debate, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee. For me, it is boiling down to supporting one of these two, as I can't stomach any of the Democrats.

Here are some of the more interesting quotes from the leading candidates, which I had to type quickly, so I am sure I got some words and punctuation wrong...but I'm also sure I got the point they were trying to make right.

The Scoop is interested...Who are you supporting?

---------------------------------------

Fred Thompson

On Mayor Giuliani…
“Mayor Giuliani believes in federal funding for abortion. He believes in sanctuary cities. He's for gun control. He supported Mario Cuomo, a liberal Democrat, against a Republican who was running for governor, then opposed the governor's tax cuts when he was there. He sides with Hillary Clinton on each of those issues.”

On Mitt Romney being to the political left of Senator Kennedy…
“I’m not sure there is room to the left of Senator Kennedy, but I’m not sure there is room on the right either.”

On lobbying for Planned Parenthood…
“It was my private law practice, as opposed to my public serve. My firm asked me to do a little work on it and make a few calls. After that, I went to the US Senate and voted against them on every bill that they supported, and now they are trying to defeat me.”

On 'No Child Left Behind'…
“I did vote for it, and some of those critics were right, and some of us were wrong. We don’t have the transparency and accountability we were expecting. If everybody makes 90% on the test, nobody is learning. Part of the problem in our education system is the societal breakdown going on in this country…we need more fathers to stay and raise their kids.”

Rudy Giuliani

On who is more conservative, him or Fred Thompson…
“I can’t comment on Fred. But I can tell you that George Will wrote an article where he said that I ran the most conservative government in the United States in the last 50-60 years. I think I had a heck of a lot of conservative results. I took the crime capital of America and turned it into the safest city in the country. I outperformed any expectation”

On Fred Thompson…
"I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country. The senator has never had executive responsibility. He's never had the weight of people's safety and security on his shoulders.” (On Fred Thompson)

"Fred was the single biggest obstacle to tort reform in the United States Senate He voted against $250,000 caps on damages, which they have in Texas. He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer: 'Loser pays' rules, things that would prevent lawsuits like that $54 million lawsuit by that guy who lost his pants…Fred Thompson blocked tort reform over and over and over again, and that is not a conservative position?"

On Civil Unions…
I did 210 weddings when I was mayor of New York City. So I have experience doing this. They were all men and women. I hope. You have to give me some slack, it was New York City.

On Hillary Clinton…
"There are two things I agree with Hillary Clinton on. First we are both Yankee fans... I became a fan growing up in New York. She became a fan growing up in Chicago. Do you really believe that?"

"I've been very critical of her, but I want to tell her I agree with this one. Quote, Hillary Clinton, 'I have a million ideas; America cannot afford them all.' I'm not making it up…No kidding Hillary…American can't afford you."

On potentially alienating teachers by supporting education choice and ‘No Child Left Behind’...“What we need is choice. I love teachers, I think they are wonderful, there are some good ones, some bad ones…but what I really care about are the kids more…we should empower parents to decide. This is the single biggest civil rights issue we face in the twenty first century.”

Mike Huckabee

On how he will differentiate himself from the other candidates during the debate...
"I’m content to let you let them fight all they want tonight, shed each other's blood and then I'll be ready to run for president because I'm not interested in fighting these guys. What I'm interested in is fighting for the American people, and I think they're looking for a presidential candidate who's not so interested in a demolition derby against the other people in his own party."

On Hillary Clinton…
"You know, it's interesting, the most, I guess, wonderful reaction we've had in this entire room is when Hillary's name is mentioned. It gets louder than an Aerosmith concert. But I want to say this — you've asked: What's the difference? No matter which one of us is on this stage — and, look, I like to be funny, let me be real honest with you. There's nothing funny about Hillary being president”

On preserving life…
"When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, and among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life being one of them. I still believe that”

On health care reform…
“We don’t have a health care crisis, we have a health crisis. Eighty percent of what we spend on health care in this nation is spent on chronic disease. If we don’t focus on prevention we will never get ahead of this problem. And when all the old hippies get wind of all the free drugs, just think of what that is going to cost us.

John McCain

On Mitt Romney…
"You've just spent the last year trying to fool people about your record. I don't want you to start fooling them about mine. I stand on my record as a conservative. I don't think you can fool the American people. I think the first thing you'd need is their respect."

“For twenty seven years I led…I didn’t lead for profit, I led for patriotism.“

On Hillary Clinton supporting a museum for the preservation of the Woodstock counter-culture concert, that took place in 1969, while he was being held as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. "Now my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time.”

On getting advice on the War on Terror, as opposed to Mitt Romney …
“I don’t think we should call in the lawyers when we have a national security crisis…they are the last people I would call in.”

On health care reform…
“Make health care in American affordable and available, but don’t destroy it as the democrats want to do”

On being a maverick...
“I think every candidate should appeal to, but not pander to, every element of the Republican party.”

Mitt Romney

On being a true conservative…
“I was fighting against the liberal lion in the toughest state in the union. My legislature was 85% democrat, I fought to keep our taxes down…I fought for growth.”

On the Iraq War…
“This president went to congress. Hillary Clinton is trying to rewrite history, but this president went to Congress (and got approval for the Iraq war), let’s not forget that.”

On health care reform…
“I don’t want the guys who are responsible for the clean-up of Katrina to be responsible for health care in this country. Are we going to talk about health care and get people insured with private insurance? Yes we are. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it is free."

Can I Have the Check Please?

An interesting guest column ran in the Missoulian print addition today, written by someone listed as simply “Richard Buley writes from Missoula"...an odd attribution since the Missoulian has a long history of disclosing the vocational background of editorial page guests.

So what has caused this noble citizen of Missoula to pick up his pen?

According to Buley, the poor of our country are poor because wealthy Americans don’t pay their fair share of taxes... and he urges Missoulian readers to do something about it.

Until the 98 percent of people who are subsidizing the top 2 percent demand that their representation work for them instead of their big donors, we’ll simply continue this downward spiral.

But is this really what is happening? Are the poor and the middle class really propping up the super rich?

To answer this question, you only need to look to a popular economic illustration comparing our tax system to ten men having a meal in a restaurant.

Let's put taxes in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the total bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they were to pay their bill in the same proportions American’s paid in FY200O taxes (according to figures from the IRS) the bill would be distributed something like this:

The first four men.....the poorest.....would pay nothing;
The fifth would pay $2:
The sixth would pay $4;
The seventh $6;
The eighth $8;
The ninth $13.
The tenth man.....the richest......would pay $67, or 67% of the bill.

There is also an equally revealing version of this simple story that illustrates the impact of a tax cut.

As you can imagine, liberals everywhere HATE these simple explanations, because they present numbers without the emotional smoke and mirrors of their partisan fog machine. Many have attempted to discredit this particular story by questioning the anonymous attribution of the writer but none can credibly question the math.

So, I ask each of you, does it make a difference that the author of this story is unknown? Or should the logic stand on its own?

Of course, anonymity does not allow partisan folks to partake in the character assassination that is the heart of many liberal political arguments. And, it will not extend to the press and academia the convenience excuse of thumbing their noses at your inferior pedigree.

And what about today's Missoulian guest column, cloaked in some partial anonymity? Does this guest column fall flat because we don't know the vocational identity of the writer?

Would it change your mind if you knew the author may be a prominent local trial lawyer? What if his relentless pursuit of personal injury cases helped create the same health care crisis that he credits with undermining our economic order?

The Scoop hopes that it would not.

The classic liberal mantra of full personal disclosure requires you to think the worst of people...that we all move only out of self-interest. It requires you to ignore the facts and instead focus on an endless hunt to expose the hypocritical self-interest that is the root of every argument.

Buley's arguments fail not because of his background, but because it does not match up with the facts. It fails because his logic doesn't follow the traditional common sense that you "don't bite the hand that feeds you."

In a world where the super rich can chose where to locate (and pay taxes), that is something we should all heed. This is especially true in Montana, were we seem to have an increasingly meth-like addiction to out-of-state tax dollars.

Anyways, what ever happened to having a little respect...for the rich AND for the facts?

I'll let you post either, anonymously or not, at the Scoop.
--------------------------
BONUS SCOOP:

For the mini-economist in each of you, here are some interesting charts that show who pays...and who gets.

More Beautiful Fall Colors

I think I say this every year, but the Scoop doesn't remember a prettier fall color presentation than what we have seen in western Montana the last couple weeks.

Here is a picture from the top of the Glen Eagle area in Grant Creek, looking back at Snow Bowl.