MyDD :: Baucus Conspires With The Enemy

Baucus Conspires With The Enemy

by Chris Bowers, Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 10:46:20 PM EST

Here is some history on Max Baucus:

When the chips are down, and it is time for all those who are not complicit with the radical conservative agenda in this country to be counted, almost every single time Max Baucus has chosen not to be counted. On the majority of the most egregiously foul pieces of Bush-led legislation over the past four years, Max Baucus has been complicit with the incompetence, deception, and destructive force that is modern conservatism (otherwise known as whatever George Bush did today). He only came back into line on Social Security after extensively cajoling. Today, he has outdone himself, by undercutting his own caucus leader by stating he would vote to confirm Roberts only hours after Harry Reid said he would not.

Even setting aside for as moment whether or not confirming Roberts is the right thing to do, why would Baucus issue a press release only hours after Reid's? Is he intentionally trying to undercut the Democratic Party, and make us all as complicit as him? I think so. For that matter, why would he release a press statement at all? Baucus is not on the judiciary committee, he is not running for re-election in 2006, he has no national profile, he is not a member of the Gang and he will never run for President. What does the nation care what Baucus will do on Roberts? Why would he release this statement now, unless he was intentionally trying to undermine Reid? Why couldn't he just vote however he wanted and shut up?

Baucus said in his statement ""I call 'em as I see them." What I see is a President who has worn out his welcome with the public, and is now finally seen for what he is: incompetent, uncaring, and with an agenda that only promises more destruction. I also see a Senator from Montana who has a voting record that shows he is complicit with that agenda. Baucus must see this too, and view his only avenue of escape as working to make as many other members of the Democratic Party complicit as well. By undercutting Reid, Baucus can potentially secure several more Democratic votes for Roberts, thus making more Democrats complicit with stealth nominees and evasion tactics, and even more Democrats complicit with whatever fundamental rights the Roberts Court overturns. Bush, Baucus, and the agenda they voted for are going down, and now their only hope of saving face is to bring down as many other people as they can take with them.

Contact Baucus and let him know his treacherous activities are disgusting. Tell him to stop undercutting his own leader, and to stop being complicit with deception and radical conservatives. Enough is enough. I mean, we are going nice on Roberts--no one is whipping votes against him, and no one is even thinking about mounting a filibuster. For Baucus, this isn't enough--he wants to undercut his own leadership and force public complicity from Democrats. For Schweitzer's sake, that is what Republicans want--we don't need Democrats trying to do that too. Go nuclear on this backstabber. Contact one of his offices now.

Tags: Judges, MT-Sen, 2008, Max Baucus (all tags)

Permalink :: 20 Comments :: Post a Comment

And he's safe, which makes it worse. (none / 0)

Montana is no Nebraska and he's an entrenched incumbent. He really isn't under any pressure vis-a-vis his re-election prospects.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 10:52:21 PM EST

Re: And he's safe, which makes it worse. (none / 0)

Having lived in both Montana and Nebraska, I would actually say that Montana is just as conservative at the least. (and less open-minded on issues such as race)

by v2aggie2 on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he's safe, which makes it worse. (none / 0)

He's not THAT safe.

Two words: primary challenge.

We don't have to beat him in a primary. We just have to make him worry about addressing the needs of the Democratic base in Montana for the next year. Make him sweat. Make him think a little harder before pulling shit like this.

"If I (Baucus) announce I'm voting for X, will that just raise money for my primary opponent? Maybe I should think about it, first."

Find somebody, anybody, to run against him, and start a primary challenge website attacking Baucus for not being Dem enough. If he thinks being a Dem is a disadvantage in the general, then, by George, we ought to give him a bigger advantage.

by Dumbo on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he's safe, which makes it worse. (none / 0)

See my comment above.

The Democratic base in Montana is more conservative than the national base.

And you are assuming that they disagree with Baucus.

by v2aggie2 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And he's safe, which makes it worse. (none / 0)

Montana, while still ocnservative is trending away from what they were in the past. To me, they seem to be heading to the Feingold style of populism... Conservative on some issues, Porgressive on others.

However, I do think a challenge needs ot be mounted. Even if he can't be beat, a close race and less money will scare him into towing the line.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Contact ALL of his offices (none / 0)

10 minutes...

Why is Max Baucus running from the Democratic Party? Instead of running away, why can't Max Baucus play with the team? Call each number below and ask.

Washington D.C.(202) 224-2651
Billings (406) 657-6790
Bozeman (406) 586-6104
Butte (406) 782-8700
Great Falls (406) 761-1574
Helena (406) 449-5480
Kalispell (406) 756-1150
Missoula (406) 329-3123

by blogswarm on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:02:08 PM EST

Another case of Chris jumping off the deep end (2.00 / 1)

I'm beginning to think I'm reading a post by Armando at Daily Kos.

by HoosierJosh on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:03:46 PM EST

Re: Another case of Chris jumping off the deep end (none / 0)

Actually, Armando said:

And I have found that Max Baucus meets my criteria for a gutless son of a bitch. Baucus demonstrates a healthy disrespect for his Leader in the Senate and for the values and principles that define the Democratic Party.

Throughout his career, Max Baucus has been kissing Republican rings and can not seem to break that habit, even with George Bush at the nadir of his Presidency.

The White House spits in the face of the Senate, refusing in an unprecedented fashion to release documents critical to determining Roberts' fitness for the Court; Roberts refuses to discuss his judicial philosophy beyond mere platitudes but Max Baucus can't say no to Republicans and George Bush.

Let's face it Senator, you don't know a damn thing about what kind of Justice Roberts will be. You know about as much about Roberts as you knew about Clarence Thomas. But wait, you voted against Thomas' confirmation. What's the difference between them Senator? Is there a dime's worth of difference between the two? How do you know?

My yardstick tells me you are a gutless, unprincipled political coward with not an ounce of loyalty to your Party or respect for your Leader. What a useless tool you are.

"gutless son of a bitch"

"gutless, unprincipled political coward with not an ounce of loyalty to your Party or respect for your Leader"

Indeed.

by blogswarm on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:38:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just a case of heatseeker missives (none / 0)

Baucus is a heatseeker. Roberts will be confirmed, he's getting some leverage out of it.

Anyone played diner dash? Man that game is fun.

by turnerbroadcasting on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:06:22 PM EST

Broken (none / 0)

Max Baucus is like Chris Matthews -- one of those Democrats who has been "broken" by the Rovian machine.

Think of Winston at the end of 1984.

The saddest thing about these guys is even as the Rovian ship is sinking, these guys have become so whipped into line that they'd rather go down with the sinking ship than jump off.

Pathetic.

TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds

by LiberalFromPA on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:28:50 PM EST

You're seriously over-estimating (none / 0)

Baucus' impact on a national level. This is not news outside his home state. If Democrats in Montana don't like him they can nominate someone else when he's up for re-election. Most voters know what they're getting when they vote for Baucus.

by zt155 on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:46:11 PM EST

Re: You're seriously over-estimating (none / 0)

And they aren't nominating someone else in the primary.

It isn't really a surprise

by v2aggie2 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:00:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Off Base (none / 0)

Since when are individual Senators subservient to the Minority Leader? No one here seems to mind much when someone takes a position more liberal than the caucus as a whole. Seems like a double standard.

I don't think Reid was at all blind-sided by Baucus' position & there is little evidence that Reid's own speech was anything more than a sop to the interest groups & activitsts in the blogosphere. Reid praised Roberts, recognized that reasonable Democrats could differ & ruled out a filibuster. Nothing suggesst Reid is making any effort to hold other Democrats in line on the Roberts vote. Probably because he recognizes that it's a losing proposition politically. Even normanlly pro-Democratic editorial boards are urging Roberts' confirmation.

If Baucus is secure politically in Montana, it's because he's cast numerous votes that reflected his constituency rather than the majority opinion here. Some apparently won't be happy until there are only about 32 ideologically pure Democratic Senators voting in lockstep, although never in the majority. I just think those folks don't get to decide what other Democrats may say & how they may vote.

by SLinVA on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:18:16 AM EST

Re: Off Base (3.00 / 1)

I absolutely agree, SLinVa.
Some in our Dem party have this misguided notion that the Democratic Senate members in heavy Red States such as Baucus of MT, Nelson's of Nebraska, Landriu's, of LA Pryor & Lincoln of AR,etc. are doing a great disservice to their democratic constituency in their respective states. The mistake that they repeatedly make is the ASSUMPTION that majority of democrats in these heavy red states share their Liberal views. When in fact, millions of these democrats in heavy red states are more conservative than many moderate republicans in the northeast.

We keep on talking about primary challenges in these states without even thinking that these Democratic Men & Women who are the so called " moderate" or centrist, DLC type" wing of the party WOULD NOT BE WINNING RE-ELECTON again & again as Democrats in Deep Red States if the democratic base in these states are not supportive of them.

The fact of the matter is a significant enough percentage of the Democratic party base nationally are more moderate/conservative than
we think.

Last year's Democratic Primary is PROOF of that. Kerry, Edwards & Clark still managed to FINISH in the Top 3 by splitting the moderate/centrist wing of the party despite a UNITED ALL OUT EFFORT by Liberal Democrats for Howard Dean !

by labanman on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Worse: OSHA's Ergonomics Standard (none / 0)

Baucus was one of six Democrats to vote FOR the repeal of OSHA's ergonomics standard in 2001. (Others were Landrieu, Hollings, Breaux, Miller and Lambert)

by jbarab on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:27:27 AM EST

Baucus showed poor judgement in releasing (none / 0)

the statement right after Reid's. I have no problem with Ben Nelson doing it, since he could be vulnerable next year, but Baucus is safe. He could quietly vote no, but I guess there's no chance of that. I understand the need to let senators from red states vote yes since Roberts will be confirmed anyway, but for a a guy who's safe to do it is just ridiculous.

by dole4pineapple on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:01:57 AM EST

Unfortunately, a lot of those votes (none / 0)

saw many other Democrats vote yes. Dianne Feinstein voted for the medicare bill for some inexplicable reason. Tons of Democrats, including Reid voted for bankruptcy, the war, and the 2001 tax cuts. And practically everyone voted for that ridiculous energy bill. So we should be clear that it's not just Baucus who is to blame, but Democrats, for losing elections, and then caving in. Democrats seem to fear being bold because they might lose elections, but they keep losing elections because they are not bold. How to solve that dilemma...

by dole4pineapple on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:08:27 AM EST

Re: Unfortunately, a lot of those votes (2.00 / 1)

I think it's called...."clean house".

by risenmessiah on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:45:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

how we become just like them (none / 0)

"Conspires with the enemy"? I won't argue that he is aiding them, but it's not clear he's conspiring.

So much for a big tent.

by alhill on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:21:36 AM EST

But as For the Roberts Vote (none / 0)

What is this Social Security privitazation? Far as we know, every single Repuglican will vote for Roberts on the Senate floor. Okay so Max Baucus joins them.

DeLay is smart enough to never bring a measure to the floor for a vote unless he has the votes. Even for CAFTA, he escaped with victory. Frist is slightly less savvy this way, but the man already pencils in his "comfortable margin" when choosing the voting time.

If Max Baucus wants to hang with the "cool kids" and in so doing support an activist judge...well then...isn't that actually what he's supposed to do as a Democrat? Scalia was confirmed 98-0 as I recall.

Show me the potential GOP aisle-crossers to reject Roberts and then I'll think more lowly of Baucus. But unless there's good reason to think the vote is close...the man has to answer for his own actions.

by risenmessiah on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:44:48 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.