iaafan wrote:Pearl Jam will have little to do with this election. The big thing is that Tester is a Montanan's Montanan. He's from Montana, Burns is from Missouri. Tester actually farms, Burns is a politician, who pretends to be a country boy. In other words, Tester is for real, Burns is an act.
The biggest and most overwhelming issue will be honesty. Tester has a record of honesty, Burns doesn't in the eyes of the average (swing)voters. Maybe nothing has been proven against him yet, but the average Joe thinks he's a crook. That's what this election will boil down to because that's the topic that's most riveting. Pearl Jam won't trump honesty. If Burns can't turn the tide of Abramoff (Burns is the No. 1 guy on the Abramoff list right now), he won't win. Burns biggest asset is that he's brought in a lot of money, but all the pork in the world won't save him right now. Right now people are wondering is he did so honestly or if it's all tainted.
Finally you and I agree on something in this race. I do think that the overwhelming issue will be honesty. Tester will go after Burns ties to Abramoff, and Burns will go after Tester's record vs. rhetoric (they don't always match up - Schweitzer is already in this morning's paper saying that Tester is more conservative than he is - what? Tester portrayed himself in the primary as the progressive/liberal. Will the real Tester please stand up). It won't take a "rocket surgeon" to figure out their campaign strategies. But either way, you are correct in that part of your statement about honesty.
I don't know if the "average Joe thinks he's a crook" or not - but we agree that it (politics) is about perception. If the perception is that he it tainted, then it will hurt him.
What Burns needs to do is spend every waking moment here in Montana meeting and greeting. It is damn near impossible to walk away from Conrad after chatting with him for 5-10 minutes and not like the guy. The "average Joe" may not agree with him, but when the "average Joe" likes someone, it is harder to paint that person as a "crook".
Slightly off topic - but politically I think the worst thing that could happen to Schweitzer (and I'm not a fan of his), would be Tester winning the Senate race, and the D's taking over the MT House and Senate. Schweitzer's political strength is having someone to beat on. That's what he did against Burns in 2000. It's what he did in 2004 (tieing Bob Brown to Judy Martz), and that is what he is doing currently. If his party is completely in control of Montana politics, then the question will turn to what he has accomplished. He does have some success to point to, but he has built his short political career on having a "dragon to slay" and the worst thing for him is to become someone else's dragon. And believe me, when cracks begin to show in his armor those that he has run over in his quick climb up the ladder will be the first to turn on him.
just my two cents on that