Montana's Gubernatorial Race

[onpoint]

With the election just a couple months away, just wondering how the Montana folks on here feel about the candidates. I think this is a pretty pertinent topic for a lot of us on here, as this is :

"a forum for on your own hunters. Hunters who prefer to hunt without guides, on public lands"

Lotta that and a lotta us here in Montana - this year's Gov race has some fairly significant implications for both.
I won't be posting any replies, just want to see how people feel about this race.
If a conversation arises, hopefully it won't go south. If so, I guess it'll end up where a lot of these do.........

By the way, snow coming to the high country around here the next couple days

 

[Schaaf]

One of the candidates is very outspoken in support of public lands and shoots down federal land transfer every chance he gets.

The other candidate skirts around the topic every time I hear him asked about it and surrounds himself with people who are not friends to sportsmen.

I'll be voting for the former.

 

[u1299]

To me it's simple, Steve Bullock has been a fantastic Governor, he's a true friend of hunters and fisherman/conservationists, and on the issue of public lands and stream access you aren't going to find a better friend. He's got my vote and every member of my immediate family and friends as well. With the Republican controlled Legislature and their constant barrage of asinine right wing anti-hunting/public land bills sure to rear their ugly head, it's only a matter of time until some of the absolute worst get passed, and a Steve Bullock veto will be the only thing standing between sportsmen and chaos. Gianforte would be a terrible mistake IMO and I have no intention of seeing him anywhere near the Governors mansion.

 

[rammac]

All I can say is anybody that wants to continue the progressive ideas of Obama is an idiot and I'll do everything I can to get rid of him. Voting for a liberal lawyer and expecting things to improve is insanity.

 

[onpoint]

bump,I think?

 

[AH_14]

To me it's simple, Steve Bullock has been a fantastic Governor, he's a true friend of hunters and fisherman/conservationists, and on the issue of public lands and stream access you aren't going to find a better friend. He's got my vote and every member of my immediate family and friends as well. With the Republican controlled Legislature and their constant barrage of asinine right wing anti-hunting/public land bills sure to rear their ugly head, it's only a matter of time until some of the absolute worst get passed, and a Steve Bullock veto will be the only thing standing between sportsmen and chaos. Gianforte would be a terrible mistake IMO and I have no intention of seeing him anywhere near the Governors mansion.

I need say nothing more, this is perfect!!!! Please vote Bullock!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm with the kid from Helena. Vote Bullock!

 

[Straight Arrow]

'Not sure who rammac is calling an "idiot" ... but his description does not fit Gov Bullock. Perhaps rammac is commenting on the wrong thread.

Anyhow, vote for Governor Steve Bullock.

(BTW, whatever happened to the 406 tax plan by GG. Perhaps facebook deleted it.)

 

[katqanna]

I saw an article the other day, written by a woman that worked for Giantforte's RightNow Technologies for 13 years as chief financial officer, chief operating officer and senior vice president for customer experience. She is advocating for Bullock for a number of business and financial reasons.

Gianforte's model wouldn't work for governing Montana

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yes, Kat, and Carstensen's article appeared in all the major newspapers across the state.

 

[MooseCaboose]

I'm voting for Greg Gianforte. He actually hunts and loves Montana and utilizes public lands. Bullock might hunt for show and talk a big game about his love of public lands, but it's nothing more than political opportunism. Democrats have long used scare tactics to attempt to steal the hunting vote.

I'll admit, there are some wingnuts on the right side of the aisle who want to transfer lands to the state. Greg is not one of those people. He's pragmatic and knows that this would do far more harm than good. Empathize with the man for a minute, he has to be careful in his public stances so as not to alienate the far-right of the party because he needs those votes to get elected. He has never given any indication that he would support a land transfer, and has, on Randy's podcast among other places, expressly made clear he would not support a land transfer.

If you a conservative, DON'T BE DECEIVED by the smoke and mirrors and scare tactics surrounding an alleged land transfer that Gianforte does not support and ignore that Bullock has pledged his support to Hillary. If you are a Democrat in your other positions, then vote your beliefs. However, if you fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, remember the bigger picture. The state is on the precipice of financial troubles. We have overspent and added new Medicaid obligations that will impact future budgets. The government has grown 20% since Bullock entered office. The employment numbers have been good but the average wage is horrendous. Democrats would just as soon transfer the public lands if the political winds changed in that favor. The only land advocates who fear Gianforte supports a land transfer are the ones who are already solidly on the left side of aisle in their other positions and would vote for Bullock regardless of what Gianforte has to say about Pubilc lands or anything else. Don't fall into this folly and political opportunism.

 

[rammac]

'Not sure who rammac is calling an "idiot" ... but his description does not fit Gov Bullock. Perhaps rammac is commenting on the wrong thread.

Anyhow, vote for Governor Steve Bullock.

(BTW, whatever happened to the 406 tax plan by GG. Perhaps facebook deleted it.)

That explains why you'd vote for Bullock, you have difficulty comprehending the obvious.

 

[JMG]

To me it's simple, Steve Bullock has been a fantastic Governor, he's a true friend of hunters and fisherman/conservationists, and on the issue of public lands and stream access you aren't going to find a better friend. He's got my vote and every member of my immediate family and friends as well. With the Republican controlled Legislature and their constant barrage of asinine right wing anti-hunting/public land bills sure to rear their ugly head, it's only a matter of time until some of the absolute worst get passed, and a Steve Bullock veto will be the only thing standing between sportsmen and chaos. Gianforte would be a terrible mistake IMO and I have no intention of seeing him anywhere near the Governors mansion.

Exactly. If Gianforte got elected . . . . those asinine right wing anti-hunting/public land bills would likely become law. That's what concerns me.

 

[mtmiller]

Federally Managed Public Lands
The Montana Republican Party supports the U.S. Congress and U.S. President, other public officials and
citizens of Montana and the United States to fully exert their efforts and powers to support returning
federally managed public lands to the states in order to secure statehood equality and provide for better
management of public lands.

 

[MTGomer]

I'd like to vote for Gianforte. Gianforte might be able to bring different ideas and think bigger, outside the box. The Jersey thing doesn't bother me that much, as compared to others, Montanans as a whole are fairly inept in business.
We need more than tourism. Oil prices will be depressed for some time, and cheap nat gas and ridiculous regulations will finish killing coal in the next decade.
Bullock has too much toed the leftist line on energy policy for my taste and then vetoed an infrastructure bill that Sidney desperately needed. I'm all for fiscal conservatism, however, but I don't think all that oil extraction tax money should have been shipped west, and not even give the community bringing it in, enough back to build a pond to send their waste to.

But Bullock hasn't really been an enemy to energy either, just rather neutral. And in the big picture he has been a pretty good governor. I think that overall he has been more of a Montanan first than he has been a democrat first.
Gianforte hasn't sold me on his public lands support. And some of our house and senate Republicans that would cozy up to Greg are really out there... like way out there. Like make Ted Cruz look like Che Guevera out there.
There is no question about Bullock's stance on public lands.

One thing you can love about Montana politics... our Democrat governor runs TV adds proclaiming his staunch support for 2nd Amendment rights. That would be a death sentence just about anywhere else.

Gianforte is a gamble. Bullock isn't. I'll be voting Bullock

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm voting for Greg Gianforte. He actually hunts and loves Montana and utilizes public lands. Bullock might hunt for show and talk a big game about his love of public lands, but it's nothing more than political opportunism. Democrats have long used scare tactics to attempt to steal the hunting vote.

Bullock has had the same hunting camp for the last 20 years with a group of old friends. He grew up in Montana, has been a public lands advocate since before his time in any elected office, defending our stream access in court as well as the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (All th way to the Supreme Court), fought to keep access open on the Tenderfoot Creek Road and has a solid background of working on public lands (He was a tour boat guide at Gates of the Mountain). He has a pretty good track record on these issues and works across the aisle for better management. Gianforte has surrounded himself with people who advocate for transfer, he funds groups that actively push for transfer and sale of public lands (PERC, UPOM, Americans for Prosperity). Gianforte may hunt, but he's put people in his camp that do not share the valuies of most Montanans when it comes to public lands, and his own track record of giving to groups who oppose public lands and public wildlife is well documented. It's clear that Gianforte is being the opportunist while Bullock has the actual meat in the freezer when it comes to defending public lands and access.

I'll admit, there are some wingnuts on the right side of the aisle who want to transfer lands to the state. Greg is not one of those people. He's pragmatic and knows that this would do far more harm than good. Empathize with the man for a minute, he has to be careful in his public stances so as not to alienate the far-right of the party because he needs those votes to get elected. He has never given any indication that he would support a land transfer, and has, on Randy's podcast among other places, expressly made clear he would not support a land transfer.

He has, on Randy's podcast and elsewhere, claimed that FWP is at war with landowners, proposed some concepts that have little support outside of the anti-public wildlife crowd and again, surrounded himself with the same legislators who try to set seasons legislatively, want to end our access programs like Habitat Montana, Access Montana and others. You bring up the Legislature, which is very important. We've faced roughly 200 anti-wildlife or anti-sportsman bills from the 2011 legislature, 150 in the 2013 legislature and over 100 in the 2015 legislature. Wildlife is a political cudgel for the Gianforte's wing of the Republican party in this state. If elected, I'm pretty sure that we'll see a lot of bills that would bankrupt our agencies or deny the state our share of PR/DJ funds.

On land transfer, he has all of the land transfer proponents stumping for him. He's made it clear that he doesn't support transfer "at this time," but he's never closed the door to it. Again, Gianforte surrounds himself with people who are advocates for Transfer, and even his LT Gov pick has voted for transfer as a leader within the National Associaton of Counties. He's given thousands of dollars to anti-public land, pro-transfer groups. He hasn't shut the door on transfer, like some of the other Republicans in Montana, and in fact is actively courting the pro-transfer vote. Bullock has also helped work across the aisle to improve management on federal lands through the authority given to him in the Farm Bill, has vetoed bills designed to pave the way for transfer and is working to increase access to landlocked public land while maintaining private property rights.

If you a conservative, DON'T BE DECEIVED by the smoke and mirrors and scare tactics surrounding an alleged land transfer that Gianforte does not support and ignore that Bullock has pledged his support to Hillary. If you are a Democrat in your other positions, then vote your beliefs. However, if you fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, remember the bigger picture. The state is on the precipice of financial troubles. We have overspent and added new Medicaid obligations that will impact future budgets. The government has grown 20% since Bullock entered office. The employment numbers have been good but the average wage is horrendous. Democrats would just as soon transfer the public lands if the political winds changed in that favor. The only land advocates who fear Gianforte supports a land transfer are the ones who are already solidly on the left side of aisle in their other positions and would vote for Bullock regardless of what Gianforte has to say about Pubilc lands or anything else. Don't fall into this folly and political opportunism.

The Legislature sets the budget. If you think we're overspending, then quit sending a Republican majority to the legislature who sends a budget that large to the Governor. Governor's can't tell people what to pay employees, beyond enforcing minimum wage laws and labor laws.

Democrats aren't the ones who put land transfer in their state & national platforms, or have the track record of introducing anti-wildlife and anti-conservation bills designed to eliminate protections for elk & deer or access funding for sportsmen. That's squarely on the GOP side of the coin. The GOP is the one who has tried for 3 sessions to hand wildlife management decisions over to County Commissions, stripping them away from our state game agency. The GOP has tried to eliminate hunting opportunities legislatively, when the FWP Commission didn't bow to political pressure, and the GOP has, for as long as most of us who volunteer & work on conservation issues, been antagonistic to access, stuffing bills that would alleviate illegally closed roads, corner crossing and many, many other issues.

So, just because some of us lean left on some issues, I think it's pretty ignorant of the facts to say that Gianforte would be good for sportsmen or wildlife by ignoring the onslaught of bad bills & ideas from our friends at the MT GOP while trying to undermine the actual record of Bullock.

 

[Frenchy]

I too do not trust the Republican controlled legislature in Montana. And the fact that (as mtmiller posted) the Republican party platform states their objective of transferring federally managed lands to the states means no Montana Republican will be receiving my vote.

 

[406LIFE]

I'll be voting for Gianforte. Simply put, I think that they there are more important issues to me than his soft stance currently supporting maintaining public lands. Don't misunderstand, this is a very important issue to me, but there are far too many that I disagree with Bullock on and simply can't vote for him.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... there are far too many that I disagree with Bullock on ,,,

Could you give a couple of examples of those of importance to you?

 

[MooseCaboose]

I'll exercise my right for one rebuttal for the good of the audience and then leave you the option for the last word.

Gianforte has surrounded himself with people who advocate for transfer, he funds groups that actively push for transfer and sale of public lands (PERC, UPOM, Americans for Prosperity). Gianforte may hunt, but he's put people in his camp that do not share the values of most Montanans when it comes to public lands, and his own track record of giving to groups who oppose public lands and public wildlife is well documented. It's clear that Gianforte is being the opportunist while Bullock has the actual meat in the freezer when it comes to defending public lands and access.

This has some snappy partisan one-liners but lacks substance. Bullock and Gianforte both need to unite various constituents on their respective sides of the aisle in order to win. I don't begrudge Bullock for pandering to Bernie supporters. Not to mention him hitting the trail with anti-2A democratic state reps or others who have positioned themselves far to the left of Bullock. In the same way, Greg has to campaign with people that are far to his right because it's the only way to win. Both guys do it and it does not make either guilty by association.

You bring up the Legislature, which is very important. We've faced roughly 200 anti-wildlife or anti-sportsman bills from the 2011 legislature, 150 in the 2013 legislature and over 100 in the 2015 legislature. Wildlife is a political cudgel for the Gianforte's wing of the Republican party in this state. If elected, I'm pretty sure that we'll see a lot of bills that would bankrupt our agencies or deny the state our share of PR/DJ funds.

This is a pretty hollow point. Of these bills how many even made it out of committee? Of that, how many made it through one chamber? Of those how many were signed by Bullock or Schweitzer? Vetoed? You make it seem like Bullock is the only thing standing in the way of these hundreds of bills, but it is intellectually dishonest as you present it. Far left Democrats introduce hundreds of bills that are not in the best interest of Montana. By your own flawed logic, one could reasonably conclude that if Democrats gained control of the legislature with Bullock in office, every one of these hundreds of bills would become law. This ignores the arduous committee process that weeds out bad bills from both sides. Let's get real

On land transfer, he has all of the land transfer proponents stumping for him. He's made it clear that he doesn't support transfer "at this time," but he's never closed the door to it. Again, Gianforte surrounds himself with people who are advocates for Transfer, and even his LT Gov pick has voted for transfer as a leader within the National Associaton of Counties.

See above, same applies. He surrounds himself with people that he shares some views with, just like Bullock.

He's given thousands of dollars to anti-public land, pro-transfer groups.

I'm sure you mean pro-property rights groups, pro-agriculture groups and the like. These people need a voice at the table as well. It would be nice to bring everyone together; miscasting them as simply anti-public land is a dishonest over simplification.

He hasn't shut the door on transfer, like some of the other Republicans in Montana, and in fact is actively courting the pro-transfer vote.

See above about courting votes of people who you don't necessarily agree with on every issue. It's what Bullock does too.

The Legislature sets the budget. If you think we're overspending, then quit sending a Republican majority to the legislature who sends a budget that large to the Governor. Governors can't tell people what to pay employees, beyond enforcing minimum wage laws and labor laws.

This statement motivated me to respond. We both know that this is completely untrue. In budget bargaining, the Governor is in at least as strong of a position as the Legislature. This position becomes stronger as the session gets closer to the end. The reason? Because the Governor works year round whereas the Legislature is mandated to not more than 90 days and is also mandated to pass a budget that the Governor will sign. To say that the Governor just accepts whatever budget is sent to him is such a dishonest misrepresentation. At best, the budget is a thoroughly negotiated compromise. At worst, it is strong-armed through by the Governor's superior bargaining power.

So, just because some of us lean left on some issues, I think it's pretty ignorant of the facts to say that Gianforte would be good for sportsmen or wildlife by ignoring the onslaught of bad bills & ideas from our friends at the MT GOP while trying to undermine the actual record of Bullock.

By your own admission, you would vote for Bullock notwithstanding your care for public lands. Using your supposed public land concerns about Gianforte as a reason not to vote for him are dishonest. You had your conclusion to vote for Bullock before you started and then you worked back for the reasons.

This is the ultimate point that I wanted to make. If you lean left go ahead and vote for Steve. But if you are otherwise a right leaning person, don't be scared away from Greg by left-leaning people who would not vote for Greg no matter how good his stance on Public lands. You heard it here from a right leaning, public land-loving, lifelong Montanan.