It is with profound disappointment that I report that in last week’s Democratic primary election for Montana’s sole seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, aging politician John Driscoll was the victor.
Driscoll has announced that he doesn’t plan to try very much to defeat right wing Republican incumbent Dennis Rehberg, a nasty politician who has supported extremist ideas like rushing the invasion of Iraq and using the power of the Internet to enable the government to spy against the American people.
Driscoll says he won’t bother to raise any money at all for his congressional campaign – a position that takes the good idea of financial independence from corporate interests a step too far. Driscoll could have decided to organize a clean money campaign of the sort developed by Barack Obama – no lobbyist money and no political action committee money. Driscoll could have pledged to take no more than 25 dollars from any individual, and to disallow bundling. That approach would have allowed Driscoll to run a smart, lean, clean campaign using the Internet and grassroots communication networks.
Instead, John Driscoll says he won’t spend any money on his congressional campaign – not even his own money. So, Driscoll won’t have a web site where voters can find out what his positions are on important issues that come up between now and Election Day. Driscoll says he won’t even make many personal appearances so that voters can get to know him in person. He says that if he campaigns at all, it will only be if he can fit in a visit here and there while his family is on summer vacation.
In a state as big and sparsely-populated as Montana, Driscoll’s approach is a disservice to voters, who deserve to know what the Democratic candidate proposes to do in their name if elected to Washington D.C. Establishing a campaign web site need not take more than 15 dollars per month and a little bit of effort on John Driscoll’s part. For about 100 dollars, Driscoll could make his positions known to Montana voters without being bought out by moneyed interests. Yet, John Driscoll doesn’t seem to care enough to exert himself even that far.
Driscoll also pledges not to criticize Representative Rehberg even when he does make the occasional small appearance. So, the Democratic candidate for Congress for all of Minnesota essentially won’t try much at all to represent the Democratic voters in the general election. That’s a slap in the face to Montana Democrats, and a waste of a great opportunity to help change the direction of America in 2008.
Why did Driscoll get elected, then? Name recognition. Years ago, John Driscoll was a prominent state legislative leader in Montana. Democratic voters in Montana remembered his name, and didn’t bother to educate themselves about the other candidates, who were campaigning hard but were relatively fresh faces.
So, in a sense, Montana Democrats are getting fair representation in this election. Their own laziness is well reflected in the slothful attitude of John Driscoll.
