Dems want Mont. politician’s birth certificate


#1

The Montana Democratic Party is calling on Steve Daines, a Republican congressman running for Senate, to release his birth certificate.

The unusual request, typically the province of birthers on the right who question where President Barack Obama was born, comes as Daines has regularly been describing himself as a “fifth-generation Montanan” in commercials, press releases and on the stump.

The congressman was born in Southern California, and he was quoted in a 2002 Bozeman Daily Chronicle story, describing himself as a “third-generation Montanan.”

Read more: politico.com/story/2014/02/steve-daines-birth-certificate-montana-103992.html#ixzz2uq5bEJzz


#2

Mr. Daines was born in Southern California—a fact neither he nor his campaign dispute. But the Montana Democrats are highlighting what they say are contradictions in Mr. Daines’s description of his family’s roots in the state. In 2002, Mr. Daines told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that he was a third-generation Montanan, “kind of that classic Montana kid.” In his latest ad, the congressman calls himself a fifth-generation Montanan.

“The Congressman is so desperate for ties to Montana that he’s confused the facts and himself,” the MDP said in its release.

The Daines campaign fired back Wednesday, saying that the 2002 statement was simply a misquote by the reporter and that his family has been in the state five generations. “[Democrats] may be able to dictate the way Montanans live their lives, but unless Montana Democrats want to move Steve’s great-great-grandmother’s grave, they can’t change Steve’s strong heritage as a fifth-generation Montanan,” said Daines spokeswoman Alee Lockman.

Mr. Daines was born in Southern California, after his father—unable to find work in Montana—took a job there while his mother was pregnant. The family moved back to Montana when Mr. Daines was one year old, and he grew up and attended school there, Ms. Lockman said.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/02/26/montana-democrats-attack-daines-over-birthplace


#3

The Democrats sound pretty desperate. Hopefully this long-time Montanan wins the senate seat and helps keep Obama in check for the last two years of his presidency.

Ishii


#4

Safe GOP:

MT, WV, SD, **ME **

Leans GOP:

KY, **GA **, AR, LA, NC

Toss-Up:

AK, CO, MI,

Lean Dem:

MN, VA, NM, OR, IA, NH

Solid Dem:

IL

*Bold = current GOP


#5

I am the last one who believes that the salvation of our country depends solely on electing a Republican majority. However, electing a GOP majority will hamstring Obama and prevent his agenda from being implemented (except through executive orders).

Ishii


#6

I think you’re being too optimistic. I have it as:

Safe GOP: SD, ME, KS, NE, OK, TX, ID, WY, MS, TN, AL, SC

Likely GOP: WV, GA

Leans GOP: None

Tossup: KY, NC, LA, MI, MT

Leans Dem: NH, IA, AK

Likely Dem: CO

Safe Dem: MN, NM, OR, MA, NJ, DE, RI, VA, HI, IL

So Republicans likely pick up WV and SD and could potentially pick up a majority if they get lucky. Dunno why you think CO is a toss-up; Udall is leading consistently by about 5 points. Also, MT is most certainly not “safe GOP.” It’s a tossup at best.

So Republicans need to sweep NC/LA/MI/MT while not losing KY to have a good chance at taking the Senate. It’s certainly possible in a wave election, but I don’t see Republicans holding onto KY at all in the end, especially if Bevin wins the GOP nomination. And this is, of course, assuming they don’t nominate one of the two bizarro candidates in Georgia that are doing substantially well in polls, thereby having yet another guaranteed Senate seat torpedoed by the crazies in the GOP primaries.

Also, I don’t see NH or IA turning red. If you lose KY, you’ll probably need to pick up AK, which is a tall order, especially since Joe Miller is expected to try to run again (refer back to my comments on the GA race).


#7

The elections are 8 months away - which is a long time in politics. In light of recent events, I think foreign policy might become an issue certainly for senate races. Raising the issue of the weakness of Obama’s leadership (lack of leadership) in foreign affairs will likely help the GOP. But the polls today are a snapshot and are subject to change. Anything can happen.

Ishii


#8

IA has exactly 2 Rep & 2 Dem Reps & 1 of each for Senate. Until this last election we also voted equally Dem & Rep for President in the last 20 or so elections. I think we are squarely in the toss up section. :smiley:


#9
  1. Most of the polls lean left. In fact, left-wing and mainstream media polls seem to be indulging the fact that Gallup has registered republicans at 28%.

So every single democrat candidate needs a big lead at this point and be consistently over 50% and that is not happening in a lot of places including Iowa and Colorado. In fact, the leading democrat prospect for president is struggling against all GOP contenders in both states.

  1. The “bizarro” candidate (I assume you mean Matt Bevin) in KY will not win. McConnell will pull out another Reid and win his home state. His approval numbers are what the left is going by, but in reality, that’s just a lot of conservatives who don’t like the GOP establishment. Do you really expect them to vote for an even more liberal democrat?

  2. Georgia is a still a nice red state, especially in the midterms.

  3. Montana will not be a close race, and the GOP should win Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina.

  4. If Scott Brown runs in New Hampshire, things could get very interesting.

  5. The GOP won’t need luck to win. They just need to have a good message, not be stupid and realize the media will do next to nothing to help them but almost anything and everything to hurt them.


#10

I’m trying to get what it will look like before the election. I think the media and these left-wing pollsters are trying to make the GOP look vulnerable. That’s why they show Walker, Synder and Kasich below 50% in the polls with the democrat somewhere in the 30%. The fact is the GOP should win all of those races and then some.

In the governors race, GOP will probably lose PA and FL, maybe ME, but I think LePage can pull it out in a 3-way race. GOP will gain HW, IL, AR and possibly MN.

Once the election gets closer, they will (perhaps reluctantly) adjust their sampling and sizes accordingly if nothing else to save face. They did the same thing in the Walker recall last summer.


#11

The right pulls this out every year, and every year, they get burned over it. Remember Unskewed Polls? Conservatives decry the usage of PPP and Nate Silver all the time in MSM, but then those same people end up being the most accurate come election day. So no, polls do not lean left. And by the way, since you mentioned it, Gallup usually has a conservative house effect.

Not really; Democrats just need to be leading. If a Democrat is winning 48%-43% in polls, you aren’t going to get the, like, 95% of undecideds required to win the race (considering third party votes especially).

Also, presidential votes mean nothing in regards to Senate (or Governor) seats. Montana has had their Senate and Governor seats taken up by three Democrats since 2006, for example. They voted for McCain and Romney.

First, no, I expect them to stay home in order to “prove the establishment wrong.” Is it self-defeating? Sure. But it happens all the time.

Secondly, I mentioned the bizarro candidates in Georgia, not Kentucky. Matt Bevin is crazy, but not as bizarro crazy as Mr. “Embryology and the Big Bang Theory are Satan’s Work” Paul Broun in Georgia. And then there’s “I’m stuck here making $172,000” Phil Gingrey. Those are 2 of the top 4 candidates in your primary. In the most recent Landmark (a Republican polling company, if you’re concerned) poll, Gingrey was polling at 19% to Karen Handel’s (a pretty decent conservative Republican, very pro-life) 14% to Broun’s 13%. That’s pretty sad that Handel (or Jack Kingston, in 4th with 11%) isn’t running away with it against the other 2 crazies. But Kingston has a reputation for being “moderate” (as in “only” like 97% party-line rating in Georgia), so he is suffering at the moment.

See above. It’s all well and good to be a red state, but if you nominate someone insane, you still lose most of the time. See Claire McCaskill’s domination of Todd Akin in an otherwise-lost race for Democrats in 2012.

Then you are completely ignoring the Democratic history of Montana on a state level. Montana will be extremely close. Hagan is currently leading in NC, though her lead has decreased. Pryor is an extremely tough Democrat to beat, and I’d imagine he pulls it out in the end. He’s one of the few pro-life Senate Democrats left. Landrieu is the weakest of the three, and I could see her losing her seat certainly. But she’s in a flip-flop situation in the polls at the moment.

People are overhyping Scott Brown. New Hampshire people don’t like people just jumping into the state and acting like they have the authority to run in their state just because they can’t win in their own home state. Add in that Jeanne Shaheen is extremely popular in the state, and I find it highly unlikely Brown could break 45% against her, let alone win. This is also not to mention the fact that NH Republicans are actually fairly far-right (certainly the most out of any New England state). So I’m not sure he could make it through a primary unless the establishment forces him through. And that will create ill will with the base.

Or they need to stop harping on imaginary concepts like the “liberal media” and just do down-and-dirty politics. The media isn’t the one in a high profile race making comments about how rape victims can’t get pregnant.


#12

In terms of general political environment, I absolutely agree with you. How Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley can come from the same state I don’t even know. But race evaluations are more than just the general environment. The newest PPP poll has Braley up 6-8 points (depending on the Republican). He’s a popular guy in Iowa, and it will be very hard for anyone to beat him on the Republican side. Here’s the poll link:

publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/PPP_Release_IA_225.pdf

People said “oh but people will realize X, Y, and Z about Obama” in 2012, and guess what, it didn’t affect polls. In fact, Romney was such a clutz at the end that I’m not sure Obama could have done anything to lose that election. You have to realize that, while 8 months are certainly an eternity in politics, that eternity can go in either direction. A scandal on the level of Mark Foley could have devastating effects on either party, were it to come out. General attitudes about the health care law could get better or worse, thus helping the Democratic or Republican candidates. Your political bias is coloring how you think others will view events.


#13

I’ll have to trust you that Braley is popular. I’ve never heard of him. :shrug: Sam Clovis is the only one I know. Nice guy. Faithful Catholic. :smiley: Not crazy, so no chance of winning.


#14

I don’t really know any of the GOP nominees in Iowa, but I’ll take your word for it! I hope he wins the nomination for you :).

And I believe Braley has been a Representative for a long time. Wikipedia says since Jan. 2007, so maybe not a “long” time, but certainly long enough to be entrenched in Iowa. And you guys only have 5 Congressional districts in total, right? Unfortunately, I don’t think he’s good on the abortion issue :(. But he’s Presbyterian, and a quick look at the Presbyterian view on abortion seems to be limited to a personal choice before viability :(. It’s a shame; Braley’s a very good man on economic matters. I just wish other religions would follow the Church’s lead on abortion.

And, again, I hope Clovis wins! I’m just glad Steve King stopped running.


#15

The people who thought certain things would hurt Obama in 2012 were also assuming that the press wasn’t completely in the tank for Obama, which it was.

I am just speculating. If foreign policy becomes an issue, it will probably help the Republicans marginally in senate races. They are generally trusted to deal with our enemies better than Democrats. Agree with you that there are a lot of wild-card type issues - Obamacare, etc. My bias tells me that it could really hurt the Democrats. Gallup poll says that Obama has a + 16 disapproval rate. Not sure how many Democrat senate candidates will ask for his help campaigning. The RCP average shows a + 12.6 opposition to Obamacare. I am trying to figure out what issues the Democrats will run on. From what I can see they will run a negative campaign based on GOP war on women, and maybe even war on gays. They can’t run on any policy success - foreign policy or economic policy. Job numbers are grim. Its a midterm, party in power for 6 straight years. 8 straight years of Democrat controlled Senate. However, as you point out - the GOP does have a habit of nominating bone-heads who say things that ruin their chances of victory. I think that to have to rely on boneheads making mistakes might not work this time (hopefully!).

Of course I have a political bias, as you do.

Ishii


#16

You think the GOP will gain Hawaii governorship? What do you base that on? I have not paid attention to Hawaii politics since I left in 2003. They had elected a moderate Republican Linda Lingle. The lieutenant governor was Duke Aiona who also attended our parish. He was/is a good guy. Hawaii has a very leftist streak that is very activist. Both Representatives - Patsy Mink and Neil Abercrombie were shrill leftists. They both spoke at a union picnic I attended in 2002 and they basically yelled/screamed leftist talking points into the microphone - it was like nails on a chalkboard.

Duke Aiona has not declared his candidacy but Muffi Hannemann (former mayor of Honolulu) is considering running on a 3rd party. Both have Hawaiian blood in them.

Ishii


#17

#18

The press absolutely was not in the tank for Pres. Obama. People with cable and/or Internet have full ability to choose whatever TV station they want, and in fact, the most-watched channel is FOX News, making them, by default, the MSM. People without cable still have basic FOX and the Wall St. Journal.

People just don’t care about an unfortunate attack, preventable as it may have been, on an embassy in a wartorn country or a failed loan to an environmental company. What they care about is jobs. And Mitt Romney carefully crafted an image of himself as a blustering rich man who didn’t care about the retired, poor, and military veterans (the 47% conservative media routinely attack). Obama needed no extra help in that department (except, I suppose, the leaking of Mitt Romney’s words in the first place, though that still comes down to the fault of Romney for saying it).

Agreed. Though I doubt foreign policy will become a huge issue. Pocketbook issues are the deal right now and always trump everything else.

You’re looking too macro. All politics is local. In KY, for example, ObamaCare has been a huge success since Steve Beshear, a Democrat, actually let it work. Grimes won’t be having Obama speak for her by any means, but she will certainly run on ObamaCare. Arkansas is another case where ObamaCare unequivocally worked, because Republicans and Democrats in the state – :eek: – worked together to make a bipartisan healthcare bill to apply for an exemption from the federal law. Both have competitive Senate seats, neither of which the Republican can use ObamaCare to his advantage in.

Well you already had one Republican call pregnant women “hosts” and the KS/AZ bills made your Party look extraordinarily intolerant, especially since the KS Republican base didn’t even support their bill (as it went way too far) and the AZ bill wasn’t even policy (it didn’t actually have an effect even if passed), merely grandstanding against gays. So your Party is off to a good start at aiding those campaigns.

Politics is local! KY is doing great. MT is doing great. AR is doing great. AK is doing great. It doesn’t politically matter that the Mississippi Governor screwed over his population by refusing Medicaid funds. I don’t know why Republicans thought that making ObamaCare forcibly not work in Republican-dominated states would make non-Republican-dominated states vote for Republicans.

Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey have a good shot at winning the GA primary. Joe Miller has maybe a 25% (in my opinion) chance of winning the AK primary. Miller would be a literal sacrifice of the AK seat – he is losing by 20 points to Begich while the rest of his Party is losing by 4-6. Broun would probably flip GA to Leans Dem. Gingrey would make the race close (I’d say Lean Republican), though he would probably need another major gaffe to flip the seat, considering how Republican the state is. You at least got lucky in CO, where Ken Buck decided to give up on the Senate seat when Gardner entered the race. But Udall will be extremely hard to beat. He is very popular in that state. You’ll probably have to wait for Bennet to come up again, and hope Buck doesn’t decide he wants a rematch.

Source for the AK polls btw:

publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/02/begich-leads-all-potential-gop-challengers-in-senate-matchup.html

I don’t deny my political bias. I just try to look at political science more objectively than I do issues. I think that conservative states will naturally hate ObamaCare, considering how much work their representatives did to torpedo it in their states. But I think ObamaCare on the whole will be good once the HHS mandate is overturned by the Supreme Court. States like KY prove how good it can make the quality of life for people. So I support ObamaCare minus the HHS mandate, but I recognize that some people are always going to hate it, and that it will work against Democrats in many states, especially in the House in conservative states.


#19

I think any other president, particularly a Republican who had presided over the mess Obama has presided over, would have been more or less crucified by the press. Ever heard of Candy Crowley? Recall the media plotting to trip up Romney in the press conference addressing the Benghazi affair? Far from asking Obama the tough questions, they were more interested in trying to damage Romney. They pushed the “war on women” narrative which was damaging to Romney. True, Romney ran a bad campaign, but the media was anything but objective and fair. They were in the tank for Obama, absolutely. I doubt we’ll agree on this.

If Obamacare is such a huge success in Kentucky, why do 56% disapprove while only 30% approve? Sound like a GOP opportunity to me.

I doubt anyone will remember those bills, although I’m sure the media will try to remind everyone.

National issues can become local though. The south is naturally opposed to big government getting bigger. As such, Obamacare will be a winning issue for the GOP - on principle. Look for the Democrats to continue the minimum wage drumbeat. A new “GOP war on low wage earners.” Every issue will be summed up as a “GOP war” on some group. Of course, there is no press bias, right? :shrug:

Your comments on Obamacare reflect your bias. Why would you trust a government that has implemented the HHS mandate, to run Obamacare ? It doesn’t add up. Aren’t you the least bit concerned about what kind of mandates the HHS will think up in the future? I think you trust them way to much.


#20

:rolleyes:

=SMGS127;11760716]The right pulls this out every year, and every year, they get burned over it.

Funny, I seem to remember the left being quite sure Kerry had it all won in 2004.

And then there’s “I’m stuck here making $172,000” Phil Gingrey. Those are 2 of the top 4 candidates in your primary. In the most recent Landmark (a Republican polling company, if you’re concerned) poll, Gingrey was polling at 19% to Karen Handel’s (a pretty decent conservative Republican, very pro-life) 14% to Broun’s 13%. That’s pretty sad that Handel (or Jack Kingston, in 4th with 11%) isn’t running away with it against the other 2 crazies. But Kingston has a reputation for being “moderate” (as in “only” like 97% party-line rating in Georgia), so he is suffering at the moment.

Some Americans are sick and tired of having to choose between dying by gun shot wounds versus paper cuts.

Have you heard from the Gary Johnson/Virgil Goode/Optimus Prime write-in crowd?? I haven’t. I’ve been speculating that they’re too busy figuring out how they’re going to pay a 12 grand deductible while losing chunks of their income.

Purist principles come with a price that I doubt most Americans are willing to pay at the end of the day.

See above. It’s all well and good to be a red state, but if you nominate someone insane, you still lose most of the time. See Claire McCaskill’s domination of Todd Akin in an otherwise-lost race for Democrats in 2012.

To quote realclear: Missouri is a state with “wild swings” and a democrat governor.

Then you are completely ignoring the Democratic history of Montana on a state level. Montana will be extremely close.

No it won’t.

Hagan is currently leading in NC, though her lead has decreased.

Last I looked, she was trailing ALL her opponents.

Please tell me the source of these comments is NOT the aggregate on the Huffington Post…:blush:

Pryor is an extremely tough Democrat to beat, and I’d imagine he pulls it out in the end. He’s one of the few pro-life Senate Democrats left.

:rolleyes:

Pro-life…yeah, that’s why he voted for ObamaCare.

He’s out.

Landrieu is the weakest of the three, and I could see her losing her seat certainly. But she’s in a flip-flop situation in the polls at the moment.

In left-leaning polls, yes. That’s why she’s in trouble. GOP pick-up here.

People are overhyping Scott Brown.

:rolleyes:

Maybe some bitter northeast elites would like to think so after he took Ted—oh, excuse me, the PEOPLE’s seat in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts! :smiley:

That’d be like a democrat winning a Senate race in Oklahoma! :rotfl:

New Hampshire people don’t like people just jumping into the state and acting like they have the authority to run in their state just because they can’t win in their own home state.

It worked for Al Franken and Hilary Clinton. :shrug:

]Add in that Jeanne Shaheen is extremely popular in the state,

Then why is she polling under 50%?

and I find it highly unlikely Brown could break 45% against her, let alone win.

Why not? Brown is exactly the kind of moderate that state would like.

This is also not to mention the fact that NH Republicans are actually fairly far-right (certainly the most out of any New England state). So I’m not sure he could make it through a primary unless the establishment forces him through. And that will create ill will with the base.

I think he could.

Or they need to stop harping on imaginary concepts like the “liberal media” and just do down-and-dirty politics.

Academic studies confirm extreme media bias. There’s nothing imaginary about that.

The media isn’t the one in a high profile race making comments about how rape victims can’t get pregnant.

:rolleyes:

They are ones who made it the issue of the day and they have to. Liberalism from the social issues to the fiscal ones is based on lies and false promises.

I’m stilling waiting for some substantive coverage on Benghazi. :sadyes:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.