After four months of Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s confusing the issue of whether he broke the law by airing a series of March public service announcements, the bill’s Democratic backer, Sen. Joe Tropila, cut the legs out from under the Schweitzer defense by verifying what the GOP has maintained from the beginning: government officials should not make PSAs with the public’s time or money once they have filed for public office.

Tropila’s revelation shouldn’t surprise anyone who has followed the case or knows the history of the 2005 bill.  Tropila drafted the legislation after going door-to-door in Great Falls and finding one common thread with the members of his district:  they were tired of politicians using the taxpayers’ time and resources to create PSAs once the incumbent had filed for office.  Constituents saw these announcements as a thin guise to spread the candidate’s image and create public goodwill, and they wanted this to stop.

The governor has tried to cloud the issue by labeling the bill as unclear or complicated, but the issue could not be more black and white.  The governor violated a law that he signed into effect only three years ago.  He thought it was a good bill then and he should think it’s a good law now.  If he had questions about the extent of the bill, he should have raised them before he passed the bill instead of trying to test its limits and justify himself down the road.

As hearing officer Bill Corbett said during Friday’s hearing (Aug.1), if you’re going 45mph in a 30mph zone, you are breaking the law, no matter how good your excuse is.

In an almost fail proof indicator that Montana Democrats fear a November loss in the Attorney General race, the Democrats have employed one of their own staffers to shadow Republican AG candidate Tim Fox, hoping to catch him in a campaign-killing moment—in context or otherwise.

This strategy isn’t new for the Democrats.  It’s just the latest strain of gotcha politics that the Democrats often fall back on when public opinion shows they’re on the wrong side of the issues most important to Montanans—and when you’re out-of-touch with the people, your best bet is to catch your opponent slipping up, and let YouTube take care of the rest.

Why are the Democrats and Fox’s Democratic AG opponent Steve Bullock resorting to such low tactics instead of addressing voters’ core concerns?  On the decisive issues of the day, Bullock is either on the wrong side, or he simply can’t seem to get his priorities to align with those of the people.

With the state’s gas prices at more than $4 per gallon and public support for drilling soaring, Fox is the only candidate in this year’s AG race voters can rely on to use his seat on the State Land Board to explore for energy resources, increase our supply and bring down the cost of gas.  Meanwhile, Bullock continues to talk about “going green” and other policies that fail to recognize the need for immediate economic relief. 

In this crucial election season, voters need serious solutions to the problems they face, not the same old political tactics that focus on destroying an opponent at the expense of addressing people’s needs.  Of course, candidates’ actions are open to public scrutiny, but this year’s campaign should be about determining who can bring Montanans the financial relief, economic growth and safety they need, not about trying to catch your opponent in an embarrassing gotcha moment.

To see what Tim is dealing with, click here

Ahead of his overseas travel, the Times of London today offers some bad news for Barack Obama, who frequently likes to tout his commitment to diplomacy and multilateralism, and his ability to project a positive image of the US abroad (including, one imagines, in Europe):

There are, however, nuanced disagreements emerging between Mr Obama and European governments on his foreign policy. During a trip to Washington last week, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, made plain his distaste for withdrawal timetables from Iraq, saying that they do “not serve any of us”.

[…]

His promise to hold direct talks “without preconditions” over Iran’s nuclear ambitions has raised eyebrows in Europe....

Readers will recall that it’s not just the Times that has suggested that Obama may not be quite as agreeable a fellow as he’d have you think, where relations with Europe are concerned; recently, the Washington Post did, too. From their article:

European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.

The U.N. Security Council has passed four resolutions demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium, each time highlighting the offer of financial and diplomatic incentives from a European-led coalition if Tehran suspends enrichment, a route to producing fuel for nuclear weapons. But Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has said he would make such suspension a topic for discussion with Iran, rather than a precondition for any negotiations to take place.

European officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are wary of giving up a demand that has been so enshrined in U.N. resolutions, particularly without any corresponding concessions by Iran. Although European officials are eager to welcome a U.S. president promising renewed diplomacy and multilateralism … they feel strongly about continuing on the current path.

"Dropping a unanimous Security Council condition would simply be interpreted by Iran and America's allies as unconditional surrender, and America's friends would view this as confirmation of America's basic unreliability," said François Heisbourg, a Paris-based military analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "A hell of a way to start a presidential term."

Of course, it’s worth remembering that Democratic presidential hopefuls (including Obama) also caused some upset with key European leaders earlier this year over their rhetoric on trade policy.

So there should be plenty for Obama to talk about with several of our closest allies when he jets abroad.