Electric City Weblog

Hunting for a House Seat

Readers will note that I have fairly studiously avoided writing much about Denny Rehberg’s reelection campaign. This is due to the fact that, while I strongly support Congressman Rehberg, I recently had the opportunity to work against his opponent, Jim Hunt, on a litigated case.

Jim Hunt is a nice guy. Practicing lawyers know that, when you encounter opposing counsel who is reasonable, fair, and honest, you maintain that relationship if you can. Having a jerk on the other side of a case, or creating an enemy out of an otherwise decent lawyer, can make our life miserable.

Therefore, while I vigorously disagree with Jim Hunt on most issues (I know because we talked about some of them), I have avoided discussing his race because it just seems unseemly to spend time criticizing a man over political disagreements when I consider him a friend. This is especially true where, as here, I believe that such criticism is fundamentally unnecessary because I don’t think he has a prayer of unseating a very good man who also happens to be our popular, sitting Congressman.

I do feel the need to comment on the race now, though, based on what I read in this piece at Missoulapolis. Jay Stevens at Left in the West decided to go after Congressman Rehberg. Fair enough. But what isn’t fair is using an insinuated slur to try to discredit someone’s position on a political issue because you lack the time, the brainpower, or the inclination to engage the position fairly.

Congressman Rehberg opposed Nancy Pelosi’s CHIP program last summer. He wrote a reasoned editorial setting forth his disagreement with the House version of the bill. His final paragraph began with this sentence: “Montana kids deserve to have their healthcare needs addressed.” He went on to argue that the House bill he opposed had politicized the issue based on a “narrow, extremist ideology.” From this, Stevens falsely implies that Rehberg opposed the entire CHIP legislation, and characterized it as “extremist legislation.” (Um, aren’t those quotes supposed to mean that someone actually said it?)

Here’s what torches me. I cannot believe that Jim Hunt, unless he is half the man I think he is, would ever condone cheap slurs. As one might imagine, during the course of the case we litigated together, there arose various issues upon which Jim Hunt and I disagreed. Not once did he resort to ad hominem attacks against me, or to misrepresenting my position. He respected my positions, and he asserted arguments against them. When faced with Congressman Rehberg’s thoughtful editorial setting forth reasoned positions, I cannot imagine Jim Hunt would do anything less with them.  If he is who I think he is, he will argue them on the merits. (Of course, he’ll be wrong, but I think he’ll fight fair!)

I hope Jim does not condone this smear of his opponent.

How about this?  How about you put down the smear stick, and talk about the issues, Jay? I think your man would appreciate it. 

Posted in National Politics | 2 Comments »