Stoopid Party Shenanigans

House Joint Resolution 7, introduced by Rep. Pat Connell (R-Hamilton) passed the Montana House of Representatives by a vote of 52-43 on Friday. This latest crazy bill would demand reparations from the federal government for the effects of climate change on Montana’s water supply.

Because federal wildfire management has caused changes in the quality, quantity and timing of streamflows in Montana, and because “federal policies threaten natural ecosystem processes and habitat, resulting in large burned-over areas that are susceptible to invasive plant species and changes in stream flow and water quality that affect native fish populations”.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

     That the Governor and the Attorney General are urged to initiate legal action against the federal government to recover damages to Montana water users caused by federal land management policies, as well as wildfire suppression policies in headwater areas.

Yep, that’s right. Because the climate is warming, there are more and larger wildfires, stream runoff now occurs earlier in the spring with less water in the summer and fall, waters are warmer and the quality of the water is diminished, it must be due to the actions of Federal management policies. I don’t suppose it could be that all these things could have a common cause, like, maybe what rational people call global warming or climate change? Oh, what was I thinking. All natural processes have changed since we elected a Muslim President. It probably has something to do with Obama’s drone policy, or a screw-up in Benghazi. None of these things would be happening if we had a real one-percenter in the Whitehouse.

These guys could be done with their work and out of town in two weeks if they didn’t waste so much of their time and my tax money arguing about insane bills like paying your parking tickets with forty lashes from a cat o’ nine tails, allowing juries to make law, stopping reasonable irrigation management, nullifying federal laws, giving voting rights to embryos, etc., etc.  Take a look at the vote tally on this bill if you want to see just who the really crazy people are in the Montana House.

A touch of sanity from the Montana Legislature

If you are not following the daily video diary of Amanda Curtis, freshman legislator from Butte, you are missing out on the most intelligent and interesting thing to come out of the 63rd session. Amanda is a first-time legislator and high school math teacher from Butte. She is keeping a daily video diary of her experiences in the legislature and posting the videos on YouTube and Facebook. Amanda is not afraid to tell it like it is and to express her frustration with the way our state representatives conduct business. Below is her video from the Saturday 2/10 floor session which she calls “Weird Bill Day” due to the plethora of crazy bills voted on.

I especially liked her calling out Jerry O’Neil on his “Jury Nullification Act” (HB 290) and the “self-proclaimed constitutionalists” who don’t really have a clue about how the court system or the Constitution works. “The people who voted yes for this [HB290] maybe should not be getting their jobs back next time.” The vote for HB 290 “very clearly shows who is crazy and who is a fairly reasonable human being.” I LOVE this lady!

You can catch more on her YouTube channel and also her Facebook page. You owe it to yourself and to Montana to watch and learn about what really happens in the legislature.

Reality-Based Legislation

House Joint Resolution 10, introduced by Rep. Doug Coffin of Missoula.

Be it resolved: 

     That the 63rd Legislature:

     (1) recognizes that anthropogenic or human-made climate change is scientifically valid and represents scientific fact;

     (2) understands that anthropogenic climate change, manifesting as major changes in weather patterns in North America, including Montana, has the potential to cause major socioeconomic and demographic dislocations in Montana that can be construed as an ecological threat;

     (3) compels state government and its affiliated agencies, with due consideration of Montana’s economic heritage and preservation of employment traditions, to employ, invent, and apply new technologies commensurate with the conservation of resources in a manner that mitigates and adapts to climate change to the best of our ability; and

     (4) suggests that educators include anthropogenic climate change science in their science education curricula.

This legislation goes to a hearing at the Montana House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday (2/13). Let’s support this bill. Yes, it’s a feel-good, do-nothing bill that likely won’t go anywhere, but let’s face it, real science doesn’t make it to the Legislature very often. I think we can send a message to climate deniers and cranks in the legislature and around the state that there are a lot of folks out here living in a reality-based world and we are pretty sick of listening to the crap that substitutes for fact among our elected representatives.

Climate change is real, climate change is happening, and it’s affecting Montana. Stand up and say so for God’s sake! If you have a local House member on the Natural Resources Committee, send them a quick email and let them know that you support real science. Using the Legislature’s Contact Page, it’s simple. If none of your local legislators are on the committee, just whip off a missive to the entire committee and tell them that this bill needs to make it to the floor for a vote putting every legislator on the record.

Still the “Stupid Party” after all.

“We must stop being the stupid party,” said Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in remarks this week to the Republican National Committee. I guess it takes a while for the sensibilities and moderation of party leaders to filter down to Montana. Our own crackpot GOP legislator, Jerry O’neil (R-Columbia Falls) plans to introduce his bill to revive the cat o’ nine tails into the Montana justice system.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION.  Section 1.  Corporal punishment in lieu of incarceration. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a person convicted of any offense by a court in this state, whether a misdemeanor or felony, may during a sentencing hearing as provided in 46-18-115 bargain with the court for the imposition of corporal punishment in lieu of or to reduce the term of any sentence of incarceration available to the court for imposition.

(2) The court and the person convicted of an offense shall negotiate the exact nature of the corporal punishment to be imposed, which must be commensurate with the severity, nature, and degree of the harm caused by the offender. If the court and the offender cannot agree on the exact nature of the corporal punishment to be imposed, the court shall impose a sentence as provided in 46-18-201.

(3) The imposition of a sentence under this section must be carried out by the sheriff of the county in which the crime occurred if the sentence for corporal punishment reduced or eliminated the term of incarceration in the county jail or by the department of corrections if the sentence reduced or eliminated the term of incarceration in the state prison. Any imposition of sentence pursuant to this section must be carried out within a reasonable time.

(4) For purposes of this section, “corporal punishment” means the infliction of physical pain on a defendant to carry out the sentence negotiated between the judge and the defendant.

Representative O’neil began taking heat even before the legislature convened for his demand that the state pay him in gold coin, because the U.S. Treasury is controlled by a Muslin extremist who will destroy the value of paper money. He has also introduced a resolution to force the U.S. to modify the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution because he has found “the current allotment of power to the United States Congress that allows the Congress to regulate intrastate commerce to be overly broad and overreaching.”

On the moderate side, his new bill actually does actually allow defendants to “negotiate” for the severity of their punishment and even though the last incident of lawful corporal punishment in the U.S. occurred in 1952, it’s not like spanking as punishment is unheard of;

Corporal punishment remains a common form of criminal punishment in several countries including Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria. For example, media reported on Monday that the Iranian state amputated the fingers on the right hand of a convicted thief. Corporal punishment remains on the books in several other countries including Barbados, Botswana, Brunei, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, and Zimbabwe.

I’m not sure if amputation as punishment is covered in Mr. O’neil’s bill.

Water Wacky

State Senator Verdell Jackson (R – HD 5) has never been one to let facts stand in the way of good legislation. A couple of years ago, Verdell said, “he’s spent four years reading about climate change but hasn’t come across “an experiment using the scientific method” that demonstrates that carbon dioxide contributes to it.”

Now, Verdell has bewilderingly taken offense with the Reserved Water Rights Compact between the Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the State of Montana. For a dozen years, the CSKT, the State of Montana and Federal regulators have been working on an agreement to protect the rights of existing water rights holders and address water rights and adjudication on the Flathead Indian Reservation. Since 1996, water rights on the reservation have been tied up due to uncertainties in the existing law. Since that time, there has been no legal way to obtain water rights inside reservation boundaries. Through a series of grueling negotiations over many years, the Compact Commission has worked out a provisional agreement that is fair to all parties. At the last minute, Verdell wants to step in and extend the argument for several more years for no perceptible reason.

In an op-ed in the Kalispell Daily Inter Lake on Jan. 20, Jackson makes several claims that are based entirely on fiction.

To put it simply, this compact will likely make it impossible to obtain any new surface water rights and will restrict wells located close to surface water in Western Montana along with limiting many existing water rights of irrigators. New home sites and large building projects may not get a viable amount of water.

Put simply, this entire claim is bunk. The compact does not affect any water rights claims in Western Montana outside the boundaries of the Flathead Reservation. The Compact does not restrict anybody’s wells or surface water rights off the Reservation. On the Flathead Reservation, the Compact would establish a Water Management Board to administer water rights on the Reservation and end the roadblock for new claims that has existed since 1996. The claim that new building projects may not be able to get a “viable amount of water” is just flat-out wrong. In fact, the Compact provides more local control and avoids costly litigation. The Compact provides for additional water from Hungry Horse Reservoir that would be available to the Tribes to lease for future development both on and off the Reservation.

Jackson also claims that the Compact will “give senior water rights to all of Western Montana’s major lakes and rivers to the tribes.” Again, this is complete and utter hokum invented by the Senator. As part of the agreement, the Tribes get a shared interest in a few in-stream flow water rights in Western Montana that already exist and are currently administered by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The agreement establishes NO new surface water rights either on or off the Reservation.

Senator Jackson either doesn’t understand current law, or is trying to be willfully ignorant. Under current law, established by the Hellgate Treaty of 1855 and upheld by numerous courts, the Tribes hold water rights on nearly every stream in Western Montana. They have rarely exercised these rights because of the litigation it would entail, but the courts have consistently recognized that the rights exist. Under this compact, the Tribes are giving up nearly all of those existing rights off of the Reservation in exchange for a more stable system of water rights both for them and for the residents of Montana both on and off of the Reservation.

I’m not sure what agenda Senator Jackson thinks will be furthered by delaying or corrupting this good agreement. I can only speculate that since Jackson has been tied to ultra-right-wing groups like American Tradition Partnership and the American Legislative Exchange Council and likes to push knee-jerk crackpot bills like allowing legislators to carry guns in the Capitol, there is a game plan here that hasn’t yet come to light. The only constituency for this change this late is the game would be trial lawyers who would greatly profit from the resulting flurry of litigation while water-rights holders and water users in Western Montana would take it in the shorts and Montana taxpayers, once again, pony up to foot the bill for another of Verdell’s cockeyed schemes.

“Agenda Control”

Ahh, the Montana Legislature is back in session. Bloggers rejoice! From all sides we hear that the 2013 version of our lawmakers will be much less contentious than what we saw in 2011. These are the guys that know how to get things done. How to work together in political harmony. Less than a month ago we heard:

“We’d like a modest, workmanlike session that’s focused on the things important to Montanans,” Senate President Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, said. “We’d like to see bills that move the needle for our economy.”

That’s what we want to hear. Now we can get our economy back on track and solve the important problems. Not like the last legislature that spent its valuable time, and our tax money, working on stuff like;

• Allowing legislators to carry guns in the capital.
• Creating an 11 person panel with authority to nullify all federal laws.
• Removing Barack Obama’s name from the 2012, ballot because his father was born outside of America.
• Making it legal to hunt with spears and stones.
• Requiring the federal government to prove in court that the National Parks were lawfully acquired.

Already this year we have important and sensible bills like:

• Ending same-day voter registration. (HB30)
• Opening the medical records of pregnant women to the courts. (HB104)
• Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to nullify federal firearms laws.
• Paying lawmakers in gold, silver, monopoly money or coal.

Now we learn from emails among the leadership, their primary interest lies in “Agenda Control” whatever the Hell that is. In comments exchanged between Jeff Essmann, Senate Majority Leader Art Wittich of Bozeman, Sen. Jason Priest of Red Lodge, Majority Whip Eric Moore of Miles City, Sen. Ed Walker of Billings and Sen. Dave Lewis of Helena we find an extremely paranoid Essmann saying in September;

“How do we show progress on advancing the conservative policies so that we can engage in the long game strategy that involves changing the face of the Montana Supreme Court so that it does not find a constitutional block to every conservative policy initiative and will give us a better shot a redistricting in 10 years?

“But what do we do now? Is it better to force the moderates to be transparent in the cooperation with the Dems to block our objectives, so that we can use that to raise money and win primaries, or is it better to negotiate a deal (subject to be broken) to advance conservative policies?”

How do we keep those sleazy moderate Republicans from working for compromise and undermining the agenda of the minority? Art Wittich replies; “No, I do not trust them.”

“The session is a biennial docu drama. Let’s make it a good show, from day 1. We want the people watching to know there is a legitimate battle of ideas in the country and state, and at least some of us “get it”. That will help with the logistics, and frankly recruiting reinforcements. . . Appeasement is not the answer. . . We must help the purge along. Hopefully, a new phoenix will rise from the ashes.”

They seem to be at war with people in their own party with whom they disagree. Ah, compromise. The basis of all civil government. And  “docu drama”, and purging everybody who doesn’t agree with you. There is quite a bit of just “inside baseball” in these emails. They show some of the planning and strategy that occurs each time the Legislature meets. Mostly they just show neurotic people who are more interested in how the game is played than in what the result may be. No matter how much we hear from Teabirther legislators who control how we spend our money, about compromise and moving forward the “needle of our economy”, the important thing to these folks is winning the rhetorical game and furthering the far-right agenda no matter the effect on the state of Montana.

In reaction to release of the emails, former Senate president Jim Peterson said,

“I think the politics of power is trumping good policy,” “If you can’t have good debate and then vote and then move on, if politics continues to be the driving force of the Legislature, then it’s going to be hard to do what the Montana voters want us to do.”

You can expect that this session will be different. You can hope that legislators will finally be less combative, work together and honestly try to solve the problems of the Treasure State but, if it turns out otherwise, you shouldn’t be too surprised or disappointed.

The Real Impact of Montana Coal

It’s mid-December here in Button Valley. We barely have a skiff of snow on the ground and temperatures are in the thirties. Did I mention it’s mid-December? While we are doing okay on precipitation, mainly due to a quite wet spring, we have received only about a third of our normal snowfall. There’s a reason for this, and a reason for why it seems to have become the new normal. That reason is related to changes to the Montana climate due to our unfortunate national addiction to fossil fuels.

This morning there was a news report about a U.M. study, funded by the Chamber of Commerce, on the economic impact of coal mining in the state. The study relates that “expanding the state’s coal mines would significantly impact Montana’s economy.”

Patrick Barkey, director of the UM Bureau of Business and Economic Research, said expanding Montana’s existing coal mines and developing new mines would boost jobs, household income and tax revenues across the state.

Now, I realize that these studies are funded by profit from coal mining in the state and the authors are somewhat anxious to produce a product that fits with what their backers want to hear, but it seems to me that they also claim to be economists and academicians and I am always a bit mystified when they fail to investigate the true cost of mining, transporting and burning carbon in their analyses.

It was only earlier this week when thousands of protesters, including many from Montana, traveled to western Washington to protest the building of five new coal terminals on our coast to ship western coal to Asia. These protests were ostensibly about the economic, health and social costs of transporting millions of tons of coal across the country, but of course protesters also were there to remind everyone that there are costs to sending our resources overseas that can’t be counted in jobs, income and tax revenue. There are currently 16 to 23 trains passing through the city of Billings every day. The new coal terminals would increase that number considerably, possibly by eight to ten more trains. The coal trains will add “snarled traffic, emergency response delays, toxic diesel and coal dust emissions, the risks of coal train derailment and toxic spills” all along their route to the coast.

Once the coal arrives at it’s final destination, most likely China, it will be burned in out-of-date, highly-polluting power plants in order to produce cheap products that will be shipped back to the U.S. To get those cheap doodads Montanans will suffer increased incidence of asthma in children and adults, and increase in emphysema and bronchitis, stunted lung development is children, an increase in poisonous mercury in the air we breath, more lung cancer, more heart attacks, more emergency room visits, more strokes as well as an increase in mental retardation and stunted development in our children.

Need we get into the environmental effects? We are already familiar with those here in Button Valley. We now get more of our precipitation as rain, less snow in the winter and lower summer and fall streamflows which means that we see earlier and faster runoff and trouble filling our reservoirs. Our spring freshet now comes, on average, two weeks earlier, our forests are dying due to both insect infestation that is no longer controlled by cold winters and more and larger wildfires. The country at large is seeing more and  larger storms. We see increases in hunger, malnutrition, starvation and famine around the world due to droughts, storms and flooding.

So, like I say, I’m a bit baffled when trained economists see only benefits to strip-mining our coal and fail to even mention the real costs to the people of Montana. Our Coal-Cowboy Governor has said that if we don’t strip and sell Montana coal, China will get it elsewhere.

China will find coal even if the United States won’t deliver it, said Herb Krohn from the United Transportation Union. “All we would do is force (China) to buy dirtier, more-polluting coal,”

These arguments, to me, seem akin to stating that the State of Montana should be selling meth, because if we don’t do it, addicts will just buy it elsewhere. Yes, there are short-term benefits to mining Montana coal, but when you include the longer-term and hidden cost of the toxic assault on our population just burning our rocks for profit doesn’t look nearly so smart. Think about it folks, while we may reap a small profit, our children will pay the ultimate price.

More Corporate Welfare

The question this morning over at KULR in Billings is; “Many Montanans are wondering if our own state could pass right to work legislation now that Michigan lawmakers have decided to do so.” I would say that with recent developments in Michigan, you can almost count on the subject coming up in the 2013 Montana legislature.

Montana is one of 26 states with no right to work laws, which many are calling “the right to work for less” and which my favorite cognitive linguist George Lakoff refers to as Corporate Servitude Laws. As you can see from the graph, there is a direct linkage between middle class wages and percentage of union membership. Michigan has been one of the most heavily unionized states with 17.5% of its workers belonging to unions in a country where, overall only about 7% of workers are organized and that percentage has been dropping for decades..

Proponents of these Corporate Servitude laws argue that weakening unions will bring more jobs to their state. Well DUH! Of course companies want to move to states where they can to pay lower wages and fewer benefits. As Jeff Greenfield, president of the Billings Education Association reminds us, “Through history, we have a five day workweek. That was because of the unions and union contracts. Holidays, child labor laws, benefit packages; those things are good for every employee,” Add to those benefits, pensions, equal pay, overtime pay and better working conditions. Those are all things that we would likely not have if not for the power of labor unions. Good for employees may not necessarily be good for corporations. And, you might notice that these laws are always pushed by Republican lawmakers and their corporate overlords because they see less union membership as a way to weaken support for Democrats.

“The deeper truth about unions is that they don’t just create and maintain rights for workers; they work for and create crucial rights in society as a whole. Unions created weekends, the eight-hour workday and health benefits. And through their politics, they have been at the center of support for civil rights and other social justice issues. In short, unions don’t just work for their members. They work for all of us. Including businesses: Workers are profit creators.”

Of course the phrase “right to work” was chosen because it sounds all touchy-feely like it is giving choice to wage earners when exactly the reverse is true. Remember that once you buy in to the conservative framing of the argument, you are also buying the conservative definition. Calling these ill-advised laws by their name and not something like Corporate Servitude Laws gives the idea more legitimacy not only in the minds of others, but in your own mind as well. The more we use the conservative terminology, the more we strengthen the conservative ideology and the more actual “rights” we stand to lose. Words matter.

When you see this bill come up from the conservative hit squad on the far right side of the aisle in Helena next month, remember this legislation does not confer “rights”, it takes them away from Montana workers and will only make our economy ever weaker.

You Decide

The following news/opinion stories all showed up in my RSS reader this morning. Taken together I think they recognize a conundrum being played out in energy-producing states around the country. The first is an opinion piece by a policy analyst for a conservative think tank in Ohio, but similar opinions are showing up in newsprint and electronic media in most western and mid-western states.

Without coal, we lose
“When energy companies doing business in Ohio make profits, nearly everyone wins, and Ohio’s economy grows, which results in job creation and additional tax dollars for all levels of government.”

With Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Record High, Worries on How to Slow Warming
“Emissions continue to grow so rapidly that an international goal of limiting the ultimate warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, established three years ago, is on the verge of becoming unattainable, said researchers affiliated with the Global Carbon Project.”

Long-Term Research Reveals How Climate Change Is Playing out in Real Ecosystems
“Around the world, the effects of global climate change are increasingly evident and difficult to ignore.”

Off The Cliff And Into Deep Water? Cutting Clean Air And Clean Water Programs Could Incur Heavy Costs
“The health cost of power plant pollution is an estimated $100 billion each year, nationwide, when people get sick or die from breathing dirty air. When polluted water makes swimmers sick, the additional public health costs in just two southern California counties has been estimated at $21 to $51 million each year.”

Wyoming – A look into the effects of energy development on fish
“Most anglers are pretty even-keeled and realize the need for alternative energy development. I think most would agree, however, that if that development comes at the cost of our fisheries it’s not worth it. There are ways to mitigate the impact of energy development on our rivers; and studies like Carlin’s are helping to show how best to preserve fisheries while allowing energy development.”

This is but one day in an on-going argument that is playing out across the country. What does this mean for the Treasure State? Yes, Montana will continue to develop our natural resources. Our economy was built on the resource extraction, but we all need to remember that these resources are finite need to be developed for the benefit of all of the people in Montana and all of the people in our country. The need for alternative, less polluting, energy development must be given equal weight alongside the development of existing natural resources. Mining coal, or drilling for natural gas has consequences that can far outweigh their short-term effects on local economies. As we move forward, we need to keep in mind that we have no choice but to wean ourselves from technologies that kill our people and our environment. We will continue to mine our coal resources and remove our oil and gas from the earth for the near future, but as we do that we need to take into account all of the consequences, not just the monetary rewards or the short-term profit motive.

Uhh…Umm…Gee…Well…

UPDATE 12/05/2012: Evidently Marco Rubio has decided that if he is to become a Party leader, it might be a poor career move to be seen as a doctrinaire teabirther. He is quickly backpedaling on his comments from last month that we can’t know the age of the earth with any certainty. In an interview with Politco, Rubio reluctantly admitted that there really is such a thing as science and just maybe we should pay at least some attention to proven facts. He did say however, “…it’s possible to believe in both creationism and scientific proof that the Earth is much older.” Evidently, somebody forgot to tell Marco that the creation/evolution debate has no relation to the age of the earth since evolution makes no claim whatsoever about the beginning of the universe. Or, maybe he just doesn’t want to stray all that far from the teabirther hard line and risk losing all the crazy-people vote.

##############################################################

Recently, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, possible 2016 GOP presidential hopeful,  was asked in an interview, “How old do you think the earth is?”  His answer, in part?

“Whether the earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

The great mystery is where they come up with these answers. We have known for decades that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. That estimate is based on very real, very sound radioactive decay principles, geology and completely accepted science. Now, Rubio is no dolt, even though he plays one on TV for voters. He’s a smart guy and he likely understands the principles, if not the science, behind the actual age of the earth. But, his answer, or non-answer, points out the biggest problem faced by the Republican party. They have spent decades denying science and playing to the irrational prejudices of older, mostly white, bible-believing, voters. They play these games not because they believe this crazy stuff, but because these views get crazy people to vote for the rest of their agenda. The problem, of course, is that crazy people don’t vote, they secede.

The GOP game plan works as long as the majority of voters are white, Christian and aging, but that is changing. In the last several elections cycles, the electorate has begun to move away from the traditional voting blocks that Republicans have spent so many years crafting. Young voters, most nearly as smart as Marco Rubio, are seeing the mess that old, white guys in government and business have created. Women are consistently breaking with a GOP platform that attacks their health and welfare. Black, Hispanic and other minority voters are forming an ever-more powerful voting block that rejects Republican attacks on immigrants and the rights brown people. When you add together the young, Black, Hispanic and women voters we are seeing the formation of a new, national agenda that often breaks with the views of the traditional Republican voter.

A recent Pew post-election poll points out some of the very real problems faced by the Republican Party. Age matters, and so does ethnicity. Barack Obama beat challenger Mitt Romney by a margin of 60% to 36% among voters under 30. In 2000, 74% of under-30 voters identified as white. In the recent election that percentage dropped to 58% and both of those groups form a growing block of voters.

The times they are a changin’ and the problem is that the GOP has not fully recognized that fact. Rachel Maddow recently pointed out that beltway Republicans have begun making noises that sound like change. They are backing away from silly tax pledges, they are de-emphasizing the importance of immigration reform and abortion rights as platform planks. The conundrum for the GOP is that many state legislature are proceeding full bore with the decades-old conservative mantra of gay marriage, contraception, evolution and science denial, and immigration reform. Not to mention total secession. In many, if not most, of these states, the female and minority voter is not nearly as important as it is on the national stage and legislatures continue to be made up of mostly old, white, males. So, while the Potomac Republicans make at least some superficial effort to court the new voter, folks are still seeing the same old, same old from Republicans in their states and they continue to flee the Republican Party in droves.

How does the Grand Old Party modernize their world view? How do you quickly turn away from a time-honored strategy that has begun to lose elections when most of your members haven’t gotten the memo and continue to antagonize the very voters you will need in national elections? Until Marco Rubio is able to give a forthright and honest answer to questions of science this is something that we will continue to see Republicans struggle with and we can only hope that it is a very, very long struggle.