Montana is a state with a recent history of strong support for third-party/independent presidential candidates.  In 1992 it gave 26% support to Perot and in 1996 it gave 14% of its votes to the diminutive billionaire.

    The senior Montana senator, Democrat Max Baucus, has a mixed record on our issues.  On the debit side, he is a strong free-trader, supporting not only NAFTA and GATT but also MFN treatment for China.  He also voted against the centrist Chafee-Breaux balanced budget proposal of 1996, which advocated very small tax cuts as well as a downward revision of the Consumer Price Index. On the other hand, he supported both an increase in Medicare's eligibility age and the application of affluence testing in that program, both courageous fiscally responsible stands which match the ARP philosophy.  In addition, he supports the balanced budget amendment.  However, his biggest problem from our point of view is his likely opposition to our stand on the issue of the Yellowstone buffalo, an issue where Montana is ground zero.  You see, he opposes any increase in grazing fees, as a loyal ally of the big cattle ranchers in this state.  Because of his political alliance with them, it is unlikely that he would ever be supportive of us on this issue so pivotal to our likely future symbol.

    While there is a case to be made that we should support his incumbency regardless of his shortcomings, because of his strong record on entitlement reform, I recommend on balance that we not do so.  There is, however, no figure in this state of significant credibility who appears to be a likely ARP  or ARP-sympathetic candidate.  So I suggest ours should be a flag-planting campaign.  We do not need to shoot for a total of greater than 5% or 6%, because Max Baucus is in political trouble.  In his last electoral go-round in 1996, he squeezed by the voters with a 50% total.  Losing just 5% of the vote in 2002 will place him neck and neck with his erstwhile opponent's total of 45%.
 
 

    Montana's junior Senator, GOPer Conrad Burns, is a traditional conservative Republican.  He does not have a profile sympathetic to ARP, whether it comes to campaign finance reform or tax cuts.  As I have mentioned previously however, there is no figure in this state who would appear to be a logical ARP or ARP-sympathetic candidate so we will have to run merely a flag-planting campaign here.  We should shoot for a 12% showing in 2000, sufficient to hold Burns to 50%, assuming his support remains the same from his last successful bid for re-election in 1994.
 

    He is unsympathetic in other ways too.  He inveighed vigorously against his opponent's child support problems during the '96 race, only to see his own peccadillos, involving the collapse of his marriage and a cocktail waitress, spread all over the news late in the campaign.  A person who loves negative campaigning and who is guilty of hypocrisy should not be too tough of an opponent.  We'll certainly be happy to see Hill walk over the hill and far away.

    Unfortunately, that day may not come for a while, due to the lack of any public figure in this state who appears to be a potential ARP or ARP-sympathetic candidate.  For now, we shall have to content ourselves with a flag-planting campaign.  Our goal should be to win 5% or 6%, enough hopefully to hold Hill below an absolute majority in 2000.