Page 29 - Flathead Beacon // 8.26.15

CLOSING RANGE DAVE SKINNER THE GREAT DEBATE
GUEST COLUMN STEVE DAINES
PUSH FOR A BETTER IRAN DEAL
WOW! 24 MILLION PEOPLE tuned in to the great debate on Fox! On cable! How could that be? Republicans, especially “elect- ables,” are boring and plastic – kind of like NASCAR. Sure, fans say they tune in for the driving, but flaming wrecks and smoking wreckage get ratings. I think most people who watched the debate hoped for a smoking pileup.
And, just like NASCAR, politics is all about the money. Money for campaigns, for polls, for ad buys, for pork projects to favored constituents, tax carve-outs – money, money, money.
Like it or not, the single best barom- eter of a candidate’s politics is money – who gives and most importantly, why. But unless donors are famous, like Hol- lywood stars or big business tycoons, detecting the true politics of both donors and recipients is a pain in the keister.
No sane (and busy) American voter has the time or desire to wade through reams of financial reports or voting records. Most of us settle for picking one or two personally important issues as a litmus test. The trouble far too often is, voters fall into picking a candidate who is “good” on one issue, but terrible on all the rest. Gosh, I hated it when I did that.
Now, my job is partly to wallow in slimy tides of toxic political money so I can write about what floats to the top. But I’ve been hoping for one-stop shop- ping where someone else can credibly do the digging, the analysis, the cross-ref- erencing grunt work needed to answer the question: “Is candidate X a neo-Fas- cist, a crypto-Commie, or somewhere in between?”
Wouldn’t you just love a straight answer?
Well, in the last year or two, there has been an increasing number of news arti- cles about an organization which, accord- ing none other than the New York Times, “takes federal and state campaign finance data — who donates money to whom — and uses that and other details to calcu- late a political position along a spectrum for candidates. Not only are donations to candidates included, but contributions between candidates and other organiza- tions are also listed.” Who dat?
Crowdpac, which calls itself “indepen- dent, non-partisan and for-profit,” hopes
to make money from users seeking to support candidates that are good ideo- logical matches for the donor. The donor gives through Crowdpac and/or “part- ner” Democracy Engine PAC, which then charges a commission of “about five per- cent,” according to reporter Amy Schatz of re/code. Voters might be satisfied to give 95 percent to a well-matched can- didate – especially those who previously have wasted 100 percent on a bum.
Will the concept work? Perhaps, but right now, Crowdpac has a website up and running. It’s worth a look. Even if you can’t bring yourself to blow good money on politics, you can use Crowd- pac to avoid blowing your vote.
The Crowdpac methodology combines statements, votes, and contributions to create a scale that runs from 10L (liberal) to 10C (conservative). Average Democrats score 5.8L and average Republicans 6.0C.
So far, Crowdpac rates Social- ist-cum-Democrat presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders at 8.7L. Frontrunner Hil- lary Clinton is rated 6.5L, just a hair more liberal than President Obama (6.4L). For comparison, Massachusetts senator Eliz- abeth Warren scores 7.9L.
What about participants in the Great Debate? Let’s begin with attention-getter Donald Trump: He rates a 1.5C, right next to former New York governor George Pataki (0.9C) – in short, Trump is the second-least conservative Republican candidate.
The most conservative? Rand Paul at 10C, which might explain Paul’s cranky exchanges not only with Trump but New Jersey governor Chris Christie (2.6C).
As I’m writing, the top five pollers besides Trump include Jeb Bush (scored 4.9C by Crowdpac); Scott Walker (7.9C); Ben Carson (8.5C); Ted Cruz (9.6C); and Marco Rubio (5.7C). One backbencher who might bear watching is Carly Fio- rina (6.0C).
Closer to home, here’s how Montana’s Congresscritters rank: Sen. Jon Tester gets 5.4L; Sen. Steve Daines gets 6.2C, Rep. Ryan Zinke, a 6.4C.
Do these scores, on the candidates you’ve seen, fit well enough with your own impressions? If so, perhaps this Crowdpac bunch is worth your attention. They certainly have mine.
IF IRAN’S ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO obtain a nuclear weapon, the deal reached by the Obama administra- tion sets Iran on a course to do so.
From the time this deal is agreed to, Iran has ten years to fill their cof- fers with tens of billions of dollars from newly unsanctioned oil sales and pursue the research and development of nuclear capabilities.
As the world’s leader of state-spon- sored terrorism, it will only be a matter of time before Iran achieves its ultimate goal: obtaining a nuclear weapon.
These are bipartisan concerns.
Top Democratic leaders from both the House and Senate oppose this deal, including incoming Senate Democrat Leader and former chairman of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Com- mittee Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
He said: “If Iran’s true intent is to get a nuclear weapon, under this agreement, it must simply exercise patience. To me, after ten years, if Iran is the same nation as it is today, we will be worse off with this agreement than without it.”
Though I disagree with Schumer on many issues, I am in agreement with his conclusion regarding the Iran deal – this deal will not prevent Iran from obtain- ing a nuclear weapon and the American people deserve a better deal.
This deal is stacked against transpar- ency and accountability.
It provides up to a 24-day delay before Iran is forced to comply with inspections of nuclear sites on their military bases – far from “anywhere, anytime” that the American people were promised. Con- trast this to the START treaties nego- tiated by Presidents Carter and Reagan with the Soviet Union, which provided a 24-hour delay.
If the EPA or the FDA came knocking at a Montana farmer or business own- er’s door, they can’t waive off inspections and tell them “why don’t you come back in 24 days.”
Through this deal, the American peo- ple are being asked to enter into a bind- ing trust agreement with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism – even though President Barack Obama himself admits that sanctions relief could lead to an influx of cash for Iran that might be used to fund “terrorist organizations.”
This is the same country whose dep- uty foreign minister and senior nuclear negotiator made clear that Iran will
not comply with arms embargo and missile sanctions, stating: “Whenever it’s needed to send arms to our allies in the region, we will do so. We are not ashamed of it.” This is the same coun- try whose members of parliament have chanted “Death to America” in their chamber.
Under this deal, Iran will not have to dismantle any of its nuclear facilities, but it will gain access to ballistic missile technology and receive tens of billions of dollars from newly unsanctioned oil sales.
Should Iran violate the terms of agreement, this deal makes enforcing snapback sanctions extremely difficult, particularly once European, Russian, and Chinese companies rush to Iran to start doing business again.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently admitted that the snapback sanctions would not apply to violations of the UN arms embargo on Iran, which astonishingly only remains in place for five years under the terms of this deal.
And even if this hostile country were to comply with the terms of the deal, Iran will be well positioned in the future to continue its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
It is not a mistake to push for tougher sanctions. The same crippling sanc- tions that brought Iran to the negotiat- ing table in the first place can force them into a better deal.
The American people deserve a bet- ter option.
Even President Obama’s own top general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, recently testi- fied that the United States has a “range of options” to disarm a nuclear Iran and this deal is not the only option.
There is no bipartisan support for this deal in Congress. However, there is bipartisan opposition to the deal.
It is a mistake to not push for better deal that can be supported by more than just one segment of one political party.
When the leaders from Syria, Russia and Hezbollah hail this deal as a “nuclear victory for Iran” and a “great victory,” it should be clear that we should reject this deal and negotiate a better deal.
Congress should vote down the deal and uphold our commitment to our national security and send a clear mes- sage that we cannot consider a deal that is so lacking in transparency and accountability.
“IF YOU CAN’T BRING YOURSELF TO BLOW GOOD MONEY ON POLITICS, YOU CAN AVOID BLOWING YOUR VOTE.”
Mike (Uncommon Ground) Jopek and Dave (Closing Range) Skinner often fall on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to political and outdoor issues. Their columns alternate each week in the Flathead Beacon.
“THIS DEAL IS STACKED AGAINST TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.”
Steve Daines is a U.S. senator from Montana.
AUGUST 26, 2015 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM
29