Steve Daines or Amanda Curtis? Why it matters

I have had people ask me what I know about the newly appointed Montana State Democratic candidate, Amanda Curtis. At first, I had to be honest by answering that I knew very little (more accurately nothing) about her. However, with Nov. 4 just around the corner, I suddenly realized I needed to do my homework and become better informed.

Surprisingly, I found a plethora of information regarding Amanda Curtis’ beliefs as well as her stand on the issues. One of the primary sources of this information is her YouTube videos, which she recorded following each day’s House session in 2013. By watching these videos, you come away knowing not only how she feels about the issues before the Montana House but also her contempt for some of her colleagues and their beliefs on the other side of the aisle.

In describing her, some have suggested Rep. Curtis is hardworking, young, handsome, one of us and not one of the wealthy, knows science, math and the scientific method, and has the ability to respond extemporaneously and answer non-scripted questions. The implication seems to be that Congressman Daines has few, if any, of these qualities.

I don’t question the fact that Rep. Curtis is hardworking, young and handsome. I would, at the same time, recognize that Congressman Daines is equally endowed. For example, you don’t complete a rigorous course of study in chemical engineering without working hard. Additionally, his strong background in science and math, would suggest that Congressman Daines might be even more qualified in understanding the scientific method.

For added discussion, this leaves identity, wealth, and ability to respond extemporaneously to non-scripted questions.

Rep. Daines also demonstrated his desire to reach out to his constituents through telephone conferences. During those conferences, Daines confirmed his ability to extemporaneously answer questions presented to him by telephone and demonstrated his understanding of important issues. Furthermore, during the same conferences, he presented questions that all participants were asked to answer so he could better understand his constituents’ desires and beliefs.

Montana State Rep. Curtis, on the other hand, was unable to extemporaneously answer questions presented to her in a CNN interview. Answers to questions concerning problems at our southern border and the situation in Iraq should have been foremost in the representative’s mind. However, she could or would not answer them. In fact, part way through the interview, Rep. Curtis drew an awkward blank for a few seconds and had to be bailed out by the interviewer.

If too much wealth had been the gauge by which we judge qualifications for political office, we would have eliminated many of our best presidents. George Washington’s worth of $525 million, in 2010 dollars, is one of the wealthiest of the group. He was No. 2 under a Democrat — John F. Kennedy. Another Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, worth $60 million, is ninth on the same list.

An article in the Washington post reports that Hillary Clinton gets $225,000 for giving a speech and that the Clintons’ combined wealth is estimated at $100 million. Does this disqualify her for the presidency?

Some have written that Congressman Daines would not make a good senator because he is a Christian. Wait a minute — not only would having too much wealth have limited our selection of past presidents but eliminating candidates because of their Christian values would have been equally limiting. Reference to their religious beliefs and values can be found on the Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson monuments. Jefferson even attended church services in the Capitol Building while he was president. I am old enough to remember people expressing grave concern that a candidate by the name of John F. Kennedy was a Catholic.

Do we take her seriously when Rep. Curtis says, “I am an anarchist at heart?” Perhaps this revelation explains she and her husband’s association with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and why Curtis has penned articles for the IWW paper.

The IWW is an extremely radical workers’ union and the preamble to their 2014 revised Constitution reflects that radicalism by statements such as: 1) “The working class and the employing class have nothing in common, 2) Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the earth, and 3) It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism.”

What would it be like if all the wealthy people, entrepreneurs, and large corporations were to suddenly disappear? Who would be left to hire that working class — the IWW and/or the government? Also, remember, the top 1 percent pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent. Moreover, the bottom 43 percent paid no federal income taxes in 2013.

Until recently, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was featured on Rep. Curtis’ Facebook page. You may ask why this is important to the discussion? Flynn was a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. At the age of 16, she gave a speech at the Harlem Socialist Club titled: “What Socialism Will Do for Women,” became a full-time organizer for the IWW and later (1961) became national chairwoman of the Communist Party of the United States.

As a result of my completing this exercise, I have come to believe that if Montana voters are comfortable with a larger government, believe in something other than free-market capitalism, want increased income redistribution, don’t care about a rising national debt, are not concerned with a growing dependent citizenry, want a candidate who will likely fall in lockstep with President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, then they have to vote for Amanda Curtis.

But that’s not what this voter wishes for my country!

Lester Still is a resident of Kalispell.