Burns' Primary Opponent

[Keystone Phil]

Some good news out of Montana - Burns will receive a primary challenge from State Senate Minority Leader Bob Keenan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032102096.html

[Galactic Overlord]

Will Montana Republicans recognize that Burns is in deep and vote for Keenan?  I wonder if he has the money to compete with Burns.

[Q]

Would this make Rehberg or Racicot more or less likely to run as well, do you think?

[Sam Spade]

Would this make Rehberg or Racicot more or less likely to run as well, do you think?

Considering as the primary filing deadline is in two days, if either is deciding to run we would have probably heard something about it by now.

[TheresNoMoney]

Tomorrow is the filing deadline.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Well this makes the race a lot less predictable.  Something tells me Burns will survive the primary, but if his primary opponent has the funding, he might be in for some trouble. 

A win in a tough primary is not always a bad thing, in 1986 my former U.S. Senator Bob Packwood had a brutal primary in a political environment slightly similar to 2006.  He won the primary by 12% (Not great for an 18 year incumbent) and energized from the primary victory he scratched his way through the general election. 

Here is hoping that, whoever carries the Republican banner for the U.S. Senate in Montana this November, the party can unify behind the nominee.

[Alcon]

Well this makes the race a lot less predictable.  Something tells me Burns will survive the primary, but if his primary opponent has the funding, he might be in for some trouble. 

A win in a tough primary is not always a bad thing, in 1986 my former U.S. Senator Bob Packwood had a brutal primary in a political environment slightly similar to 2006.  He won the primary by 12% (Not great for an 18 year incumbent) and energized from the primary victory he scratched his way through the general election. 

Here is hoping that, whoever carries the Republican banner for the U.S. Senate in Montana this November, the party can unify behind the nominee.

Hopefully Burns will run on being the next Packwood. 

I know you are a very dedicated Republican, but don't you find many of the comments Burns has made...unnerving?

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

Well this makes the race a lot less predictable.  Something tells me Burns will survive the primary, but if his primary opponent has the funding, he might be in for some trouble. 

A win in a tough primary is not always a bad thing, in 1986 my former U.S. Senator Bob Packwood had a brutal primary in a political environment slightly similar to 2006.  He won the primary by 12% (Not great for an 18 year incumbent) and energized from the primary victory he scratched his way through the general election. 

Here is hoping that, whoever carries the Republican banner for the U.S. Senate in Montana this November, the party can unify behind the nominee.

Hopefully Burns will run on being the next Packwood. 

I know you are a very dedicated Republican, but don't you find many of the comments Burns has made...unnerving?

There are many problems with Burns, but personal differences aside, I am committed to maintain a Republican majority.  Committee chairmanships are worth a few problematic Republicans, and certainly a few problematic Republicans are better than a Democratic majority.

[Gustaf]

A few points:
1. He's about to lose his seat due to term limits.

2. He's the senate minority leader and still can't get the local party endorsement.

3. Under his leaedership they lost the senate.

I get the sense that this is kind of a desperate career move and that Burns will still win quite easily.

[minionofmidas]

A few points:
1. He's about to lose his seat due to term limits.

3. Under his leaedership they lost the senate.

I get the sense that this is kind of a desperate career move and that Burns will still win quite easily.

Good points...
It looked like a heavyweight challenge at first glance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For what? US Senator - well that would hardly be surprising (though it would be bad news) given that he's challenging the incumbent... Or for something else that I'm not aware of?

[Sarnstrom]

Dennis Rehberg announced today that he'll run for re-election to the House, and will not challenge Burns.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Thank God.  Unless Burns dies or retires midway through the campaign or something he will be on the ballot in November. 

[HardRCafé]

I know you are a very dedicated Republican, but don't you find many of the comments Burns has made...unnerving?

Compared to Packwood?

[Gustaf]

A few points:
1. He's about to lose his seat due to term limits.

3. Under his leaedership they lost the senate.

I get the sense that this is kind of a desperate career move and that Burns will still win quite easily.

Good points...
It looked like a heavyweight challenge at first glance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For what? US Senator - well that would hardly be surprising (though it would be bad news) given that he's challenging the incumbent... Or for something else that I'm not aware of?

No, it says in the article that the State Party endorsed Burns over Keenan. My point is that yes, Burns is the incumbent, but he's made an ass of himself and is the most unopular senator in the country. Now, I would expect a State Senate leader to have some sort of standing in his party, at least enough to make them stall their endorsement of a hopeless, impopular incumbent federal senator. That it didn't happen indicates to me that this is a candidacy not taken seriously by others than himself.

[Alcon]

I know you are a very dedicated Republican, but don't you find many of the comments Burns has made...unnerving?

Compared to Packwood?

Well, if we're using Bob Packwood as a litmus test, I think we're already pretty far into the moral doldrums.

[HardRCafé]

Bingo.