Rosendale suspends House race, will not seek re-election in Montana: 'Taken a serious toll on me'

[mystery-ak]

Rosendale suspends House race, will not seek re-election in Montana: 'Taken a serious toll on me'
Rep Matt Rosendale will not seek re-election in Montana's 2nd Congressional District after he ended his Senate bid
 By Aubrie Spady , Andrew Murray Fox News
Published March 8, 2024 1:33pm EST

Rep. Matt Rosendale, R-Mont., will not seek re-election in Montana's 2nd Congressional District, pointing to "current attacks" against him as the reason for deciding to exit the race.

Rosendale entered the Montana Senate race in February, but suddenly dropped out less than a week after his announcement.

The congressman then filed to run for re-election in his Montana district, but he announced Friday he will not be running for another term.

"Since that announcement, I have been forced to have law enforcement visit my children because of a death threat against me and false and defamatory rumors against me and my family," Rosendale said in a statement announcing his campaign suspension. "This has taken a serious toll on me, and my family. Additionally, it has caused a serious disruption to the election of the next representative for MT-02."

"To me, public service has truly always been about serving, not titles or positions of power. The current attacks have made it impossible for me to focus on my work to serve you," Rosendale continued. "So in the best interest of my family and community, I am withdrawing from the house race and will not be seeking office."

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rosendale-suspends-house-race-will-not-seek-re-election-in-montana-taken-a-serious-toll-on-me

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sucks he got threats, but glad he isn't running again.

[roamer_1]

Not me. I had money on him.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

He's the guy who openly hoped for as small a Republican majority as possible "to give conservatives more power"

That obviously has worked out so well for us....

[roamer_1]

He's the guy who openly hoped for as small a Republican majority as possible "to give conservatives more power"

That obviously has worked out so well for us....

That is misconstrued. The obvious intent was he'd rather go in with a small army that is willing to fight, rather than what we have, which doesn't fight at all.

I am sorry to see him go. He'll have my vote, anytime.

[catfish1957]

That is misconstrued. The obvious intent was he'd rather go in with a small army that is willing to fight, rather than what we have, which doesn't fight at all.

I am sorry to see him go. He'll have my vote, anytime.

Don't know much about MT politics,but it always seemed odd that y'all kept electing Tester, considering I thought MT was a strong conservative state.

[roamer_1]

Don't know much about MT politics,but it always seemed odd that y'all kept electing Tester, considering I thought MT was a strong conservative state.

It's kinda weird. East of the mountains, the farmers tend to be Democrat in the old school. Like 'Southern Democrat'. It seems traditional. The only thing that defies that is Bozeman and the Bridger range folks down there. Hard core Conservative. And mostly, east of the mountains is governed by our largest cities, which tend to be Democrat. Testercle is from over there.

West of the hump tends to conservative by default... Most of the conservative officials come from over here.
That ain't perfect either - Town councils, schools, and colleges tend to Democrat officials... and Missoula and Helena are whacko-liberal - Whose populations tend to make for close races.

That's why we tend to purple on the map.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That is misconstrued. The obvious intent was he'd rather go in with a small army that is willing to fight, rather than what we have, which doesn't fight at all.

I am sorry to see him go. He'll have my vote, anytime.

I'm not misconstruing his intent.  Rather, I don't care about his intent because good intentions coupled with stupidity are a bad combination for an elected representative.  The idea that a handful of hardliners could dictate to 415 other members simply because they were the margin within the GOP caucus was asinine.

He got exactly what he wanted and it achieved nothing.  Where's the benefit we've seen from having a Congressional majority thinner than a handful of hardliners?   And things are now even worse with this slim a majority, like the embarrassing defeat of the Mayorkas impeachment that had to be rerun.

His comment showed a fundamental misunderstanding of legislative dynamics.  As I've said before, "moderate" Republicans generally will support a conservative GOP majority, but what they won't do is take a serious political hit for that support, and they're definitely not going to support something conservative if they think it will lose even with their support.  In other words, you are more likely to get the support of moderate Republicans on controversial issues if you have a larger majority.  We all remember the Contract with America, right?  That didn't pass just because a handful of conservatives seized control of the GOP.  It passed because Newt had between 230-235 Republicans in the House, and Clinton knew that was enough to hold out.  A smaller margin, and the Democrats won't give ground because they know they only need a couple of GOP defections to win.

Likewise, Trump's tax reform bill passed when there were 241 GOP reps in the House.

The bottom line is that a larger GOP majority -- even if that includes more RINO's -- is more likely to pass conservative legislation.   Rosendale getting that exactly backwards based on the self-absorbed assumption that conservatives could bully moderates made him unfit, in my view. 

[roamer_1]

I'm not misconstruing his intent.  Rather, I don't care about his intent because good intentions coupled with stupidity are a bad combination for an elected representative.  The idea that a handful of hardliners could dictate to 415 other members simply because they were the margin within the GOP caucus was asinine.

He got exactly what he wanted and it achieved nothing.  Where's the benefit we've seen from having a Congressional majority thinner than a handful of hardliners?   And things are now even worse with this slim a majority, like the embarrassing defeat of the Mayorkas impeachment that had to be rerun.

His comment showed a fundamental misunderstanding of legislative dynamics.  As I've said before, "moderate" Republicans generally will support a conservative GOP majority, but what they won't do is take a serious political hit for that support, and they're definitely not going to support something conservative if they think it will lose even with their support.  In other words, you are more likely to get the support of moderate Republicans on controversial issues if you have a larger majority.  We all remember the Contract with America, right?  That didn't pass just because a handful of conservatives seized control of the GOP.  It passed because Newt had between 230-235 Republicans in the House, and Clinton knew that was enough to hold out.  A smaller margin, and the Democrats won't give ground because they know they only need a couple of GOP defections to win.

Likewise, Trump's tax reform bill passed when there were 241 GOP reps in the House.

The bottom line is that a larger GOP majority -- even if that includes more RINO's -- is more likely to pass conservative legislation.   Rosendale getting that exactly backwards based on the self-absorbed assumption that conservatives could bully moderates made him unfit, in my view.

I will disagree heartily.

Moderates get away with anything... Their ideology is what drives the GOP. It's not supposed to.
Conservatives need to assert themselves and that means drawing hard lines. And hard lines mean 'consequences be damned'.

The only way to shift the perspective rightward is to damnwell demand it.

That's what Freedom Caucus is doing, and they have had their successes.
I applaud it. I want more.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I will disagree heartily.

Moderates get away with anything... Their ideology is what drives the GOP. It's not supposed to.
Conservatives need to assert themselves and that means drawing hard lines. And hard lines mean 'consequences be damned'.

The only way to shift the perspective rightward is to damnwell demand it.

That's what Freedom Caucus is doing, and they have had their successes.
I applaud it. I want more.

All I care about are wins and losses, which is the definition of "consequences".   Anything else is performative.

When was the last time the Freedom Caucus succeeded at passing anything of consequence?   Doesn't mean I disagree with their goals, but the rather dramatic failure of their methods/strategies shouldn't be waived away.   "We fought hard but lost" is just a face-saving way of spinning a defeat.  Pissing off all the other people whose votes you need may feel cathartic, but it is the road to failure.  I'd contrast their approach with Reagan's, who managed to pass stuff despite never having control of the House simply because understood that it takes coalitions to win, and needlessly alienating people whose votes you may need later is just...stupid.

[roamer_1]

All I care about are wins and losses, which is the definition of "consequences".   Anything else is performative.

When was the last time the Freedom Caucus succeeded at passing anything of consequence?   Doesn't mean I disagree with their goals, but the rather dramatic failure of their methods/strategies shouldn't be waived away.   "We fought hard but lost" is just a face-saving way of spinning a defeat.  Pissing off all the other people whose votes you need may feel cathartic, but it is the road to failure.  I'd contrast their approach with Reagan's, who managed to pass stuff despite never having control of the House simply because understood that it takes coalitions to win, and needlessly alienating people whose votes you may need later is just...stupid.

Why is it alright when the 'Gang of Eight' does the very same thing?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Why is it alright when the 'Gang of Eight' does the very same thing?

Are you talking about the Gang of Eight that gets briefed on high-end intelligence issues, or something else?  Because if its the former, it isn't their job to pass (or prevent from passing) legislation so I don't see the point of comparison.

Just to go back to my last point, this is probably the most embarrassingly incompetent GOP majority we've ever seen, and I don't think it is coincidental that it also is 1) the smallest GOP majority ever, and 2) there is a small hardline group of Republicans who resist everything that isn't 100% of what they want.   I believe that combination of 1) and 2) is pretty much guaranteed to be atop the leader board for "most embarassingly incompetent GOP majority".

Just because you're right doesn't mean you get to win.  Winning takes brains and solid strategic thought, which is sorely lacking right now.  To quote Chip Roy -- who is about as conservative as they come -- "I'm an equal opportunity basher of stupid, and I think this is stupid."

I think too often we tend to "take sides" in politics, and by that I mean reflexively defending anything said or done by the people with whom we generally agree.  The truth is that occasionally, someone on "our side" says something stupid, and occasionally, someone on the "other side" actually says something smart.  I'd prefer to judge each statement or action on its own merits rather than by who said it, and wishing for the smallest GOP majority possible in the clearly mistaken belief that would be better for conservatives is just dumb.

[Smokin Joe]

It's kinda weird. East of the mountains, the farmers tend to be Democrat in the old school. Like 'Southern Democrat'. It seems traditional. The only thing that defies that is Bozeman and the Bridger range folks down there. Hard core Conservative. And mostly, east of the mountains is governed by our largest cities, which tend to be Democrat. Testercle is from over there.

West of the hump tends to conservative by default... Most of the conservative officials come from over here.
That ain't perfect either - Town councils, schools, and colleges tend to Democrat officials... and Missoula and Helena are whacko-liberal - Whose populations tend to make for close races.

That's why we tend to purple on the map.

This map explains why your description did not make sense to me.


https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/montana

Mostly Indian Reservations on the east side vote blue. The farm and oil country are predominantly red.

[roamer_1]

This map explains why your description did not make sense to me.


https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/montana

Mostly Indian Reservations on the east side vote blue. The farm and oil country are predominantly red.

Dunno what to tell you. All I can say is the Senator from east of the hump has been a liberal Democrat all my life. And the senator from west of the hump usually a pretty solid Conservative. We change up governors between Dem and Pub from time to time.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Dunno what to tell you. All I can say is the Senator from east of the hump has been a liberal Democrat all my life. And the senator from west of the hump usually a pretty solid Conservative. We change up governors between Dem and Pub from time to time.

 

North Dakota had Democrats all in Congress in the 80s, Now all 'pubbies.

[roamer_1]

North Dakota had Democrats all in Congress in the 80s, Now all 'pubbies.

So you're telling me we got em surrounded.