Schweitzer spinning.

• Author: Dennison, Mike
• Position: Letter to the Editor

I'm surprised and a little disappointed to see The Washington Monthly allow a campaign worker/consultant to write an analytical piece on the very campaign for which he worked ("Top Billings" by David Sirota, December 2004). His piece did include some interesting insights into Schweitzer's winning campaign. But it also contained numerous statements I would consider, at best, regurgitated campaign rhetoric, or, at worst, just plain wrong.

For example, he says "one of the defining moments" in the campaign was a Schweitzer press conference scolding his Republican opponent Bob Brown for spending $40,000 of taxpayer money to redecorate Brown's office while secretary of state. This "defining moment" was viewed by most reporters covering the race as a minor campaign stunt and received scant coverage. Sirota also repeats Schweitzer campaign mantras that Brown was a "corporate lobbyist" and a "career politician" who "spent his career passing tax breaks for companies that, once he was out of office, became his lobbying clients" In fact, the bulk of Brown's professional career was spent as a high school teacher and education administrator. Also, the two tax breaks for which Democrats and Schweitzer criticized Brown were approved by huge, bipartisan majorities in the Montana legislature.

Sirota's recitation of Montana political history also has a few holes. He states that Goldman Sachs executives "engineered the takeover--and eventual takedown--of Montana Power, one of the state's economic gems" Goldman Sachs was a financial advisor to Montana Power Co. for its own fatal decision to restructure and sell off parts of the company. Nobody "took over" the company. Whether Goldman Sachs played a more pivotal role in the sell-off is the subject of lawsuits filed by shareholders, but nothing has been proven.

I could go on, but you get the idea. It's clear that Sirota was more interested in promoting Schweitzer than giving readers the unvarnished truth--but then, that's what campaign workers are supposed to do. The question is why the Monthly allows this sort of piece to be presented as journalism. It makes me doubt the credibility of a magazine that I've respected for years.

Mike Dennison

Great Falls Tribune (Mont.)

Washington bureau chief.

Paul Glastris responds: Though we at the Monthly have the utmost respect for political and other reporters, we've never subscribed to the philosophy that journalists have a monopoly on information or credibility. Indeed...