David Montgomery was writing about party switchers this morning, and had the following passage in reference to Gordon Howie:
Howie, an outspoken conservative who ran for governor in 2010 as a “Tea Party Republican,” is running for U.S. Senate as an independent in a tactical move. He thinks Republican frontrunner Mike Rounds isn’t conservative enough and wants Rounds to face a conservative challenge on the November ballot.
And it had me contemplating what Howie had said about believing that Mike Rounds should “face a conservative challenge in November.” Ignoring the fact that Mike Rounds is fairly conservative to begin with, Howie makes the assumption that we should consider him as far more conservative than Mike Rounds.
But is he?
Looking at Gordon’s past as an indicator of his future behavior, I’m not so sure.
As one commentator notes, conservatives believe the rule of law is pretty important. But with Gordon, I’m not so sure.
We had the recent incident where he and his son illegally shot a trapped mountain lion, which cost them their hunting privileges.
In 2010, he garnered headlines statewide during the Governor’s race that he had failed to pay taxes on many of his properties for at least a year or more.
The same year, he lashed out at prosecutors, claiming that they wrongly charged his wife in a DUI case that was more about politics than law enforcement, because certainly, it was all about him.
None of this would seem to indicate that he’s a big fan of the rule of law as it applies to himself.
Gordon talks the conservative talk. But when it comes to walking it? I’m not so sure.
What do you think?