by Eric Dondero

What we know... Blogger Jodi Rove of Buffalo's Fire was the reporter covering the story of the Baucus affair, and the pending appointment of his Mistress Melodee Hanes. Rove reported earlier this week on her Blog, that Baucus's Senate office called the night before they were about to break the story, to inform the paper that Hanes's name had been withdrawn. She had been one of three candidates to be appointed to serve as Montana State Attorney General under Eric Holder. Now Rove's story has been confirmed.

From The Editors of the Missoulian, Dec. 9:

Eight months ago, when Hanes’ name surfaced as one of the nominees for the U.S. attorney’s job, the Missoulian asked Sen. Max Baucus’ spokesman whether Baucus was involved in a romantic relationship with Hanes – as her ex-husband was alleging – and if so, why Baucus would pursue a course that posed such a clear conflict of interest.

Not only would Baucus not speak directly to the Missoulian, but his then-spokesman, Barrett Kaiser, refused to address the issue and strove to keep any story at all about Hanes’ nomination from print. Indeed, the night before the story was to run, Kaiser called the paper and told us that Hanes’ nomination had been withdrawn.

With nothing from Baucus on the record, and no way to prove the veracity of Hanes’ husband’s assertions, the Missoulian couldn’t responsibly print the allegations.

This has led prominent Democrat blogger Jay Stevens to pen a piece, "It's not the affair. It's the cover-up." Stevens raises the question of possible collusion between the Missoulian and Baucus's office. From Left in the West:

Is it me? Or did they totally drop the ball on this story? What kind of reporter stops investigating a story when the investigated subject refuses to speak about it? They couldn't find anyone else to confirm Baucus' relationship to Hanes? Really?

Nationally syndicated columnist, legal scholar, and frequent Cable News guest Johnathan Turley has now joined in, commenting on his Blog:

Other details have emerged that may cause problems for Baucus. He insisted publicly that Hanes decided to withdraw from consideration as the new U.S. Attorney (with Baucus’ important support) when their relationship became more serious. However, reporters are now saying that the decision was made shortly after they confronted Baucus with the story at the Missoulian and said that they were about to make it public. Remarkably, the Missoulian never ran the story in March.

The Missoulian, a paper hugely supportive of Baucus in the past, now appears to be engaging in a little CYA criticizing Baucus for his decision making process.

Continuing from the Missoulian:

many Montanans are seriously questioning Baucus’ judgement just at the moment we should be focusing on his role in national health care reform, energy legislation and a host of other crucial legislative matters.

The Missoulian couldn’t care less about Baucus’ personal romantic relationships. Such things are a private matter that has no bearing on the public’s business – or at least, they should be. But when someone in a position of public trust and authority uses his position to further the career of someone he is romantically linked to, that warrants full disclosure and public scrutiny.

Baucus exercised poor judgment in this matter not once, but repeatedly.

The Missoulian is a notoriously leftwing biased newspaper in Montana. It services a university town. They make endorsements of only Democrats. In the 2006 race for US Senate, the paper ran repeated investigative pieces on Republican Senator Conrad Burns for allegedly questionable financial and campaign practices. Burns ended up losing that race to Democrat Jon Tester.

When one looks closely at the timeline of events that transpired last Spring, it's clear that at some point a decision was made at some level at the Missoulian to quelch the story. As Jay Stephens asks, why in the world would any newspaper just halt such an investigation?

One has to wonder if such a story would have been quelched had it been a Republican legislator in question.