In a stark reminder of how heated political rhetoric can become, a Helena city commissioner candidate, Haley McKnight, captured national attention for her explosive voicemail sent to Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont. This voicemail, filled with threats and harsh invective, surfaced earlier this week and had been recorded back in July after Sheehy’s vote on a major Republican bill.
McKnight’s voicemail opened with a declaration of her constituency. However, it quickly devolved into a barrage of insults. She branded Sheehy a “coward and thief,” claiming his actions stripped away healthcare from millions of Americans. Her grievances were deeply personal and visceral, reaching a point where she wished a painful cancer death upon him. “I hope you get pancreatic cancer, and it spreads throughout your body so fast that they can’t even treat you for it,” she stated bluntly. Such extreme language demonstrates the depths of her outrage, but it also underscores a troubling trend in political discourse.
The call’s tone escalated, with McKnight attacking Sheehy’s personal life and warning him against crossing paths with her. Her chilling proclamation, “I hope you die in the street like a dog,” signals that her anger was not only aimed at political outcomes but also at a personal level. In a landscape where political tensions are high, this voicemail raises questions about the normalization of such inflammatory comments.
Following the revelation of her voicemail, McKnight faced the potential fallout in the local election held the same day as the voicemail’s appearance in the news cycle. Despite the national Democratic wave, which saw notable victories in Virginia and New Jersey, McKnight failed to resonate with voters, capturing only 20% of the vote and landing in third place. The winning candidates, Melinda Reed and Ben Rigby, earned 36.5% and 31.2% of the votes, respectively. The results reflect how extreme rhetoric and aggressive posturing can backfire, even in a favorable political climate.
In a subsequent interview, McKnight expressed frustration regarding the timing of the voicemail’s release but did not confirm if she stood by her harsh words. Instead, she claimed she intended to highlight the struggles faced by her community due to Sheehy’s policies. “I wanted to drive home the struggles that people that I know are going through because of his policies,” she explained. While her sentiments may reflect genuine concern, her approach raised eyebrows and sparked debate about appropriate forms of political expression.
McKnight suggested Sheehy was distracted by less pressing matters, like “blocking the release of the Epstein files,” rather than focusing on the pressing issues affecting Montanans. This remark indicates that the underlying tensions driving her outrage extend beyond her voicemail, showcasing a deep-seated view that political leaders can become disconnected from their constituents’ struggles.
Ultimately, the fallout from McKnight’s voicemail is emblematic of a wider trend in American politics, where escalating rhetoric can overshadow substantive debate. The results of the election reinforce that voters may reject extreme tactics in favor of candidates who promise not just passion but also a commitment to community engagement and respectful discourse. In the end, McKnight’s experience serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of letting anger dominate political expressions and the potential for such actions to harm rather than help one’s chances at the ballot box.
"*" indicates required fields
