Haley McKnight, a city commission candidate in Helena, Montana, is facing backlash following the release of a disturbing voicemail she left for Republican Senator Tim Sheehy. The voicemail, which surfaced Monday, showcases McKnight’s extreme anger over Sheehy’s vote supporting the Once Big Beautiful Bill Act. Over the course of a minute-long rant, she unleashed a barrage of threats, wishing pancreatic cancer upon him with a chilling remark that he “die in the street like a dog.”
The voicemail is graphic and filled with vitriol. McKnight introduces herself as a constituent and proceeds to lash out at Sheehy, labeling him a “coward and thief” for his legislative actions. “You just stripped away healthcare for 17 million Americans,” she fumed, implying that the consequences of his vote affected not only individuals but also their families and communities. The tone of her message is starkly aggressive, suggesting a personal vendetta against the Senator. Her statement, “I hope you die in the street like a dog,” marks a significant departure from political discourse, plunging into hostile territory that many would find utterly unacceptable.
This shocking rhetoric did not resonate well with voters. McKnight ended up receiving only 20% of the vote, placing third in a field of four candidates for the city commission seats. The two candidates who secured the positions—Melinda Reed and Ben Rigby—achieved 36.5% and 31.2% of the vote, respectively. Clearly, McKnight’s inflammatory comments did not translate into electoral support, a common outcome when candidates adopt such aggressive tactics.
In a subsequent interview, when asked if she thought her voicemail “went too far,” McKnight responded resolutely, “No, I don’t think so.” Her remarks reveal a certain level of detachment from the implications of her words. Instead of expressing remorse, she insisted on the validity of her feelings, suggesting that her anger stemmed from the struggles faced by people in her community due to policies she deemed harmful. “I wanted to drive home the struggles that people I know are going through because of his policies,” she explained, attempting to justify her rant as a reflection of genuine frustration.
McKnight also attempted to deflect attention from her incendiary comments, arguing that her focus should be on more pressing issues such as Sheehy’s alleged preoccupation with blocking the release of “the Epstein files.” This shift in focus indicates a strategy to divert criticism away from her message while simultaneously criticizing the Senator for what she sees as misplaced priorities.
Her approach certainly raises questions about the level of discourse in political campaigns today. Pitting personal animus against elected officials rarely yields constructive dialogue. Instead, it contributes to a toxic atmosphere where deep-seated grievances bubble over into public threats, ultimately costing candidates the trust and favor of the electorate.
The voicemail incident serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of allowing anger to guide political discourse. While passion in politics can motivate, it can also alienate. McKnight’s words illustrate a troubling disconnect that can occur when candidates lose sight of the impact of their rhetoric on both their reputations and their electoral prospects. In her case, the backlash speaks volumes about the limits of political vitriol and the importance of maintaining a semblance of civility, even in moments of high emotion.
"*" indicates required fields
