9/30/2006
Dennis Rehberg Hates Montana Farmers
by Shane Mason on 11:40 pm.
OK, many of you may have seen this article yesterday, but it is worth bringing up the question here: why does Dennis Rehberg love the Republican party more than he cares about Montana ranchers and farmers? From the article:
WASHINGTON — Montana’s lone congressman is refusing to buck Republican leaders and join with Democrats to force a vote on drought assistance for the nation’s farmers and ranchers.
Well, he must have good reasons, right? We don’t need drought aid?
About 61 percent of the nation is abnormally dry or in drought conditions. In Montana, 23 of the state’s 56 counties are in a severe drought, according to the Montana Natural Resource Information System.
Someone thinks that it is important to Montana.
Rehberg’s opponent in his race for re-election, Democrat Monica Lindeen, said it’s critical that Rehberg sign the petition. The state’s dry land farmers, in particular, are suffering and need assistance, Lindeen said.
“I don’t think it should be a difficult decision,” she said. “If you’re representing Montana and the interest of the farmers and ranchers of the state, there’s not a lot to consider.”
This is what we need: leadership for Montanan’s. Not folks to follow their party leaders.
| Comments (5) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Dennis Rehberg, democrats, elections, montana, political |
Outpost Writeup
by Shane Mason on 11:20 pm.
You should check out David Crisp’s article on Jon Tester titled Can A Nice Guy Finish First? This is a deep insight into the man and the race that you just don’t get from the little blurbs and 30 second tv spots. It is a must read. Good job David and good work on the Outpost site’s update.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, elections, montana, political |
Jon Tester: Freedom First
by Matt Singer on 2:30 pm.
Today is the last day of the fundraising quarter. Keep this ad on air by donating to Jon:
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, democrats, elections, montana, political |
And the GOP Implodes
by Matt Singer on 11:53 am.
Man, you leave work at 5:00 on a Friday to grab a couple beers and what happens? You miss out on late breaking info that the Speaker of the House, third in line to the Presidency, may have covered up a partisan sex scandal involving underage House pages.
Forget the snakes on the plane, all four engines just fell off.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page, corrupt, political, republicans |
9/29/2006
GOP Congressman Resigns After Leaked Emails Indicate Sexual Interest in Underage Pages
by Matt Singer on 1:24 pm.
Wow. This happened quickly. Yesterday, some emails got leaked regarding Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-FL) discussions with a 16-year-old former page for the U.S. House. Now, Foley is resigning and withdrawing from the election in Florida and ABC is reporting that IM chats exist of Foley discussing “sexual organs and acts” with other former pages.
Even worse? Until his resignation, Foley was chair of the Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus.
Update — Howie Klein notes that this appears to be a recurring issue for Repubs.
Update 2 — It looks like this stuff crossed the line completely. ABC News is releasing IM conversations from other pages that apparently qualify as “soliciting underage children for sex” over the Internet. Foley could be prosecuted under laws he sponsored. Sicko.
| Comments (27) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Montana is Heating Up
by Matt Singer on 12:43 pm.
So that’s why the skiing isn’t as good as I remember it being as a child.
Global warming is happening, even here in Montana, eh?
| Comments (12) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
More on the Push Poll
by Matt Singer on 9:06 am.
From emails and comments, here’s a bit more info. The push poll is apparently being done with an auto-dialer, recorded messages, and voice recognition software. It only responds to ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers.
The phone number in question is 703-961-9120. Apparently calling it results in something like a disconnect tone.
Also, how you answer the questions can result in more questions. So if you want the full impact, tell ‘em you hate taxes, hate gay people, are anti-abortion, and pro-voucher. You should hear a lot more of the poll that way. Still tell ‘em you plan on voting for Tester at the beginning.
Let’s weed out what all is on this call.
Also, they’re calling a lot of work numbers and a lot of cell phone numbers and some unlisted numbers. I just assumed that they reached my number because it’s on the voter rolls, but it could be a different source, too.
Update — Jesse in comments and I both just got push-polled. He apparently told them he was a Burns voter. I told them I was undecided (maybe I’ll get some follow-up mail from these fools) and we both then said that we hated gay people, etc. There were some questions about “homosexual marriage” and “activist judges” as well as “tax-payer funded abortions” that I haven’t noticed others point out in comments.
No mention of how Burns voted for the continuation of forced abortions in the Marianas, though. I’d think compulsory abortions are worse than taxpayer funded ones, but that’s just me.
| Comments (45) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
9/28/2006
Push Poll Moving in Montana
by Matt Singer on 7:47 pm.
Update 2 – Welcome, Kossacks. Read through this post, then check out this follow-up with more details on how the poll is operating.
Just heard that there’s a push poll moving in Montana from a group called Common Sense 2006. The same outfit apparently push polled the Rhode Island Republican primary and possibly violated campaign finance laws in Ohio.
The push poll apparently has a “school choice” question, a same-sex marriage question, and a taxes question. Another source is telling me that the calls are coming from area code 703, a Virginia number. I missed a call from a Virginia number earlier today, must have been the good folks at Common Sense 2006. So if you notice a call from area code 703, get a pen and paper handy and take notes.
Anyone else getting these calls?
Update – And the questions, courtesy of a commenter:
Do you intend to vote in the upcomming election?Do you intend to vote for Conrad Burns?
Do you intend to vote for John Tester?
Do support the right of parents to choose where to send their children for school?
Do you think that marriage should only be between one man and one woman in the state of Montana?
Would knowing that John Tester raised taxes blah blah blah (Sorry, I have a bad habit of tuning out redumblican bs) persuade you to vote for Conrad Burns?
Thank you. This survey was brought to you by Common Sense 2006
| Comments (51) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Tip of the Hat to Max Baucus
by Matt Singer on 7:38 pm.
A lot of Democrats caved on the Constitution today. Baucus didn’t. Reward good behavior.
Let him know that you appreciate it.
| Comments (11) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Who First Thought of Lowering Tuition?!?!?!?!?
by Matt Singer on 12:43 pm.
It’s the big item that has everyone hot and bothered these days, apparently. Miss Right over at WRIM is saying that Schweitzer is being a bully by putting out his plan for higher education! The wrastrel. The Governor is trying to govern. Next thing we know the Attorney General will be filing lawsuits and other complicated things.
Seriously, though, the GOP claimed that Schweitzer’s property tax plan was stolen and now they’re claiming that this tuition plan is stolen. That’s a load of hogwash. Freezing or reducing tuition aren’t exactly the most novel higher ed ideas and there are clear differences between the Governor and the GOP on both higher ed and property taxes.
On higher ed, as I noted before, Schweitzer is mixing a tuition freeze with expanded need-based and merit-based aid. The GOP plan is to try to actually cut tuition. There are reasons to prefer one over the other. I prefer the targeted aid, as I think it is both sound social policy and good business practice for the university system. John Mercer once told me he supports across-the-board changes because he believes in equality. So, um, yeah, there’s that, too, I suppose.
On the property taxes, the Republicans give the bulk of the rebates to non-resident homeowners and businesses (with huge corporations getting the biggest rebates). They also lock in new rates for the long-term, effectively making these breaks for Richie Rich and his shell corporations permanent (sweet! the savings can be used to purchase the new platinum plated yacht he’s been looking at). Schweitzer’s plan, in comparison, is a flat rebate for Montana homeowners.
Again, there are different philosophical reasons to support these two plans. If you think Montana homeowners have been suffering under massive local property tax hikes due to Republican governance from ‘92-’04, rebates to homeowners makes sense. If, on the other hand, you think Exxon and Californians are suffering, the Republican plan makes sense.
The GOP likes to pretend that all of these ideas are equal. They’re not. There’s a consistent pattern. The Democrats support getting more of the support and rebates to middle-class and working Montanans. The Republicans support either equal distribution or getting more of it to the rich and powerful. Now, some people agree with the Republicans on this point. That’s fine. I’m just not one of ‘em.
Actually, while we’re at it, the GOP Congress is also now refusing to extend targeted tax breaks for students, R&D, and other generally popular purposes. Why? They’re holding them hostage to use them to pass estate tax repeal. In other words, generally beneficial tax policies are not goods in their own, but wedges to cobble together a coalition to cut taxes for the richest Americans once again.
It’s a question of priorities across the board. And neither side’s plans are perfect, but they ain’t identical either.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Habeas Corpus? Burns Says No, Baucus Says Yes
by Matt Singer on 12:08 pm.
Tip of the hat to the senior Senator. Wag of the finger to the junior Senator.
Arlen Specter’s habeas corpus amendment just died on a narrow vote.
Habeas corpus is a big deal. This is the legal protection that keeps the government from grabbing you in the night and locking you up in a cell. It’s the thin line that separates us from Stalin’s Russia. It’s the sort of thing that is only to be tampered with in the direst of circumstances. We’re not in those circumstances right now.
So it must just be that Conrad Burns hates freedom.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Front Page |
Body Armor Matters
by Matt Singer on 10:18 am.
The PAC running this ad — VoteVets.org — is the only one in the country headed by veterans of the war in Iraq. Similar ads to this one are targeting candidates across the country who voted wrong on body armor.
| Comments (18) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
9/27/2006
Conrad Burns: Damn Out of Touch
by Matt Singer on 7:45 pm.
V already hit this down below, but Burns’ new ad on the Patriot Act says one thing to me: the man is out-of-touch. 126 of 150 legislators in this state (huge bipartisan majorities) voted for a resolution criticizing the Hell out of the Patriot Act, as did Brian Schweitzer. The Montana Shooting Sports Association is pissed about the Act, as are the Gun Owners of America.
Senators Jim Elliott (D-Trout Creek) and Jim Shockley (R-Victor) argued earlier this year that civil liberties aren’t a partisan issue. That’s true in Montana races generally. But at the federal level, it’s clear. Jon Tester is for freedom. Conrad Burns is for fear.
Sorry, Burnsie, I ain’t wetting myself for you.
| Comments (19) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Front Page |
October: Surprisingly Bad Ads
by V on 7:22 pm.
If this ad is a taste of what is to come from the Republicans this October, paint me unconcerned.
I am also going to take this opportunity to second Jon Tester’s serious (thank you The Onion) call for Conrad Burns to drop out of this race. It has gone past the point where he is only embarassing himself.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, Front Page, dickhead |
Schweitzer: Freeze Tuition and Fully Fund Scholarship Program
by Matt Singer on 1:46 pm.
Schweitzer’s got a solid plan for college students: freeze tuition for the next two years while fully funding the best and brightest scholarship program. The program will offer nearly 1,000 scholarships to Montana students when fully funded.
The Republicans, in contrast, are promising to cut tuition by 5%. In the last session, they opposed the scholarship proposal. Ultimately, that’s why I come down with Schweitzer. Cutting tuition isn’t a bad goal, but tuition increases aren’t being felt evenly across the board. Low-income and middle-income families are more adversely impacted. And increased scholarships and financial aid target the assistance to where it can maximize its return.
Providing financial aid instead of across-the-board tuition cuts isn’t just good social policy, it’s sound business practice as well. By targeting financial aid, the university system maximizes the impact of those dollars while minimizing the cost. It’s basically practicing price discrimination, but since the Montana University System comes darn close to being a monopoly on higher ed in Montana, that’s fine (especially since there public institutions don’t risk profiteering in quite the way private ones do).
Two of our endorsed candidates for the legislature are recent graduates: Kevin Furey and Kendall Van Dyk. Throwing a little change their way will make sure that college is more affordable for Montana students.
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
$300
by Matt Singer on 10:31 am.
“How much? She said for $300.”
- Soul Coughing, “$300″
It looks like Gerry O’Brien is tripping over himself again. Today’s Great Falls Tribune has an article by Gwen Florio that knocks it out of the park. Where O’Brien has “revised the estimate” (those quote marks indicate satire, not a quotation) from 30 to 50 seats, Florio did the tough work of counting seats and found it was actually 59 seats for Resodyn, roughly double what O’Brien originally said.
The story also says that O’Brien was having the co-sponsors pony up $300 for the debate. Earlier reporting has always said $200, so this seemed odd to me, because it’s such a bizarre detail to fudge. If you don’t know what you charged your co-sponsors, either look it up and get back to ‘em or say “a few hundred dollars” or something else vague. But this was weird enough, I thought I’d give O’Brien the benefit of the doubt and thought it might be a copy-editing error. Nope. Gwen Florio just confirmed that she was told co-sponsors paid $300.
What gives? Can this guy even spell his own name right?
| Comments (37) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Something I Don’t Understand About Rightwing Economics
by Matt Singer on 10:25 am.
Gman at MTPolitics.net writes a post about “Conscience Capitalism”:
Wal Mart is making a go of it.How is Wal-Mart making a go of it? By cutting prices on generic prescription drugs. I noticed this story, too, and never thought it was much of a decision of “conscience.” A family member is a pharmacist and I remember her long ago saying that Wal-Mart keeps prices low on name brand prescription drugs that people price check on, while boosting prices on generics that people actually purchase. At the time, I remember thinking that the move was both cruel and brilliant, kind of like curb-stopping.
Still, Gman saw Wal-Mart being somehow altruistic in this decision. Then, someone in comments noticed that the move is timed shortly after K-Mart announced an aggressive strategy to undersell Wal-Mart on generics. The high-profile move no doubt threatened Wal-Mart’s pharmacy business, causing the retail giant to respond.
Now, that’s all fine. What strikes me as funny is that pretty soon the ‘wingers, who started the thread by talking about capitalism cannot survive without conscience pretty soon just started declaring that this is business and responding to market pressures is good and leveraging market power to intimidate other businesses is just being savvy.
All of that’s well and good, I suppose. But if you don’t really give two poops if business operates in a socially conscious way, why would you write a post pimping Wal-Mart for their conscientious ways?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there are a number of factors contributing to Wal-Mart business success. No one, though, should pretend that being a moral actor is one of ‘em.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Who’s Voting for Torture?
by Matt Singer on 9:54 am.
So the Senate is apparently considering giving its official sanction to torture and extra-Constitutional (a fancy word for unconstitutional) actions, like ignoring the need for warrants.
Doesn’t it seem strange that in five years, faced with a threat certainly nowhere near as dire as many we have faced in the past (America has defeated Great Britain, at the time the world’s great power; a rebellion that briefly was situated literally miles away from Washington, D.C.; some of the world’s greatest powers in World War I; the biggest and most evil war machines assembled in history in World War II; and a nuclear armed ideological foe bent on empire in the Cold War), we have decided to relent to these extreme pressures. Honestly, was it really 19 men with boxcutters who convinced us that the Constitution should be no longer treated as the law of the land, but merely as a quoteworthy text for lofty speeches on freedom that get broadcast to cover the screams of the suspects, foreign and domestic, being waterboarded.
Habeas corpus matters. Warrants matter. Refusing to stoop to torture matters. And this isn’t just about taking the high road and losing or choosing to “make the tough decision and do what’s necessary to win.” If we could stop communism while respecting the Geneva Conventions, we can sure as Hell stop some dude who lives in a cave.
Speaking of which, anybody know how our Senators are voting?
Update – And Atrios is right. If Barack Obama thinks Democrats need to do more to demonstrate moral authority, now would be a good time for him to use his star power to launch an offensive on this bill. Stop scolding others for not demanding the high road — start demanding the high road, Mr. Senator.
| Comments (32) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page, policy |
Quick Question
by Matt Singer on 9:42 am.
I’ve recently gotten a couple inquiries to remove email addresses from comments since they are showing up. Has anyone been able to see other users’ email addresses? They don’t show up on the public site for me and I’d prefer to keep it that way. I’d really prefer if commenting here didn’t result in spam or violations of privacy, so please let me know so I can investigate further.
| Comments (3) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Tester Calls For Burns’ Withdrawal
by Matt Singer on 8:14 am.
It’s only being reported in some small Midwestern newspaper called The Onion, but the story seems solid:
As Montana’s Senate race heats up in its final weeks, Democrat Jon Tester has challenged his opponent, incumbent Republican Conrad Burns, to prove his commitment to his principles and to the people of Montana by dropping out of the race. “You have said time and again, Mr. Burns, that small governments best serve society,” said Tester during a speech before a prominent cattle-ranching group Monday. “If you believe what you say, then I challenge you: Prove your convictions by dropping out of this race, or be known as another politician who refuses to live by his word.” Burns responded to the challenge by issuing a counter-challenge calling upon his rival to limit all campaign spending from now until election night to zero.
That’s an interesting counter-challenge. The Tester campaign should consider it.
I’m serious.
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
