10/31/2006
Trick-or-Vote Party Tonight – Missoula
by Matt Singer on 11:07 am.
The best Halloween Party of the night is going to be Forward Montana’s Trick-or-Vote celebration.
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Natural Tightening v. Momentum
by Matt Singer on 9:41 am.
Hotline has an interesting post on the subject. They note that the NRSC is, in fact, coming back to play in Montana. So does Burns have momentum or a natural tightening?
My own gut was that while Burns appeared stalled at 42 or 43, that couldn’t last forever. Democratic challengers just don’t win in Montana at the top-of-the-ticket (U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and Governor). We just don’t. Perhaps Jon (now writing at the Montana Main Street blog) could fill us in down in the comments on the last time this has happened (Jon wrote a book on the history of Montana politics). But it’s been a very, very long time.
So Burns clearly was not going to finish the race at 42 with Tester pulling 56 or whatever. That just was never going to happen whoever the candidate was.
A much more likely scenario is akin to the 2004 Governor’s race, which ended up a four point race with Brian “70 percent” Schweitzer squeaking out just about 50%. From day one, this was going to be a close race. Commenters at dKos have been wondering why this isn’t in the bag yet. All I can say is “Welcome to Montana.”
I think we’re just seeing some natural tightening. But we’ve got two of the most insane field operations in the country here. We’ve got both political parties and both campaigns on air. Independent expenditures are just flying. (Rumor has it that Burns secured the PETA endorsement after word emerged that Tester slaughters livestock.)
We’ll see who fights this one out to a victory.
| Comments (16) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Justice in America
by V on 9:37 am.
Salon reports on a serious problem in the appointment of American justices and campaign finance.
At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show.
Why is this a problem?
For one, it is bad for justice. One of the driving forces in campaign finance is a decision by the Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. If campaign donations made to key members of the Judiciary Committee can buy a judgeship then we have a serious justice problem. If, too, the judges are the deciders of the bounds of political speech made by money, then their donations make any rulings on the subject suspect.
Far be it for me to quash the political free speech of persons who want to be judges, but I do think that they should have the good sense to stop themselves.
On the other hand, this article is not proof positive of favoritism for funds. It does raise the question and shed some uncomfortable light on the judiciary. Like so many modern questions about the judiciary, this is one of appearance and not necessarily actuality. Even if the judges were not part of a pay-to-play scheme to control the judiciary, these donations leave an impression that there might be such a scheme, and that these judges might be a part of it.
The integrity of the judiciary is too important to be tarnished in this way. We could ask for no greater proof than the recent accusations of activist judges, and the responses from virulent, anti-judge mobs. These jurists should know that the integrity is too important, and this more than anything makes me wonder if they are really qualified to sit on the bench at all.
The article is generally good, and it makes a lot of interesting points. Give it a read.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page, law |
Some Thoughts from Big Sandy
by Matt Singer on 9:09 am.
Apparently someone from Big Sandy is a mite bit disgusted with neighbors who have decided to throw “a good man…under the bus in favor a man who’s not even from Montana.”
Iverson is, of course, parroting this shit. It’s pretty obnoxious. Looking at election results, it’s pretty plain that a solid third of Jon’s district voted against him. And it’s a die-hard Republican district. So now these dicks are portraying their political beliefs as the beliefs of their entire town.
It really couldn’t be further from the truth. Tester won that district cause most people supported him. I’m guessing he’ll run stronger in his home district than most Dems do and this person writing says most of Big Sandy supports him. For any Dem, that’s a pretty big victory.
| Comments (3) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Abramoff Had “Implicit Control Over Mr. Burns”
by Matt Singer on 9:04 am.
That’s according to a friend of Jack Abramoff who says that Burns’ staff would have “starved to death” without Abramoff’s restaurant.
Iverson downplays all of this saying no one has any reason to believe an Abramoff crony. I suppose that rules out trusting Abramoff, this guy, and Burns.
But here’s the real thing: What would be this dude’s motivation to lie about Burns and his staff? We already know that they ate at Signature’s a lot. That’s been reported. We already know that they carried a lot of water for Abramoff. That’s been reported. We already know there’s a federal investigation. That’s been reported.
This guy isn’t some crazy man making things up. He was apparently friends with a bad dude, but that doesn’t make everything he says a lie, any more than it’d be fair for me to claim that Shawn “Former Burns Staffer Now Pleading the 5th” Vasell always lies.
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Jon Tester is a Very Bad Man
by Matt Singer on 8:48 am.
He butchered meat for his neighbors without a license.
Excuse me. That should have been:HE BUTCHERED MEAT FOR HIS NEIGHBORS WITHOUT A LICENSE! That’s apparently Lee’s big scoop. Tester committed a misdemeanor, repeatedly talked to the relevant meat inspectors (proven by state records), and was never cited.
Hmm…
I didn’t know whether to give a damn about this or not, so I went to check out Sarpy Sam. He’s a good source, cause he doesn’t really like Jon, but he’s also the most regular commentator on farm and ranch issues I know of. Here’s his take:
Sorry, I might not be a fan of Tester but this is nothing. One Neighbor helping out others, even if money changed hands, is the Montana way of doing things and is no big deal. Being visited by inspectors and never being ticketed again is not a surprise. Sounds like the way I am used to things being done in Montana. The only weird thing here is Jon’s decision to close down the business when he ran for State Senate. Being as a Montana legislator is a part time job, they meet for 90 days every other year and get paid peanuts, you would think he could be able to keep it open. Did he know he was breaking the law and that was the reason for getting out of the buisness? I doubt it, but it’s still curious.
My own guess is that shutting it down when he was running because something needed to go to create time to be on the doors. A Dem doesn’t win where Jon won without putting in a lot of work in the campaign. From that time forward, Jon ended up in leadership pretty quickly and spent a lot of time traveling the state. Shutting down the small butchering business made more sense than shutting down any other income producing portion of the operation.
Still, this is apparently what they got. A misdemeanor that even the state doesn’t see a need in enforcing.
I’d like to see the ad, though:
NARRATOR: “Jon Tester illegally slaughtered innocent cows on his property without a license.”
ACTOR 1 (wearing meat inspector costume): “Put down the bolt gun and step away from the animal.”
ACTOR 2 (wearing PETA buttons): “He’s just such a horrible man. I’m voting Burns this year.”
Sigh…
| Comments (5) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
10/30/2006
What Dems Will Do If They Win!
by Matt Singer on 6:23 pm.
Nooooooooooooo!
Andy Hammond has exposed our secret plan to balance the budget, fight global warming, secure energy independence, and raise wages.
If the people find out, we’re ruined — ruined, I tell you.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
The Self-Centered Labor Secretary
by Matt Singer on 6:22 pm.
Senator Conrad Burns was apparently stumping with Anti-Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. The fact that this woman is allowed to run the Labor Department as a hive of anti-worker and anti-union activity should say enough about her, but I thought I’d also relate a rather humorous story I’ve heard from a friend who spent some time working in D.C. a couple summers ago.
Apparently, upon entering the office of the Secretary of Labor (the outer office, not her personal one), there’s a reception desk. Behind the reception desk is a large photo of Secretary Chao sitting in front of a photo of herself while signing a third photograph. It’s the sort of thing that would make even Jean Baudrillard’s head spin.
My friend apparently turned to his boss, who worked lower down in the Department and said something like, “Well, that seems like a bit of overkill.” His boss quickly quieted him — the Secretary apparently doesn’t have much of a sense of humor about herself.
Too bad. ‘Cause the story above is hilarious.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Good News
by V on 2:57 pm.
I was just chatting with a buddy of mine, and he had some good news about the President’s visit to Billings for what Republicans are calling “A Victory Rally.” I won’t touch the chickens-before-they-are-hatched elephant in the room, but I will say that it is not all bad that a President whose support is dropping is coming to Montana. A lot of the folks e-mailing me have had mixed feelings about this visit.
On the one hand, the President is exciting. Regardless of who he is or how many people he black bags, the President will always draw a crowd. This means that Burns will reap an advantage by having Bush stop by.
On the other, Tester supporters are starting to realize that the way to win is to work from now until election day. A visit from the President is just a reminder of how necessary this work is.
So, the good news is that my buddy’s mom is probably going to volunteer now, though she would maybe not have without a visit from the President. As Matt noted earlier, this election will come down to turning out folks that support Jon all day on November 7. If you think that this election is won, one way or the other, you are wrong, but you can help Jon win it. Get out there and volunteer.
| Comments (18) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, elections |
Rasmussen: Tester at 51
by Matt Singer on 12:31 pm.
Rasmussen has Tester still in the lead and back at or above 50%.
Candidate Oct. 26 Oct. 18 Oct. 11
Burns 47% 46% 42%
Tester 51% 48% 49%
This is clearly a turnout game. As Kos notes, this is still within the margin of error, but no public polling has had Burns up since the primary. We’re still leading. We may even be over 50%. Now we just need to get these voters to the polls.
Volunteer. If you don’t know how, just ask. We’ll help you find a way to get plugged in.
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Jay Has Some Words for Jon
by Matt Singer on 12:03 pm.
Update — Based on some of my writing in this post, I’ve offered an apology and explanation.
Jay went out knocking doors for Jon and reminds Jon that he owes all of us on the ground. He doesn’t owe us jobs or earmarks or specific votes. Rather, he needs to know that we’ve trusted him to not be just another politician and we’ve told others that they can believe us.
I’m optimistic. I think in 8 days we’re going to win. But the real measure of whether we win is whether Jon changes when he gets to D.C. If he does, I’m going to be pissed. So are a lot of other people who have been fighting hard for Jon for a long time.
I write this, not because I think Jon will let us down. I don’t. If I did, I wouldn’t have put so much of own time into this race. I write this because I want to make it clear, publicly, that Jon will be held to a high standard.
By the way, there’s been flack — both public and private — for not discussing Baucus’ pork-barreling when there’s been much criticism of Burns’ on this site and for not discussing Brian Schweitzer’s brother. There’s a few reasons for that. First, this isn’t an “accountability moment” for either Brian or Baucus. They’re both up in 2008. This is an accountability moment for Conrad Burns. I focus on the elected officials whose lives I can impact most immediately. Sue me.
Second, as for Baucus’ pork-barreling, I don’t think it’s great. I also don’t think it’s even a tenth as corrupt as Burns’ operation plainly is. I’ve been publicly critical of some of what Baucus has done. I’ve also been publicly complimentary of some of what he’s done. That’s my honest belief — the guy has a mixed record. Whatever. We’ll discuss it when he’s on the ballot.
Third, as for Walt Schweitzer, I don’t know him real well, but I’ve met him a couple times. He’s got enough ranching stories that I find him being a rancher believable. My interactions with him have been pleasant. I’ve also heard a lot of rumors and whispers about him, but, hell, I’ve heard a lot of rumors and whispers about me, so I know how to take that stuff. John Adams is a muckraker. The state needs muckrakers, but muckrakers aren’t always to be believed.
Fourth, I actually agree with NeoMadison that it is good that blogs exist and are democratizing the media.
In summary, politicians should be held accountable. Jon Tester, in particular should know that after investing as much time as I have, he’ll face some angry bloggers if he becomes another damn D.C. politician. Our other elected officials should also be held accountable, but now is a time to talk about Burns and Tester, because that’s the most important public office that we — the citizens — have any real power over in the near future.
Final Addendum — While we’re talking about accountability and partisanship, could someone explain to me the silence over Rehberg telling Montanans to hire lobbyists who were giving money to him?
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Irrational Fear of the International and International Law
by V on 11:32 am.
Focus on the Family has an article (highlighted by opiniojuris) that expresses fear about an early international focus in top tier lawschools. Here is a gem:
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said law schools are following the lead of liberal judges who increasingly look to foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
“We saw (Supreme Court) Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Lawrence v. Texas decision on sodomy look to Europe and some of the courts of human rights elsewhere to help him justify striking down a Texas law prohibiting sodomy,” he said.
The shift is all part of getting future lawyers to think globally, Hausknecht added. Unfortunately, it’s lessening their respect for the Constitution.
Unfortunately, it is also nonsense. An earlier international focus can actually bolster respect for the American Constitution, because much of the world’s jurisprudence is based on our own.
It is the job of a lawyer to see issues form different perspectives so that they can creatively think through problems. International values can help as a contrast to our own, as well as to help us find a more tested definition of human issues as in the Lawrence case. None of this is harmful to the law or to lawyers and certainly not to lawyers-in-training.
It is particularly important in America, the Great Melting Pot, that we pay attention to the values of others, because in many respects they are our values. Focus on the Family can rest assured that there are an equal number of conservatives in the world abroad as there are liberals. True, few internationals are willing to take as narrow a view of human existence and potential as FoF is promoting. Perhaps that is an indication, not of the liberal values of the international community, but rather, of the insano values of the ridiculously far right here in America.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page, law |
How Tester Pays For It
by Matt Singer on 9:04 am.
I apparently slightly misunderstood Sarpy Sam’s issue with Tester’s new proposals yesterday. Sam takes issue with Jon failing to outline the funding sources. Well, it might hearten Sam a bit to know that Jon supports PAYGO — requiring Congress to find funding every time they propose a new tax cut, spending increase, or other budget impacting decision.
Finally, while I can’t find a source, I’m pretty sure Tester wants to restore the top marginal income tax rate to the 39% rate it was at. That impacts people making $250,000 or so and up, but it would raise a ton of revenue. Tester would support extending other portions of the tax cuts that focus on the middle class.
| Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Never Never Never. Well, sometimes.
by Shane Mason on 12:34 am.
OK, a lot then.
Oh yeah. This is very real folks. Get the fact sheet here. Conrad, you got pwnd!
| Comments (6) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, political |
10/29/2006
Monday Tester Events
by Shane Mason on 11:02 pm.
If you are near any of the following locations on Monday and want to see Jon Tester, I would encourage you to do so. Just meeting him will help convince you that a vote for him is the right thing. These events are part of the Countdown For Change Tour, with stops all over Montana. Check for one near you and go down to show your support.
Miles City
7:00 a.m.
Breakfast
Eagles Club
24 N 8th Street
Forsyth
10:00 a.m.
Rally
Speedway Cafe
811 Main Street
Crow Agency
12:00 Noon
Rally
Apsaalooke Center
Multi-purpose Building
Lame Deer
3:00 p.m.
Rally
Charging Horse Casino
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, elections, political |
“The Truth”
by Matt Singer on 12:03 pm.
I generally like Sarpy Sam. He’s a cynic, but hell, we need cynics.
That said, I think this post of his is a bit over the top. It’s called “The Budget, Jon Tester, and The Truth” and it uses National Taxpayer Union Foundation stats to allege a giant spending increase by Tester. The full NTUF analysis is online. A few things that stick out. First, the NTUF alleges roughly $90 billion in increased expenditures by Tester. The three largest areas of increased expenditure?
- Health Care ($65 billion)
- National Security ($20 billion)
- Veterans ($3.2 billion)
After that, we literally start talking about very small amounts (at least in terms of relevance to the federal budget). It is also worth noting that $816 million of the “increased spending” is actually an education tax credit. If we’re counting decreasing tax revenues as increased spending, I’d imagine we’d see a wildly different budgetary impact on Burns’ side.
But let’s dive into health care, the biggest increased cost of Tester’s. Most of the programs here are of indeterminate cost and would probably cost relatively little, but there are two big items that would actually prompt significant savings: giving Medicare the power to negotiate prescription drug programs and the ability to reimport drugs from Canada. There was no effort to evaluate the cost of allowing prescription drug negotiation. The Center for Economic and Policy Research determined that such a measure could yield $563 billion in savings over a 7-year period. That’s roughly $79 billion a year — pretty huge to be considered “indetermine.”
What’s the big cost increase? Children’s health care. Tester thinks children should health coverage. I think that’s a pretty principled stance. So Tester proposes expanding the existing Children’s Health Insurance Program to make every child under age 18 eligible. Now, the NTUF estimates this cost at $64 billion a year. But their reasoning is based on estimates of costs of “MediKids” a Medicare like system for everyone up to the age of 21. I can’t even find where they calculate the cost of $64 billion per year, since CBO doesn’t appear to have done a fiscal analysis and the documents they cite are unclear about how they calculate cost. So, in other words, we just take their word on the cost of a different, but similar and larger program, and assume that they are being fair.
Why should we assume that? Sarpy Sam says they probably have an angle. It appears quite clear that they do. John Berthoud, the President of NTUF, is also affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, a far-right group that connects corporate benefactors with legislators and funds junkets for state policymakers who carry their water, and the Media Research Center, a rightwing anti-media outfit. NTUF appears to be a part of the rightwing infrastructure. Their interest is in electing Burns and opposing Tester. My interest is the opposite, but I don’t really hide that fact.
Regardless, their numbers are misleading. Tester’s health care promises include both significant savings and significant expenditures. I won’t pretend that’s not the case. But the truth is, the increased spending is virtually all going to three things:
- Health care for all children
- Increasing troop pay and benefits
- Making sure veterans benefits are never cut
Those are admirable goals. Tester’s savings might actually make his whole thing close to budget neutral. That doesn’t mean we won’t need to increase revenue. Hell, we currently need to increase revenue.
| Comments (24) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, policy, political |
Legislative races
by Shane Mason on 8:46 am.
As Matt noted last week, the legislative races are in the final stretch. Many of these races are important but have been overshadowed by the US senate race. The Helena IR is running a story on the battle for control of the legislature. Also, there is a thumbnail sketch of several of the key races.
As you go out next week to knock on doors and deliver literature for Tester and Lindeen, perhaps you can double you effort with one of these candidates.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, montana, political |
Really Really dirty little man
by Shane Mason on 1:25 am.
OK, I have not seen this article, but I heard a radio ad for Tester where Baucus talks about it. Then tonight I saw one of the Burns commercial that started it all. I will summarize it here:
Burns and Baucus. Baucus and Burns. Burns and Baucus. Baucus and Burns. Baucus Baucus Baucus, so vote Burns.
Heh, you’ld think they were best friends. Not so, it seems:
HELENA – Democratic Sen. Max Baucus cried foul Friday over Republican Sen. Conrad Burns and the national GOP using his name in advertisements and fliers that suggest he backs Burns over Jon Tester for the Senate.
“I don’t like it,†Baucus said in a phone interview. “It misleads Montana voters and it implies that I don’t support Jon Tester. I strongly support Jon Tester. I think he’s the better man.â€
Baucus said Burns has ignored a letter from his chief of staff and a phone call from Baucus asking him to refrain from using his name in the radio ads, which have now expanded to television.
Talk about a sniveling little man trying to piggyback on another’s record! The central message is: “Baucus is a senator and you like him. I am a senator too, so you must like me.”
“It’s very misleading,†Baucus said. “I’ve raised a lot of money for him (Tester). I think he’s going to be by far the better senator. He’s honest, he’s hard-working, he’s smart.â€
That’s all Burns has left folks. “You like Max because he is a good guy, so vote for me. I think that Tester should take Maxes radio message to the TV:
“You might have heard ads from Conrad Burns using my name. Well, let me be very clear: I support Jon Tester. I believe in Jon because he is a straight shooter, a real Montanan and just a good guy.â€
| Comments (14) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, democrats, dickhead, elections, montana, political |
10/28/2006
New Push Poll
by Matt Singer on 6:36 pm.
Just got off doors — going to take a nap, but please — details in comments if you’ve gotten called. I know several of you have. I’ll write up more later.
Thanks.
| Comments (41) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Coffee Talk
by Shane Mason on 3:30 pm.
OK, my friend Linda Richman is feeling a bit verklempt and asked that you discuss issues amongst yourself. She suggested some topics:
The Thighmaster was neither a thigh nor a master. Discuss.
Duran Duran was neither Duran nor Duran. Discuss.
I’ll suggest some of my own too.
We all know that the Republican’s have had a tremendous get-out-the-vote machine. Is it possible that there is an organized covert hamper-the-vote machine?
Another note: if this touted Republican get-out-of-the-vote machine is so good, why do Democrats trump Republicans among likely voters? Could it be that we are pissed off and republican corruption?
Former Bush administration official David Safavian gets 18 months in jail for assisting lobbyist crook Jack Abromoff. Matt McKenna ask if Burns is next. My guess? Any indictments are being held up until after the election.
My wife just got a push poll call from 1.703.961.8297 (Virginia) that was an obvious push poll. With all of these reported, shouldn’t our republican Secretary of State Brad Johnson do something about this? Maybe he is too busy making commercials? Wonder what he’ll be running for in 2 years?
The economy is slowing and The GDP falls. Is it possible that the Government tried to pull an Enron? In other news, Chevron is pulling in big money.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
