11/4/2006
Walking the floor…
by Shane Mason on 11:23 pm.
I am doing the modern day version of ‘Flowers on the Wall”.
Countin’ flowers on the wall
That don’t bother me at all
Playin’ solitaire till dawn with a deck of fifty-one
Smokin’ cigarettes and watchin’ Captain Kangaroo
Now don’t tell me I’ve nothin’ to do
I cleaned my garage today. Made two trips to the dump, where I saw the abortion plane flying around. Sat down at my computer 1353 times. Had no idea what to do so I did stuff like google for ‘watermelon’ or ‘how are aluminum cans made’. I go to google news and look at the headlines but can’t focus enough to read an entire article. I was entertained by the Insane Fisherman’s take on the Victory Rally. Watch TV for a few minutes, but my wife changes the channel every time a Burns commercial comes on. I have tried to write 234 posts here. I want to write something that will make this all be over and done with a happy ending. I can’t. My computer is simply not that powerfull.
We are though. Tomorrow I am going down to the dem headquarters to help canvas the neighborhoods, get out the damn vote. Tell people to get off their behinds and get down to the polls. Scott is doing it. Jay is doing it. Troutburst is doing it. Everyone is doing it. You do it too.
[update] Even if you don’t have a ‘local’ demo office, go out and talk to your neighbors, your family, folks at church. Be brave. I have a bumper sticker on my car that I think of often in this sort of situation:
| Comments (18) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, elections, political |
Dead Heat: I’m Off to Walk Doors
by Matt Singer on 9:21 am.
Mason-Dixon has the race as a dead heat: 47-47. The poll was in the field from October 31-November 2. The Rasmussen poll that had Tester up 4 was taken November 1. The Zogby poll showing it a 1 point race occured between October 24 and October 31.
The reality? We’re tied — at most, 1 or 2 points ahead — at worst, we’re down 1 or 2. It’s turnout now.
| Comments (56) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, democrats, elections |
11/3/2006
I’ll See Your Dog…
by Matt Singer on 4:38 pm.
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, democrats, elections |
Tester’s Independent Streak
by Matt Singer on 9:03 am.
One of the funny things about getting into an election is that some of the original reasons for doing it can get muddled along the way. Back in April or May of 2005, when chatter about Tester running for the Senate was heating up, I remember going over his voting scores from various interest groups and one of the things I liked was that he didn’t have a lifetime 100% from any of ‘em — including a couple that I’m a member of. He’d also broken with the Dems a couple times in high-profile ways. That’s something that an elected official needs to be willing to do. It needs to be for the right reasons (not lobbyist cash), of course, and it should be handled properly (in a way that is still respectful of those groups who represent real people and businesses and that respects the party and its members).
But the bigger reason why it was important was that sending someone to Washington, D.C., you need to have a Senator who is willing to even tell friends “No” occasionally.
The Gazette picks up that storyline today and dives into a number of Tester’s “independent” votes — a number of which I don’t agree with. I also am pretty sure I disagree with him on immigration and same-sex marriage. We’re a bit closer on taxes, although I’m still a bit to his left (even as I’m to the right — yes, I really am — of a number of Democrats). The Gazette story makes clear that Tester’s record when it comes to taxes is thoughtful — he supported some tax increases and some tax decreases, neither reflexively supporting revenue increases nor buying into the mindless mantra of “any money going to the government is a waste.”
Years ago, my father and I were backpacking together. Those always presented good opportunities for long conversations. In one of those conversations, my father explained what he looks for in candidates — people who think before they act, who have strong principles, and can provide sound justifications for their behavior. This memory may be muddled (as my dad would tell you, human memory is pretty fallible), but I think it is the gist of what he told me one night in the Beartooth Wilderness. My dad’s a moderate Republican, but he has supported Tester from close to the beginning. I think this independent streak goes a long way toward explaining it.
I chuckle occasionally as I read in national media about how Tester was the party’s “chosen one” in the primary, knowing that nothing could be further from the truth. They didn’t think he was a good enough fundraiser (aka “lapdog”). They didn’t think he was slick enough. To their good name, they got behind him quickly after the groundswell of support from real Montanans gave him an overwhelming primary victory. To their discredit, they now try to pretend that it was their maneuvering that resulted in Tester’s win, rather than the hard-work and dedication of a number of Montanans who wrote $20 checks and made 1,000s of phone calls to their fellow residents of this state.
The Montanans who did that — trust me, I know almost all of ‘em — aren’t going to ask Tester to be something that he isn’t. In fact, I think most of us will ask him to keep that independent streak, to occasionally disagree with us, and to even occasionally piss us off provided he doesn’t ever sell out to D.C.
There are five days left. We’ve got a chance to get a good man with an independent streak and the stones to back it up. He can stand up to interest groups — he’s done it before. He can stand up to party leadership — he’s done it before. He can even stand up to big money — he’s done it before. Perhaps more importantly, he can do it with some respect.
Back to work.
| Comments (18) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, democrats, elections |
11/2/2006
I just called to say…
by Shane Mason on 11:35 pm.
Remember that John Tester will be holding a “Rally for Change” along with Governor Scweitzer and Max Baucus at the Capitol Rotunda Friday at 10:00 am. Also, he will be in Bozeman with Baucus Saturday evening at 6:00 pm at the Wilson school gymnasium. While I was telling people that on the phones tonight, I had the good fortune to find Wulfgar on my call list. It is always good to chat with him.
Find the event near you here. Great Falls, Havre, Laurel, Red Lodge, Livingston, Townsend, Boulder, Hamilton, Missoula and Billings are still ahead.
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, political |
11/1/2006
The Case for Tester
by Matt Singer on 9:31 am.
The Billings Gazette has endorsed Jon Tester in a very solid piece:
In January 2004, as a leader of Montana Democrats, state Sen. Jon Tester held a press conference at which he advocated increased worker training, responsible development of natural resources, expanded employee health care and better funding for education.
As they point out, Tester led the Montana Dems to do precisely that as President of the Montana Senate. The Gazette reviews a bunch of Tester’s record, basically concluding that someone who lived up to his promises in Montana is more likely to be trusted than Conrad Burns. Great closing, too:
Tester has pledged that, if elected to the U.S. Senate, he will adhere to stricter ethical standards than Congress requires in reporting and refusing lobbyist gifts. Contrast that with Burns’ decision to celebrate his 71st birthday with a $2,000-per-person party at a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm. Or his choice in September to take the Vonage private jet from D.C. to Bigfork to his annual golf tournament. Nothing illegal in either case, but is that the image Montanans want their senator to present?For those Montanans who are appalled at the burgeoning national debt, concerned about U.S. foreign policy, alarmed that today’s spending will be paid for by our children and grandchildren and fed up with business as usual in Washington, D.C., Tester is a fresh alternative. Those who want change have an intelligent, hardworking, common-sense choice in voting for Jon Tester.
That’s two editorial boards coming down for Tester. Where will the rest cast their lot?
Change or more of the same?
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, democrats, elections |
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 |
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 |
10/26/2006
DSCC Has Tester Up 6
by Matt Singer on 4:09 pm.
48-42 with Burns at 39% approval.
| Comments (39) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, Front Page, democrats, elections |
10/25/2006
Crahing the States Diary
by Shane Mason on 4:13 pm.
Last week, three guys traveling across country blogging and filming a documentary called Crashing the States came through Montana. They stayed at our house for a few days while visiting with the Tester campaign. They were able to attend the debate in Great Falls AND watch V for Vendetta with me. What more could you want in life? You can read more about their visit here.
It is, in its essence, the heart of the Libertarian Democratic ideal–the idea that personal freedom, open space and opportunity are paramount, and any government policies that interfere with that ideal, whether they come from the left or the right, are unwelcome. The conservatives in these states are along the lines of the more traditional conservative–they do not buy into the new corporate-funded theocratic authoritarianism of the current manifestation of the Republican Party.
On their last day they interviewed my good buddy Craig and I at the General Merchantile. I thought the conversation went well, but we’ll have to see if it makes it into the movie. The best part of the whole thing to me? Craig gets his picture and quotes in the DailyKos!
We met up with bloggers on opposite ends of the political spectrum: On the left side, we had Shane, whom I have previously introduced; and on the other was Craig of MontanaPolitics. The discussion that ensued was very interesting, and Craig made a lot of interesting points concerning the nature of the political atmosphere in Montana. He agreed that Tester’s supporters were far more energized than Burns’, and that from his standpoint it was more likely that Tester would win.
But here again, Craig’s attitude says a lot about the rise of Libertarian Democracy in the state. Craig is a traditional conservative who doesn’t feel like he has a horse in the race. Craig talked about the fact that Burns is running ads that attack Tester for making the statement that he would repeal the Patriot Act. What Craig said that the Burns campaign apparently doesn’t understand is that among Montanans, the Patriot Act simply isn’t very popular because it is seen as an unnecessary intrusion of government power into the personal arena. And while Craig strongly disagrees with Shane and with Tester about the best way to solve America’s problems, he says that the national party didn’t seem to be interested in solving problems any more. Craig said that he didn’t view himself as a Republican–he viewed himself as a conservative, and that the Republican candidates still fit in with his views more often than not, but in the case of Bush and Burns, it was hard to see exactly what is so conservative about them.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, elections, montana, political |
10/23/2006
GOP Writing Burns Off?
by Shane Mason on 1:55 am.
First, I ask the question cautiously, because I want you to get out there and work for it. Burns is a damn good closer, else Schweitzer would be our senator right now. Tester needs your help now more than ever. Montana needs your help more than ever. Deliver literature, man the phones, convince your friends. Whatever you can do, please do it. Now is NOT the time to rest and celebrate. Please Please Please volunteer. Matt has made it easy for you, just fill out the form at the top-right part of the page and you will get an email letting you know how you can help.
With that said, has anyone seen any nationaly sponsored Burns ads on TV lately? Some analyst are already writing this race off, though I wouldn’t be so sure with the recent tightening poll numbers. I have seen plenty of advertisements for Tester from the DSCC, but nothing from the national party for Burns in a few weeks. With GOP races going to hell all over the map, have they lost confidence in Burns’s ability to pull this one off and refocusing their money on more winnable races?
Anything? Remember, Burns has a big war chest. Big enough to blitz the airwaves from now to November 8th. Nothing would make the old man and the crooked lobbyist friends snicker more than to pull off this victory. We need to shut him down on November 7th. Tester has done what he can, and he has done it well. It is in our hands now. Let’s do this!
| Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, democrats, elections, political |
10/21/2006
Michael J. Fox Ad
by V on 3:33 pm.
Kos had this up yesterday afternoon, but I only got to it today. This is a pretty powerful ad for Claire McCaskill in Missouri. I think it’s more powerful as an ad for stem cell research, generally. The religious handcuffing of policy and scientific research that will help millions of Americans has to stop.
Update — Pogie got here before me as well. Gosh, I am slow. It’s not just his age.
| Comments (15) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, democrats, ideologues, policy, political |
10/17/2006
Lindeen Brings One Home!
by Shane Mason on 11:05 pm.
I am listening to the Lindeen/Rehberg debate, thanks to Yellowstone public radio.
- Seniority: She starts out strong, explaining that WHEN the house changes hands, Rehberg has not shown that he can work with the folks across the aisle. This is a very important point.
- Healthcare: Rehberg has a dream that we will all some day have health care. Good, glad he has a dream, but we need someone working for us. Monica comes out on this with a message that it is time to get it done. Again, Rehberg brings up Medicare D as evidence that he ‘cares’. We all know what a disaster Medicare D is. Monica is so strong on this point, bringing a real populist message home: WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR PEOPLE. This is a message that gets lost in many debates and discussions, but Monica always carries it with her.
- Energy: Rehberg says that we need to get the poor people out of old cars and put them in new cars? This seems odd. How about we put them Hummers?
- Iraq: Rehberg claims that we are making great progress in Iraq again. I heard this at the Bozeman debate too. His idea is to say “We are doing good” and that’s enough. Monica calls him on his ’state of denial’ and give the figures to show it. She is very strong on these points.
- Lindeens question for Rehberg: “Confusion about your public access policy and wanting to sell off our public lands. How can you assure the people of Montana that you wont sell our land?” Rehberg claims that he never supported the Gibbons bill that would have sold our public lands. That is not what I remember. That isn’t what Monica remembers either, and she really calls him on the issue and his association with his libertarian buddies that would like to sell off all out public lands.
- Rehbergs question to Lindeen: “What is the funniest thing that has happened to you on the campaign trail?” Not a bad question, to be sure. She tells a cute story about some folks and a donkey in Fishtail. Rehberg also tells a funny story that goes over pretty well.
- They call Rehberg on the fact that the Republicans in this congress have done a poor job of balancing budgets. He takes a page from Burns’s playbook where he blames it on ‘disasters’ outside of his control and says the tax cuts to the wealthy will help pull us out of it. Monica attacks the ‘borrow and spend’ approach that congress has taken. She reminds us that this type of reckless behaviour is a ‘birth tax’, creating a $30,000 debt for each child born.
The problems I had with Rehberg in the last debate come back to haunt me here: Why is Rehberg campaigning as a Democrat? His message and delivery borders believable, but those of us in the know realize that it is an act. His record does not stand up to scrutiny of the person he is trying to portray himself as. When a persons actions and words do not match up, we have to go by their actions.
My overall thoughts that are, while Rehberg continues to be smooth, Lindeen certainly won this debate. Both on the message (which I am biased to) and on the presentation. I am not the only one who thinks so. Again, Monica brought a strong populist message to the discussion. The more I know of her, the more I am sure that this is a lady who really cares about the people of Montana and our best interests. This is what we need. We need representatives who are there to represent the PEOPLE of Montana. We need a representative whose actions match up with their words. We need Monica Lindeen.
Please contribute through the ‘Act Blue’ link above. Go to Lindeen.net and volunteer to help. It’s your future.
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, elections, montana, political, republicans |
Live Debate Notes
by Shane Mason on 8:11 pm.
I was not able to attend the debate in Billings tonight, but I am listening to it live on Yellowstone Radio. You can catch it here.
- I have been to several debates, and listened to or watched the others. Burns is by far the least coherent and and most distracted sounding here.
- In the questions to one another, Tester stung Burns pretty hard on Abromoff. Burns’s question was lame and contained bad facts about the Bull Mt coal mine. The noise from the audience again indicates that far more Tester supporters came out than Burns supporters.
- Over and over again, Tester hits on the beurocracy and culture of corruption that surrounds Burns and Washington. This is a positive point that can’t be overmade.
- Again, Burns takes the Republican talking points on Iraq. THEN, he says he agrees with Warner. Tester thanks Burns for coming over to his side on the issue. Burns just did an about face on his Iraq strategy? Burns says Bush has a plan, he just doesn’t want to tell us what it is! Tester hits that strategy pretty hard when the question gets carried over. In my honest opinion, this is the strongest I have seen Tester. ‘There is a plan, but were not going to tell you Jon, because you will just go out there and blow it.’ Burns gets confused when it is Testers time to talk. When they finally get the old guy to understand, Tester reminds that this administrations only plan is to pass the war on to the next president. This is possibly one of the most important moments in the debates this year, and I missed it!
- If it wasn’t for earmarks and pork-barrel politics, Burns would have nothing to campaign on. He still hits this ‘You can’t send junior senators to Washington’ stance he so often takes. Does he advocate that the senate should be a lifelong appointment? Tester reminds him again that it isn’t HIS money, it belongs to the taxpayers. Burns says he would support a balanced budget law for the federal government, but where would the earmarks go? Tester calls him on the fact that he had voted AGAINST a balanced budget already. That pretty much makes Burns look like, oh, a liar.Burns
- Burns says “Mr Tester I would caution you to be cautious about how you use certain terms up here. Very cautious”. What does this mean? Any ideas? Is it a threat?
- Burns again mentions the ‘16000 small businesses’ that he claims Tester raised taxes on. Tester calls him on this, I have yet to hear Burns back this claim up when he gets called on it. Why doesn’t anyone force him to back this up? He makes the claim, the owness is on him to back it up.
- Burns’s closing statement rambles like a country road. Something about someone in New York taking your guns? He gets pretty good applause, so it is difficult to gauge the crowed makeup still.
- Tester’s closing remarks are stong as usual. “You want to talk about honesty? My God is it time for a change.” His applause is huge, so I would guess that numbers are similiar to the other debates. Yes, they are PUMPED UP! and SO AM I! w00t!
Jason at Intelligent Discontent has some quick debate notes. He points out that Burns got to break the rules and respond out of turn twice. I will have coverage of the Lindeen debate tomorrow.
| Comments (17) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, democrats, elections, republicans |
Why Not Censor Both Sides?
by Shane Mason on 2:12 pm.
According to a Helena IR article brought up by a commenter, local station across Montana are pulling a commercial produced by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee because of inaccuracies in the ad. The article did not mind letting Eric Iverson spout his vitriolic sentiments:
“It’s like Jon Tester and his liberal thug friends have been lying about Conrad and his family for over a year now,” Erik Iverson, senior adviser to the Burns’ campaign. “This is a desperate ad that was designed to help a desperate, faltering candidate. Montana TV stations realized the ad for what it is - a lie.”
If the ad contains lies, it should be changed. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course, no one is pulling any of Burns’s out and out lying ads. Look at the infamous patriot act ad. Full of lies and half truths about both Jon Testers position and the act itself.
While the Tester campaign can not comment on third party ads, Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, does point out why the ad might be accurate:
“Senator Burns can hire as many D.C. lawyers as he likes to gloss over his record but he can’t change the basic fact that he voted for this legislation which cut Byrne grants and other programs that help fight meth,” Singer said. “Instead of hiding behind his lawyers and playing politics, Senator Burns should stop standing in the way of law enforcement’s efforts to combat the spread of this drug.”
| Comments (11) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, democrats, dickhead, elections, montana, overreach, political, republicans |
10/14/2006
A Really Dangerous Man
by Shane Mason on 11:48 pm.
A commenter yesterday reminded me of a man who, were he not marginalized, would be one of the most dangerous men in the state. Rick Jore is running for House District 12 again under the Constitution Party. He once held this position as a republican, before he decided they were not extreme enough for him. I wont spend a lot of time telling you about what makes him such a bad man, I’ll let him do that for me.
From his website
I will oppose all federal funds appropriated for education.
Just as I opposed CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) in the 1999 legislature, I will continue to oppose similar programs.
I will not support legislation to fund any scheme that is labeled “economic development.” I opposed all of the “jobs and income” proposals in the last session and I will continue to do so.
Yes, you read it right. Rick Jore opposes federal funding for education, health insurance for underprivileged children and economic development programs for Montana. So, let’s look at this in more detail by examining his answers to the Project Vote Smart questionnaire:
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for higher education
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for high schools
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for elementary schools
- Rick Jore would greatly decrease funding for the environment
- Rick Jore would decrease funding for law enforcement
- Rick Jore would decrease funding for highways
- Rick Jore would eliminate funding for health care
- Rick Jore would eliminate funding for welfare
- Rick Jore does not support any type of campaign finance controls
- Rick Jore does not support programs to provide prison inmates with vocational and job-related skills
- Rick Jore does increasing state funding for community centers and other social agencies in areas with at-risk youth
- Rick Jore does not support increasing state funding for state and local emergency agencies to prevent or respond to terrorism
- Rick Jore does not support increasing state funding for state and local emergency agencies to prevent or respond to terrorism
- Rick Jore does not support the restriction of the sale of products used to make methamphetamine
- Rick Jore does not support the Montana Meth Project and similar initiatives
- Rick Jore does not promote increased use of alternative fuel technology
Seriously, this stuff goes on and on. What can you do to help? Support Jeanne Windham in her bid for reelection to HD 12. Donate to the Montana Legislative Campaign Committee through the Act Blue link above. Contact the state democratic party of Jeanne Windham to see what you can do to help.
| Comments (31) | Permanent Link | Categories: '08, ballot initiatives, democrats, dickhead, ideologues, punitive |
10/13/2006
Rasmussen Still Has Tester Up By 7
by Matt Singer on 12:21 pm.
Rasmussen’s latest has it as a 7-point race: 49-42 (last poll was 50-43) with Tester up. When leaners are included, it goes to 50-44. 91% of Tester voters say their vote won’t change. Only 81% of Burns’ supporters say the same. Meanwhile, Rasmussen has Tester pulling 96% of self-identified Democrats and Burns only pulling 82% of self-identified Republicans. Tester leads 2-1 among independent voters.
These numbers have been holding steady for months now. It’s still up in the air as we wait to see how things break in the closing weeks as voters’ attention really returns to the race.
| Comments (16) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, Front Page, democrats, elections |
10/11/2006
Where are the real conservatives?
by Shane Mason on 11:35 am.
Where are the small c conservatives? Where are these defenders of personal freedom? You know, the traditional conservatives with their ideas of restrained governmental authority? The ones with the view that the constitution reigns supreme and must be protected at all costs? Their silence is almost deafening.
From the United States Constitution
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
What does Habeas Corpus really mean though? Is it important?
The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.
That seems pretty damn important to me. Our founding fathers remembered and experienced times when a tyranical government jailed (without trial) its detractors rather than dealing with the issues they raised. Is there any more of assault on a free society than a government with powers like that?
Much of America might not have noticed that the night before the Mark Foley case broke, our congress passed a bill that essentially removed our rights to Habeas Corpus. Does it seem like I am overstating a bit?
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: The bill before us would not merely suspend the great writ—the great writ—the writ of habeas corpus, it just eliminates it permanently.
As Keith Olbermann points out, most the other ‘rights’ in the Constitution are meaningless without the Writ of Habeas Corpus. For instance, what does the freedom of speech mean if you can be detained without trial? Consider the fourth ammendment, protection against illegal search a seizure. What meaning can that have without Habeas Corpus? Is this not enough evidence to show that something has gone terribly wrong in congress and with our executive branch? Should this not transcend the traditional your side/ our side argument?
Where is the outrage? I hear it from our side, but nothing from them. Had this suspension of our constitutional rights come under a democrat, would we have heard about it? The silence is deafening. They are the ones who have based their platforms on constrained government and the supremecy of personal liberties. Why the silence now?
| Comments (31) | Permanent Link | Categories: democrats, overreach, political, republicans |
10/9/2006
Differences Between Lindeen and Rehberg
by Shane Mason on 1:30 pm.
Wow, Jennifer McKee is really on the ball. She has turned out another one. This time is is about the differences in Rehberg and Lindeen.
Rehberg said the nation doesn’t need to raise taxes to pay for the war in Iraq.
“Taxes do not need to be raised,†he said. “We looked at this very closely. You have to have a plan. There isn’t a farmer or a rancher or somebody in business who doesn’t carry a certain level of debt. Where you get in trouble is when your debt is not manageable.â€
This debt? Hell, we can just pass it on to our kids, no problem there. They can’t vote yet so what do we care? Now that’s a plan I can get behind. Read all about it here.
| Comments (14) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Dennis Rehberg, democrats, elections, montana, political |
