11/1/2006
They Are The Dividers…
by Shane Mason on 12:00 am.
President Bush will be here later this week to stump for Conrad Burns. Is he coming here as the decider? The uniter? No, he coming as the divider. Here is a preview from speeches he has made this week:
“When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer? It’s just say no. When it come to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats’ answer Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer? Just say no. When it comes to trying terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer. Just say no.â€
He is not saying ‘the Republican plan to keep America safe is better than the Democrats’. What he is saying here is that we want the terroris to succeed. We want to see American lives lost. This isn’t how we work together, this is how we marginalize 50% of the American population.
“The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses.â€
I could point out that with over 100 Americans killed in Iraq this month, his approach to Iraq is working out really poorly. I am not saying that he wants us to fail. I am simply pointing out that he is incapable of a coherent strategy. There is a difference here. I am not questioning his motivation as he questions all democrats.
You can say that my ideas are wrong and I will have an active and spirited debate with you on that. However, if you question my motivations or patriotism then the debate is off the table and a fight is on the table. Too often that is what it comes down to from both sides and it is simply not OK. We have heard it time and again from this president and Conrad Burns. I hear it echoed here from thoughtless commenters “The democrats want us to fail in Iraq“. No, we don’t want to see people die. We don’t want to hear the death tolls everyday. If that was our goal we would not be trying to force a strategy, we would let Bush’s ’secret’ plan continue. Failure is where that secret plan is headed.
We want America to succeed with its values intact: the values of acceptance, equality and all the right granted us in the constitution. We want us to be the nation that works together to solve it’s problems. We don’t want to be a country that marginalizes 50% of it’s population. We want to be a country called The United States of America. We are done with dividers, we want uniters. We are taking our country back and we are starting on Tuesday.
| Comments (17) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, dickhead, elections, ideologues, montana, political, republicans |
10/27/2006
Broken Government
by Shane Mason on 8:31 am.
If you haven’t been watching the CNN series Broken Government this week, you need to. It is an excellent review of the last 6 years. Tonight’s episode was a great discussion on the grab of executive power and overreach in the last several years. It is an eye opening experience to me. For instance, I had no idea that Dick Cheney’s lifelong goal has been an expansion in executive power. Video footage doesn’t lie and this policy of imperial executive goes back to his time in Richard Nixon. It shows views from both sides, but the truth is obvious.
In light of recent expressions by ABC that it openly favors conservative views based on the Fox model, it is nice to see a news channel looking at the truth. If you watch this and say that it is liberal biased, that’s because you havn’t had you eye open for the last 6 years or maybe the truth hurts.
| Comments (13) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, elections, ideologues, overreach, political, republicans |
10/25/2006
Conrad Burns: Kicked Back, With His Mind on His Money and His Money and His Mind
by Matt Singer on 9:39 am.
This morning’s Missoulian:
A new accounting review shows, among other things, the organization’s chief executive received three different salaries at the same time. And one of the company’s former employees said in a Missoulian interview that staff members were expected to contribute to Burns’ re-election campaign.
Multiple salaries? Expectations to send money back to Burns?
Why that all sounds corrupt as Hell to me. This whole expectation of feudal loyalty smacks of Resodyn buying debate seats and guaranteeing them for Burns’ supporters.
Can we rename Burns’ office Tamany Hall?
As another note, I have no real idea whether there was ever an explicit agreement between George Bailey and Burns or Burns’ staff to kickback these federal appropriations to Burns’ reelection campaign. I do know that a man, who when discussing federal appropriations would howl, “That’s my money. My outpatient clinics,” is a man who has so thoroughly lost touch with reality and all sense of decency that demanding favors in exchange for how he uses his power to earmark our money certainly isn’t outside the realm of possibility.
It’s his money after all. It belongs in his campaign coffers.
Also worth noting, Lee Newspapers is doing an analysis of whether Burns really is bringing major money into the state (notably, all of the Lee papers are running this Burns story, only the Missoulian appears to be reporting on the INSA corruption developments). They singled out Burns’ Butte claims and found that he does bring money to the state. They also found that some of the money Burns claims he brought to Montana went elsewhere, that former staffers of his turned lobbyists had a hand in much of it (can we all say “revolving door” together?), and 80% of the money Burns is claiming he secured was also requested by Baucus, so it’s tough to give exclusive credit.
Notably, Burns is doing these things when these companies hire his former staff as lobbyists. I’ve written it before, but it appears I’ll have to write it again. I’m not really sure how much Burns is a part of this, but it appears some Republicans long ago figured out a game: find a dumb man on the appropriations committee, work for him for several years and line up approps for his former staffers turned lobbyists, when you leave to start your lobbying career just find a replacement who will do the same for you. Make it easier the Senator’s new staff by mostly finding your clients in the Senator’s home state. Then, charge Montanans high prices for access to their own Senator. That’s a damn good way to make a living.
In fact, it’d be about $20 million they’ve made via our Senator, their former boss.
Tamany Hall
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, Front Page, corrupt, dickhead |
10/22/2006
Did Burns reveal the secret plan?
by Shane Mason on 2:00 pm.
As I mentioned earlier, in the recent Billings debate between Jon Tester and Conrad Burns, Burns claimed that Bush has a secret plan for victory in Iraq. While this is amusing on one hand, it is disturbing because thousands of American troops have died in Mr Bush’s war. Past that, an estimated 650,000 Iraqi’s have died at the hands of a ’secret plan’ that Bush isn’t going to share with us.
(It occurred to me that everyone might not know about the ‘Secret Plan Declaration’, see it over at the Ravings of An Insane Fisherman)
Is it possible that Mr Burns gave the real secret plan away? While defending the strategy of ‘win at all costs’ at the Helena debate, Burns said this
It is the best interests of the United States, it’s the best interests of the Middle East. After all, this is the first time that we can change the economic culture of the Middle East, and do it in a country that has the wherewithal to get it done.
So, it’s all about money? There was no mention of what was best interest for the Iraqi people (democracy?), only the economic interest. Is that what it is all about Conrad? Were you supposed to tell us that, or did you blow the secret plan? Just so you remember what is at stake here, look at the headlines:
35 die in new Iraq violence
Bombings, shootings kill 32 in Iraq
Military Families Cope With Increase Of Iraq Violence
Iraq’s violence heading toward two-year high
Bush admits Iraq violence echoes Vietnam during Tet
Limbaugh: Recent Iraq violence shows “terrorists have voted Democrat”
| Comments (8) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Conrad Burns, elections, foreign, ideologues, iraq, political, republicans |
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 |
10/20/2006
They were waiting for him…
by Shane Mason on 9:38 pm.
Great coverage again from Intelligent Discontent. Here is part one. That implies there will be a part two?
The Tester campaign is fighting back on Burns’s lie hardcore. Now, if the Montana press would do their duty to the state of Montana and report these lies and half-truths. Here is one on senator Burns and ethics.
I noted in my blog coverage that Burns was still repeating the old lines. Seems like the Tester campaign was ready for them. Impressively, they cover most of the lies that I noted in the debate. Everything from Pell Grants and increased taxes to this:
When asked about priorities for spending, Burns said he starts with national defense, yet he has already cast devastating votes against providing our troops with adequate armor.Burns Failed to Provide Armored Humvees to Soldiers.
In October 2005, Burns voted against $360.8 million “to rebuild the Army’s stocks of up-armored Humvees.†[Vote #248, 10/5/05; Bayh Press Release, 10/5/05]
Read it here.
For a good out-of-state view of the debate on the DailyKos. These guys are passing through through on the ‘Crashing The State’ tour. Check them out.
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, elections, montana, political, republicans |
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 |
10/16/2006
Republican’s are corrupt. Just sayin’.
by Shane Mason on 7:52 pm.
Anyone ever tire of this kind of stuff? I do. In fact, it is wearing quiet thin.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon denied helping his lobbyist daughter win lucrative contracts on Monday, just hours after federal agents searched her home and that of a party activist.
[snip]
A U.S. law enforcement official said the Justice Department “is conducting an investigation into the relationship between Congressman Weldon with his daughter and various contractors.
How long until they blame this one on Clinton? The democrats at least? Oh? Not too long.
Weldon said the timing of the disclosure of the inquiry was politically aimed at undermining his bid for re-election next month to an 11th term. He is in tight race with Democrat Joe Sestak.
Isn’t that wearing a bit thin? A bit thin indeed. I could go on a long rant here, but I am a bit tired of our government being turned into a joke. It is wearing very thin and it is time for a change. It is time for a change in Montana, it is time for a change in Washington.
| Comments (79) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, corrupt, elections, political, republicans |
The Ultimate Campaign Commercial
by Shane Mason on 6:47 pm.
If you have not see The Ultimate Democratic Campaign Commercial over at the Huffington Post, you should go watch it now. Seriously, it will give you the chills.
The thing that I liked the most was the usage of music and scenes from the movie ‘V For Vendetta’. If you have not seen this movie, it is one of the most inspirational films of our times.
| Comments (11) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, '08, corrupt, elections, ideologues, 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 |
10/11/2006
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
Bigotry and All of What Isn’t
by V on 11:44 pm.
I stopped by the puppet show tonight and stumbled onto an interesting attack on the Governor. I am a bit flummoxed. Let’s take a little look, shall we?
Miss Right believes that Schweitzer’s recent request that the voters of Montana send some rational folks to help him is an affront to her and a blotch on the escutcheon of Montana’s highest office. The reality of the situation just doesn’t bear it out, though.
Schweitzer asked a crowd at a dedication if any of them seriously believed the Earth was 4000 years of age or under. Friendly Neighbor Koopman happened to be in the audience and–either feeling extremely saucy or mightily righteous–held his hand firmly in the air and, as Miss Right puts it, “stood up for his beliefs.”
In an interview with the Bozeman Daily Chronicle later that day, Schweitzer called out Koopman’s response, claiming he didn’t need people in the Montana Legislature “who think the Earth is 4,000 years old,†but rather people who will “help move Montana’s agenda forward.â€
She goes on to say that Montana’s agenda does not include bigotry against the religious and…hold on…bigotry? Is that really what we are going to call bigotry these days? A political figure sinks a punch on another political figure, and that is bigotry? Oh wait. I know what it is. Its because he implied that the religious are irrational* when they refuse to believe that the Earth has been around for longer than 4000 years despite all reason and evidence to the contrary.
Oddly, Schweitzer did not say this. He merely said that it would be nice to have some solid ground to start from with the legislature. The rest of the post misses its mark on largely these grounds. That is, at no point did the Governor attack religion, religious feelings or mores, or anything of the sort.
Moreover, the American political system encourages voters to have many and varied reasons for electing any given representative. It also encourages political figures to comment on political races, policy and politics. It is odd to hear from one side of a mouth that we oughta select our representatives based on their similarities to us and from the other hear a criticism of someone trying to show us those similarities or the lack thereof.
What the heck is wrong with a governor calling for legislators that support his ideas? Likely, anyone that doesn’t share those feelings will just ignore him, unless they are too busy being outraged.
This post caught my eye because it refuses to draw any distinction between hosts of ideas that really should be differentiated. A few examples include: philosophy and religion are not interchangeable words, not every religious person is also creationist, creationism and intelligent design are not really the same, even if they share important features, a request that constituents vote for folks that don’t utterly disregard the world in front of them is not the same as religious bigotry or even religious intolerance.
Finally, and my personal favorite, one political figure attacking another of the opposite party for being irrational, unreasonable, or even just claiming those things is not out of the ordinary and it’s not wrong either. IT IS understandably difficult to come to terms with a 100,000 year problem when you are arguing with someone who believes existence as we know it to be a phenomena of only 4% of that span. If you believe that global warming is a bigger problem, Roger Koopman might not be the representative for you. Honestly.
*It occurred to me that I should probably drop a line in here about rationality. Rationality is just a way of saying judgment with basis. Religion and more specifically faith are not usually rational because they require a belief in the unprovable per se. Do not mistake this post for an attack on religiosity, or infer that I take the religious to be unthinking. I don’t, and anyone would be a fool to think that.
| Comments (18) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page, philosophy, religion, republicans |
10/7/2006
Burns Flip Flops on Public Access
by Shane Mason on 1:40 am.
Many of you might remember when Burn’s struck a blow against access to public lands in order to help out a rich buddy. Rancher Mac White wanted to build a road across public lands so that he could access his private lands. The problem is, he didn’t want to allow the road to be used for public access to the public lands it crossed. The forest service has a notion of reciprocity (essentially “We grant you access to your land and you grant us access to our public land”) So, the ranch owner hired a lobbyist and Burn’s stepped in on his buddies side.
Then Sen. Conrad Burns included an item in an appropriation bill from his Senate committee directing the chief of the Forest Service to accept administrative access only on the Big Elk Canyon proposed road, whereby only Forest Service employees on official business could use the road - not the public.
Is this an abuse of power or what? Well, now it looks like he is flip flopping on that position:
HELENA — Sen. Conrad Burns may ax a provision he added to a bill earlier this year that allows a friend and campaign contributor to build a private road across public lands near the Crazy Mountains — a move that angered some because it did not create equal public access to nearby public lands.
He now claims that this language was just inserted as a placeholder while the parties worked out their differences on the issue.
The announcement came as news to both local Forest Service officials who handled the earlier negotiations, and the state’s largest hunting and fishing group, which opposed Burns’ provision.
The Montana Wildlife Federation has not been contacted by Burn’s office to be part of the discussion, said executive director Craig Sharpe.
Doesn’t look like he is trying to see the differences worked out. Why would he have added the language in the first place? Why choose a single rich buddy over the public of Montana?
White has long been a campaign contributor to Republicans, including Burns. Records show White has donated $2,050 to Burns since at least 1994. His most recent donation came on May 30 this year, about a month before a committee of which Burns serves as chairman released a copy of the bill that included the provision for White’s road.
Now that he is trailing in the polls, he suddenly cares about public access? I’ld say not so much. We need a senator who will look out for our interest all six years, not just the month before the election. Jon Tester is the clear choice for those of us who think that public access to public land is important.
Thanks to Jennifer McKee for writing such an insightful piece on this.
| Comments (14) | Permanent Link | Categories: Conrad Burns, corrupt, dickhead, political, republicans |
10/2/2006
Hastert Continues to Play Politics in the Foley Scandal; Where Does Rehberg Stand?
by Matt Singer on 1:29 pm.
Rep. Dale Kildee is the only Democrat on the House Page Board. He was never informed of the emails between Rep. Mark Foley and the underage former pages. He’s also now being kept out of the loop on changes to page policy being proposed by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the same man who dropped the ball on protecting the children.
Similarly, a Republican consultant working for Mark Foley apparently worked really hard to keep those IMs from ever becoming public, because, y’know, Foley’s reputation is a damn bit more important than what he was doing to teenagers.
This is sick. The Republican leadership used their power to cover for their partisan interests in a sex predator scandal. Now, they’re continuing to operate in a partisan fashion. Hastert needs to go. Rehberg is one of the men with the power to make that happen.
Find out where he stands:
D.C. (202) 225-3211
Billings (406) 256-4934
Great Falls (406) 454-1066
Helena (406) 443-7878
Missoula (406) 543-9550
If you hear what Rehberg thinks of Republican leadership staying in power, let me know, either by email (singer@leftinthewest.com) or in comments.
| Comments (19) | Permanent Link | Categories: Dennis Rehberg, Front Page, corrupt, republicans |
Iverson Rallies the Faithful, Lies To ‘Em
by Matt Singer on 10:12 am.
Erik Iverson can’t help but lie.
He recently claimed that “there is no federal investigation,” despite the fact that while Senator Burns may not (yet) be a target of that investigation, there assuredly is one (the investigation, in fact, has already resulted in multiple guilty pleas).
Now, he’s sending out a message to Burns’ supporters trying to rally the troops and he’s lying to do it:
Right now, there’s no question we are in a much better position than we were six years ago.
Really? Iverson goes on to cite some late game poll numbers from 2000 to imply that Burns was worse off at this point than he is now. That’s simply not the case.
In the September 2000 Mason-Dixon poll (the equivalent poll to the one that just had Tester up by 7), Burns led Schweitzer 48-39. In fact, only one Mason-Dixon poll had Burns down and that was by a mere 1 point in the late October period where Iverson claims they rebounded from down 9.
In other words, Iverson is lying again, comparing bad poll numbers, misconstruing time frames, etc.
He also claims their internal polls show better numbers for Burns. Whatever. When Mini Me stops lying so much, maybe I’ll see some reason to believe him.
| Comments (14) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Front Page, elections, republicans |
INSA Investigation Continues; Lobbying Firm Under Scrutiny
by Matt Singer on 9:22 am.
Buried in a story on larger university lobbying trends:
Critics say the system is ripe for abuse, and is simply big-time pork for colleges. One of the lobbying firms has drawn the attention of the FBI, specifically for its work for the University of Montana. The FBI continues to poke around the university’s federally funded space research center - and its earmark fundingLegislative auditors confirmed that federal investigators came back recently with more questions about the center, and specifically asked for information the auditors had on the activities of the lobbying firm Gage, which employed Sen. Conrad Burns’ former chief of staff, Leo Giacometto.
Giacometto is a slimeball. He’s used his connection with Burns’ office to line up millions for clients and for himself.
So depraved.
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page, corrupt, republicans |
10/1/2006
Dennis Rehberg Hates Freedom Of Speech
by Shane Mason on 12:05 pm.
I am not sure how this story has slipped through the cracks, but it has. Last week, H.R. 2679: Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 passed a US House vote, one of those votes came from Dennis Rehberg. In keeping with the current push to name bills the opposite of what they are, this bill is not about allowing more rights but about taking away your recourse to fight back when your rights have been trampled. Let’s look at the bill:
Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 - Amends the Revised Statutes of the United States to limit the remedy to injunctive relief and deny attorneys’ fees in a civil action against a state or local official for deprivation of rights where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion.
The purpose of this bill is simple: if a state or local official violates your rights by ignoring the separation of church and state, you are limited in having the wrongful behavior stopped and you can not go for attorney fees. This is serious, let’s look at what ‘injunctive relief’ means:
injunctive relief
n. a court-ordered act or prohibition against an act or condition which has been requested, and sometimes granted, in a petition to the court for an injunction. Such an act is the use of judicial (court) authority to handle a problem and is not a judgment for money.
So, what does this bill mean when it says limit the remedy to injunctive relief? Is it taking away the courts ability to remedy a situation where the state is violating a persons religious freedom under the constitution? It looks to me like Rehberg will just vote for whatever the corrupt republican leadership tells him to.
The current republican congress has shown time and again that they are all for taking away our freedoms and replacing them with a Telaban-style theocracy. We need desperately need representation in Washington who will look out for our rights. We need Monica Lindeen and we need her fast.
| Comments (16) | Permanent Link | Categories: '06, Dennis Rehberg, censorship, corrupt, elections, ideologues, montana, overreach, political, religion, republicans |
9/30/2006
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 |
