Another Tough But Fair Campaign Mailer in the Flathead

It turns out that GOP candidate from Columbia falls Jerry O’Neil in his hiatus from the legilature is up to no good. Several run-ins with the law according to the North Valley PAC, which has posted one side of the mailer and the source material online:

The PAC sent a mailer which detailed the run-ins, which reads, on the other side:

JERRY O’NEIL, candidate for House District 3,
has a long record of run-ins with the law—

Held in Contempt of Court (stood trial and was found guilty November, 2004, Lake County court)

Charged with Practicing Law Without a License (cited by Supreme Court commission, 2001)

Abuse of an Elder / Exploitation of an Incapacitated Elder / Trespassing
(issued formal warnings by the State, March 2010; ordered to cease and desist his conduct)

O’Neil is running against Zac Perry for the Columbia Falls house seat, House District 3.

Posted: October 10, 2010 at 6:17 am

18 thoughts on “Another Tough But Fair Campaign Mailer in the Flathead

  1. Farmboy

    Yes the mailer is tough but its the truth and there is no liable or slander in it just truth. But as an observer looking in on Flathead politics it looks to me this season that it is a bare knuckles blood sport. Between the district four race for leg, being between a nazi and Hammerquist, district three race between a law breaker and Zac Perry and the county commission race where one group claims that a county commissioner who is also a dairy farmer said property rights are silly, when what he was saying was a legislative bill was silly, and all the little groups, its a war of the extremes up there. So how can a place that is so beautiful and with such nice people have such wack jobs?

  2. Farmboy

    I dont get that, a nuclear power plant on the Eastern side of the state just because we have no mountains doesnt mean Eastern Montana is a waste land, in fact it is just as pretty as the western side its just a different kind of beauty. Plus the ammount of water it would take to do a nuclear plant in Eastern Montana would be astronomical, hell he’d end up draining Flathead Lake for the Eastern Montana nuclear plant and then where would Denny and his buddies go to do their drunk boating? Skees is an extreamist wack job and he needs to be defeated and sent back to Florida both him and the horse he rode in on.

    1. Moorcat

      Farmboy,

      Please leave comments about how nuclear plants and thier requirements to those of us that really know something about them.

      There is plenty of water for a nuclear site (on either side of the state). I have no idea why Skees would want one on the east side of the state (other than to spur economic growth there and to avoid the predominately environmentalist control on much of the western half of Montana) but a nuclear plant – anywhere – has some definite advantages in today’s world.

      I have a great deal of knowledge in this field and would be happy to relate it to anyone that is interested. A nuclear plant is viable but the startup is incredibly expensive, in part due to the massive amount of misinformation bandied about by people like Farmboy.

      I think there is a beauty to be found in most parts of Montana (it is one of the reasons I returned home instead of continued to persue well paid employment on the coast). That said, don’t discount nuclear power because you don’t understand it.

      1. Farmboy

        Fine Moorcat put the water issue aside, what do you do with the waste? And have you ever heard of three mile island? Or Chyrnoble in Russia? And would you want a nuclear power plant in your back yard around your kids dude?

      2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!

        Moorcat, correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my understanding that nuclear power is/has been/always will be an economic loser. The ONLY reason that nuclear power was subsidized so heavily early on was to show people not to fear nuclear. After the Japanese blasts, people had an understandable fear of nuclear anything. Hence, the HUGE govt. subsidies to get nuclear power plants on line. Please correct me if I’m wrong since you’re the resident expert here. But it seems to me from what I’ve read that nuclear is much like the Skeester himself, a loser all the way around. But I DO love the little Skeeser coming to Montana, “our” state according to the little pissant, and informing the folks in eastern Montana how he’s gonna save them with nuklyeear! He’s an arrogant bastard for sure. Not real bright, but arrogant!

      1. Cowgirl Post author

        Perfect. If SKees wasn’t such a NIMBY, he would advocate for the nuclear plan in his home state of Florida, other than that, Kalispell it is. Hey, one good point to him living outside the district I guess.

  3. Moorcat

    So many questions, so little time to answer…. I will do my best to answer as fully as I can without trying to explain the ins and outs of a nuclear site.

    First, the question of waste is actually one of the least significant questions in the development, construction and operation of a nuclear site. The waste production in a nuclear site is far smaller, much easily handled and much less expensive to deal with than from a coal, gas or oil fired site.

    Second, not only have heard of TMI (three mile island), I read the classifed report on the incident and would venture to say I probably understand it a hell of a lot better than most people who post here. TMI was an accident that occured because a multitude of errors were made a large number of people. Since then, there have been a lot of changes to how nuclear plants are build, managed and overseen to ensure that that combination of events can’t ever happen again.

    Third to Larry – the short answer is Yes… and No. The actually construction of a nuclear plant is fairly inexpensive, believe it or not. What is expensive is A) getting the approval to build the plant, B) fighting all the suits to stop the construction of the plant C) all the political capitoal to overcome A and B, and D) hiring knowledgable and competant employees. Training to run a nuclear a site is NOT cheap and the government imposed restrictions on those individuals makes it more expensive.

    The bottom line here is that nuclear power can be utilized safely and effectively – especially while we strive for some better alternative to fossil fuels but because of mis-information and outright ignorance, we simply don’t, and when we do, it is almost prohibitively expensive because of the fear associated with it. I would remind you that the US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors for decades with a PERFECT safety record and they have logged more full power hours than all the private reactors in the world put together.

    One last thing.. if you think that the other forms of power production in the US are not government subsidized, you are fooling yourself. They most certainly are.

  4. Moorcat

    Oh, I forgot to mention Chernobyl..

    First, to understand what happened at Chernobyl, you have to understand the Russian phylosophy behind most of what they do. When the Russians build an site, a factory or a facility, they tend to do it large. They would rather build one large refinery or power production site than multiple small sites. Also, they are less concerned with the kind of personal safety issues than we are so there is less research and design devoted to those things.

    What happened at Chernobyl was the worst thing that can happen with a Nuclear Reactor – a Steam Explosion. To understand what that means, you have to understand how a basic pressurized water reactor works.

    My son (who is currently stationed on a Nuclear Submarine) once described a nuclear reactor in this fashion – Hot rock make water hot, Hot water make other water steam, steam turns turbine roundy roundy. In essence that is a pretty good description of how a pressurized water reactor works. The Reactor heats water through a controlled nuclear reaction. This water remains water (not steam) because the reactor water is pressurized. This pressurized water is run through a heat exchanger and a secondary water system is heated by the pressured water to steam. The resulting steam in the secondary system is used to turn a tubine. Simple.

    At Chernobyl, a series of events occured that resulted in the primary (pressured) water system being depressured. Anyone that understands water dynamics will understand that when you depressure water at that tempurature, it flashes immediately to steam. This steam flash causes a HUGE pressure wave that has the same effect as explosives. Pieces of the pressure dome were thrown literally miles.

    An American Reactor is built with a number of systems to prevent exactly this kind of steam explosion accident. It is virtually impossible for a modern, well designed reactor to have this kind of catastrophic accident. Even the TMI accident (which was kind of a variation of this theme) was far less severe even though (though incompetance and bad procedure) some of those safety features were disabled.

    In short, a Chernobyl type accident cannot happen on an American Civilian reactor – there are too many ways to prevent it. American Reactors are designed completely differently, our engineering advances are far in advance of the technology used in the Chernobyl reactor and our philosophy for design is very different. Further, American Reactor operations dictate to err on the side of caution (meaning that the reactor is often shutdown at the first indication of an issue rather than maintaining operation at all costs like in Russia).

    Then again, you would know all this if you really knew anything about Nuclear Power Generation. I will say again, please leave the specifics about nuclear power and it’s viability to someone who really knows something about what they are talking about. I am more than willing to answer questions about the field as it is something I not only believe in, it is something I spent many years actually doing.

  5. Whitefish Resident

    You should probably check what your own party is saying about new nuclear energy obtions before spouting off…

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421517/39564919
    “That’s going to be an imperative. But investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step,” Obama said. “And what I hope is that this announcement underscores both our seriousness in meeting the energy challenge — and our willingness to look at this challenge not as a partisan issue, but as a matter far more important than politics,” he added.

Comments are closed.