Fighting Back

The Montana legislature has been making national news (and not in a good way), but we can fight back and show the nation that Montana is not all Derek Skees and his fellow brownshirts. With like three clicks you can send one of my favorite Montana bloggers to Networks Nation, giving our local discussion a connection and a voice to what’s going on outside the nutjob zone.

I have never told him this before, but this blog gets most of it’s traffic after Facebook and other social media from referrals from his blogs A Chicken Is Not Pillage, and Left in the West. Thank you.  Like me, these are probably daily reads for you, or perhaps you’ve attended forums or seminars in which Rob was featured.  This is our chance to give something back.

If we vote for Rob Kailey, (which takes like 5 seconds) we can be represented by a Montana blogger at Netroots Nation in Minneapolis come this June. Bloggers in Montana have been key to getting out the word about the craziness at the Montana Legislature.  Take 5 seconds and click  a couple of buttons here.

The scholarship is based on the number of favored votes one has received.  Rob Kailey deserves our support.  There are a lot of worthy folk out there vying for these scholarships, and Rob two others are the only ones from the Northern Rockies so we have a good chance.

Fight back by sending a Montana boy to Netroots Nation.


106 Comments on "Fighting Back"

  1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 21, 2011 11:17 PM at 11:17 PM |

    Rob (Wulfgar) Kailey has balls as big as Montana, and a brain to match! THAT’S why I like the dude. He’s good! He takes the fight to’em. He don’t back down, and he don’t back up. He looks the freak show right in the eye and spits in it!

    Please, help the guy out. He’s old school liberal, the kind that ain’t afraid to mix it up just for the fun of it! Hell, if we had a hundred more just like him, we wouldn’t be IN the shit that we’re in today.

    Take the time to send Rob to the conference. It’s a good place to start fighting back! And hell, ain’t that what it’s all about?

  2. Kind of funny that MarkT took the time to try and slam wulfgar even on the ‘supporting’ comments there.

  3. Bus Info for 4/1 rally email

  4. Wulfgar is a pretentious elitist who has swallowed everything the Democrats have said since 1989…

  5. And your a what……

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 22, 2011 12:05 PM at 12:05 PM |

      Remember from the muppets them two old farts that used to sit up in the balcony and criticize everything that went on down below? Well, they BASED those characters on Jed! (and me)

      I’ve known ol’ Jed for a long time. He’s really a very nice guy and an outstanding historian. He uses not the Socratic method of discourse, rather the Jedi method. He employs contentiousness to try to raise consciousness. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t.

      But he knows what he’s talking about. One must sift through the chaff to find the kernel though.

  6. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 22, 2011 12:20 PM at 12:20 PM |

    Hey, don’t like what’s happening? Don’t like what’s in the news? Don’t like the nazis losing ground in Wisconsin? Well then, START ANOTHER WAR!

    It’s a time honored trick. I mean, I can’t even FIND Wisconsin in the news right now. Faint left, go right! Start a fight! Just like in jr. high. FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! And pretty soon, everyone’s running over to see it.

    USA! USA! USA!……….or maybe argentina. (falklands anyone?)

  7. yes larry, start another war like Obama did in Libya?

  8. Cowgirl, brown shirts are liberals

    • No, Doug. Brown shirts are just apparel. The Sturmateilung (StormTroopers), on the other hand, were decidedly *not* liberal. Not only have you Godwin-ed yourself, but that shows a pretty distinct lack of understanding of just what gave rise to the NAZI Party. Here’s a hint. They were motivated by restoring Germany to it’s glory as a world power, pre-WWI, and believed that the way to do so was through restoring it’s moral center by rooting out the decadence permitted under the Weimar Republic and it’s ‘Jewish’ funding. I can think of many who have more in common with the SA than do liberals. And I think you know what I mean.

  9. A good argument could be made that the governor of Wisconsin has more in common with the DLC of 1989 than with Republicans of midcentury America–except for Bob Taft of course.

  10. I know Kailey better than anyone. He’s shallow, pretentious, short-tempered. He’s quick to tell you that he knew something after it happened. If you need to know all of the good things about him,ask him. He’ll tell you. As I’ve noted many times over the years, he’s incapable of self-reflection. He cannot deal with nuance. As Bob Altemeyer described his type, he’s an authoritarian, and so at one time wants to lord over others while he submits to power. He’s a narcissist, and a man who takes just a wee bit too much of his self worth from internet presence.

    My story with him was recently put up at 4&20 – it might be taken down by now. He’s a weasel, a quisling, and an f-bomber. And a Democrat. We’re all made of good and bad. I’ve had run-ins with quite a few, but I’ve met no one so low as Kailey. He’s a schmuck.

    And one fine Democrat. By all means send him somewhere. If you don’t, duck, as the f-bombs will soon follow.

    And it is so funny that he asked you to put up this post.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 23, 2011 6:53 PM at 6:53 PM |

      Sorry, mark. You’re wrong. Again. I was the first to suggest it. And Cowgirl followed my suggestion. Wulfgar had NOTHING to do with it. And for the record, you appear to be a minority of one. That ought’a tell you something. He’s going, and you’re not. Deal with it. Ya gotta know when to hold’em, know when to fold’em, know when to walk away, and know when to STFU. But alas, you don’t.

        • Mark, you’re inviting a hailstorm on your glass house accusing others of narcissism and pretension.

          • Nah, not in the least. I am hard to deal with. I bring much to the table and do not suffer fools. You bring much to the table, and we have had our debates, and I don’t feel vanquished. You hold your own.

            Please be specific. Please explain your words, “narcissism” and “pretension.” When I use them against Kailey, I know their meaning, and I intend them in the way they are meant to be used. Because of my dealings with him, I believe him to be mentally ill, perhaps a sociopath, surely narcissistic. Pretension is all over him – he hits hard with rigorous sounding words, but if he takes a paragraph of two to explain himself, he devolves into mush. He does not have a good mind. He is all over the map.

            If you want a piece of me, be specific about the words you use. If you merely feel that you’ve been on the tarmac a time or two, and that maybe I put you there, welcome to my world. I know all about the tarmac.

        • Mark, This is totally unacceptable. I’m taking this comment down.

          • Put it back up, lady. If you don’t, I’ll pull a Kailey and hit you with f-bombs. A fella above me just told me to STFU, and I responded in kind. I told him that it was rather funny, a knucklehead defending a weasel. I told him that I did not respect him, that I felt sullied debating him. Then I told him, as he told me to stfu, to gfy. Tit for tat, one gets taken down, the other not. What’s up with that?

            Now, if you are at all consistent, and not a hypocritical and myopic Democrat, you will either leave both comments up, or you will take both down. You will not chastise me, and leave him be. You will not defend Kailey and all his ugliness,and chastise his critics, especially one like me who has endured his lowlife mechanizations. I am not mad at him, I do not wish evil on him. I simply want it known that he committed an ugly act, and refuses even the modest gesture of saying “I’m sorry.” It is not in his authoritarian makeup.

            You either have sand, or not. Take ’em all down,leave ’em all up, or at least admit that your judgment is selective, and you readily forgive anyone who pushes the magic “D” and diss others. You even forgave Kaily for his f-bombing people on your threads, saying it’s OK, that’s just the way he talks. Is it OK? Is it? If so, am I now OK to say fuck you too? Let’s be consistent.

            Be real, be a hypocrite. I’ll know soon.

    • Ah the Faux News tactic of accusing the opposition of what YOU ARE to deflect attention

    • No one asked me to put up the post. Kindly refrain from personal attacks.

      • One, I don’t believe you, and two, telling me to refrain from personal attacks while advocating for Kailey reeks of utter hypocrisy. Until the day when you call him out for his assholiness, I have no words for you that you will like.

  11. This guy is against Rob? That makes me all the more for him. Who needs friends when you have enemies like this : ) Go away troll.

    • My name is Mark Tokarski, I am a blogger, and I use my own name first and last, Corrine ???. I advocate positions that do not draw majority, or Democratic support. I am often besmirched for that reason. But Democrats, as I know them, do not think much if at all, so I do not care. Your calling me a “troll” is guttersnipe, the low kind of dialogue that gives blogs a bad name. You don’t know me, you’ve never debated me, and if you did, you’d walk away distressed and pissed. You used that word as an epitaph, not knowing its meaning, and only to throw an insult at someone who troubles you.

      Kailey is a person of low morality and integrity. I say so publicly because I have the goods on him. He draws approval only because he supports Democratic positions, and runs with the pack. That takes no courage or intelligence. If he were to advocate positions that did not draw Democrat approval, his taunts,f-bombing, low-grade intellectual meanderings and unintelligible prose would rightly draw condemnation.

      So now, Corrine ???, You know who I am, what I stand for, so please join Kralj in the self-gratifying behavior I advocated for him. You’re out of your league.

      • All you’ve done is attack Rob, Cowgirl and others on this blog. You have not added anything positive. You could have disgused specfic topics that you and Rob disagreed on and why, for example, in stead your writing like a Faux News reporter.

    • My name is Mark Tokarski, I am a blogger, and I use my own name first and last, Corrine ???. I advocate positions that do not draw majority, or Democratic support. I am often besmirched for that reason. But Democrats, as I know them, do not think much if at all, so I do not care. Your calling me a “troll” is guttersnipe, the low kind of dialogue that gives blogs a bad name. You don’t know me, you’ve never debated me, and if you did, you’d walk away distressed and pissed. You used that word as an epitaph, not knowing its meaning, and only to throw an insult at someone who troubles you.

      Kailey is a person of questionable morality and integrity. I say so publicly because I have the goods on him. He draws approval only because he supports Democratic positions, and runs with the pack. That takes no courage or intelligence. If he were to advocate positions that did not draw Democrat approval, his taunts,f-bombing, low-grade intellectual meanderings and unintelligible prose would rightly draw condemnation.

      So now, Corrine ???, You know who I am, what I stand for, so please join Kralj in the self-gratifying behavior I advocated for him. You’re out of your league.

  12. Bro.. I would be thinking restraining order. This guy has quite obviously gone off the deep end about you and I would be a little nervous about the psycho factor here. He follows you around the internet posting crap like this almost as if he is internet stalking you. Scary.

    • Mark T has been put on moderation. This was a very odd outburst. Apologies to the other readers for not shutting it down sooner.

      • Not sure if you were refering to my post or Mark’s but this isn’t the first time Mark has gone off the deep end at Rob in the last week. He made similar posts at a couple of other sites – enough that I am somewhat concerned for my brother’s physical safety (for those that don’t know, Rob and I are brothers). It is almost like this guy is cyber stalking him and, having dealt with a scary stalker because of internet “discussions”, I would hate to see that happen to him.

        • Hi, Moorcat. You won’t see me defending my Dad too much, especially in the mutually stupid pissing match that he has with your brother… but this is stupid. No one is stalking anyone – this is just a couple of guys waving their cyber-dicks around.

          So get over yourself.

          • Steve, I would sincerely like to know, Just what, in the name of Dog, did I do to piss your Dad off that much? This isn’t dick-waving at this point. This is full on cyber-attack. I don’t think he’s stalking me, and I wouldn’t much care if he were. I didn’t kill his puppy. I didn’t French kiss his wife or represent his previous wife in hearing. I didn’t challenge the size of his man-hood. I haven’t done anything that deserves the crap he’s spewed here. I just want to know. What the fuck is his problem with me?

            • We don’t really talk about it – everything I just said here is from what I’ve witnessed in comment threads. So I can’t really say what his problem is with you – other than that you two are probably just really bored a lot of the time.

              Even if he’s the one to take most of the blame for this nonsense, I’d still say it’s 60/40 him. In most cases, you seem to equally enjoy pissing on each other, and every once in a while one of you takes it too far, as he did here.

              I guess I can’t say I blame either of you – if Cowgirl’s blog is the best thing the Montana ‘tubes have going for them right now, then they’ve officially become nothing but a hive of hackery and paid-partisan anonymity. Pretty depressing.

              If I spent more time around here, I’d probably have to create an archrival just to keep myself from committing suicide.

              • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 24, 2011 8:27 PM at 8:27 PM |

                Well there you have it, Wulfgar. BLOG envy! Poor Mark Buttinski has NO traffic at his blog, and that makes him pissy. Sad, so sad.

                But PLEASE, steve, if ya REALLY want to improve this site, tell marky buttinski to stay away! Kill two birds with one stone. No more pissing matches, and this site improves! It’s a win/win!

                Count me among the dudes that have NO idea what mark’s trip is all about other than ego. HEY, if we really want his “wisdom” we can visit Piece of Sh*t (Mind)……..or NOT!

                If Buttinski would lose the personal vendettas, people might take him more seriously. Too bad that for a feller that claims to have piece of mind, he has such animus of spirit! The dude has issues that are BEST confronted in some place OTHER than a nice blog like this. He seems to WANT to destroy this blog. And that’s what a jerk does.

                I don’t like belittling Mark, but he is worthy.

              • While I might have agreed with you on the partisan proganda a year ago, I don’t see it as much now. This blog has matured a lot and it is sad that you don’t see it. There are actually a number of us conservatives and independants that read this blog now and (for the most part) the posts seem to be informative and well thought out.

                • It’s sad that I don’t see… what? An anonymously written blog designed to bash anyone with an (R) behind their name? (Admittedly, not hard to do in this legislative session…)

                  Should I be sad that the proprietor of this blog – supposedly a feminist (and a female, for that matter) – posts homophobic nonsense and then refuses to apologize?

                  Should I be sad that I don’t take seriously the fact that all of the anonymous commenters have suspiciously folksy names designed to make this seem like some kind of down-home Montana operation? I mean… Farmboy, really? Should I be sad that these anonymous posters seem to come here to post links to other hackish talking-points type posts? Should I not regard this whole operation with suspicion?

                  I don’t buy this place. And the day Cowgirl tells me she’s not a paid political hack is the day that I’ll shut the hell up.

        • Sorry, was referring to Mark’s comment with “odd”

  13. Dang it, Mark. You’re killing yourself here. You’re getting angry, you’re attacking the owner of the blog and trying to tell her what to do. You have been hounding Rob for some time now. We know you don’t like him; we ALL know he loses is temper easily. But coming to other people’s blogs and demanding that they

    I for one appreciate your point of view, though I believe it to be completely and utterly wrong the vast majority of the time. It needs to be heard. But your personal vendetta against Mark, which is occurring on other people’s blogs, is going to get you silenced on a lot of them.

    • I think you over-edited. As I note below, it all started in response to his personal attacks on me at other people’s blogs. If he owns up to what he did at

      then it is over. That’s all he needs do – apologize for that stunt.

      But don’t you agree that the stunt he pulled, which was not meant to be uncovered and was not done for humor, is rather revealing of low character?

      I don’t believe that saying that I am completely and utterly wrong the vast majority of the time qualifies as an argument, though I am happy to debate you on any subject any time.

  14. Somebody needs to explain to these two guys that nobody really cares about them, or their past arguments about whether Flash Gordon is faster than Superman, or whether Kirk is a better captain than Picard.

    • Flash Gordon isn’t faster than Superman, though The Flash is.
      Cisco is a better Captain than either Kirk or Picard.
      And one of the ways this crap gets started is with pompous comments about what ‘everyone’ or “nobody” does or doesn’t care about, especially when it’s foolishly personalized.

      And your vast pronouncement is proven foolishly wrong in this very thread. One person I know for a fact cares about me and that would be my brother. I value that, much more than any anonymous comment at a blog.

      • The Polish Wolf | March 24, 2011 5:38 PM at 5:38 PM |

        I find the fact that your brother is commenting to put a very hilarious spin on Mark’s assertion that he knows you better than anyone.

  15. Well, this was interesting to read coming home on a fine afternoon. Hehe.

    Though I am truly weirded out by this whole thing, I feel like I should write something. So …

    First and foremost, I want to thank every reader here who has supported me for the Netroots Nation scholarship. I mean that sincerely. That includes Mark. My vote total will not be enough to get me an automatic birth. But your votes and your comments (even Mark’s) will show that I have at least been effective at firing something up. At heart this isn’t even about me, but about sending a representative to the conference from Montana. Win or lose, I will thank those I can personally. To the rest of you, I offer a big Thank You right now.

    Second, Thanks bro, but I’m not worried. I’ve had state level politicians try and get me fired. I’m certainly not worried about this.

    Third, I am a Democrat. Guilty as charged. Of course, in Montana, that means precisely squat. We don’t have to register a party affiliation before voting, and calling yourself by one label doesn’t mean
    a) you agree with everyone who shares that label
    b) you can’t think for yourself
    c) you have to allow someone else to define it’s meaning or your thinking,
    and d) you should be ashamed because someone else like minded behaves poorly.
    I’d go out on a limb here, and suggest that most people who read or comment at this blog also identify with the Democratic party, or at very least what it should be, and sometimes was. The above four postulates apply to them as well. In truth, they apply to us all. That message gets lost in the modern age of ‘labels’, ‘purity’ and ‘with us or against us’.

    Fourth, I confess that I am an authoritarian. I want, no, I demand complete authority over what I think, what I believe, what I feel and how I act on any of those. I question authority all the time, including my own. It’s been one of my driving principles in life. But questioning authority does not mean rejecting it out of hand for often silly reasons. It’s not much of a mystery to many here that I often get ‘in trouble’ for playing devil’s advocate. It has been noted that I have a hot temper. Those who note that might want to pay attention to what lights the match. When I ‘go off’, it is almost always because another has violated my sense of authority over my own existence. They’ve told me what I think, what I supposedly know, what I must do, falsely stating what I have done, what I will do or how deeply I’ve offended/wounded them by writing what I believe to be true. I find no shame in that, and respect Larry because he is the High Priest of attempting to be true to oneself. We’re human and we don’t always succeed, nor are we always right/correct. But we damned well would be better off if we were more hot tempered about others dictating ourselves to ourselves.

    I don’t know that any of this has value, but I hope some might find a nugget of virtue in it.

    • Tedious, as usual. Notice again that you have not self-reflected, as you are incapable. This is an authoritarian trait.

      Notice how when you said

      We’re human and we don’t always succeed, nor are we always right/correct…

      that you drifted from first person singular to first person plural. You are incapable of saying that you are not always right/correct, and so deflected.

      Too funny.

      • Mark, your reading comprehension is slipping again. I went to the plural because I had mentioned another person and broadened the noun subject of discussion. You remain consistently delusional.

    • Here’s the thing, Kailey: The beauty of your “Monty” attack on me was that if I defended myself, I looked guilty. You knew this, and this takes a calculating nature, much like that of Iago, whom you of course know all about. Over the years, when you have attacked me with this lie, you have done so with an evil heart. You tried to inflict pain, and seem to have taken pleasure in doing so.

      You also know that people will not bother to go and read the link I provided, and so are protected again. It is creepy that you think in this manner, that you have thought your lie through. I have read about sociopaths, how they deliberately connive to attack people around then, but in such a way as to be protected from blowback. It takes a clever nature, and in this way alone I give you your due. You are smart in a sociopathic way.

      You are an ugly man. Maybe you don’t go around doing physical violence, and you seem to get by OK with your book store job. But you are a creep. How does it feel, knowing how well I know you now?

  16. YIKES. This thread has left me speechless. Perhaps someone didn’t take their depakote today.

  17. Since 1989 Democrats have limited their concerns to the middle class–mostly WASPs.
    Tokarski strikes me as a pre-1989 Democrat.
    Thus using the notion that the enemies of my enemies are my friends, I find myself agreeing more often with him than with most others who have posted here–on LitW–or on jhwygirl’s blogs.
    I do not think it would be that much fun to have a beer with Mark. As a matter of fact I have a notion drinking with Bubba or the decider would be more fun; but I don’t drink with somebody because I agree with them.

    • I rather enjoy life and stuff, even having a beer with people and all. Blogging is not life or even a cheap imitation. It is cyber-dis-inhibition. There is not much to be had of it save fun, that is, arguing and writing. Minds are not changed, movements not generated, elections not won or lost. It’s just a place to go.

      That said, remember that it was “pre-1989” Democrats who got us into Vietnam, and that the protesters in Chicago in 1968 were protesting the actions of “pre-1989” Democrats. The current party structure, with Republicans forcing change and Democrats preventing undoing that change, even advancing it, is as old as Fightin’ Bob. Democrats have always stood in the way of reform.

      What changed with the post-1989 Clinton Democrats was merely to officially corporatize the Democrats without further pretense that they represetned common people. It is better to have them out in the open.

  18. OK folks – first, you wonder why I attack him on other blogs – it is because he will not face me anywhere else. He won’t come to my turf, he deletes my comments at his blog, and has banned me at Left in the West.

    Secondly, I realize how this comes off. I know how I look when I do this. I’m not a fool. I have a purpose, and it is only to force him to say two words.

    So I’m going to take you back in time, and let you decide who is the troll here. Go here:

    Read his whole post. Notice how wounded he is, and notice how he knows my IP address, and therefore is able to publicly accuse me of writing nasty things about him as the troll “Monty.” (Also notice how bad the writing is, but that’s an aside.)

    Now, I was not Monty, and he knew this. He faked the whole thing. But this was not a joke. In the ensuing years, he would bring up this trolling incident time and again to attack me. Finally, last year, after having endured another one of his attacks (always at someone else’s website mind you), walking down a street in Boulder, I came to a painfully obvious realization: Two people knew my IP at that time. Him, and me. I did not write that trolling post using the name “Monty.” Therefore, he did.

    So I went after him with my startling discovery. At first he denied. Then he went into hiding (which is a large part of why I cannot comment at LITW). I did not let up, and he finally admitted that he did the deed. I have his admission at home, date and time and all, as he probably deleted it. I’m in Arizona tonight, and cannot access it, but I’ll put it up some time if he doesn’t own up to his deed publicly.

    Now, again, go back to and tell me if this is a joke, or is this is not one mean and conniving son of a bitch.

    Intellectually, I have no respect for him, as he is all full of himself, but these are blogs, so what else is new. His writing is tedious. When he gets all kind and considerate, my hair stands on end, merely imitating emotions.

    I’m not stalking him. My wife has suggested he should not know where we live, but he’s not that big a sociopath, just a a run of the mill one. He faces no danger from me, and he knows this. Here’s what scares him: He only need do one thing. He needs to apologize for what he did at

    He can’t do it.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 24, 2011 9:42 PM at 9:42 PM |

      Mark, this is my last post on you. No one CARES except you. Many of us actually LIKE what Rob has to say. And really, ISSUES are issues. People are NOT issues! We come here to discuss issues, NOT your hard on for Rob. Sheesh. Give is a rest.

      Look, you have a GREAT deal to say on the issues, but hell, even I don’t want to wade through the endless attacks on others. Figure it out. Give it a rest. Spend some time in the desert…..alone…..confronting your OWN devils!

      And now, a story. A friend of mine was a master in martial arts. Oh, not the pretend kind, but a real master. I asked him one time what he would do if someone came at him with a knife. What would he do differently? His reply has stayed with me some thirty-five years. He simply said that I would do nothing differently. In other words, his fighting strategy never changed. It did not MATTER that the opponent had a knife. He defense was the same. He simply ignored the knife!

      And that’s the way I blog. When someone attacks me, I simply ignore it and continue with my offense. THAT’S what a true master does. If your offense is good enough, there’s NO need to alter your defense to the enemy.

      So, mark, the lesson is STICK to YOUR opinions, and the hell with everyone else. I want your opinion, NOT your bile. And I think I speak for everyone else too.

      • Sorry. Did not know you were a true master. Somehow slipped by me.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 26, 2011 8:21 PM at 8:21 PM |

          I was referring to YOU, diphsit!

          • People tell me that you are a teacher. I cannot think of am appropriate comment for that. It leaves me speechless.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 27, 2011 7:16 AM at 7:16 AM |

              Sorry, they told you wrong. I cut trees for a living. It’s dirty, dangerous, and extremely difficult work, but it’s what I like to do. Each day that you survive, you’re a better tree cutter because you’ve learned something new. You never stop learning. Safety is all about experience, and a great deal of luck. You never take anything for granted. A tree can kill you in an instant.

              You must trust your partner with your life, because your life depends upon it. Every day is like going to war. Helps keep things in perspective. Helps me appreciate the simple things in life. Helps provide some clarity to what I write. I could very well be gone tomorrow. Puts life’s petty anoyances in their proper place. Momento mori, dude.

              Guess that’s why I don’t need to go all Spartan 300 on people at every percieved slight like you do. When I finish a day’s work, I drink. I’ve earned it. Have you?

  19. I suggest you both just get over it and play nice. This is the blogosphere, it isn’t the world.

    On a side note however, I’m not allowed to comment at Left in the West either- I even voted for him at Netroots Nation. I’m not sure if Kailey just doesn’t appreciate my comments (they are usually on the opposite end of the spectrum as his) or what, but I allow anyone to comment on my blog. Then again, I’ve not yet had to referee an ongoing feud.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | March 24, 2011 9:45 PM at 9:45 PM |

      I must say that your are a good writer. Who are you? Please identify yourself, because by hiding your true identity, you lose credibility. I think that your talent would assure you a place in the honest exchange of ideas with any lefty.

      • It isn’t acceptable for ME to maintain anonymity, but it is for cowgirl? I apologize for “hiding my true identity”, but if you read my blog regularly, you’d likely understand. All of the bloggers at montanafesto are republicans and they have all been very critical of the GOP. The blog was created to be a conservative voice in the blogosphere, we all agreed that the left was doing an incredible job of networking and reporting via blogs and although there are a few Montana right of center blogs, many (certainly not all) of them are rarely updated, boring, idiotic or otherwise distasteful. We weren’t necessarily trying to compete with the progressive blogs, but we were really missing opportunities as a party- especially with younger voters (an area we have issues with anyway).

        We’ve done our share of beating up on liberals since the blog’s inception, but it has been a while. I can’t even remember the last democrat we criticized because the big government invasive nannies in the GOP have consumed us all.

        If I exposed myself, I would risk losing my job as well as my family’s safety. Believe me, it is better this way. We will often disagree, but I’m really trying to be more open-minded about the left. This session has taught me that there really are a LOT of issues that Montanans can agree- regardless of their political affiliation. I think we can all agree that the GOP is crazy right now. I hope you understand.

        • i applaud your courage mr montanafesto. as an independent i have many friends in both of the major parties. all of the republicans i know are utterly mortified at the recent behavior of their party. many are leaning independent now.

          the good principles of the real republican party are being tested now but let’s hope this repulsive “fever epidemic” of religious fanatics, racists and homophobes passes quickly and the fever breaks soon. i do read your blog and it is cutting edge and very courageous in contributing to decency in politics within a cess pool of poison.

          • Thank you, problembear! I really appreciate the kind words. I am Ms. Montanafesto though. Do I write like a man? My montanafesto facebook has a little bit of personal info about me so most people who are my FB friends know that I’m a female, but now I’m curious as to if I write manly!

            I’m leaning independent myself but because of my positions within the party, campaigns, work etc, most aren’t aware of how disgruntled I really am. I’ve learned a LOT in my few short months of blogging though, and either I’m becoming more moderate or the GOP has truly gone over the cliff, but I find myself often agreeing with points made by the liberal bloggers. The GOP is spending political capital it hasn’t earned and it will prove disastrous for them in 2012. If I’m wrong about that, I may need to find a new state because I’m not sure I could handle another legislative session like this one. It has been really tough on all of montanafesto’s bloggers actually- one of them was attacked by Rep James Knox, who forwarded all of her personal information to the Safe Community Safe Kids group with instructions to spam the hell out of her but not to let her know it came from him (she is in the medical cannabis industry). She also attended a fundraiser where party leaders called her a cartel member. We had a falling out with the tea party in Montana, the list goes on and on. It has really just been a terrible session. In 2012, I will not help even ONE of the people I helped get elected. While I’m happy with the performance of a couple of GOP legislators, they are few and far between and not in my districts.

            Sorry this was so long, I apparently need to vent tonight. This lunacy is wearing me out.

            • Montanafesto, to the best of my recollection, I’ve only banned one person since taking over LitW (that is who wasn’t an obvious spammer). That person, Mark, had already been banned before I ever took over, he just didn’t take the hint. And that was only after I gave him an opportunity to behave himself, something he is disinclined to do, here, there or anywhere else.

              Checking your account over there shows that there is no problem with you commenting. What is likely the case is that you attempted to comment within 24 hours of registering. As an anti-spam measure, that isn’t allowed at LitW. That also was set up before I ever took over at LitW. It seems you’ve been bitten by your own assumptions. In point of fact, I have *never* banned anyone from either LitW or A Chicken Is Not Pillage for ideological disagreement. I ban people for overt racism/sexism and/or repaeted and pointless personal attacks on me or my friends. Both of those are nothing but trolling.

              In this great age of polarization, assumptions tend to bite a lot of folks. You’d be surprised, I’m certain, how much we actually agree on, Montanafesto. I thank you for your support on the NN polling, but I’d appreciate it more if you not assume that I’ve judged you and taken action because of it.

              • Rob, you are probably right. I am sure that is exactly what happened. Because I wasn’t allowed to comment- and I never received any sort of message informing me of a 24 hr wait- I simply assumed I couldn’t comment. Sorry about that! My initial comment was not very inflammatory, so I was surprised, but that makes sense. I will try again……

            • I applaud you for seeing that one party is counterfeit. That alone is rare. But the beauty of the American system is that you now jump to the other party, without realizing that it too is counterfeit.

              In other words, and you should be happy about this, your intellectual journey is only beginning, and not ending. Have a fun trip!

  20. Anonymity on these blogs probably keeps us safer than honest exposure. With more and more rabid rightwingers packing heat, I’d recommend more, not less, anonymity.

  21. I just found it rude that one day he calls me a do-nothing and another day he’s linked to the Harris Himes video I’d taken time to trim up and post to youtube…I mean, jeez, it’s good to get the information out there, and I really wanted to support Diane Sands & Ellie Hill, so people would see what they’d had to put up with, not to mention my gay friends and family and Missoula community– I worked for that ordinance too— but have some manners. I don’t particularly mind the f word itself but verbal abuse isn’t something I’d vote for.

    Quoting Mr. Kailey:
    …like a little wimp.
    …shut the f*** up
    …So f*** off
    …I repeat, f*** off,
    …you’re the dumbest SOB on the planet
    …the left didn’t steal that from us, Swede. Your bunch of a**holes did.
    …you moron.
    …Good God, you are stupid.
    …You are such a dip.
    …If you want to lick Lewis’s a**, go right ahead.
    …you a**hole.
    …Blah blah blah
    …worthless pieces of dross like you

    and as Wulfgar re Montanafesto:
    “What I think is that I’ve lost a great deal of patience here. I’ve been tracking a website for over a week now called “Montanafesto”…
    Bull and Shit….
    classic astroturf…

    • Well done! Notice that he has two personalities. One is fake. Sociopaths are often good at imitating real people. You’ve outed him.

    • Well Cheryl, I’m certain that there will be blogger’s ethics panels at Netroots Nation that will teach me gentile speech and the properly sanctioned etiquette for pointing out any combination of ignorance, lies and less than stellar critical thinking.

    • Honestly, I can sort of see why he referred to montanafesto as such… Our site format pokes fun at many political and economic persuasions, mostly communism and socialism though- and we describe ourselves as non-partisan montana political commentary- to which Kailey said “bull and shit”. Although it is clear to many that we are all right-wing, I think we’ve been able to find a ton of common ground lately.

  22. I voted for the Punk Patriot. He may not be from Montana, but he is Independent, as a true Green–we don’t take money from the corporations.
    As he put it: “A large number of Green Party members are former Democrats. We left for various reasons but …look at the Federal Election Commission contribution reports of recent years and find that, increasingly, the Democratic and Republican Parties are receiving money from the same corporations. The Greens take no money from any corporation. We, like most of the rest of the world, believe that America’s banks, insurance companies, and Wall Street corporations caused the world wide recession.”

    • We, like most of the rest of the world, believe that America’s banks, insurance companies, and Wall Street corporations caused the world wide recession.

      Yes. Yes they did. And I’m certain that the Greens not taking campaign contributions from “any” corporation is a just punishment for their crimes. When the Green party takes back America there will be retribution, I’m certain.

      Cheryl, you’ve gone out of your way to cherry pick words and phrases from me completely devoid of context. This will not be the first time I’ve pointed out that’s a right-wing tactic. I’m also confident that pulling specific words of yours devoid of any context, I could have you quoting Hamlet. My opinion, of course, but I find the Green Party to be only slightly less ridiculous than the Tea Party, though certainly focused in a better direction. What you and I have is called “a disagreement”. What you attempted here is called “character assassination”, piggy-backing on the opening that Mark gave you. Needless to say, this does not impress. It also doesn’t stand well as evidence that I am a big meanie, and you wouldn’t engage in insult. The insult is there and has been from the beginning. You’re just more subtle about it. I’m overt. That doesn’t mean we disagree about what we want. It just means that you’re attempting to punish me for disagreeing with *you*, and so rudely as I do.

      Again, as I have written many many times, the worst thing you can do to a liberal (true believer) is to disagree with them. They will hold that grudge forever.

      • Really? Character assassination? Really? Oh please, you’re hardly a victim.

        I disagree about this particular action item, and I highlighted language from a comment thread to illustrate why. It is *my opinion* that temper tantrums, torrents of profanity and baseless personal attacks, are rude, ill-mannered, and verbally abusive, and obscure the actual issues. That is exactly my point. You yourself said you insults are overt, so it makes no logical sense to complain that your words were cherry-picked or taken out of context as if I’d distorted your meaning.

        That type of communication does not elevate the discussion out of the nutjob zone, and in your case isn’t even all that entertaining. Maybe you should ask Mr. Kralj for some tips.

        • Sociopaths are often quite good at putting on an outer layer of charm, but it is thin. It masks a nasty temper which is easy to bring out. So all you did, and it wasn’t hard, was to take a quick stroll and find some of his comments where the underlying ugly temperament was exposed.

          Watch yer back with this guy. If he perceives you as a threat, it gets nasty. It’s not just verbal confrontation. If given an opportunity, you’ll feel a knife in your back. He’s a predator, hence the name he calls himself, “wulfgar”, and the avatar he uses, a snarling wolf.

        • I wrote that you “attempted character assassination”, Cheryl. I never wrote that you were any good at it, just opportunistic. Beyond that, it would appear that you agree with Bill O’Reilly, David Brooks, Karl Rove and all others crying loudly for “blog civility” to “elevate the discourse” in a medium in which they face disagreement.

          • Your premise is flawed from the get-go. Character assassination is presenting an untrue picture to ruin someone’s reputation. You’re proud of your reputation, but you call it a “hot temper” –I call it rude. There’s no disagreement there. In fact, we agree on many issues, except for a few, like whether *WINNING!* matters more than how campaign funds are raised. In that regards, it appears you have much more in common with Rove, O’Reilly, and Brooks than I do.

            Your last comparison reminded me of Mona Docteur and her friend who claimed we were trying to take away their rights because we asked everyone not to bring their guns to our little community event at the St. Ignatius Senior Center.

            Advocating for civility or less guns at the Senior Center is not the same thing as stifling dissent–and most people understand that.

            • Not to get in the middle of your argument with Rob, but you are again doing the very thing he is accusing you of… Assuming you have any idea of what he believes. I can tell you for a fact that winning is definitely NOT the primary agenda for Wulfgar – at least in my 50 years of experience with him. I resemble that argument far more than Rob does. It took me over 25 years that learn emphatically that winning isn’t everything and it took law school to teach it to me. If Rob appears focused on winning, he has a far more important ideal behind that win – like not allowing some asshat to screw us over even more. I have always found it is much more productive to ask him what his values/beliefs/views on an issue are – you might even be surprised.

              As far as the gun thing, they are actually correct, not you. If they have a right to carry, it is thier right. Regardless of whether it offends your delicate sensibilities, they still have the right. By telling them they can’t carrry, you are denying them thier rights. Now, I would probably not carry in that situation but it would still be my right to do so and if you told me that I could not, you would be violating my right. It is actually that simple – whether you get it or not is up to you. It has nothing to do with stiffling dissent and everything to do with you enforcing your demands in violation of someone’s right. Most thinking people that actually understand the meaning of the word “right” understand that.

              In short, you are proving his point about you and, sorry to say, you are doing it elequently.

              • There’s a difference between the meaning of the word “rights” and the meaning of the word “manners.” There’s a huge difference between a request and “enforcing demands in violation of a right” Everyone has a “right” to bad manners. So what? When we rent a place and ask for no guns, it’s no different from our postman’s wife who for some odd reason has white carpet in her house—she asks people to take off their shoes when they come in. Yeah, there may not be a law against it, but if you go in and wipe your muddy feet on her floor because you’ve got a “right” it’s no big surprise if she thinks you’re an ass.

                • Apples and Oranges. Manners (morality) is a far different animal than rights. You try to make the distinction but yet you ignore the other person’s right to make the distinction.

                  It might surprise you to find that I agree it is in poor manners to show up at a function with a firearm. Unfortunately, that was not the example you used. You claimed that the person or persons were upset that you were trying to infringe on their rights and in that respect, they were correct. It wasn’t a “manners” issue or even a morality issue. It was a rights issue and, in the example you quoted (I would remind you that, not having been there I can only go by your post), the people involved were, at least in that respect, correct. You are more than happy to be upset by them, find them “icky”, ect for having worn a firearm and, depending on the contract you had with the senior center, may even been within your rights to exclude them, but they are correct that they have the right to open carry, even if you find that to be very poor manners.

                  For the record, I only carry openly when I am in the backcountry hiking or fishing. It is the only time I feel the need to be armed. That does not limit my right to open carry, though. I really do understand the difference between manners and rights.

                  • I’ve not ignored anyone’s rights to make a distinction.

                    In that case, no one was trying to take away their rights, it was a reasonable request.

                    In this case, an opinion that a certain level of respect is lacking does not imply an attempt to prevent disagreement.

            • Now we might be getting somewhere. One of the mistakes I see the Green Party making is in the claim that how campaign money is raised will automatically taint the actions of the recipient. In order for a recipient to be “pure” they must not take corporate campaign dollars. Is that a relatively accurate statement of your position?

              Disregarding that without adequate funding, Green Party candidates simply won’t get elected to anything beyond local office, and you’re still left with two very big problems. One is the expectation and assumption of a purchase arraignment. Kindly witness Marko’s polite pronouncement after Tester’s vote on the DREAM act. “Good luck getting reelected, asshole”, I believe is how it went. I remain fascinated by the progressive left and their ability to justify buying politicians for themselves, while reviling corporations for doing that very thing, (in their mind). Diebold notwithstanding, it’s still the voters who elect our representation. Most corporations are set up to do the very thing necessary, purchase good will from ready consumers. Alternate parties are not well situated, the Greens somewhat worse than most because they start from a premise that we would all agree with them if we only knew! Your average voter doesn’t like being called ignorant, just saying. That’s not much of a way to win hearts and minds among the polity. That’s who corporations have to purchase, at least before an election and then …

              Problem number two with the Green manifesto, is the repeated claim that lobbyists and the Beltway will corrupt any politician sent their way. I agree with that, and have written at length that we need lobbying reform, somehow to be passed by those already under the K street spell. In an alternate universe, perhaps we could send a flood of the righteous Greens to Washington with mirrors such that they could race against time and desperately behead the gorgon before being turned to purchased stone. Somehow, I don’t think that’s gonna happen. But with the exception of only one Green supporter I’ve ever met, the fault for that lies with Democrats, and more to the point, those who support them. Why yes, I do take that kinda personally, because that’s precisely how it is meant. You may not see that fundamental assumption as insult, but then you are surprised when others just don’t agree.

              As to civility, I see that as the weakest (lamest) form of bipartisanship, tripartisanship, polypartisanship. “Can’t we all just get along” goes the refrain. No, we can’t. I have doing this for an eon, in Interweb terms. I’ve learned a thing or two. It does not ‘elevate the discourse’ to be kind to liars. There is no moral served by treating the stupid with soft language. No improvement ever occurred by being verbally kind to the willfully ignorant. Civility is the language of diplomacy, compromise, and those I oppose have no interest at all in either one. While you’re jumping on the “Wulfgar is rude” bandwagon, there are polite people out there who hate you. That is not overstatement. You read #MTLeg. James Knox, Wendy Warburton, (Captain) KHaos, Rusty Shackleford, Derek Skees? They are always in good humor and oh so polite. They hate you. They hate Ellie Hill, Bryce, Jamie, me; they will be happy to burn this state to the ground if it hurts us. But by Dog, they’ll be oh so ‘civil’ while doing it. That was the context you willfully missed in your presentation above.

              Larry and I have traded punches before, probably enjoyed it, but the one thing we agree on is that awful people who take enjoyment in the hurt of others don’t deserve our genteel manners. You have nothing to fear from me, any more than I from you. But I’d kindly ask you not to jump on me for swinging away out of some useless sense of polypartisanship.

              • “the fault for that lies with Democrats, and more to the point, those who support them.”

                You know what, Mister, I never said that. Nor would I, as I support some Democrats myself. Nor any statement that poly-partisanship is any kind of answer to anything–I see plenty of countries with lots of parties and lots of problems.

                • You know what Mizz? I didn’t make this about gender. It would be polite if you didn’t either, not that being rude is actually your concern.

                  From the very link that you posted:

                  So would Max Baucus turning out for Sonju instead of a wonderful Democrat Mary Reckin during her campaign be the symbolic equivalent of “eat shit” ? Shouldn’t you tell him not to poop where he eats? Oh right, he doesn’t eat here, he’s just another pig at the corporate trough.
                  Why don’t you get rid of him?

                  Me? I didn’t vote for Baucus. But you blame me for not getting rid of him, exactly as I wrote that you did. Care to try again?

                • Or are polite lies more your style?

  23. Let’s all stop attacking each other and get back to attacking dead beat politicians! Who’s with me : )

    • CG, I do regret that this is happening on your blog, and am sorry if it distracts from business as usual. But BAU can be boring too, and isn’t it just a little bit of fun to have a cat fight at your place now and then?

      So forgive me, but Kailey is a sociopath and needs to be outed. I go about my business as rat exterminator without pleasure.

      • The Polish Wolf | March 26, 2011 9:06 PM at 9:06 PM |

        That’s like starting a fight at a party at someone’s house, and then saying ‘sorry this is happening here, and about that lamp, but I’m still going to trash your house with my personal business. I hope it comforts you that I’m not enjoying this fight I came looking for.”

  24. “…that was only after I gave him an opportunity to behave himself, something he is disinclined to do, here, there or anywhere else.” Translation–he was not inclined to toe wulfie’s interpretation of the party line…

    • No Jed. He was prone to outbursts, the same as he has shown here and elsewhere. Kindly keep in mind (though I’m certain you won’t) I’m not the only person who has deleted his comments or banned him.

  25. attacking another blogger personally is not contributing to the discussion. that and the fact that blogs are dying because of that kind of behavior. decent thinking people don’t want any part of a cat fight. they are reading a political blog for information or because they care about the country.

    there are better sites for that type of conduct……

  26. You truly believe blogs are the best source of information, bear?

    • I am not P-bear, but no, I have never said blogs were the “best source”, just a source of information. In today’s world, we suffer from a glut of information (most of it incomplete or slanted) and if we want to garner a higher understand of any issue, it behooves us to examine many sources of information. Blogs also tend to be more “timely” – especially with local information – and the discussion aspect of blogs allows people to discuss an issue regardless of the slant of the author of a post.

      Blogs are a unique method of disseminating information and while flawed like every other form, have some advantages.

  27. “…decent thinking people don’t want any part of a cat fight. they are reading a political blog for information…”

Comments are closed.