25 Comments on "Today’s Must Read Post on Montana Politics"

  1. Please, Democrats … until you understand how the game good-cop-bad-cop is played, we progressives will befuddle you.

    When both elected Democrats and Republicans behave in the same manner, it takes only a little insight to see that electing one over the other offers little comfort. But your perceptions are clouded by party labels.

    Progressives are not the problem. Democrats are.

  2. All comments about outing someone for being gay will be removed. Neither the comments nor the blog posts they linked to contain any evidence at all of their claims. This is wrong and won’t be tolerated here.

  3. Politics is serious business where real power comes to bear to secure favors, concessions, subsidies, access to the commons and freedom from government oversight. The media, mostly owned by the same powerful forces that fund political campaigns, reduce all policy debates down to those that take place between Democrats and Republicans, each side bought. Consequently most issues of importance, like war and peace, tax policy, destruction of the Bill of Rights, torture and corporate subsidy, are never debated. Those that are “debated” are done so in a Kabuki theater, where the whole thing is a staged show with a known outcome.

    Obama and the Democrats know that (generic) you, the Democratic base, don’t follow issues closely, and so are easily swayed by words in speeches. Consequently, they ignore or work against you in the years leading up to elections, and then throw empty words at you as elections roll around. This is why Obama gave the speech he recently gave, and was “caught” speaking words you like on a microphone in Chicago. It’s all for your benefit, nothing more, as he knows you are listening but not watching. Medicare and Social Security are under serious threat from him now, and he wants to be sure you are asleep, not that it takes any great effort on his part. Just throw some words at you.

    We progressives are mostly party dissidents who pay attention in detail, and consequently become discouraged as we watch you rally around your “D”s as the election rolls around, oblivious to the few differences that might actually exist between, for example, your Tester and their Rehberg.

    In other words, wake up and get off our backs. You are the problem. Not us.

  4. Here was my response to Don’s post over at I.D.

    Hello Don,

    Funny, but what you view as my “attacking Senator Tester for his Wilderness Bill” is actually the process of bringing up very substantive concerns and issues related to the actual language and ramifications of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Funny, but Senator Tester and the “collaborators” never seem to muster up the energy to actually begin to address these substantive concerns. Funny, neither can you or any of the other bloggers out there who are riding to Tester’s defense. Yep, about all you can offer in response to our substantive concerns and legitimate issues is pointing out the fact that sometimes I simply cut-n-paste the language, instead of figuring out creative ways to say the same thing slightly different ways. Good for you Don!

    You can claim these are part of “self-righteously attacking Senator Tester,” however, as any issues activist knows, self-righteousness has nothing to do with it…it’s all about the substance of the issues. And in the case of the FJRA it’s true that basically everyone outside of Team Tester and outside of the “collaborators” has similar substantive concerns with the FJRA. Heck Don, for fun, just take a look at the official comments submitted during the Senate hearing. If you dig in those documents you’d fine hundreds and hundreds of substantive comments that mirror the same exact concerns we’ve been expressing locally. Not only are these concerns from interested citizens around the country, but they are from mainstream environmental groups such as Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, NRDC, Center for Biological Diversity, etc.

    Moving on to Sen Tester’s wolf-rider…sorry, Don, but I can’t recall anyone (except you) claiming that “Senator Tester is personally going to be responsible for the extinction of wolves in Montana.” Again, you exaggerate to try and make your point. If you’ll take a close look at what’s actually being said you’ll see plenty of people, yet again, wanting to focus on the substance of the issue here, mainly that Senator Tester, for the first time in the 38 years of the ESA, just simply had Congress remove a specie from the list. Sure, I called this rider tactic “shameful and undemocratic” but referring to a tactic with such words does not a “character assassination” make.

    What’s really funny about all of this is that Don states, “This Tester supporter thinks that criticizing policy decisions and pushing for more progressive outcomes is not only everyone’s right, but responsibility.”

    I obviously couldn’t agree more. That’s why on issues I care deeply about (and honestly know more about than the average person) I do criticize policy decisions and push for more progressive outcomes. This was true during the Clinton years and Newt’s “Contract on America.” It was true during the dark days of the GW Bush/Mark Rey Administration and it remains true today.

    Don, if you have some actual examples of where I’ve engaged in “character assassination” against Senator Tester I’d like to see them. If you have actual examples of where I’ve leveled “attacks against Senator Tester” that weren’t focused on the substantive issues and concerns associated with actual pieces of legislation or policy (basically abiding by your stated support of “criticizing policy decisions and pushing for more progressive outcomes”) I’d also like to see examples of those. (P.S. Mentioning Senator Tester’s name in connection with his own bill isn’t “an attack against Senator Tester.”)

    Perhaps instead of focusing your ire at the people who have knowledge, passion, expertise and gumption to criticize bad policy decisions and push for more progressive outcomes you’re ire would be better directed at the people who are actually the ones pushing for (or in some cases passing) these bad policy decisions.

    What’s so funny (yet sadly ironic) about all of this is that if it was Rep Rehberg pushing a mandated logging bill (and attaching that mandated logging bill as a rider to the failed Dec ’10 omnibus spending bill), the left would be so unified in opposition it might actually be a 2012 Campaign issue.

    If it was Rep Rehberg who attached a rider to a bill preventing a gov’t shutdown to remove wolves from the ESA, the left would have responded the same. Yet, now, since it’s our Senator Tester doing these exact things, the progressive left should shut up? Oh, that’s right…there’s an election in November 2012. Dang…it’s gonna be a long 19 months.

  5. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | April 20, 2011 1:57 PM at 1:57 PM |

    The most pressing question of the day. DO libertiantards enjoy a good rumpy-pumpy or not? Seems that Roger Ebert’s review of Asses Plugged is a wee bit critical of what passes for rightwing nazi art. It just doesn’t exist. There IS no great rightwing nazi literature or art, and Anyus Rand’s Asses Plugged falls way short of being art either in film or print. But anywho, enjoy what Robert has to say. It’s a good one.


  6. I for one am done reading the socalled left blogs that Are obsessed with criticizing dems rather than repubs. Almost have to ask–how f-ing stupid are these people.

    • Stupidity is hard to qualify or quantify. Stupid people do not usually know they are stupid. It has to be pointed out to us by others. I am so grateful for this, and now see that criticism of Democrats based on policy issues is a foolish undertaking, since there mere fact that someone is a Democrat ought to be enough to justify a vote for that person.

      I see your logic, follow it through, and understand now why you took time and trouble to make that comment. Well done.

      • Stupid people do not usually know they are stupid. It has to be pointed out to us by others.

        Just for the record, that clearly shows that Mark does not know when stupid people are being stupid. Don’t blame me for pointing out the obvious. Hey, he wrote it …

        • The comment went down two levels. You are barely capable of one. Go play with yourself.

        • Apropos of absolutely nothin:
          Kailey has finally transformed LitW to [u]The World According to Wulfgar[/u].

          • I’m a fan of Wulfgar’s site and his writing.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | April 22, 2011 5:06 PM at 5:06 PM |

              It is what it is. And Wulfgar is who he is. Nuthin’ wrong with that. If someone doesn’t like what he writes, I suggest that they don’t read it. But I always read what he has to say, ’cause he’s a been in the trenches a long time, and he’s GOOD at trench warfare. He’s like the old Winchester 1897 trench gun. Hell, the Germans HATED that gun because it was too deadly. Well, so is Wulfgar’s writing. He’s slayin’ nazis on the blogs and they can’t stand it. So, like the old 1897, they’d like nothing better than to outlaw Wulfgar. He’s just too damn effective. Can’t allow that to happen.

            • It will soon be all Kailey all the time.

    • Wulf’s stock-in-trade seems to have come to dead center.

  7. Senator Tester’s only human, and we all have flaws, but he’s done much good for Veterans, renewable energy, ethics and as a rancher, I’ve got concerns about wolves, but the prospects of Tea Party ‘wolves’ in our lone house seat not appealing….keep things in perspective progressives…….

    • I agree, Senator Tester will do better than “Senator Rehberg” ALOT BETTER

      Who on the Dem, Green side is running for Denny seat?

      • I honestly believe that the Dem side of that ticket will continue to remain foggy until the good guv makes some kind of statement about what he is going to do when he gets termed out.

        Some are contending that he will run for Rehberg’s seat until he can run for Baucus’s seat in two years. Some are saying he is going to run for Rehbergs seat till he can be Governor again. Some are even saying he is considering a Prez run (I highly doubt that at this point, but who knows?).

        The bottom line is that he would win any position he runs for (even if he decided to primary Tester – which I think is unlikely), so until he announces his plans, no one really wants to spend a buttload of money announcing for a position they are unsure of.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | April 21, 2011 11:57 AM at 11:57 AM |

          We can only hope. I hope the guy isn’t so burned out on politics now that he decides to just say screw it, it’ ain’t worth it. Ya see, at some point in life, a fella decides that livin’ in a sh*thole like D.C. just ain’t worth it. Me personally, I couldn’t do it. The time I got left I want to spend right here in ol’ Montany. I know that Schweitzer is terribly ambitious, but I also know that he loves this place. It’s in his blood.

          But I hope you’re right, Moorcat.

      • No one has declared yet for the Greens, for any of the big seats that I’m aware of.

        Representative Franke Wilmer (D-Bozeman) has declared for the at-large House seat, but fund raising has been minimal while the Legislature is on vacation in session. There are rumors that AG Bullock may declare, based on his fund-raising rumored to have exceeded the amount for a reelection run to AG.

        Sen. Larry Jent (D – Bozeman) has declared for the Governor’s job. Bullock is of course being rumored to run for this seat as well.

        Everyone is just waiting to see what Bullock will do.

    • Holding office is more about responding to power than having “flaws”. Politicians, all politicians, respond to the stick and could care less about the carrot. During that brief window every two years called elections, and only for that brief period, ordinary people have more power than normal, and politicians have to appear to respond to that power. But it is unfocused power, and politicians turn off voters as soon as the counting is done, and turn on the money spigot.

      Tester and Rehberg are virtually identical as far as I can see except that Rehberg is wealthier and so less easy to briber. He doesn’t have to worry about a job when he leaves office, and can ignore perks like jobs for his relatives or stuffing money away in Swiss bank accounts while in office. Each is susceptible to influence by power – real power, and not voters, but Rehberg less so. Even so, neither attempts to buck the system. Given a choice between the two, and only the two, as a progressive I would vote for Rehberg. He’s a little more independent, and when he misbehaves, ordinary voters are more likely to come together to oppose him.

Comments are closed.