Dennis Rehberg’s Sloppy Homework

Congressman Denny Rehberg While announcing a conference call he organized to trash Jon Tester’s bipartisan Forest Jobs and Recreation bill this week, Dennis Rehberg tried to cobble together a laundry list of people and organizations that apparently oppose the bill (read Dennis’ list for yourselfand the screen shots here in case he tries to renege).  The only leadership Dennis Rehberg has ever shown on this entire issue has been to hold a few conference calls with his base supporters to dump on Tester’s bill.  Why? Well, according to Republican Sherm Anderson of Deer Lodge, simply because it’s Jon Tester’s bill.

 

Here’s what Anderson, an even-keeled former state senator and owner of Sun Mountain Lumber, told the Helena IR:

 

“Representative Rehberg has had the opportunity to get on board with this jobs bill and to be a part of it… I’m saddened by the fact that Representative Rehberg is making this a political issue.”

 

Ouch.  While Dennis Rehberg scrambles to kiss-and-make-up with his fellow Republicans, his press release listing the “opponents” of Tester’s bill deserves a closer look.  Because looking at it closely, there are more questions than answers…

 

1.       Where exactly did Rehberg’s list come from?  It’s a misspelled mishmash of organizations and batshit crazy ex-legislators cobbled together by Rehberg and… Matthew Koehler?  (The guy who single handedly tried to damage one of my favorite blogs Left in the West all on his own a few weeks ago.)  In 2009, Koehler testified against Tester’s forest bill before a Senate committee.  Page 47 of Koehler’s testimony lists several organizations that Rehberg borrowed for his press release this week.  Did Rehberg verify on his own that these organizations opposed the bill?  Or did he really just take Koehler’s word for it?

 

2.       Does Rehberg know he forgot to strike from his list all the out-of-state organizations that oppose Tester’s bill?  Among the far-left out-of-state leftwing groups on Rehberg’s list:

-RESTORE the North Woods (Um, based in Maine)

-Big Wildlife (Yeah, that’s in California)

-Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (Wyoming, Dennis, Wyoming)

-Cascadia Wildlands (Washington State)

-Friends of the Breitenbush Cascades (that would be based in Oregon)

-WildEarth Guardians (Arizona!)

 

3.       Do some of these organizations even exist?  Seriously, you can’t even find “Empire Snowmobile,” the “Freemont County Advisory Board,” and “Montana Rivers” on google.  Try it!

 

4.       I’ve been told no one from the Montana Stockgrowers Association took part in Dennis Rehberg’s call, despite the mention in Reherg’s release.  I’ve also been told there was a specific reason behind that (yoo hoo, reporters, that’s a hint!)

 

5.       The Buffalo Field Campaign?  Really?  If the Buffalo Field Campaign (hippie skirt-wearing white dudes with dreadlocks who cut down barbwire fences) is good enough for Rehberg’s list, then why weren’t they invited to be on his call?

 

Dennis Rehberg has to be pretty sore this week.  After all, the witness Senate Republicans invited to testify against Tester’s bill actually testified in support of it, telling Tester he “couldn’t have done a better job.”  That’s what you call sloppy homework on their part.  Our Congressman knows a thing or two about that.

 

 

Posted: May 27, 2011 at 7:39 am

51 thoughts on “Dennis Rehberg’s Sloppy Homework

  1. JC

    Um, if left-baiting is going to be the norm among Democrat Party insiders, then you’re going to have to accept the blow-back. You guys are doing your candidate a great disservice by throwing bombs at people and organizations that were once considered part of “the base” and worked hard to help get candidate Tester elected.

    I think that all of the native supporters and volunteers at Buffalo Field Campaign (who definitely aren’t “hippie skirt-wearing white dudes with dreadlocks”) are really going to have some issues with the regressive attitudes expressed here. You want to lose native vote, then go right ahead and dump on BFC, which was co-founded by a respected native leader, and enjoy’s political support from political leaders like one-time presidential VP Green Party nominee Winona LaDuke (go ahead and dump on the Greens now, too, and see how that helps your candidate).

    As to cutting down old fencing on expired grazing allotments: you got a problem with nonprofits collaborating with the USFS to take care of much needed and neglected maintenance on our National Forests? Or do you like the idea of baby bison getting hazed by helicopter, snowmobile, atv and horseback through old fencing, and getting all ripped up?

    And if Rehberg needs to strike all of the out-of-state critics of the FJRA, shouldn’t you also require Tester to strike all of the out-of-state “collaborators” on his bill? Or is it too hypocritical of you to ask that?

    I guarantee you guys that if you keep up the left-baiting and putting down Montanans and Native Americans, then you’re going to have to accept some responsible for the “Melcherization” of Jon Tester.

    1. The Polish Wolf

      “throwing bombs at people and organizations that were once considered part of “the base” and worked hard to help get candidate Tester elected.”

      JC, you can’t say sayonara and then come back and call yourself the base. And I believe the stereotype of the BFC campaign was intended to represent how Rehberg’s base would see them. And the point stands – Rehberg is using these groups to attack Tester when he himself is far more hostile to their interests. You and Matthew fall into the same category.

      1. Steve W

        We have an open primary and no voter registers as Democratic or Republican. We just ask for which party ballot we prefer to vote. If you want to join the Democrats you can do so for $25.00 Hardly anyone does. i did when Dean was chair. Now I’m not.

        If JC voted for Tester in 2006 then yes, he was part of Testers base. I walked doors for Tester in 2006. I won’t do that in 2012. You can do it for me, Polish Wolf. So start early and be out there everyday, or you won’t cover my territory.

        Who elected you keeper of the door who decides who is in and who is out? Yourself? You can come and go as you please. Ask Joe Lieberman. In fact, the more you come and go, the more power they give you. Ask Joe Lieberman. If you don’t like the come and go as you please policy, go tell Obama. He he he.

        See where it gets you.

      2. JC

        Where do I still call myself the base? I don’t. Dems leave me and tens of thousands of others behind as they lurch to the right.

        And your attempt at apologism for the depiction of BFC as from a republican viewpoint is weak. It doesn’t matter how you attempt to portray it to me. What matters is that the more this attitude is portrayed–mistakenly or not–the more that sites like this, including your apologism, work to alienate voter blocks.

        Make no mistake. Dems in Montana are narrowing a once-broad tent. Circling the wagons.

        Doesn’t bode well for ’12.

        1. The Polish Wolf

          “Dems in Montana are narrowing a once-broad tent. Circling the wagons.”

          No, JC. Any tent that includes you would be rather narrow, because you are far to the left of most Montanans. Don’t get me wrong, you’re more correct than most Montanans, because you’re probably smarter and better educated than the average person. But if Tester were to adopt those positions, he would antagonize that majority of Montanans who haven’t invested the same amount of time and effort into understand the issues as you have. Now, the ‘base’, as in the activists who have a disproportionate effect on elections, is important, but it is also a highly un-Democratic force in elections. I happen to believe that it is better to win by pleasing the majority of people rather than by firing up a highly enthusiastic minority.

    2. Jedediah

      Why do the Republicans constantly whack Democrats–locally and nationally–even though it has been demonstrated time and again that nothing of value has ever occurred during a Republican administration?
      Left leaning Montanans have two choices:
      They can vote for the candidate who most nearly approximates the kind of representation they want; or
      They can stay home on election day.
      Republicans always vote against change.

  2. ladybug

    Montana is dead last in access to broadband. Doesn’t arguing over an idyllic employment boom in wood chips and sawdust seems awfully 19th Century? Or in the case of biomass burning for electricity, downright Neanderthal.

  3. Matthew Koehler

    What Cowgirl? You’ve banned me here? For what? You won’t let me defend myself and respond to your allegations? That’s big of you. I hope you’ll post my original comment. Thanks.

  4. Matthew Koehler

    Wow Cowgirl! You’ve really outdone yourself here, haven’t you?

    Are you proud of yourself? Making fun of Buffalo Field Campaign activists by calling them “hippie skirt-wearing white dudes with dreadlocks who cut down barbwire fences.” The video clearly shows that BFC was volunteering to remove un-needed barbed wire fence from public lands so that elk, bison and deer (and other critters) don’t run into it and harm themselves? And this is how you treat them? I mean, when the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does something like this where’s your post calling them a bunch of “NASCAR Beer Drinking Dudes with Big Bellies and Bad Breath.”

    If you want to make an issue out of Rep Rehberg’s lame press conference, go right ahead. More power to you. By all accounts it was a lame press conference that was long and rhetoric and scare tactics and short on facts. Big surprise there, right?

    However, once you start dragging dedicated, progressive, conservation activists and organizations (who have repeatedly expressed very legit and substantive concerns with Tester’s logging bill) into the mix, well, then we have a problem.

    I guess, however, I should thank you for re-posting the link to my 2009 Senate testimony regarding the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/KoehlerTestimonyonS14701217090.pdf

    After all, citizens and conservation groups all around the country have serious, substantive concerns with various aspect of Sen Tester’s FJRA and that Senate testimony provides some pretty detailed, in-depth reasons why. Heck, we even have a line-by-line analysis of the bill. Why is so hard for people like Cowgirl to understand that people have substantive concerns with the bill? Perhaps could it be that Cowgirl and their ilk care more about supporting democratic politicians than actually supporting progressive public policy?

    Cowgirl said, “Page 47 of Koehler testimony lists several organizations that Rehberg borrowed for his press release this week. Did Rehberg verify on his own that these organizations opposed the bill? Or did he really just take Koehler’s word for it?”

    Well, again Cowgirl, thank you for pointing out my Senate testimony. I believe the list you’re referring to is actually on page 12 and 13. And it’s very nice of you to infer that I may have just made up these organizations or that these organizations actually don’t oppose the FRJA for very legit reasons. Are you saying that I lied in my testimony before the Senate ENR Committee, Cowgirl? If so, please let the Senate ENR Committee know, as I assume there would be some consequences for lying during testimony.

    As you can also see, I opened up my testimony with:

    “I’m here today representing the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, a coalition of conservation organizations and citizens dedicated to wildlands protection, Wilderness preservation, and the sound long-term management of our federal public lands legacy. Our Montana-spawned coalition includes small-business owners, scientists, educators and teachers, 4th and 5th generation Montanans, hikers and backpackers, hunters and anglers, wildlife viewers, outfitters and guides, veterans, retired Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials, ranchers and farmers, former loggers and mill workers, health care practitioners, craftspersons, and community leaders – all stakeholders committed to America’s public wildlands legacy.

    Our coalition has produced a number of documents, which I have provided at the end of this testimony. I would like to respectfully ask that these documents be included in their entirety in the official record for this hearing. The first document is our coalition’s detailed, line-by-line Analysis of S.1470 (also available at: http://testerloggingbilltruths.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/analysis-of-s-1470.pdf). The second item is Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America’s Wildlands, which has been signed by fifty conservation groups from Montana and around the country (also available at: http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com/keeping-it-wild-in- defense-of-americas-public-wildlands).”

    Just radical stuff, eh Cowgirl? No substance here, right?

    Regarding Cowgirl’s point number 2: “Does Rehberg know he forgot to strike from his list all the out-of-state organizations that oppose Tester’s bill?”

    Once again, since Cowgirl really doesn’t know much about federal national forest policy (and doesn’t care to acknowledge any of the substantive concerns with Tester’s FJRA) she wouldn’t have any clue why organizations all around the country have issues with FJRA. In case you forgot, Cowgirl, these federal public lands belong equally to all Americans…and a dangerous precedent in Montana…or Alaska….or Alabama could have dire consequences for our whole federal public lands system. Could it be that politicians mandating logging, as Tester would do (or any resource extraction levels…coal, mining, oil and gas, grazing) on national forests sets a dangerous precedent that would compromise our national forest legacy?

    Perhaps that’s why groups such as the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility also oppose key aspect of Tester’s bill.

    I do have to admit I mildly enjoyed that a left-leaning website such as the MT Cowgirl Blog could write this statement: “Among the far-left out-of-state leftwing groups on Rehberg’s list.” Cowgirl: think you could have put a few more “far-left” “leftwings” in there? Seems like you might have forgotten a few other slurs, right? How about “radical” “obstructionist” or the ever-popular “eco-terrorists.”

    Well, let’s just take a look at the totally crazy stuff these “far-left” “leftwingers” “out-of-states” that Cowgirl highlight are up to, shall we?

    Restore the Northwoods
    http://www.restore.org/index_noflash.html
    RESTORE: The North Woods was founded in 1992 by conservationists who wanted to go beyond endless damage control, to begin restoring the health of entire landscapes. We wanted to focus on action, not bureaucracy. We wanted to revive the grassroots spirit that led to the great conservation victories of the past. And it is working. RESTORE is providing leadership for positive change through three major campaigns: (1) creation of a 3.2-million-acre Maine Woods National Park; (2) recovery of the extirpated and imperiled wildlife, including the eastern timber wolf, Canada lynx, and Atlantic salmon; and (3) recovery and protection of wild forests in New England.

    Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (http://www.voiceforthewild.org)
    BCA is dedicated to protecting wildlife and wild places in Wyoming and surrounding states, primarily on public lands.

    Cascadia Wildlands (http://www.cascwild.org)
    Cascadia Wildlands educates, agitates, and inspires a movement to protect and restore Cascadia’s wild ecosystems. We protect the most threatened wild places and wildlife from Oregon to Alaska. We envision vast old-growth forests, rivers full of wild salmon, wolves howling in the backcountry, and vibrant communities sustained by the unique landscapes of the Cascadia Bioregion.

    WildEarth Guardians (http://www.wildearthguardians.org)
    WildEarth Guardians protects and restores wildlife, wild rivers, and wild places in the American West. We have four programs focusing on wildlife, wild places, wild rivers, and climate and energy.

    Buffalo Field Campaign (http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org)
    Mission: To stop the slaughter of Yellowstone’s wild buffalo herd, protect the natural habitat of wild free-roaming buffalo and native wildlife, and to work with people of all Nations to honor the sacredness of the wild buffalo.

    OMG! These “far-left” “leftwing” conservation groups are just crazy! I forgot that we should just let any politician with a “D” after their name do whatever they want to set negative precedents with their pet legislation and riders, right?

  5. Deciding

    I Don’t always agree with Jon Tester or with Cowgirl. But I am dismayed that this is how Rehberg attempts to shape the laws of the United States of America
    Cutting and pasting from the testimony of anyone without checking it–no matter how much Rehberg trusts the individual(and has Rehberg even talked to any of these groups he lists??) Seems not very smart.

  6. Matthew Koehler

    Since MT Cowgirl is apparently so very interested in some of the OUT-OF-STATE conservation groups who oppose various aspects of Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill due to very legit and substantive policy concerns….

    MT Cowgirl will likely be very interested to learn that, according to official IRS tax reports at guidestar.com, the Montana Wilderness Association received nearly $1 million ($943,595.00) from two out-of-state foundations (one based in DC/Philadelphia and the other based in Seattle) to promote the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. That figure doesn’t even include any grants from this year, so the figure MWA collected from out-of-state foundations might actually be closer to $1.5 million.

    Anyway, I’m pretty sure all that cash came in handy when running expensive FJRA newspaper/radio/on-line ads, conducting internal focus group studies/messaging/polling information, hiring kids to gather petitions and giving the public the (false) impression that everyone in the world supports Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill. Thanks.

  7. lizard

    what a crap post. way to revive the infighting. but i don’t expect much from a dem-shill site like this one.

      1. lizard

        that “need” has not been effectively articulated. the message here is quite the opposite.

        but it might work without having to pretend to placate the “principled” left.

        or, if it doesn’t, just rapid response dissenters. GO PATRIOT ACT!!!

        1. Mark Tokarski

          If you can find a left in this land of righties, drop me a line. We’ll have coffee, the two of us.

  8. Matthew Koehler

    One other thing:

    Regarding Cowgirl’s statement that I’m the guy who “single handedly tried to damage one of my favorite blogs Left in the West all on his own a few weeks ago.”

    Well, the truth of the matter is that around April 19, 2011 someone at LiTW removed my front-page posting status. As people can clearly see Rob Kailey gave me that front-page posting status on November 12, 2010 (see: http://leftinthewest.com/diary/4461/admin-notes). It should be noted that both Rob and Matt Signer have denied removing my front page posting status, so either these guys aren’t being truthful, or someone else at LiTW actually disabled my front page post status.

    Regardless, funny that someone at LiTW removing me from front page posting status somehow, in Cowgirl’s mind, equates to my “single handedly trying to damage LiTW.” Nothing is further from the truth. I valued LiTW as a place where people could debate and discuss the important issues of the day. Seems like nothing much is happening over at LiTW these days…I just have a hard time figuring out how that’s my fault.

    And for the record, as far as I can tell, when I had front-page posting status at LiTW I made a total of 29 front-page posts.

    Of those 29 posts:

    • Approximately 20 posts dealt specifically with the 2011 MT
    Legislature, criticizing the actions of the MT GOP. Mainly these were on enviro issues, but also labor, anti-discrimination, etc. Most of these posts also had an action alert component where I tried to get LiTW readers to take action. (just crazy of me, eh? Is this how I “single handedly damaged LiTW?”

    • 2 posts were about the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.

    • 4 posts were about wolves and politics. One more post was a memorial I wrote for an anti-mountain top removal coal mining activist friend that died. And finally, one post was a general political post, while one was a general environmental post.

    Of these 29 total posts, I actually wrote something that mentioned Senator Tester approximately 8 times, each in connection to the substantive concerns, rhetoric and tactics concerning his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, his banking fee bill or his wolf rider.

    Too bad some people some people can’t handle a little discussion and debate about important topics, eh? Thanks.

  9. Matthew Koehler

    Not sure if Cowgirl believes the US Forest Service/Dept of Ag is a “far-left” “leftwing” out of state organization…but…

    Here is the official written testimony that Harris Sherman, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, US Dept of Agriculture gave before the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee concerning S. 268, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. http://www.wildrockies.org/files/Sherman-Testimony-S_268_05-25-11.pdf

    As you’ll see in the official testimony (and the snip provided below) the US Dept of Ag, US Forest Service and Obama Administration still have substantive concerns regarding the mandated logging provisions within Title I. Astute readers will notice that many of these same substantive concerns are shared, and have been expressed to Senator Tester, by members of the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign and by conservation groups including the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and others.

    ————-

    From Harris Sherman, USDA Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, official written testimony on FJRA:

    In general, and as the Department has testified to this Subcommittee in the last Congress, we have reservations about legislating forest management direction or specific treatment levels on a site specific basis because it could establish a precedent leading to multiple site-specific laws in the future. We also recognize the importance of collaborative efforts such as the one which helped produce this legislation. These efforts are critically important to increasing public support for needed forest management activities, particularly in light of the bark beetle crisis facing Montana and other western states. We believe these efforts can significantly advance forest restoration, reduce litigation risk for these activities, and make it easier to provide jobs and opportunities in the forest industry for rural communities.

    I will now point out several specific concerns that the Department would like to work with the Committee and Senator Tester to address.

    One concern is the definition of mechanical treatment in Section 102(6). The Department acknowledges the inclusion of language that allows fiber to be left on the forest floor after treatment only if an option for removal of the fiber was provided. However, while we acknowledge the importance of encouraging the development of woody biomass and other small diameter timber markets, requiring that an option be provided for removing the fiber creates a barrier to using certain contracting methods that may be more effective in achieving the objectives of the bill.

    Another concern arises in Section 103(b). While the Department believes the acreage targets for mechanical treatments are achievable and sustainable, we are concerned about the precedent set by legislating these targets given constrained Federal resources. Further, the Department would not want to draw resources from priority work on other units of the National Forest System in order to accomplish the goals in this legislation. Finally, we do not want to create unrealistic expectations by communities and stakeholders about the quantity of treatments that the agency would accomplish.

    The reporting requirements in Section 103(f) raise two concerns. First, the requirements overlook an important opportunity to evaluate whether the Act’s prescriptions continue to provide optimal performance in light of potential changes in budget trends, wood markets and forest health conditions. Second, the analyses prescribed by this subsection may be duplicative of reports required by other laws and regulations.

    Regarding Section 103(g), we very much appreciate the Senator’s recognition of the need to maintain the agency’s financial capacity to carry out critical forest management activities elsewhere in the National Forest System. We look forward to working with the Senator to further refine this subsection in order to achieve that outcome. Specifically, we are concerned that the provision as written could give rise to potential litigation about the appropriate allocation of funds among the Regions.

    Finally, the Department is concerned about several prescriptions in the legislation that codify scientific assumptions and value determinations that, while consistent with our shared vision today, may come to be recognized as undesirable or ineffective as new data and circumstances arise in the future. These include the road-density standards in Sections 104(a)(4) and 104(b)(3), and the INFISH compliance requirement in Section 104(b)(1).

  10. Rob Kailey

    You guys are doing your candidate a great disservice by throwing bombs at people and organizations that were once considered part of “the base” and worked hard to help get candidate Tester elected.

    I, for one, appreciate the past tense in that statement. It makes the concern trolling rather more evident. The fact is that opposition is opposition. Those who wish to attack Jon Tester, and then hide behind the mantle of the ‘friendly’ left are no different Denny Rehberg. That was the point of this post. Whether ‘the left’, it’s a point that needs to be made.

    There was a time I was naive enough to believe that the opposition to the FJRA was just the principled opposition to a legislative effort. Since then, Jon Tester has been attacked for his stand against unconstitutional gun control in Washington DC, his support of allowing allowing firearms in National Parks (which despite dire predictions has had no impact whatsoever), his stand against amnesty for illegal aliens (which is actually fulfilling exactly what he said he’d do), and of course, the Wolf rider, in which he has been called a ‘slimy’ politician who engages in unconstitutional legislation. He even got attacked, ridiculously, for writing an op-ed in which he advocates reducing wasteful government spending. In one online posting concerning Tester’s attempt to end oil and gas subsidies, one fool even attacked him by using a quote from a politician bought and paid for by the oil industry. I guess purchased politicians are just dandy when they help attack the *real* enemy, Jon Tester.

    It should be obvious to any who read the Montana online that all of these attacks have come from the so-called ‘principled’ left. In fact, every one of those attacks have come from the fine individuals represented in the comments to this thread. One would expect that the Rehberg camp or the Republicants would be responsible for such an onslaught. Seriously, why should they bother when the ‘principled left’ is carrying their water for them? These people are not friendlies, and Koehler has already loudly pronounced that he will not vote for Tester. To those of us who do believe that Jon is doing the will of Montana, then there is little reason or cause for us to reason with them. We owe them nothing, and they will repay in kind.

    1. Matthew Koehler

      “Koehler has already loudly pronounced that he will not vote for Tester.”

      I’m not sure I’ve “loudly pronounced” this fact Kailey. I might have mentioned something in passing during a blog comment. Big deal. This is America, right? I don’t work on electoral politics and last time I checked I have only one vote and really don’t care to waste my time trying to convince other people how they should fill out their ballot. But, since you brought up it, yes, as it currently stands, I will be leaving the boxes on my ballot for the Montana 2012 senate race blank. You got a problem with that, Kailey?

      1. Rob Kailey

        No, I have a problem with your lie:

        I have only one vote and really don’t care to waste my time trying to convince other people how they should fill out their ballot.

        Who was it who foolishly tried to promote the BS anger coming from the city of Washington DC about how Jon Tester supported the Second Amendment in that federal holding? Yup, that was you, liar. Look at your disingenuous waffling:

        I might have mentioned something in passing during a blog comment. … But, since you brought up it, yes, as it currently stands, I will be leaving the boxes on my ballot for the Montana 2012 senate race blank.

        “Might have”? You know damned well you wrote it, and everyone else here does as well. Evasive crap like that makes you sound like the worst of politicians. It seems you do care about electoral politics, and how other people fill out their ballot. Other people aren’t as stupid as you obviously think they are, Matthew. Your agenda is very transparent. As I stated quite clearly and you avoided like the plague, you are not a friendly. No one has any reason to believe anything you say about Jon Tester.

        1. Matthew Koehler

          Still not sure what I’ve “lied” about here Robbie. Also not sure what you’re talking about with the past post about local citizens and elected officials working together to get some gun control in the DC…only to have politicians siding w/ the NRA.

          And since you stated, “Your agenda is very transparent.”

          Could you please explain to me what that agenda is?

          And as far as your: “No one has any reason to believe anything you say about Jon Tester.”

          Oh, that’s right…because I “lie” right Robbie? Yeah, got it…but again, do you care to offer any proof of all this “lying ’bout Senator Tester” I do. Thanks.

          1. Rob Kailey

            Still not sure what I’ve “lied” about here

            No, you wouldn’t be, or at least wouldn’t admit the obvious. Your lie is simple. You claim not to engage in electoral politics yet obviously do so. Don’t be dense, Koehler.

            And since you stated, “Your agenda is very transparent.”

            Could you please explain to me what that agenda is?

            Montana Cowgirl already did that. I will jump through no hoops for you, liar.

  11. ladybug

    Dan,

    This aired on Bozeman NBC affiliate, May 24, by Katherine Mozzone:

    “The requirement for higher speed connections has become greater as the amount of content that we use and the ways it’s being delivered to us continues to require more and more connectivity speed,” says MSU professor, Richard Wolff.

    The FCC sets the minimum broadband speed at four megabits per second. A recent nationwide survey from
    Speed Matters found that most U.S. households have Internet that meets the threshold, except in Montana. Over three-quarters of the households, 77%, failed to meet speed requirements, putting it last in the nation. —–

    Even 21st-Century cavemen understand the value of improving broadband infrastructure. Throwing money at make-believe jobs in the woods is a very poor business decision. What a waste.

  12. problembear

    my guess is that mr tester’s bill which includes a highly controversial and precedent setting requirement for mandated logging (regardless of economic viability in a construction depression) is getting nowhere with other members of the senate who listen to responsible national conservation groups who are allied against the so-called forest jobs and recreation bill.
    by the way, how many times have they changed the name of this albatross anyway? i can’t keep track.

    one has to wonder why the overly shrill attack by the author of this post on local montana critics who have been excluded by mr tester’s staff from any meaningful participation in this conrad burns born boondoggle……

    hmmm.

  13. lizard

    good point, Rob. it’s the “principled left” that’s the problem. time to get IN! OUR! FACE!

    1. Rob Kailey

      I’ve been hesitant to point out your ignorance, Lizard, but WTH. You don’t understand why I posted that very quote at my website. It is ironically humorous, given that the person who first wrote it just got their butt kicked in an argument by many beyond just me, and went all Ad Hominem because of it. They did so given a particular quirk of my online handle at a site well removed from the Montana online. And the part you are most clueless about, Liz, is that that quote at my own website is actually a link that could have educated you about the topic. I’m certain that such a learned poet would have understood such artistry. Perhaps you’re not that learned after all.

  14. Mark Tokarski

    Generally I have found professional Democrats to be impenetrable. The mere placement of a D by someone’s name confers automatic credibility. That person can then behave in any manner and will find that there are people in jumpsuits with brooms to clean up behind them. This is the role that ‘Cowgirl’ and others have assumed. Sweepers.

    It’s degrading, so it should come as no surprise that they engage in compensatory behavior, attacking those who are issue (as opposed to party) oriented. It’s a means of maintaing some semblance of dignity while stuck in a submissive position, for which propriety does not allow precise description.

    He’ll of a way to live. That’s the best that can be said.

  15. larry kurtz

    The Rocky Mountain Complex is broken, the FS should come out of the USDA, and weaponized wildfire is one Jared Loughner away from this.

    Tester is under pressure to address a century of mismanaged public lands and is up against a West full of Congress earth haters.

    I am farther left than any on this forum and am proud to have Jon Tester representing me.

    1. JC

      “I am farther left than any on this forum”

      Yeah? What’s your litmus test for leftiness?

      “Tester is under pressure to address a century of mismanaged public lands”

      What do you see that “century of mismanaged public lands” consisting of that Jon Tester is capable of having the vision to fix?

      And just who is pressuring him to do so? Those out-of-state funders of MWA? Those trans-national corporations masquerading as “collaborators” on Tester’s logging bill? National “environmental” groups funded by Pew? Motorized off-road advocates? Anti-wilderness oligarchs?

      And if you demand the USFS be extricated from the USDA, just what do you propose doing with it?

      A lot of questions, I know. But I really am interested in the far left take on these things.

      Oh, one last thing. The “weaponized fire” reference. You think that Jon Tester has the guts to take on global warming in a meaningful way? Because you know, those pine bark beetle infestations that are feeding all those “weaponized” wildfires that threaten folks’ real estate are just a symptom.

      Maybe one more thing: at what point in history would you freeze time in order that a newly-enlightned USFS attempt to mimic the landscape? You know, according to Jon Tester’s mandated forest prescriptions and all… jes askin’.

      1. larry kurtz

        Your post at Blackbirds is a good one. The Left has to lead locally, win elections, produce results, then run for the legislature. Tester is a community organizer leading from the center. He heard my concerns when he visited us in Boulder.

        Many lands under FS purview could be put into the BIA Forestry Division, especially the mal-named Custer National Forest, as part of settlements with tribes. The rest should be made part of DoI and assume a Bureau of Reclamation posture.

        Aspen habitat must be restored; throw cattle off public lands. Does Tester’s bill do that? No. Antibiotics in watersheds are killing fungal communities and i agree with Matthew Koehler’s conclusions.

        Weaponized wildfire is already happening in the foothills of LA. Our cool Springs have kept it at bay here in Basin surrounded by the Beaverhead-Deerlodge. The Helena National Forest scares the crap out of me.

  16. Matthew Koehler

    Cowgirl has sure been silent here in the comment section of this post. Perhaps the title of the post should read “Cowgirl’s sloppy homework.”

      1. Matthew Koehler

        Grow up Robbie. And when you do, come see in Missoula. I’d love to have a face-to-face. Thanks.

        1. Rob Kailey

          It’s only Ad Hominem when the other guy does it, right kitten?

          And no, Koehler, I don’t think you’d “love” a face-to-face. I think you’re nothing more than a lying snake, which might be an insult to legless vertebrates. You obviously think I’m a child, or at least will promote such to hide the fact that you’re a lying snake. So, exactly what do you think could be accomplished by a “face to face” meeting, Matthew?

          1. Matthew Koehler

            Robbie, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by a face-to-face. Anyway, here you go again calling me a liar. You tried that last month too, didn’t you? Anyway, please explain to me what I’ve lied about. Thanks.

              1. Matthew Koehler

                So little Robbie just goes around calling people “liars,” but offers no proof. Good for everyone to know what level you’re playing on.

                1. Matthew Koehler

                  The “lie” I told…but you refuse to tell me what it was…is “obvious.”

                  Ah….yeah…hmmm…Ok….I just go around lying in public forums. That’s I’m sure why I was invited to give testimony at the US Senate.

                  You’re right Robbie, I’ve so totally lost here. I cry “uncle.” You’re the best! No, seriously, you’re the best.

                  1. Steve W

                    I’m thinking that someone needs to edjumacate Kailey on what liable is and what it means, in a legal sense.

                    1. Rob Kailey

                      I’m thinking that someone needs to “edjumacate” you, Steve, on the difference between “liable” and libel, in the sense of basic English language, idiot.

Comments are closed.