Daines Has More Trouble Figuring Out What to Do

Steve Daines has had trouble figure out what office he was running for.  Now, he can’t figure out his position on the most important issue currently facing the office he seeks.

This past January, Congressional candidate Steve Daines went on record at the Bitterroot Pachyderm luncheon promising, “that he would not approve an increase in the debt ceiling.”  Today, Daines has flipped his stance on the issue.

For months, Steve Daines’s campaign website asked followers to “add your name now to the petition to tell Congress to vote ‘NO’ to raising the ceiling on the national debt.”  That petition has disappeared, but here’s a screenshot:

Daines No Debt Limit Increase Petition


Daines now advocates Speaker Boehner’s plan to increase the debt ceiling, a complete reversal from his original position.

Franke Wilmer’s campaign caught the discrepancy, noting in a press release that Daines

“first agreed with the Tea Party and wanted America to default on our debt, now he agrees with Boehner and wants to cut Social Security and Medicare before raising the ceiling.”



35 Comments on "Daines Has More Trouble Figuring Out What to Do"

  1. I know Daines is raising a lot of money, but he’s such a dimwit… can’t we beat him? With a strong candidate and a grassroots movement tied to Tester’s campaign, I think we can…

  2. Denny just voted for Boehner’s Balanced Budjet amendment.


  3. first agreed with the Tea Party and wanted America to default on our debt, now he agrees with Boehner and wants to cut Social Security and Medicare before raising the ceiling.”

    Why is it so hard to see that it is Obama is the one who is after SS and the Medis? He is “the one.”

    • The Polish Wolf | July 31, 2011 2:20 AM at 2:20 AM |

      Funny how Obama was in office for two years, and despite being “the one who is after SS and the Medis”, said programs were in no danger while his party had the ability to set the budget and debt ceiling essentially at will.

      If Democrats were on board with the Republican plan here, why didn’t they do it in the last two years?

      • Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

        In politics everything has to be framed. Democrats cannot openly attack these programs because they are perceived to be the defenders. With the rise of the Fox News invention called the Tea Party, and the so-called budget “crisis” and “standoff”, everything is in place and the programs can be dismantled.

        There is no crisis and no standoff. But notice now how there is agreement now among the partisans that budgets cuts are necessary, war spending is sacrosanct and raising of taxes is unfathomable, so that all that is left is to go after social programs.

        That’s framing.

        Hey, notice how there’s no posting at this site on weekends? Is this somebody’s job? Notice how it is strictly used to attack the other party? Notice how the writing is uninspired, almost as if it is edited to be partisan but not enlightening? Is this a hack shop or what?

        • Alright, I’m getting it more clearly now. The Democrats seem to be defending social programs, but they and those who fund them really don’t mind if those programs get cut, as long as they can blame someone else. I don’t believe that’s true, but it’s not implausible.

          However, it seems then that it is still important to vote for Democrats, because even if they do want to cut social programs, they can’t do that as long as we keep them in the majority. Isn’t that so?

          • Quite the opposite. Social programs are in greater danger with Democrats in power precisely because you and so many others believe they are safe. That attitude opens the door for triangulation.

            The current “crisis” would not even exist with Republicans in power because you guys are suspicious of them. That’s why Clinton was going to go after Social Security in 1999’and why Obama is doingso now. You guys are snoozing.

            • ‘Safer’ as there is only ‘cleaner’ coal.

            • See Mark, that doesn’t make sense. Remember, Bush tried to privatize social security when he thought he had a mandate. As soon as Republicans lost their majority, there was no talk of that. For two years, even when the economy was tanking and deficit was exploding, no one considered removing social security. It’s the Democrats’ most popular issue, and they would never cut it without being able to blame Republicans, even if, like you suggest, they really want to.

            • Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance. And with Bush you give evidence to my contention that while Repulicans may want these things, they cannot achieve them because you are somewhat vigilant.

              And Democrats are not just going to openly attack these programs as that will awake the dogs.

              But working together, they can construct a framework in which the attack on the programs is seen as essential. That’s all they have done with the “standoff” and the “crisis.” They have framed you.

              But again, if it was just the Republicans, you would not stand for it. Because it is Obama, you are standing idly by and watching it happen.

              That’s how triangulation works. And it’s not just the social programs, Obama is out-Bushing Bush in everything, and you are standing idly by, swearing your support out of fear of mean old Republicans.

              Very hard to watch.

              • Thanks for making the most of a make believe issue, Mark. In other news, it’s discovered that Republicans secretly want to force government ownership of the NYSE. It’s true! You’ll never see it coming because it’s the last thing you’d expect.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | July 31, 2011 12:23 PM at 12:23 PM |

          Jeebus, mark, just copy this post and resubmit it now and then. And that way, you’ll save yourself the trouble of feigning a new post. And here, be poetic. Lizard would like that.




          “How I dislike thee,
          Let me count the ways!

          How I dislike thee site,
          I count the days
          Until it’s gone!

          How I dislike the Dems,
          The ways are countless!

          How long until us third party dudes
          Finally win?

          How long until someone
          Actually takes me seriously?
          That, my friend, is Greek to me!”

          Hope you like it!

          • If you liked my message Kralj, if I was part of the circle jerk , you would not be upset. You are only complaining because my message grates on you, meaning that’s causes you discomfort.


            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | July 31, 2011 10:21 PM at 10:21 PM |

              Because it’s simply repetitive and uesless. And it doesn’t “grate”. More like annoy. The first hundred times or so I agreed with you. Then, you simply became an obnoxious bore. You were MUCH better as an intellectual analyst leaving out your political fantasies. Now, you’re tilting at windmills, quixotic but NOT relevant.

              Hell, we ALL luv Nader and realize that he’s the one TRUE American politico, but first we gotta kick some teatard ass! Get on board the asskickin’ express, and soon as we gett’em whipped, we’ll call ya!

      • We only know what the Corporate media wants us to know. Some Dem’s have guts and some have sold out to the Corporate interests


        The Rep’s have flopped on Debt ceiling politics since Obama’s in the White House instead of Bush, and the Dem’s are letting them get away with it.


        If nothing else this whole mess will possibly wake people up.

        • That’ll be the day, if this website is typical. I don’t see waking up in our future.

          Regarding good Dems and bad Dems, part of being a vigilant citizen is incredulity. Always start suspecting posturing. The “con” in con game stands for confidence. Only real actions tell a story, and it is not found in words or voting records. It is found in money and real deeds for real constituents, who are not us.

          Politics is not religion. Faith is a character flaw.

          • Incredulity is why Democrats need to support our candidates in Montana.

            Democracy is about incrementalism and not radicalism. Mark’s pathological hopelessness is why the Republicans used the debt ceiling debate ploy to obfuscate the TEA party attacks on The Peoples’ Defense Against the Dark Arts like EPA and the USFWS.

            The West is broken because of people like Mark have given up on holding livestock interests to account for destroying critical habitat.

            • I’d be happy with incrementalism if such a thing actually happened. I see both parties working against us, and not incrementally. The current attack on social spending is not an incremental thrust. They mean to do harm and I mean by “them” both parties.

              Are you a carpenter? Do you understand framing? Do you know that when you step into a framed debate, you automaticlly lose?

          • You’re talking more like an insurance salesman Mark, then making a point. The problem is our social policies of today, aren’t really socialist policies. It’s a mixed bag of capitalism, greed, and folks just trying to make sure they stay healthy. Our Health Care is nothing like other countries, that have social medicine. And the democrats have always favored doing the right thing for the little folk, the middle class.

            There’s nothing perceived about the direction that we took as Democrats when creating unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Democrats developed those programs, while republicans voted against them.Then the republicans for years, Merrily carved them to death for insurance company loopholes . We were lucky to have the majority votes necessary for these programs to exist today. So your explanation of the word “con,” fits more with trying to say these programs are bad, when the GOP went out of their way to destroy them, legislative amendment by legislative amendment over the years! Making the laws that once protected us Crapola today! Case in point: Medicare doughnut hole! Glad Obama closed that gaping wound in revenue!

            I feel your “Con” equals confidence description wrong. Connard might be a better explanation. It is a French word meaning A-HOle!

  4. I’d feel a lot better about Franke Wilmer if she hadn’t voted for HR 198, the law that gives energy corporations the right of eminent domain to condemn private property for projects (like MSTI or MATL) which benefit only them.

    I’m working with a group on an initiative referendum petition to let the people vote on this eminent-domain-for-corporations law that Wilmer helped pass. It’s IR 125. If a petition comes your way, please sign it.

    The only way I’ll vote for Wilmer is if she publicly apologizes for her vote on HR 198 and signs the petition. Otherwise, I won’t vote at all for House member.

  5. I think Beth is right, if we can get candidates that can raise enough money to beat him. Gillan and Wilmer seem to be the best bets.

  6. I really don’t see where he is advocating the raising the debt ceiling the article you linked was him talking about a Balanced Budget/caps/cuts not actually raising the debt ceiling. It seems to be carefully crafted in that way.

    We need to make sure we stay accurate, I am sick of the constant back and forth filled with half-truths(as Schweitzer mentioned recently for the reason DC is broken).

    & Kim seems to be our best chance in the congressional race.

  7. Daines writes of the Republican plan to raise the debt limit “It?s exactly what is needed to meet the looming deadline and to secure our country`s future”

    That’s called supporting the Republican plan to raise the debt limit.

  8. Why wouldn’t we just call up and schedule a meeting like adults?

  9. I meant that @larry kurtz

Comments are closed.