Posted: December 26, 2011 at 11:43 am
Cowgirl Countdown 2011! The Top Ten Blog Stories of the Year
As 2011 draws to a close, in the next week, we will be counting down the Top Ten Cowgirl Stories of 2011. Each day will feature one of the top ten most popular blog posts of the year, based on total viewership. Also in the mix will be a few of my (and readers’) favorite stories from other Montana blog sites.
Today we begin with #10 and #9. The tenth most viewed Cowgirl blog of the year was Montana’s New Welfare Queens: Guess Who? Below is the reprint of that post (and the update to it (Republican Who Took $495,000 in Federal Subsidies Wants to Cut Education, Food Assistance)
Janna Taylor, one of Montana’s loudest and proudest Tea Partiers, and also the Montana House whip, has collected $1,000,000 over the last 10 years in federal cash farm subsidies, according to newly released figures.
State senator Bruce Tutvedt, another proud ultra-conservative who runs around Montana railing against excessive spending and the evils of “too much government”, has collected $643,063.
In fact, of the top 33 legislators in Montana who are recipients of federal farm assistance payments (which are cash payments that the government gives farmers for NOT growing crops), 30 are Republicans. They all claim some affiliation or solidarity with the Tea Party. All of them rail constantly against the federal government and excessive spending. Most of them just voted, last week, for the now infamous Montana Nullification Act, which would have allowed the state to selectively ignore federal law.
Taylor was the gal, mind you, who said that Governor Schweitzer had “grown government” so much that “the governor’s residence needs to befumigated when he leaves office.” And here is a peach of a response from Rep. Taylor, when confronted with the fact that she’s been on the dole to the tune of a 100 grand annually for the last decade: “I don’t control federal dollars. Talk to Senators Baucus or Tester.”
Speaking of Senator Baucus, and speaking of queens, Taylor’s husband ran for US Senate against Baucus in 2002, but dropped out when theDemocratic party ran an attack ad against him, using TV footage which tried to suggest, in a not so subtle way, that Mr. Taylor was once an “effeminate” hairdresser in a previous life. The TV ad also raised a more substantive issue: that Mr. Taylor had taken massive amounts of federal loans to start a beauty salon, which he had never repaid.
Amusingly, Mr. Taylor, in that pathetic 2002 effort to beat Baucus, had been giving speeches dressed up as Teddy Roosevelt, with wire-rimmed spectacles, a TR-style mustache and even donning a turn-of-the-century wardrobe.
I don’t know what TR thought of hairdressers, but he probably didn’t believe in anti-government, free-market-obsessed conservatives taking loans and not repaying them, or taking a hundred thousand dollars a year for not farming.
Tutvedt, too, has an interesting response when confronted with his own pile of checks that Clinton, Bush and Obama have written him for the last 14 years in federal assistance: he is preventing starvation. If there we’re a free market for crops, Tutvedt says, “people would starve or go hungry, and I’m not willing to go there.”
I never knew Tea Partiers were so worried about the neediest.
Great List of GOP Hypocrites you got there!
It’s been my experience that Democrats are able to get away with more crap than Republicans precisely because people like you start our with the assumption that they are better without rigorous examination. Oce elected, you tend to ignore them allowing them tremendous leverage to pull stuff on us, and then when called to task you say nonsense like “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
All things considered, I prefer an enemy across the table to one at my side.
it’s been my experience that themo-craps and republi-cons have been roughly equal in their criminal activities agains the people of amelika…
illegal and immoral wars used as excuse to limit our rights and expand the power of government…
financial giveaways used as excuse to cut citizen benefits…
blowing billions in the reality show called elections.
the list is staggering.
all things considered…
we might prefer our enemies in prison as opposed to in office.
And to this day, we don’t know who would have been the better senator, Taylor or Baucus. One thing our political campaigns do not give us is useful information. However, since 2002 when Baucus beat Taylor, hard information suggests that Baucus truly sucks as a representative. That he also sucks as a human should not matter as much, but merely completes the picture of a slimy individual propped up in office by power and money.
I’d give Taylor another shot. He cannot be worse.
“I’d give Taylor another shot. He cannot be worse.”
Your naivete is quaint.
Don’t be dense. You have no idea of the quality of a man based on an election campaign that consists of 30 second ads. He might be a serious man with serious ideas, but such men cannot compete on that basis. They ahve to turn themselves over the ad campaigns so that they can appeal to frivolous people, but then, look who I’m talking to.
I’ve met him, Mark. Larry’s assessment is pretty much spot on.
I still don’t get why that makes Baucus a better choice. Doesn’t it make more sense just not to vote? After all, the choice offers no real substance.
Of course you don’t. That’s the obvious result of your circular reasoning.
And to this day, we don’t know who would have been a better President, Nixon or Humphrey. That’s the problem with basing your decisions on certain knowledge of what never happened. You are comparing reality to a fantasy, a fantasy that in your circular reasoning is as evident as black and white. “Both parties are the same” is your mantra, Democrats being more dangerous (an obvious difference between parties) because they are more persuasive in their betrayal.
Mike Taylor is a shyster, a self-important popinjay, through and through. He would have done what every Republican for a decade now has done – follow the party line to the letter. Somehow, you fantasize that would have possibly made him better than Baucus?
For all of my problems with Max, here are the facts: Baucus led the Senate effort against GW to ‘spend his political capital’ in privatizing Social Security in 2005. Taylor never would have. Baucus voted against the Military Commissions Act. Taylor never would have. Baucus voted for the 2011 NDAA only after Habeus rights were reinserted for American citizens. Taylor would have voted for it at first pressing, just like all but 2 Senate Republicans did. Baucus may suck, in your view, but Taylor would have sucked worse. A lot worse.
No. And I’ve yet to see you justify that claim outside of your circular delusion.
Yes it does, Mark. I just showed you some of the difference. Now, I expect you to respond with a) tl,dr, b) moving the goalposts again, c) personal insult/Ad Hominem, your only real forte, and/or d) more assertions of the same crap you’ve been spewing for years and your inability to understand why others just don’t accept that drivel.
You are being quaint and naive, Mark, just like Larry said.
I was going to actually answer you till I saw that you went long. Didn’t finish reading.
Option a) it is. And, No. You were never going to answer me. You simply can’t
I was. But you go all Logic 101 on me, like princess on a horse, “oh looks me, I reeeeeeeeeeson so good,” and I think f*** this s***. You’re boring.
You are a princess on a white horse. That’s why you can’t respond.
Of course Taylor Brown would have been worse. Even if you don’t like Baucus it’s silly to think that he could ever be worse than smarmy Brown, or any republican for that matter.
But you have no evidence to that effect! There is nothing in the campaign material from that year that would justify your conclusion. It could be that Taylor Brown is gay, and he was certainly taken out by the hairdresser thing, a Baucus specialty. And before numnuts accuses me of circularity, I am not the one making unsubstantiated claims. I say there is “no evidence” to say that Brown would have been worse and you people say “Your naivete is quaint,” “Mike Taylor is a shyster, a self-important popinjay, through and through,” and finally “Of course Taylor Brown would have been worse. Even if you don’t like Baucus it’s silly to think that he could ever be worse than smarmy Brown, or any republican for that matter.”
Do you see what’s happening? I say you have no evidence of who would have been the better Senator, so that you should not be saying that we were better off with Maxine. I’m being told that Max is better, per se, and also being accused of making a comparison that cannot be made. I am not the one that did that. You guys did.
I only know what I know – Baucus is a schmuck. The other guy is, in my mind, an unknown quantity.
Mark, the man in question is not Taylor Brown. It is Mike Taylor. Please, for the love of Dog, learn the difference.
And the campaign material is all the people know? Wrong again, Mark.
Except his name is “Mike Taylor”. Please at least attempt to know what you’re writing about.
Yes, you did, Mark. You claimed, and I quote:
That is precisely a comparison, liar.
Tedious, you silly whore. Got the name wrong, but it’s fill in the blanks for you Dems anyway, any Dem will do anytime, always better to have a Dem, no thinking required, whichis why you, an authoritarian right winger, feel so comfortable in that party.
No, I fell OK about this. I’m often wrong about things, but Max is a Schmuck. The fact hat he defeated Mike Taylor had no known value for anyone besides the schmuck hisself, and you are still a large pompous blathering ass prancing around using your imagined reasoning skills to pillory us with logic.
Hey, did you see the essay I was writing about this week where Hannah Arendt talked about how logic plays well for totalitarians?
Well, marky, take your ass and go home, for Rob politely HANDED it to you again. Man! You are a glutton for some serious bloggal asswhuppin’, dude. You simply don’t know when to quit. Sad, so sad. Pahtetic really.
Did you just do nah-nah-nah-nah-nah? Are you freaking kidding me? You don’t even know what town you’re in most of the time, and you’re doing nah-nah-nah-nah on me. Good grief I gotta get a job.
Mark, if you’d have bothered to actually read Arendt, as opposed to using her as a prop for your delusions, you’d have seen that Arendt was calling logic a tool of totalitarianism. Logic is not a proof of totalitarianism’s existence, nor a necessary component of it. I hate to disappoint you … no I don’t.
Typical of the grandiose a-hole hat you are, you presume to understand but have no self-awareness. Yes, logic is a tool, but tin he totalitarian world it is only a hammer to forge out truth acceptable in that truth the totalitarian world.
This is you, jackass. I know words, I can use them pretty well. I can spot an authoritarian asshole across the room. It’s you, running your bullshit logic on everyone but yourself.
I knew what I said, I meant what I said. You are incapable of self reflection, but perhaps with good reason, as what you will find I’d very ugly.
Happy New Year, Rod. May you feel as much joy as you give to others.
Sans typos:
Typical of the grandiose a-hole that you are, you presume to understand but have no self-awareness. Yes, logic is a tool, but in the totalitarian world it is only a hammer to forge out truth acceptable in that totalitarian world.
This is you, jackass. I know words, I can use them pretty well. I can spot an authoritarian asshole across the room. It’s you, running your bullshit logic on everyone but yourself.
I knew what I said, I meant what I said. You are incapable of self reflection, but perhaps with good reason, as what you will find Is very ugly.
Happy New Year, Rod. May you feel as much joy as you give to others.
Given your need to double post instead of littering with typos, I don’t think you “know words” at all. The evidence is on my side.
No you can’t. You’re lying.
I know you meant it. It’s your fantasy. Why would anyone question your fantasy?
Ask your mom.
Ah, finally read you on a regular computer. Let’s see, I live in a fantasy world, you say. Would I not be the last to know then? If so, then isn’t your assertion to that effect merely a device you use to deflect? Isn’t that what you are doing? Deflecting? Isn’t that a way of doing the one thing authoritarians never do and sociopaths are incapable of doing … self-reflecting? It means to attempt to objectively analyze your own behavior and motives, as most of us regular people normally do. If is often painful, and we often have to modify our behavior, apologize and ask forgiveness from others … being alive and having feelings really sucks, Rod. Take my word for it, as you will never understand it yourself.
Of course, your authoritarian nature shines through, and so is easy to spot given your black/white thinking, use of logic as a hammer, and both the need to dominate others while submitting to higher authority at once. You recently did a major affirm on that with your Julian Assange post. The sociopathy was a harder call, but my first hint was the Monty stunt. Later came your incredible grandiosity, being the best philosophy student ever to attend MSU. That was like watching a confession. There is also tech natural evolutionary response that most of us have when exposed to a sociopath – the hair on our neck stands up. Your attempts to imitate emotion at your web site are really creepy, as you know the words but have no sense of music.
Now, at this time, I suggest you resolve to leave me alone, never to inject your thoughts under a comment I have made again. Each time you do, you get scorched not with my words, but exposure of your real nature.
Happy New Year, Rod Kailey. Don’t blow up frogs or torture kittens in the coming year, kitten.
You apparently are, Mark.
How exactly does that follow anything? (Hint: it doesn’t.) My observation is exactly what it is, an observation founded on a wealth of evidence. You really haven’t a clue that you claim things that must be true to you, but have no foundation in fact. You are a fantasist, Mark. No deflection or projection necessary.
Since you still can’t see what is obvious to anyone else, let’s look at this. You claim that you are a “normal person”, right here in fact. Yes? You also claim that normal people are manipulated through media and advert coercion, yes? Voting is pointless because of it, right? You choose not to vote because you have learned more than normal people. Is that accurate? That means you’ve transcended the manipulation to a better conclusion, right? By the very definition of the words involved, that means you’re not normal, because normal people continue to vote.
Here’s the funny part. It could just be that you have been manipulated by other sources, sources that convince you that you are “more” than normal for choosing not to do the normal thing, because it is somehow “better” (your word, not mine). Others of us, more normal, are convinced that you don’t know what you’re talking about, so we challenge you on the point. Your response is to somehow cry that we are abnormal, when you’ve very well shown that you are the one who has rejected normalcy. That’s very odd, Mark. If you know anything about psychology, that reeks of projection.
Very much like the emoprog leadership, Mark, you are a former right-winger. You’ve admitted as much. Your reaction has been the same as theirs to a pattern. You are now so “left” that any disagreement must be met with harsh derision of the individual disagreeing, lest your previous stupidity become an issue. That’s a fantasy, jackass, a fantasy you will defend to the nth degree.
I’ve never been a right-winger, Mark. I’ve been a liberal since I formed an identity. You are a convert. And just like most converts (ex-smokers, ex-alcoholics, newly minted Catholics, Mormons and Pentecostals) You think you have some magic knowledge that the rest of us lack. You really don’t; you were just late to the show. As one who never left the fold, I’d welcome you aboard, save that you now think you own the ideal itself. You don’t, and that’s classic denial of self-awareness.
More to the point, it’s still fostering the self-indulgence you brought from the right wing in the first place. From your original Monty comment until this very day, you continue to attempt to “educate” others given your special knowledge and insight, both of which you claim make you so much better than “normal”, in your own fantasist mind.
I don’t do requests, Mark. And Happy New Year to you as well.
You oughtta see your response, whatever it was, on an iPad. You’ll get there, fella, just keep shelving them books, or have you worked your way up to cashier? Anyway, each sentence where you annoyingly cite the remark you think you are debunking played abut at one letter a line. you’re generally frightfully tedious, but even for you that was unreadable.
Did I ever tell you that you are a pompous grandiose ass? Oh yeah, guess I did. Anyway, try typing in English some time, and use your words, Rod, use your words. Your volcabulary, including the word “kitten,” is now at 1200. Keep at it, mr. 4 point best philosophy student ever!
Mark, while I’m “shelving books”, I find a remarkable amount of my time spent selling iPads. It’s worth noting that very few others seem to have the difficulty with the technology that you do. Usually, I couch this observation in very polite terms, but you don’t deserve that. The technology is beyond you. You blame the device for your user errors. You should really seriously, put it back in the box and take it back to wherever you bought it. You truly can’t handle it.
Just think of how happy your New Year will be without this demon tech getting in the way of your brilliance …
Max is a regular pauper on this neat WaPo list of Congress-critters’ (approximate) net worth:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/congress-members-worth/index.html
How do you figure Janna Taylor is a Tea Partier? The Lake County Tea Party crowd can’t stand her!
Maybe she is disliked by the craziest tea baggers in Lake County, but VaJanna and her husband are both hard conservatives that would not have a problem fitting into the tea party. Plus she voted for every horrible tea bagger idea in the last legislative session.
JIMMY, WE HARDLY KNEW YE! How sad. Another Bagger bites the bag! Jumbo Jimmy Knoxious, the Round Mound of Knoxious Pounds, threw in the ol’ teabag. Montanafesto has the latest. Kinda sad to see Jumbo Jimbo go. The dude was human humor fodder of the highest order! Oh well, we still have janna taylor and hubby hairdresser!
http://montanafesto.org/knox-not-running-for-re-election-blames-others/