Desperate Denny

Denny Rehberg, who is trailing in some polls and has been unable to raise even half as much money as Jon Tester, has now resorted to hugging Brian Schweitzer in an effort to get some traction with persuadable voters.

In a news story about the Keystone XL Pipeline, which Rehberg promptly posted onto his campaign web page, he goes out of his way to praise the popular Schweitzer.

“Governor Brian Schweitzer did a great job negotiating that on-ramp,”

Rehberg says, referring to efforts by Schweitzer to ensure that the pipeline, if built, will allow Montana oil producers to put their oil onto the pipeline for delivery to refineries.

This is not the first time Rehberg has singled out Schweitzer for some kudos.  What’s delicious about this irony is the fact that once upon a time, Rehberg‘s goons made it their main focus to go after Schweitzer, guns ablazing.  But after a few years of the negative tactics,  Schweitzer received a 66% re-election margin and so the GOP gave up on the futile assasination attempts.  Now, Schweitzer is their pal.

Share

123 Comments on "Desperate Denny"

  1. “if built.” It’s only been postponed until after the election. That much is obvious.

  2. “Denny Rehberg, who is trailing in some polls…” Really? Plural polls? I thought we went over that single poll which drew data from last November. All subsequent polls after that have more current data and show Rehberg ahead the last I checked. Please provide your polls and dates of their data collection.

    • Interesting article in the comical today by Matt Gouras- seems Rehberg actually has the highest percentage of out of atare money- 78 percent to Tester’s 73 percent

  3. It’s useful if all who cite polls identify the poll, the dates and size of the sample, and provide a link to the poll itself.

    • James, these are the most current polls I am aware of: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72233.html

      t’s a tale of dueling polls in Montana, remarkably involving the same pollster. In a Public Opinion Strategies survey taken for American Crossroads, GOP Rep. Denny Rehberg was up 11 percentage points over Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. But in a separate survey, when POS partnered with Democratic firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, Rehberg’s lead shrunk to 3 percentage points, within the margin of error. The 11-point margin seems to have been an outlier. Two December polls showed Rehberg with small single-digit leads, so things appear to be trending in Rehberg’s favor.

      Who won January: Rehberg

      Latest poll: Rehberg 46 percent, Tester 43 percent (POS/FM3 Jan. 2-7)

  4. So Schweitzer does something good, a republican recognizes that and gets slammed? You may as well attack those Republicans that supported those “good” Democrat bills in the legislature that passed last time.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 18, 2012 10:50 PM at 10:50 PM |

      Um, it’s actually “democratic”, dipshit! Come back when you learn what an adjectival form is, moronic Pubbie dude! It’s called English, NOT teatardism! What was your highest grade level achieved anyway, dufus? Is this judy mars? Or perhaps cornhole burns? Jus wonderin’.

      • Good example of abusive ad hominem. Thanks for playing!

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 19, 2012 10:02 AM at 10:02 AM |

          Ad hominen? Not really. Pointing out that someone is too stoopid to participate intelligently in the discussion is NOT really ad hominen. It’s simply pointing out the obvious. You see, this is really not a forum for uneducated dolts. There a plenty of sites out there that cater to the grunts, groans, growls and slobbers of the inbred crowd. And besides, it’s an attempt at educating the moron. He’s probably busily googling adjectival form as we speak. And that’s a start, right?

          • Well you might as well double down.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 19, 2012 10:22 AM at 10:22 AM |

              Double down? Look, Lucy Goosey, one needs at LEAST some higher education to post here. A dude who doesn’t even understand the adjectival form is better suited to the moron blogs. Hell, over there no one notices!…..or cares. The motto over there is simple is good. Kinda like the Teatards themselves!

  5. The on ramp is one of the few things Schweitzer has done right. The rest — covered in “showmanship.” Sometimes there are issues that are clearly bipartisan: I thought prosperity and denting the influence of the mullahs and commie dictators would be two.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 18, 2012 10:58 PM at 10:58 PM |

      OUCH! Your Schweitzer envy is showin’, Skinnerflute! It’s kinda like penis envy only worse! Oh sure, you dudes got some certifiable penises runnin’, but they’re pretty limp! BTW, just WHERE is the Pubbie Schweitzer? The guy that has ANY “showmanship” at’all? Corky Stumblebum? Livingscam? Assman? Lil’ ricky? Kenny boy? Who? Who is the Pubbie Schweitzer? You morons got nuthin’.

  6. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 12:05 AM at 12:05 AM |

    See, reality is gonna start catching up anytime now! Since Rehberg became a candidate, he has talked a lot of Bull about what he would do if he’s elected….. Problem is, He hasn’t done anything as a legislator in the last 8 years! So far the “Ceement Jaysus” is the only thing ole Rehberg can say he saved for Montana, and we paid over 100,000 dollars a year for this do- nothing congressman, to save a religious article!

    He did produce 1 Job… get his son a Job as a Lobbyist! That Half page resume wont do him much good, compared to all the veterans Tester helped in the Country, all the farmers he save Money for with his farm bills, Helped the Ranchers with the wolf bill, and all the business workshops he created to help small Montana business owners get a leg up!

    I cant wait till Summer!

  7. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 12:11 AM at 12:11 AM |

    The Cons seem to be rattling more word sabers everyday! Yep nervous, isn’t the word for it, down right threatened to death by their own scary spin nightmares!

    The DEMOCRATS are Coming, The DEMOCRATS are Coming!

    • Are you some kind of parody? Do you realize that saying “the DEMOCRATS are coming, the DEMOCRATS are coming” has as much influence as Blutarsky in Animal House giving his exhortation – “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

      It hardly makes people away from their tubes.

      • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 7:34 AM at 7:34 AM |

        Whats wrong Mark, how would you know what makes a parody? Oh… OOH yea, I forgot you are one! Between You and Craig, Two republicans, and this sudden activity by youse guys, to just jump on a liberal Blog, and Bash Democrats, Obama, and the lefty’s that comment here… not to mention bashing cowgirl… It is a wonder you have anytime to work?

        Why dont you two kiddies run along and try to peddle your Malfeasance elsewhere? Cuz thats what your here to do isn’t it? Disrupt all us fine intelligent Montana folk, with RWTP propaganda, thats about as updated, as where you would like to take this country back to…. the 1940’s ring a bell?

        All this stammering, for attention cuz you have worn out your welcome elsewhere doesn’t impress me… not to mention others here!

        I wrote that little phrase: The DEMOCRATS are Coming, The DEMOCRATS are Coming! Cuz thats what you guys sound like! It fits like Chicken Little’s tale: the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

        • I get it. You’re Kralj in drag.

          • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 2:15 PM at 2:15 PM |

            Fine! I am Kralj in Drag( That’s a complement )…. but this is still a progressive website, so we belong here Larry and I…. so whats your excuse!

            • This is a “progressive” website? What, Norma, is this some kind of private club, where only the proper people can speak? Now, THERE’s a real respect for the first amendment. THERE’s a real love for civic discourse and argument in order to find the solutions that benefit the, um, greater good.
              What an imperialist you are.

              • There you have it. The best evidence that Tokarski is a useful GOoPer tool is a defense from Dave Skinner.

                What, Norma, is this some kind of private club, where only the proper people can speak?

                Uhh, Dave? It’s impolite, illogical and really pretty stupid to assume your own answer to a question. Under those circumstances, your weak sarcasm looks pretty idiotic. And I can’t wait to see you explain what ‘imperialism’ has to do with anything Norma wrote. I don’t think you understand what that word means.

                • Rob,
                  While I don’t understand Spanish, except for a few cuss words,
                  I understand English, even dialects like Kraljanese and Progressivish. So, let me type real slow ANOTHER similar word you might be able to “get” — T O T A L I T A R I A N.
                  Did that help?

                  • Not at all, because it isn’t the word you used. Imperialism is not a synonym for totalitarianism. You pouted that Norma was an “imperialist” … Your word, Right? See, those aren’t even the same. Oh do please attempt to tell me how they are?

                    And I don’t speak Spamish Spanish either. I live next to another border. See I learned to speak Canadian.

                    • Rob, I don’t know why you are having so much trouble to understand a very simple point. The context is progressive imperialism. “Progressivism” that is built on rhetorical abstractions and “imperialism” that exports those abstractions upon others to forceably accept under rule of the elite. For example, exporting “democracy” with a gun. As to “totalitarianism,” it is just another layer in the process of demanding only “party” approved discussion allowed here.

                    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 20, 2012 5:13 PM at 5:13 PM |

                      Holy Spit, they have taken a simple phrase of mine “Progressive website” and turned it into something different just to suit the RW propaganda! Unbelievable! What a bunch of jerks! Is this how you make your case?

                      Imperialistic? and you have made up a whole, new RW definition?

                      Bwahahahahaha

                    • Norma dear, here is another simple phrase of yours:

                      ILIKEWOODS AKA Norma Duffy
                      February 17, 2012 at 4:14 pm · Reply

                      Lefties write what they want on a leftie blog….Please go elsewhere to find the lying crapola, you speak of Craig!

                      Sorta makes Dave’s point.

                    • You don’t know because you’re not paying attention. Nor are you actually engaging. You’re cloaking terms in hope that no one will notice. I do.

                      You are positing a definition of “progressivism” that you do not defend as others have argued that it is no such thing. You are attempting to buffalo your way through such a difficulty by ignoring that such disagreement even exists. Your definition of ‘progressivism’ has not been accepted, so your attempt to tie it to imperialism is bullocks. The context was ‘what is a progressive blog and why do you hang out there?’. You rather idiotically assume a context that contains your conclusion within itself. No, Craig, no one was discussing “progressive imperialism” except, Skinner, you and FAUX News.

                      So please, have that conversation. But, for the love of intelligence, quit expecting anyone else to believe the definitions you consider ‘self-evident’. They aren’t. If we’re not going to join your ridiculous charade, it probably means that we think you’re kinda full of it, definition wise …

                • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 20, 2012 5:18 PM at 5:18 PM |

                  Yeah Agreed, The RWers like Dave, Love Mark! Best Tool they could have!

                • Rob, I didn’t think anyone would have to explain the “progressivism” of TR, Wilson, and FDR to you and to follow it’s modern manifestations.

  8. Toke: are you some kind of parrotty? Auk? Puffin? Dodo?

    A penguin goes to get his car fixed. The mechanic says, “there’s an ice cream shop across the street, you wait there if you’d like.

    About an hour later the penguin goes back to the shop where the mechanic tells him, “looks like you’ve blown a seal.”

    Penguin says, “Naw, that’s just a little ice cream on my beak.”

    • Original version set in Alaska, vehicle a snowmobile.

      Americans are dumbed down beyond rescue it appears, this website prima facie evidence.

      • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 7:38 AM at 7:38 AM |

        Look in the Mirror, and start with yourself Mark! You are certainly, “dumbed down beyond rescue”, and in need of something this blog wont give you…. a victory!

        • 61, Mark? Maybe you’re going through Man-o-pause.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 19, 2012 8:05 AM at 8:05 AM |

            Actually, it’s been said that Buttinski is such a big boob that he wears a manzier! And I believe it!

        • I assume you are talking about an electoral victory. You see, you are so dumbed-down that you cannot see that concentrated wealth extracts the same price from either candidate, so that the election is essentially a game to gain the inside tract, Rehberg’s backers against Tester’s backers. There’s nothing in it for us.

          You are not the dumbest commenter here, Larry. That honor goes to Kralj, with Norma making a run at him. You can transcend this nonsense.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 19, 2012 8:03 AM at 8:03 AM |

            Oh, Buttinski, you are just so pure, and chaste, and holy. We are not worthy to read you. You assHoliness comes shining through. You truly are assHolier than we. We can never hope to reach your level of assHoliness! Please forgive us. We are simply human. You are our very own Rick San Scrotum! Father Buttinski!

            • If you’re very very stupid, how can you possibly realize that you’re very very stupid? You’d have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you are. (John Cleese)

              • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 19, 2012 8:37 AM at 8:37 AM |

                The only other dude as pure as Buttinski, Rick San Scrotum! Hey, Buttinski, loosen up your chastity belt, dude. It’s cuttin’ off the circulation to your head!

                http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/some-people-listen-rick-santorum-and-

              • I’d appreciate it, Ole Boy, if you wouldn’t use my wittiness. The sentence was written about people, like you.

              • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 3:43 PM at 3:43 PM |

                Now your citing Liberals, John Gleese and the rest of the whats left of “Monty Python Circus,” still alive today are very big fans of Liberalism Mark! Those guys hang out with Keith Olbermann when they are in New York (true story)!

                • Norma – I am a lefty/progressive. You can’t fathom that, can you – I think it is because you equate being a lefty with being a Democrat, and most Democrats are right wingers.

                  • Nope, it’s because Larry and Norma, while they are a bit off-kilter, they are also practical folks. And while in theory you profess to be on the left wing, in practice your noise making, if it has any effect at all, will be to elect more Republicans and move our nation further right. That’s why they correctly see you and those who think like you as effective tools of right wing domination.

                    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 5:36 PM at 5:36 PM |

                      Way to go Wolf, You hit the nail on the Head! I do not profess to be Politically correct! I do profess to being an Adult, In an Adult world, where ca ca does occur! When I see it, I don’t point to it continually and ask someone else to clean up the mess… I start rolling up my sleeves and get the job done.

                      Mark, is the kind of person that just stirs the crap around! all that does is smell worse, and gets nothing done!

                      Thats why I know you aren’t a progressive Mark! Just a shit disturber!

                    • Matthew, define “practical” as it relates to those two people.

                    • …and Matthew, are you suggesting that, like Mark, the writers of Socialist Worker are mere “tools of right wing domination” because they criticize Obama? http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2012/01/29/obama-global-imperialist

                      Obama the global imperialist

                      January 29, 2012 10:12 am CST

                      In U.S. foreign policy, it really is the third term of George W. Bush. Get ready for the fourth. –PG

                      A decade later, the authors of that study are gone in name but their spirit of unending wars is alive and well within the Obama Administration’s recently announced “Defense Strategic Guidance” as part of “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” Where Clean Break offered what was then a radical Middle East military strategy, Obama’s DSG identifies US military priorities for the 21st century to “confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world” with an emphasis on the Middle East and Asia-Pacific region as the “greatest challenges for the future.” (Panetta, 1-5-2012)

                      Even prior to announcement of the DSG, the American military is still pursuing WMD’s as combat troops have been deployed to chase local ‘terrorists’ that pose no threat to the US; such as the Lord’s Army in Uganda and escalating a US military presence dispatching 2,500 Marines to Australia to protect US ‘national interests’ in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.

                      Addressing a January 5th news conference at the Pentagon, the president cited ‘enduring national interests’ as he read a prepared ten minute statement and left the podium without taking any questions; attending reporters remained in their places with bright, shiny faces leaving Defense Secretary Panetta and Joint Chief Martin Dempsey to carry on. With his usual eloquence, the president pledged that the United States is going to “maintain our military superiority … ready for the full range of contingencies and threats” and that ‘the US faces a complex and growing array of security challenges across the globe.”

                      The president’s grim pronouncements failed to reassure a US commitment to international law or to provide an analysis to justify a future of perpetual armed conflict and, as both Obama and Panetta postulated the pretense of victory in Iraq, neither acknowledged the 800-pound gorilla in the room that if the systematic destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of U.S. interventions was an example of providing for a ‘safer, more stable, prosperous world,’ then perhaps the world would be better off if the United States stayed at home and minded its own business.

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 19, 2012 6:55 PM at 6:55 PM |

                      Quit blowin’ the threads, moore.

                    • Craig – Yes, I am. Almost all revolutionary socialism has the practical effect of making Democratic leftism more difficult, and rightism, either democratic or military, more powerful

                    • Matthew, your claim was those, like the writers of Socialist Worker, that think like Mark are “…effective tools of right wing domination.” Isn’t there a difference between asserting someone is a tool, a mere puppet of the tool master, versus making your brand of Democratic leftism more difficult to accept?

                      I find the more “in your face” socialist very honest about their intentions and goals versus the indirect slow boiled chicken route that relies on conning the chicken until it becomes too weak to jump out after the temperature rises.

                      Again I ask, how do you define, “practical” as it relates to the antics of Larry and Norma?

                    • Effective tools, but not knowing ones. ‘Effective’, in the sense that they are tools in their effect, if not necessarily in their intention (though the most extreme also have a stake in elected government failing to take care of the poor).

                      Their ‘honesty’ is exactly why their effect is on your side. Most Democrats and progressives don’t want a socialist state; I think it’s fair to say that even some aspects of the welfare states of Europe make us uneasy. But the revolutionary socialist serve two purposes – they provide a straw man for rightists to point to when they want to use ‘socialism’ or ‘government’ as a dirty word (for example, Romney/Obamacare), and two, to keep more socialist-minded voters from voting, thus robbing us of a huge voting block.

                  • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 20, 2012 5:23 PM at 5:23 PM |

                    Your not! Your comments prove it…. your just a RW Tool that doesn’t vote!

            • I think I’ve explained you adequately. You are unreachable, and testimony to the main idea behind American democracy, that people should imagine themselves in charge while the rulers go about the business of ruling.

              That’s why we have elections – to keep you occupied and out of their hair.

              • Rehberg is poised to go down in flames.

                Few dispute the power of the rich to steer elections, Toke. I like to think of the process as my rich guys against the earth haters’ rich guys.

                I see Colorado is deconstructing her own experiment with legal cannabis in favor of a more universal experience based on economic development.

                An entire generation of growers has been trained and are standing by with expertise after President Obama is re-elected.

                I have been watching Cannabis Science (CBIS) in the OTC markets and have been tempted to buy.

              • Exactly a point I’ve made time and again – OBama is cracking down on medical marijuana in Colorado. Obama, and you are not aware of it.

                Asleep at the wheel?

                • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 2:11 PM at 2:11 PM |

                  Could you please stick with one Ridiculous spin point, and untruthful Pointless Nonsense about Obama, and then Back it up somewhere, with whatever Right Wing Logic That shows…. your at least from the same stratosphere as the rest of us!

                    • Initiated law is butchery and MMJ is discriminatory.

                      Laid out my cannabis legalization strategy at 4and20 Blackbirds some time ago.

                      The future of the business should be a combination synthesizing the cannabis equivalents of organic microbreweries, vintners, and greenhouses rolled into cottage industries that can withstand fiduciary and insurance requirements.

                      We are a litigious society: ways to generate revenue for states can be hammered out in committee in each state legislature to head off some of the torts likely following enactment and to guide law enforcement using most of the same language that governs alcohol use. Patients that seek cannabis as medicine can be seen by a health care provider and be excused from paying the excise taxes.

                    • Yeah, well I get that. The purpose of existing law to as a means of controlling minorities. But the point is that your Obama has bought in now, like there was ever a question. What do you say to that?

              • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 19, 2012 10:27 AM at 10:27 AM |

                Your evil twin made the news again, Buttinski. I swear, I believe that you and Rick San Scrotum are equally deranged but simply on the opposite extremes! You dudes think alike!

                http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/santorum-mainline-protestants-are-gone-wor

          • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 3:47 PM at 3:47 PM |

            Now, I am talking about a blog comment writing victory. Where you think you got over on a Democrat on this Particular blog.

            Guess again!

            • Huh? No entiendo charla estúpida!

              • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 8:27 PM at 8:27 PM |

                Baboso, molestar a otra persona. Nadie la quiere para hacer frente a un panqueque, o una painte!

                • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 19, 2012 8:34 PM at 8:34 PM |

                  Let me see how you Google Translation Handles real Mexican American Mark!

                  • Could have sworn it was Spanish. Did not know Mexican was a language.

                    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 20, 2012 4:01 PM at 4:01 PM |

                      Its called slang. when a person talks to you in American, does he ask if you speak American or American Slang first? Its all Part of our version of English, Far Different then England’s or Australian Language.

                      Mexico is America “BABOSO”! Albeit South American it is still part of the Americas… Canadians Are American too, and some do not speak Americanized English they speak French only!

                      Its Mexican American, to denote the conversation in Spanish from Mexico, and its slang. Just the conversational Aspect of the Spanish language( which is nothing Like Spain Language)in Mexico, in which another 20 or so common conversations of Mexico’s Indians are present in their Language!

                      Google Uses a Basic Spanish, that is geared more towards the Europe version of the language!

                      But I digress on the side of correctness…. but don’t to your stupidity, that there is only one form of American, in your world that exists…. White America! I guess you have never been outside of your America, or you would understand, that American English is not the only Language that is used on a day to day basis in America! I also speak a little American Punjab, Hawaiian Japanese, and Shen-hi Chinese, Different then Mainland Chinese!

                      So what did I say in Conversational Mexican American: DIMWIT(or Monkeys Butt), Go Bother someone else. no one likes a flip-flopper on the issues, or a pain in the ass!

  9. I’d like a large popcorn and a couple of Dibs. Looks like a long show.

  10. Max Baucus did the exact same thing in his 2002 Senate Race. Baucus ran ads of him kissing Bush’s posterior at various times and places.

    It worked and Baucus was reelected.

    Now Rehberg is doing the equivalent. Why is that not surprising?

  11. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 20, 2012 8:56 AM at 8:56 AM |

    When fascism comes to America, it’ll first go after the yoots! Hide your yoots, as Joe Pesci might say.

    http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/what-do-michelle-rhee-and-foster-friess-hav

  12. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 20, 2012 9:41 AM at 9:41 AM |

    THE SECOND CUMMING! Holy writ or holy sh*t? Easy answer. Holy SH*T! Rick Saintscrotum calling O’Bama Hitler! And in Cumming, Georgia no less! Talk about a jerkoff! PUBLICLY no less! Heee’s cumming! In Georgia! No WONDER they used to call him the dumbest man ever to serve in the senate! (except if Dopey Reeburp should make it!)

    Enjoy. THIS is the new Pubbie Party! Rick Saintscrotum! (and craig’s best buddy!)

    http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/santorum-seems-compare-obama-hitler

  13. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 20, 2012 11:57 AM at 11:57 AM |

    No, it’s NOT Linsanity. It’s NOT INsanity. IT’s SINsanity! Well, I guess it’s insanity too! The best article I’ve come across yet concerning the attack of the Most Holy Kiddy Diddlers and their minions like Rick Saintscrotum. READ it! It’s very important to understand just WHAT we’re dealin’ with here. These are NOT nice people. Nor are they interested in democracy. THIS is the history of the Kiddly Diddlers that they DON’T teach you in catholic school! Why? Why is that?

    http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/804698/opus_dei_and_the_war_on_birth_control%3A_neofascism_within_the_catholic_church/

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 20, 2012 11:58 AM at 11:58 AM |

      Important article above! READ it!

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 20, 2012 5:01 PM at 5:01 PM |

      Unfortunately, us Duffy’s (on my fathers side) all Hail from the same bad History, as the Blues Shirts and O’Duffy did! I am pretty sure a lot of the Irish families in Butte and elsewhere in the state, come from that same kind of past if they’re ancestors came from the counties of Galway, Mayo, Leitrim, Rosecommon, and Sligo in Ireland!

      The “Dubhthaigh” Clan! Black Irish. Because we were aligned ourselves( and took a few Spanish wives as well) with Spain in the 1400’s, to fight the other clans in Ireland!

      Also the reason a lot of my Family left the Catholic church in the 1900’s as there were a lot of bishops and Jeweler-smiths in our family in Ireland …direct ties to the Church! That kind of neofascism my family despised of the church had a different name further back to the crusades…. it was called “Religious zeal!” Long before “Opus Dei”.

      I am pretty sure that was the reason my part of the original clan left Ireland. Because, according to family still living there, the infighting within the family was pretty bloody. Also the reason my American Family left the Catholic church, as soon as they touched shore!

  14. In addition to Schweitser being pro XL pipeline, I’m surprise Cowgirl that you haven’t pointed out how your progressive boss supports fracking: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/governor-tours-fracking-site-near-sidney/article_15bfe482-3fa7-5251-9fa7-30ddad948ff5.html

    At the frack site, Schweitzer praised Continental Resources’ efforts and promised that the state would continue to support fracking in the Bakken oil play.

    “We want to get as much of that production as we can,” he said…

    Schweitzer joined in with the officials from Continental Resources, assuring the public that fracking was safe and posed no threat to those living in the area.

    “Look, 99.2 percent of what goes down that hole is sand and water,” Schweitzer said…

    Schweitzer calls Continental Resources the “big dog” in the Bakken. The company has 22 rigs running, three of them in Montana, and Schweitzer is as eager as anyone to see Montana’s share of the oil boom nurtured.

    Any wonder why Rehberg agree’s with him?

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 20, 2012 6:38 PM at 6:38 PM |

      Craig, we all KNEW that Schweitzer would not be an enviro guv when we elected him. We knew that he was extremely ingelligent, kind, good hearted, very progressive, charismatic, funny, but most of all, he LUVED to kick rightwing ass! (kinda like me and the Earp (aka Kailey) brothers) You see, he was perfect! How could we NOT like the dude? He was absolutely unafraid of the nazis! He sought’em out! He took the fight to’em! He RELISHED a good fight! (He’s half Irish) And they HATED him for it! For you see, the righties were used to the typical long haired, apologetic, latte drinkin’, sandal-wearin’, effiminate, civil, elitist, cowardly lefties from the fern bars! And then, THEN, we unleashed Scwheitzer on them! Brandin’ irons and all! And they wet down both legs!

      You Pubbies sill haven’t recovered, craig. And I doubt you will. Is Schweitzer pro-development? Very much so. Is he a radical enviro like me? Not so much. But lest you forget, he was first in line to kick some EXXON ass when the pipeline broke! Us radical enviros kinda like that in a guv!

      Schweitzer is what he is, unlike you Pubbies who talk simply bullshit talking points. The guv is plain spoken. And THAT is why his approval rating is so high! Folks are tire of bullhshit, and that is ALL that your dudes have. Hell, all the tea in the world won’t wash down bullshit!

      Your bad.

      • Larry, unlike Schweitzer, here’s another of today’s progressives spreading their party approved gospel through imperial means, and getting called on it: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

        One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.) That is his personal tragedy and shame (and I’m sure devastating for his colleagues, friends and family).

        The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.

        • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 20, 2012 8:27 PM at 8:27 PM |

          You Have FOX News, Blogs like Red State, Andrew Brietbarf The countless other Red Meat blogs that talk BS every day! and you point to us???? Really Clean up your own house and then come talk to us. IN fact start with your own potty Mouth first about american freedom and history foremost. Your Kind of Transparency and truth in Media is Hypocritical at best! Down right full of opinionated crapola at least!

          Deception is the pursuit of your cause!

          • Norma dear, apparently you don’t understand the point about progressive imperialists that know no bounds. Dr. Curry lays it out in a way even you should understand: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/

            • Craig, Hun: Dennybriated Rehberg will be swilling Pendleton for some earth hater like Barrick or TransCanada from outside of office at this time next year.

              Montana Dems: get pissed off!

            • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 3:54 PM at 3:54 PM |

              Craig I wont understand anything you say cause it is all Propaganda at this point. Not to mention you only job here is to belittle others…. I tell you to go to H…E… double toothpicks but , You are already there in your mind with all your wild conspiracies and BS. I have no more time for you Fear-mongers!

              The truth be told, this state has a long standing history with the US GOVernment, as one in four people in the state have a job directly attributable to GOV Spending of some kind! When the state went broke in the 1940’s (during the depression) it was the US Government that saved ranchers and farmers in this state. Hired almost every eligible working man in the state for the conservation corp, and floated loans to countless Montanan Businesses. The U.S. has been an intrepid partner with this state for over 80 years. Any fool can see that Rehberg wants them out so mineral corporations can start destroying the Pristine wilderness this state is famous for in the lower 48. The last wild state wont be for long if Tools Like Reberg, and your Koch cash infused party don’t get pushed back now!

              Then there is your GOP Parties problem with our president because he is black… a president that has done more for this country then any other president has. Your BS Talking points against him is unprecedented, conspiratorial, bigoty at best. How do you mindless idiots think a man, no matter what the color, becomes president of the Harvard Law review, if it isn’t for his hard work and dogged persistence to become the best?

              Lastly, anyone with just an elementary handling of the English language, and a good dose of common sense can see, your a very insensitive man, with little or no truthful elements in your conversation.

              I have watched you here now for over a year now. All you do is complain about democrats on a Liberal Blog, I have never seen you come up with a good Idea that merits evaluation because you go right into name calling contests with anyone who dares peak under the hood of your presentations for comments here!

              Work with us, or get the hell out of the way Dude! Lets see a little fire in your belly on your convictions Craig!

              • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 3:57 PM at 3:57 PM |

                By the way this can easily be shared with Dave & Mark as well… you all seem cut from the same cloth.

              • Couple of things here…

                Craig is hardly stupid and has, on numerous occations added to the discussions here. Yes, he is certainly to the right of most of the commenters here, but he is also intellegent and quite capable of making a coherent argument. His recent posts have been more of the “misdirection” type than usual, but do not discount him.

                I also take issue with the idea that Obama is ” a president that has done more for this country then any other president has.” That is the type of hyperbole that ensures that no decent discussion can occur. President Obama has hardly done more than any other President has. In fact, he has been a less than effective President – for the most part – since his election. While that is probably more due to outside influences than actually faults on his part, he does hold some of the blame. The fact is, he is the first black President of a country that is still – at least to some extent – racist, and this has limited his options for action as President. I will concede that he has done better than many would have done in his position, but he has had to play an understated political game (some like myself would argue that he has played too understated) and it has effected his ability to actual accomplish things.

                I am not – like Mark and many others commenting here – saying that people should not vote for President Obama. In fact, it is quite likely that I will be voting for him. But truth to be told, it won’t be because Obama was a great President. I will – at least in some part – be due to the fact that the Republicans A) were not able to feild a candidate that can rub two brain cells together and B) have embraced social conservatism with the desperation approaching a drowning man in the face of a social climate that simply can’t stomach it anymore. Social conservatism is a losing concept for the GOP and they were simply too stupid to see it.

                • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 5:07 PM at 5:07 PM |

                  Now this is the Kind of conversation I Can agree too, and respect Thanks Moorcat! But I reserve the right to disagree!

              • Norma, Dr. Curry is a well respected scientist. Did you even bother to read the link before embarrassing yourself with 500 following words of claptrap nonsense?

                As to your charge of “belittling” others, between you and me, and Larry and me, both of you were first to cast stones of personal disparagement. What’s really funny is how the both of dance like an organ grinder’s monkey with your foolish nonsense when you get a few pats on the head for your efforts. Don’t play innocent victim as that is not believable in any shape or fashion.

                • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 4:35 PM at 4:35 PM |

                  I am not talking about Dr. Curry I am talking about you! I am disparaging you, because you have disparaged me and others on this blog long enough… get it? Your only using the Doctor as a pretense, as you twist for a change in the present conversation Craig! Get real, will you for once! What are you gonna do to make, yourself more respectable to others on this blog?

                  If you want respect, better start respecting others get it?? Your on our side of the fence here. this isn’t the red state blog bud, this is Liberal turf Respect the lefts Message and the like messengers enough to not name call first!

                  Then you’ll get some respect from me! See I like a lot of what Buddy Roemer has to say, and I can even digest David Frum, and Joe Scarborough most every day! But your blatant cat-calling on Democrats, and progressives wont do anymore!

                  • My problem, Norma, with what you are saying is that it is no different than what the people on the right are saying – This is my belief and you don’t have the right to disagree with it. That simply isn’t true. Yes, this is a left leaning blog with many left leaning commenters. That does not mean that people cannot disagree with you nor does it mean that they have to “respect” your view. Fact of the matter is, you can no more demand respect from Craig than he can demand respect from you. He will either agree with you or disagree agree with you – in this case, he disagrees. Rather than wailing about his disagrement, show how he is wrong. You agruments about his “respecting your views” are wasted effort. It is up to him whether he will and you demanding it makes that far more unlikely.

                    The fact is, Craig (unlike Mark and Drillbaby) has been fairly respectful – at least at first. He has tended more toward arguing the issue/position rather than arguing the person. For that reason alone, I would have some respect for him. I tend to disagree on his position fairly often because he tends to fail to actually argue the issue under discussion. Further, he tends to take a position even farther to the right than I care to go. He writes like he is more of a social conservative while I tend to be a social progressive (at the very least, a social realist).

                    Again, don’t discount his views so readily. While this is a progressive/liberal blog, you happen to live in a relatively conservative state and Craigs views (whether you agree with them or not) are quite possibly closer to the agregate view of Montana voters than yours are.

                  • Norma, you initiate discussion by hurling rhetorical feces and then claim “victim” when it’s chucked back at ya. Don’t start fights you are ill prepared to prosecute or finish. I’ll give Larry that. I have never seen him EVER play victim or whine about meanies that make you cry.

                • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 21, 2012 4:46 PM at 4:46 PM |

                  Well, I read it, Mooron. And I gotta say that THAT is some real science!…..BHWHAHAHAHAHAA! What nonsense. You’re much too easily impressed, dude, with bullshit. Oh, and do try to find some new “humorous” material. Just how many times have you used the organ grinder thing now?

                  • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 5:19 PM at 5:19 PM |

                    Gotta agree Larry, this seems to be a Gleick denier, and I never heard of this Dr. Curry Before. But what happens in science is a lot of the same Politics, as everyone elbows each other to get to the top! My Love of science is more Rocket bound as my dad was an aerospace engineer first and moved over to Nuclear Power!

                    Though I have read a lot of Political science, I find it never really help a now experience with people, it does prepare you…but so does a good understanding of Moxie in current situations!

                  • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 21, 2012 9:26 PM at 9:26 PM |

                    Craig, what you have posted is comedy, dude.

                    “The end result of Gleick’s actions are to cede the high ground to Heartland, especially in light of the fact that Heartland had invited Gleick to a debate shortly before the theft of the documents occurred.”

                    ms. curry, the scientist.

                    But wait! Oopsie! Seems that the hearland did it first! And better! Kinda blows ms. curry and craig outta the water.

                • Up to this point, I have defended Craig on the basis of his attempt to make a point on an issue rather than a personal attack. I stand by that, defense BTW.

                  That said, I guess I should actually comment on his actual post.

                  First, it is simple misdirection. He is attempting to draw a parellel between Schweitzer and Gleick and by doing so, make the unstated but understood claim that “all” progressives are following this same “imperialistic” agenda. This argument fails on many levels but I will stick to the basics.

                  The first is the assumed label that Schweitzer is an imperialist progressive. That is almost laughable. Schweitzer is a Montana Moderate Democrat and his record only supports that. In most other states (especially those on either coast), he would be seen as a Republican. His issues/values are fiscally conservative and socially progressive and, because of that, he is one of the most popular Governors in Montana history.

                  The second is complete misdirection. Craig is attempting to equate the current arguments over Fracking and fuel mining to global warming. The two arguments aren’t even related and the sciences involved are far different.

                  The third (and the only real thing that the people commenting afterward have even moderately touched on) is the current flap over Gleich himself and the “ethics” of what he did. The article that Craig linked to is not all that badly written and while the guy is fairly famous, it, too is a wonderfully written peice of misdirection.

                  Most of the article stuck with “fact” and extrapolated conclusions – some I agree with and some I disagree with. I had serious issue with how the author distinguished between “science” and “politics” and it was obvious from the outset that the author has made up his mind on the issue. That, BTW, is acedemic to the point that Craig was trying to make and as such, I will refrain from pointing out the logical fallacies he made in relation to global warming.

                  The point Craig seemed to be trying to make had to do with the actions of Gleick making his scientific accomplishments/conclusions suspect. In this, Craig is absolutely right. His unethical behavior does cast serious doubt on his personal objectivity and therefore, on his conclusions.

                  Where Craig fails (and it simply amazes me that the people attacking him are so busy trying to personally attack Craig that they miss this) is in trying to equate Schweitzer to Gleick. Gleick is a scientist and is suppose to remain impartial. Schweitzer is a politician and it is his job to be political. Those two things have never mixed well and Craig should have known better than to try to make that parellel.

                  • Moorcat, I was not drawing a comparison of Gleick and Schweitzer or asserting that Schweitzer is an example of a progressive imperialist. Although I can see how you thought that given the all the noise in this discussion. If you refer again above I said, “…unlike Schweitzer, here’s another of today’s progressives spreading their party approved gospel through imperial means, and getting called on it” in commenting about Gleick. My attempt was to distinguish Schweitzer from Gleick’s example of imperial progressivism.

                    • I stand corrected but that brings up an entirely different set of questions… the most important being, what did that point have to do with the original post other than to tweak the noses of the people who usually comment on this site? Yes, I agree that Gleick screwed up. Yes, I agree that Gleick is not a good example of a scientist. That said, I would hardly use Gleick as an example of “today’s” progressives anymore than I would use Santorum as an example of today’s “conservatives”. They are both extreme examples of failed human behavior and as as extremes, they fail to show “normal” behavior for either side. There are plenty of progressives (and scientists for that matter) that retain their values and ethics just as there are plenty of conservatives that have managed not to stoop to the social degeneration that Santorum has stooped to. In short, I don’t see your point.

                    • Moorcat, I was speaking to Dave’s remark about imperialism as applied to Norma.

                      Gleick has been among the “cool” crowd in the world environmental climate movement. A progressive cause that relies on noble abstractions to beat the drum for lockstep marching. Imperial in the sense, that being in the right crowd gives life to the old adage, “might makes right” in exporting ones own cultural and values by any means to be accepted by others who must be demonized and pummeled as “savages” or “deniers” or other such denigrations until they accept the new imperial order. I believe that’s what Dave was driving at as applied to Norma and her constant assaults, only on a much smaller scale, upon those savage nonbelievers that come to visit here.

                  • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 11:59 PM at 11:59 PM |

                    To tell you the truth, That’s all Misdirection! I think his continued comments to you, seek to attack me more then explain his position, which is: if I dont like Normas comments, bally hoo the commenter, and if that doesn’t work insult them, and it it still doesn’t work Misdirect and tell the Norma your crying victim!

                    and finally when all doesn’t go as planned insult Norma some more, by talking to someone else on the same thread!

                    My Honest Opinion Is: Hes a jerk! and he would be better off leaving well enough alone. I know Ill ignore him from now on!

      • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 20, 2012 8:19 PM at 8:19 PM |

        The Irony is the fact that Republicans dont give a flying duck about details regarding a Persons capabilities Like Schweitzer. We Democrats do check the details before voting! The GOP, meanwhile, votes in lockstep. No conscience or true religious morality is needed for that! This is why the dumb son of a guns, cant come here with a valid message that makes any sense!

        So they make crap up about others, and just hope something sticks!

        Rehberg, is full of that same senseless vibrato!

        • Wow, just wow. I was right.
          I look at the Montana blogosphere, the Montana media (legacy and alt), the national press, the voting records of most media….and Norma is freaked because Fox isn’t a clone of MSNBC or Current? Gosh darn it if there be any platform for the non-Left to utilize either to discuss or propagandize.
          And Craig a “potty mouth” while Larry is simply an alliterative genius? Mark the Ski — my heart bleeds for you. Thanks for trying.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | February 21, 2012 7:17 AM at 7:17 AM |

            “alliterative genius”? Why thank you, dave! But actually, it’s just humor. Sit in any, ANY break room where working people gather for lunch or breaks and you’ll hear TONS of humor and uproarious laughter. It’s what working people do. They find the humor in life and take great pleasure in expressing it in an original manner. It keeps us all sane. Humor is a tool, a great tool for keeping the world on an even keel so to speak.

            Ever spent much time around Native Americans? Their sense of humor is amazing. It permeates their culture. NO ONE is immune from it. Status means nothing. And as a result, no one gets to thinking that they’re a whole lot better than anyone else. No one gets too big a head. It sorta keeps everyone humble you might say. And what an effective, gentle tool for doing so!

            So you see, YOU morons on the right are simply human humor fodder! You fools provide an endless supply of material that writes itself! I do very little except record it!

            Let me give you an example. You morons take yourselves SO seriously that it’s comical. Take the last Lege and all the fundiwackmentalist bills that your side introduced. The Teatards were just BEGGING to be made fun of, so we did! And that provides much needed humor to keep your oversized egos and undersized brains in check! You see, dave, you can CLAIM all the moral authority you want, but that doesn’t mean that we have to GIVE it to you!

            Look at Dopey Reeburp and the CEEment JAYsus controversy. Dopey, a chickenhawk, has wrapped himself in the flag AND placed a cross on his shoulders as he marches uphill to save JAYsus! Can there be a more noble, just cause? (tee hee) There’s Dopey, grandly marching along in his flowery Nits of Columbus hat, flag in one hand, cross in the other, blubbering mightily and incoherently about protecing the Tenth and saving the Saviour! Does that impress me? Nope. It makes me LAFF LIKE HELL! He’s simply a comical character and dumbass who has ASSumed for himself moral authority that he does not possess! Therefore, I chuck him in the ol’ fodder mill!

            You see, dave, one must EARN moral authority. It’s not just bequeathed because you want it. And that don’t come easy. Some of our most moral leaders were actually the horniest! Yes, it’s true. But in SPITE of being horndogs, they also had tremedous moral authority too! ie. John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., all reputed horndogs. But they were moral to the core! And they paid the price! You gotta pay your dues if ya want’a have it!

            Contrast those dudes with the kiddy diddlers in the catholic church now. They CLAIM to have moral authority from God, but they don’t. Look, if these priests and bishops REALLY wanted some moral authority to make their bullshit pronouncements on sexual issues, they’d do sumthin’ about it! ie. They’d have themselves castrated! Yikes! They don’t need’em anyways, do they? (tee hee) So, why not garner some REAL moral authority and lop’em off?

            Then, they’d have more moral authority to tell others what to do and not to do with their privates! They could wear their committment proudly! How? They could do like the single guys in the seventies used to do who got vasectomies. They wore a little V-shaped lapel pin to let the ladies know that they were shootin’ blanks. The priests could wear a little C-shaped lapel pin to indicate to their flock of flockers that they have REMOVED that awful temptation in order to achieve moral authority! THEN the whole celibacy deal would actually MEAN sumthin’! Now, it don’t.

            See what I’m gettin’ at here, dave? You dudes, just like the kiddy diddlers, are laughable. You really, really, really want folks to view you as serious people, but you’re not. You’re comical. And you don’t like that but you’re unwilling to actually EARN moral authority by doing moral things. Hope this helps.

  15. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 4:01 AM at 4:01 AM |

    Thats because Fox viewers are dumbed down! just like you Dave:

    Fox News viewers less informed than those who don’t watch news at all: study

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-22/news/30431182_1_fox-news-results-show-viewers

    That Ill-Informed Fox News Viewer Poll? Actually It’s Based On Proven Methodology

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/that-ill-informed-fox-news-viewer-poll-actually-its-based-on-proven-methodology/

    Seven Surveys Make A Trend For Fox And Viewers

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111220020

    Fox News Viewers Uninformed, NPR Listeners Not, Poll Suggests

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-uninformed-npr-listeners-not-poll-suggests/

    the list goes on and on! Want to get dumber watch FOX news! Course you already enjoy it to much to change!

    • Norma, don’t presume I watch Fox News or rely on it.
      You’re wrong.
      Never mind that I’m not surprised that Fox watchers in New Jersey are “less informed.” Whatever conservatives remain in New Jersey these days, with time to yap for a phone survey — are likely those not smart enough to have already left the “Garden State.”

Comments are closed.