Political Quick Hits

Justices Want Supreme Court to Hear Montana Challenge to Citizens United

The Washington Post is reporting that two  justices are suggesting that the Supreme Court reconsider the Citizens United decision. Justice Ginsberg wrote:

“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’ ”

Of course, the article points out that the Supreme Court will not necessarily hear Montana’s case.  Even if it does, recall that Alito and Roberts were installed by Bush to ensure that corporations take firmer control of this country. Montana’s is the first challenge to Citizens United.

Anti-Women Congressmen Become (Even More) of  a National Joke

This weekend former Saturday Night Live cast member Amy Poehler made a guest appearance on Weekend Update with Seth Meyers for a new segment of “Really!?! With Seth and Amy.” The comedians took on the current war on women raging in Congress, starting with last week’s one-sided congressional committee on birth control that included no women. Here’s the clip:

Rehberg Stunt Backfires

After the fit Rehberg threw over out of state money, it was revealed this weekend that he had actually taken a higher percentage of it.  To be sure, Rehberg has had trouble raising money overall.  People are now starting to pay closer attention to the election.   And, it seems the more one knows about Congressman Dennis Rehberg, the less one wants to support his re-election campaign.  The Tester campaign’s fundraising advantage is certainly due, in part, to national interest in keeping the Senate from further degrading into the circus that the TEA Party Republican-controlled U.S. House has become.



62 Comments on "Political Quick Hits"

  1. Why don’t they just hand out hundred dollar bills?

    “In the end, several hundred dollars could be spent per swing voter.”


  2. Lynn,

    If every dollar of the estimated $15 million this race will cost is given to needy Montanans, the media would fire them both. This money is for their hands only. With 253 days to the election, Tester and Rehberg, handing out $100-dollar bills for 8 hours a day, would both need to give away roughly 300 per day. That’s 7 days a week. Standing side by side at county courthouses, in the spirit of true bipartisanship, it would be spectacular. But alas, these two are Jello-brand vanilla pudding at best.

  3. This is all good in a way. There’s about to be a crisis. The US Supes have put a stay on the state Supes decision, opening the floodgates. It’s also a signal for a hearing, and possibly a ruling in the short term.
    That should be more fuel on the fire, and perhaps, just perhaps, someone in Congress with a brain (faint hope that) will propose campaign finance regulations that pass consitutional muster.

  4. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 3:22 PM at 3:22 PM |

    I think they put this on hold to see how bad the PACs Act throughout this campaign. If it can be proved that this turns out to be a circus here in Montana, and other states…. Citizens United may become Toast! Kennedy, Keegan and Sotomayor are very much like Breyer middle of the road left! So I believe we have the five judges necessary for another hearing, keeping the right from getting their way!

    There are 24 other states that will have the same feelings about “Citizens United” as Montana did. I think the Momentum is on our side here!

  5. I still get a chuckle out of the persistent belief that campaign spending is an evil unto itself. Notice from Skinner’s comment that that attitude comes from the left and the right, the right at least when it’s convenient. Unlike commercials for beer, viagra, cars or the next episode of American Idol, campaign dollars get spent on more than just media. It gets spent on office space, office supplies, telecommunications, technology, campaign workers, food, printing services, janitorial services, hotel/motels, the US mail, graphic designers, appearance venues, gasoline, photographers, pollsters, security professionals, clothing and a helluva lot more. If this campaign between Tester and Richie Rich costs $15 million, then I’m all for it. It is going to needy Montanans, some of whom just happen to work in the media.

    The idea that campaign spending is inherently evil accepts the idea that elections are bought. No they aren’t. GM spends a lot of money advertising in Montana, but that doesn’t mean that people feel compelled to go out and buy a Silverado. The Citizen’s United ruling is harmful because it redefines who is a person in our democratic republic. It isn’t a bad thing because the candidates spend money, just not where we want them to.

    • I think if Political Ads were held to the “Truth in Advertising” standard like car companies etc are people would not feel that they were evil.

      • Who would decide what the truth is?

        • Therein lie the rub. Let’s look at an example I have been personally dealing with.

          I have made no bones about my political views here. I am a fiscal conservative and a social progressive. With that in mind, as you can imagine, I have a lot of “political friends” that do not like Obama. In this very polerized world of politics today, if you are a fiscal conservative, you must be a republican (hopefully, you recognise the toungue in cheek way I said that…)

          I am constantly unindated with people saying that Obama can’t with the election. Often (when the person does happen to have two brain cells to rub together), this is “supported” by the statement that Obama’s approval rating is one of the worst in recent history. It is a fact – but it is also a lie masquerading as the truth. Yes, Obama has one of the lowest approval ratings of any president in the last half century. That is a fact that is easy enough to support. Polls from both sides of the political spectrum support that “fact”.

          That said, it is a lie by misdirection. All things being equal, a low approval rating would indicate a serious problem getting elected. Sadly, that approval rating does not tell the whole story. While President Obama’s approval rating is abysmal, the approval rating for Congress is even lower. Worse, the approval rating for the Republican Congressmen is lower than the Democratic Congressmen. In short, Obama’s approval rating is useless in this election cycle in showing his probability to win the election. It is a fact, but a fact that has no bearing on the original assurtion.

          This is the kind of thing that would be combatted by fact checking (or simple common sense) but it should be pointed out that – under the rules of “truth in advertising” – it is NOT a lie per se. It is a misdirection. Much of what we are seeing in political ads are like this. “truth in advertising” would not accomplish what you want it to accomplish. It is not a matter of who would decide what is truth and what is fiction.

          • I understand but I’m talking about the ads that mis-state votes taken in the House or Senate, real facts

            The ads that say the Silverado gets 66 miles per gallon, or the Silverado has commited murder…..

            • Understand that rules already exist on misrepresenting the actual votes a representative has done. This is the pervue of the Office of political practices. That said, I think you would be hard pressed to find an ad that factually mispresents an actual vote. There are ads that imply a specific vote on a specific issue, but none I have seen have actually broken the rules.

              In short, in seems you are looking for a fact checker, and in reality, they exist already though many are unaware of them. There are multiple sites you can visit to check the voting record of a candidate and as time passes, those site get more user friendly. Many of them have some decent search functions too that allow you to search for a specific vote on a specific issue.

              At the risk of making one of Mark’s points, the fact is that many ads on tv are not saying what you think they are saying. They intimate a lot while not quite going over the line of actual lying.

            • I’m not comfortable with having a government agency — political practices, for example — deciding what is true or false about a political advertisement. I think that decision is best left to the voters, after a full and free debate.

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 4:19 PM at 4:19 PM |

      Exactly, Very good Point Rob! Corporations are not people, they are articles of confederation, and corporate rules written on legal sized paper and placed into a safe somewhere! There is no flesh and bone, they cannot be incarcerated when they break the law, they dont eat, sleep, or put one shoe on at a time as they get dressed for work! You Cant hold them back physically to keep them from harm, or harming others!

      But the laws about Citizens United allow them to spend endless cash on campaigns, far different then the Limits put on regular middle class Americans… and that is the evil I see as well!

    • I agree… and disagree.

      I don’t think that campaign financing is – in and of itself – evil. I do think that it can, though, reach a point of undue influence and that was the reason behind the original Montana Court Decision to limit corporate financing. You make the statement that “campaign spending is inherently evil accepts the idea that elections are bought.” You go on to say that they aren’t. This is where I would disagree with you. I am not saying that all campaigns are “bought” (in the sense you implying), but from a very real viewpoint, they are.

      Sadly, we live today in a world that has a glut of “information”. The fact that much of that information is skewed or outright incorrect makes the job of deciding on who to vote for in an election a very personal thing. We have to wade through the crap to find the nuggets of decent information. For some people, that job is quite easy. For most, it isn’t. While I have a lot more confidence in the intellegence of the average person than most here seem to have, I am also aware that if you repeat a lie often enough, even reasonable people can begin to believe it. This is where the Citizen United decision comes into play.

      With the virtually unlimited resources at play in this election, the electorate will be unindated with political ads. Many (some would argue all) of those ads are misleading to some extent. Some are outright lies (with enough of the truth thrown in to avoid outright prosecution). In this environment, the possibility for corruption is exponencially larger.

      All this is secondary to the primary reason I have an issue with the Citizen United decision, and in that, we are in perfect agreement. The decision is based on a misrepresented statement made by a CLERK of the court. There is no constitutional basis for Corporate personhood… NONE. This decision flies in the very face of our “Rule of Law” and for that reason, I would oppose it even if I didn’t have concern about the amount of money being poured into these elections.

      • Without laying the argument out in all precision, I offer this: if liberals want to win every Montana election into the foreseeable future, all they need to to do is promote high-speed internet for every Montana home.

        • Again, I would agree… and disagree. While the internet is a powerful tool and can, in fact, be used to combat a lot of the misinformation and outright propaganda used by both sides of the various issues, it lends itself to even more abuse as well. There are no rules for posting the internet like there are for news outlets (even though the rules for “news outlets” are largely symbolic at this point). A person is only limited by his or her own imagination and ability to coherently use the tools available. If you are saying the liberal/left leaning people would use the tools more effectively, I would have to agree – at this point. This was not always the case, though. It was the conseratives of the 60’s that got us to the moon. It was the engineers and business people (primarily conservative) that “engineered” the hey days of the American economy of the last three decades of the last century. The fact that we are now paying for that hey day (due in no small part to some really bad decisions made in those days by our elected representatives) is beside the point. At some point in the future, the conservative side of the aisle may wise up. In fact, there is some data to suggest that they already are.

          I do think that you have touched on a very basic reality, though. The future of politics will eventually hinge on ability of the political parties to embrace and use the new reality of a connected world.

        • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 5:44 PM at 5:44 PM |

          I can agree with that as long as it is in tandem with us creating Jobs! Both would complement each other nicely!

      • Please keep in mind that times change. That being stated, at no point am I defending the CU ruling. I just don’t see that money, in itself, is enough to purchase elections through “undue influence”. When the Montana law prohibiting corporate finance of elections was passed, legislators were dealing with direct “undue influence”. William Andrews Clark had blatantly and unabashedly purchased a Senate seat from the state legislature. The majority of Montanans worked for a very few large extraction corporations, the most notable being Amalgamated Copper/Anaconda Copper company. The undue influence of corporate backed elections had little to do with information and a great deal to do with what an employer could say about your vote.

        Fast forward a century and this is the case: whether one weakly accepts it or promotes it as religious tenet, the overwhelming belief is that some information is good and some is bad. Spending buys the bad and so money buys votes through bad information if it disagrees with the one making the judgement. (See Skinner’s comment below.) Spending becomes the undue influence and not the bad information itself. I quietly had to chuckle at Russ Feingold for explicitly making that very argument at NN11. Clearly, if spending buys elections through undue influence, then those who desire the ‘correct’ thing had better ante up instead of complaining that ‘those others’ have more money to spend.

        For the record, Moorcat, I strongly disagree with your assessment about what political ideology lead the explorations of the ’60’s or the boom and bust economies we saw from 1970 to 2000. You are correct that that is completely beside the point. Times change. And you would have a very hard time convincing me that the party/grouping who want Google to remove the search results for “Santorum” will lead any charge into the ‘new reality’.

    • Rob,
      The money itself isn’t necessarily evil. Money is necessary — partly because if there’s no money then voter information becomes the exclusive province of the journalistic “profession” — they’ll filter it depending on their biases, or filter it simply by default because there’s no advertising support to do real journalism.
      Money is also a useful indicator of support. Say both candidates raise a million, one from 100,000 folks and the other from “Doctor Evil.” If that fact becomes known before the election, that’s important context for voters depending on what they think of Doctor Evil.
      Or the flip side — it’s not Doctor Evil, but Ace Goodguy, whom everyone respects and admires. That matters a little.
      The real issue is not money itself, but disclosure of money flows and connections during the election season. Say a PAC starts ads, “Citizens for Windmills and Warm Puppies.” So airy fairy, flowers and stuff — turns out CFWWP is funded by GE and Solyndra? Wouldn’t you want to know who bought that dog before you vote. Oh ya.
      And, when an ad is complete and utter BS, don’t you want to know who produced and paid for it — just like when you get slapped with a really nasty comment from a troll on your blog?
      Or how about when Ted Dick of SEIU cut that check to “Main Street Republicans.” Obviously, someone hoped the voters would be too stupid to figure that one out. And I have zero sympathy for WTP ATP — I like their positions on the issues but reject their anonymous funding line.
      Anyone who “cares” enough to donate to politicians or against them, has an agenda and interests — we can’t know what that agenda is unless donors are identified.
      We really need to send up a system of campaign finance reporting that empowers VOTERS rather than the gamers, while not giving advantage to either side. Politics is all about the money, and denying that is delusional. We need to know who spends the money so they can seek rent and GET the money. Setting limits just forces politicians to shill more people rather than spend time actually thinking about policy.
      And by the way, I’m with James Conner on the truthiness checkers. Leave that to us.

  6. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 21, 2012 11:26 PM at 11:26 PM |

    My Opinion is :We gotta get money out of Politics, as best as possible it is the only way to be fair! I think a candidate in Montana for any race should have to go out and get the certain number of signatures needed by going door to door first! I realize a number of counties have under 3500 people living in them….but is it gonna kill a candidate in this state to get say 200 of them himself (not a campaign staffer, and exceptions for disabled)? I know I would do it, that’s how truly I think candidates should act! If they had to do that every other year, they would at least have to make a pretty compelling case to the Public first, that they are doing their job! People meetings matter more then Money!

    You know the one thing I noticed first when in DC, was how we were treated! Flying all the way out there as Montana nobodies? Our Democratic senators made sure we were comfortable, Had warm drinks on a rainy day, feed us cookies, and made sure staffers took care of our every question! and we just dropped in on them, unannounced.

    But we made an appointment with our republican Legislator and we were offered nothing, and he tried to cancel the meeting! we had to threaten to sit-in to see a guy who promised to see us over the phone!

    I think Montanans want accessibility to their Leaders, even if it is just to tell them they trying to make ends meet in the American Dream! Maybe talking to a couple of people in a politicians office, helps them discover a better way forward! Gives them the number of a group in their area that shares their concerns, or helps them succeed… maybes a good conversation is enough to make a citizen feel better about himself! Maybe just maybe that person is helped cuz people took the time to hear him! Maybe just maybe a Politician stays a little more grounded as well!

    I think campaign money, is a wall against that kind of value needed today! It pushes candidates farther from us… it allows non people persons to get elected cuz a slick video places them in amber waves of grain, when in truth you should be standing were help is needed most, in the worst part of town!

  7. Is it bad taste here, regarding the first item in this post, to mention that the Democrats had it well within their power to block either Roberts or Alito, and we’re scared off the task by mean old Republicans (“nuclear option” they called it, really just a game of chicken which, when played with a chicken, is an easy win).

    To now complain about them is in bad taste. When you were supposed to fight for us, you ran away. As usual.

    Truthfully, it’s more than running away. Perception management aside, no matter the number of D’s and R’s in the senate, by my count there are usually 70 or 80 or so right wingers available for any task, Baucus and Tester among them. So coming up with 41to block any piece of legislation is merely a clerical matter done for the purpose of constructing cosmetic voting records. Democrats have for too long hid behind this stage play to avoid fighting for our welfare.

    An indeed, the Democrats have it within their power to eliminate or refine the filibuster rule. Why don’t they?

    • Jon Tester did not vote for either. He was not in the Senate when they were confirmed. Specifically addressing Alito’s failure to recuse himself in cases involving Vanguard Properties, through which Alito owned mutual funds, Tester said, “Alito is not a man of his word.”


      • Yes, the words of politicians are sincere and are never said for mere effect. Nice job, from a critical thinking standpoint.

        Why do your Democrats spend so much time throwing flowers at the feet of your leaders? Why do you never hold them to account or take them to task?

    • I am actually impressed. You managed to make a comment that A) applies to the subject at hand and B) actually has some value. Sadly, you cloaked it in your typical condescending attitude and your obvious disdain for everyone here drips off your words like poison, but your underlying point is actually valid.

      Yes, the Democrats did have the oppurtunity to prevent Alito and Roberts from getting confirmed. It would have been difficult but it was possible if they had been willing to pull a “republican” to get the job done. Sadly, that is over now. Those two wackjobs were confirmed and we have to deal with the situation as it is.

      The truly valid point of Mark’s comment, though, was something that Wulfgar has been bringing up for years. When the Democrats are in the majority of the Senate, they have the oppurtunity to revisit the rules by which the Senate operate. This includes the filibuster rules. As it stands now, a side has to have a supermajority to get anything done. This is not how Congress was designed to work in the Constitution. The minority was NOT suppose to have an effective veto over the majority. The job of veto lies in the Presidency (and in the courts in the case of a constitutional issue).

      Now correct me if I am wrong, but this can only occur at the beginning of the Session (if I remember my Congressional law class correctly). That means that at the beginning of next year (if the Democrats still maintain a majority) that issue can once again be addressed.

      Mark it is too bad you are an idiot. You actually could have had a decent discussion here. Sadly, your arrogance and idiocy precludes it.

      • The.problem is that you are too literal in your tnterpretation of politics, and hence putty iin their hands. Of course they can revisit the filibuster rule at the beginning of each session, and when it was discussed last time around, Tester wanted it kept as is. So the skeptical non-credulous observer asks why.

        One possible answer – it allows Republicans to take credit for blocking all progressive legislation, pleasing their base, and lets Democrats off the hook for the same, giving them an excuse to offer their base. It’s foolproof if, as I contend, 70-80 of them are right wingers, including Tester and Baucus. It allows Democrats to masquerade as liberals, build bogus voting records, and come off as fighters when they are in reality quislings.

        They could have stopped Alito and Roberts and didn’t, fait accompli I agree but why? I contend that they wanted them confirmed, and that it was all a stage play.

        That’s politics, that’s how it is done. The people here at this website, many of whom are “Cowgirl” doppelgängers, are much like the priests and nuns in that old Norm MacDonald skit from Saturday night live … I’ve got to go find it now. When they trust a politician, the first mistake, they believe all that follows from him. I trust that you know hat Rod is of that mindset too.

        Thus endeth the lesson, asshole.

        • As per your norm, you had the oppurtunity to prove you were actually a thinking human being but instead you decided to go with your patented brand of crazy…

          Your conspiracy theory notwithstanding, yes, they could have stopped Alito and Roberts from being confirmed. I have already conceded that. You propose nothing new. That is the past.

          You have no insight into how Rob thinks. That is obvious given the exchanges you have had with him over the last couple of years. In each exchange, you came out looking like the idiot you are. True, he has more trust in certain politicians than I do, but his trust is – at least demonstrated by his words – based on in depth analysis of how that particular politician has operated. Trying to paint him as a “sheeple” is just…… funny.

          As far as the votes at the beginning of the last session, I, too am disappointed with Tester’s vote. I expected Baucus to vote the way he did. Baucus is a tired and old school part of the establishment now. He certainly isn’t the fired up idealist that I voted for 30 years ago. I expected more from Tester. That said, I think it likely that if the Montana electorate made it clear that they wanted the rules changed, Tester would vote that way. This is an area where we (conservative and progressive alike) can work together and actually effect a change. The rules, as they stand now work against both parties because they prevent progress and given the current view of the electorate on Congress’s job performance, it is likely that some change can be pushed for.

          You are correct that the vote for confirmation is hardwired but then again, I never said it wasn’t. You have nothing to teach me, oh idiot one. There is no lesson to be had.

        • Yes, if I had a nickel for every time someone who reflexively follows the leader claims to have done in-depth analysis, I’d have many, many nickels. People, and Rod is no exception no way, do not think for themselves. Instead, as Bernays wrote in 1928,

          [t]he voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by group leaders in who it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and clichés and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.

          He was writing about advertising and PR, very much a force today as well as then. Politics as we know it today is nothing more than manipulations, symbols,clichés and 15-30 second ads

          So from the outside looking in, attribution of motives and common goals among perceived opponents in politics is, in your words, “conspiracy theory” when in fact it is nothing more than business as usual. My god, if I could get you people beyond this spell-bound literal partisan vision, we’d make some progress.

          And I have volumes of insight into how Rod thinks, as anyone does who reads what he writes, tedious as that job is. If I cannot ascertain his thought processes by his writings, then is all of that verbiage to be ignored? (Please say yes! Please say yes!)

          Sheesh! What officious nonsense. You write just like your brother, you admire him almost as much as he does himself. Is it any wonder I suspect you are him?

          • Shorter Tokarski:

            “I’m better than all you ignorant fucks, and for some reason I just have to come here and tell y’all that.”

            Mark, someone from a vastly different period in time who happens to support your delusions is ‘evidence’ of precisely nothing. Again, you show your conservative roots. Because some modernist wrote something long long ago, you can ignore any changes in the world and offer that as support that nothing has changed, even though obviously much has changed. To give you your meaningless due, Mark, I agree. Propaganda hasn’t changed in 90 years. The rest of the world really has. The people in it have. The dispersal of information has. The ability to control information radically has, something you have argued in support of and don’t even understand what it means. You can’t even see your disconnect in that, can you?

            And I have volumes of insight into how Rob thinks

            Of course. Most fiction writers will.

            Is it any wonder I suspect you are him?

            As has been pointed out by pretty much everybody, yes, it is.

            • Well, as Cleese would remind you, it does take some intelligence to realize that you are good at something, and when you are not good at something, as is the case with you, the lack of intelligence means you will never realize that you are not good at it.

              Ergo, you are unreachable.You don’t understand politics, and you never will.

              Oh yeah, and people do not change, you moron. Advertising is effective today precisely because of why it was then – people think it doesn’t work on them. But it does. Ellul described that as the illusion of progress.

              And, advertising is used in politics, it is manipulative, it works, it works on you precisely because you don’t think it does.

              Konrad Kellen described you – literally self-indoctrinated. Your lack of self-awareness is your most telling point, a sign of low intelligence.

              You might think this is just a skillful put-down, but it’s all true.

              • Don’t attempt to use logic , Mark. You’re really not very good at it, and too illogical to realize that you’re not very good at it. Regardless of what truth is spoken by a comedian, you can’t realize that he’s promoting farce for the sake of comedy. That speaks poorly of your intelligence, not mine.

                Oh yeah, and people do not change, you moron

                People do change, you moron. That’s the conservative wingnut part of your religion that you don’t get. Americans today are taller, more sexual, less empathic, quicker to accept broad spectrums of information, technologically adept and more prone to risk-taking than ever before. Science has accepted that. You aren’t just wrong, Tokarski. You are really really wrong.

                And yes, I’m certain your delusions about me are all true to you, wink wink.

              • Yes,I am aware that your ability to logic has made you the man that you are.

      • BTW, 60 votes for confirmation of justices is,I believe, hard wired in constitution.

        • http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

          Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America provides, inter alia, that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme [sic] Court …” The phrase “Advice and Consent” or “Advise and Consent” simply means to approve or to reject. In other words, if 51 of the 100 Senators vote in favor of a Judicial nominee, then that nominee has been approved.

          Senate confirmation requires a simple majority of 51% of those voting (not to be confused with 51 votes, because members sometimes abstain or are absent), unless an opposing group tries to block the vote with a filibuster, in which case a three-fifths super-majority is required.

          Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Senate_votes_are_required_to_approve_Supreme_Court_justices%27_appointments#ixzz1nA0HXJlV

          • Oh.My God!

            You have proven the Tokarski incorrect. Well you’ve done it now, Lynn person …

            I await his response, though only an idiot would hold breath while Tokarski tries to waffle out of being so obviously an ill-informed pompous jackass.

          • I do believe that I said that I thought that the 60 vote majority was hard wired. It is not. I was wrong. Are you extrapolating to infer that I am wrong about other things as well since I was wrong about
            that? Isnt’t that kind of lame, not to take issues as they arise but rather to make broad inferences on slight evidence? Isn’t that stupid?

            That’s your bailiwick so the question falls on you.

    • When you were supposed to fight for us, you ran away. As usual.

      Excuse me, Mark. No one here agreed to signed off on the idea of fighting for you. Just thought I’d clarify.

      • Again you stupid literal sob, try to grasp words sometime for what they mean, and not what they say. God you’re dense!

        • Again, you idiotic delusional git, your words are weak and meaningless. If you can’t use your words to mean what you write, perhaps the written venue is not for you. Twit.

        • I intend, with you, to use words to undermine you, ridicule you without your knowledge, and have fun at your expense. Your inability to grasp the context of words as they appear before you, only being ale to take them at face without subcontext, subtlety or irony, makes you the perfect foil. And part of the fun is that you never get it. Your lack of self awareness, your inability to self examine or reflect, belies your self-proclaimed high intelligence. You are quite the fool, but should be comfortable at MCG as indeed here you are above average! Stay in your element! There’s great validation to be had in the admiration of fools.

    • Mark, your political beliefs will not let you get away with “Democrats accepted Alito and Roberts”. Would Al Gore have nominated justices that allowed citizens united? After all, none of the justices appointed by Obama or Clinton approved of the ruling. So, was the mos tdisastrous, plutocratic SCOTUS ruling of the new century the result of eight years of rule by a millionaire Republican who appointed two of the decisive justices, or the result of a massive conspiracy by one party attempting, apparently, to cripple itself? Must you torture William of Ockham so?

      • I have it on my agnda to answer you at ID tonight but I am all wrapped up in 30 Rock right now. Ina Fay is a enius.

        Please stop intertwining conspiratorial behavior, which exists at every level of human existence, with the concept of power. I do not know what Al Gore would have done. I do know he was not effective as a VP, gave in much too easily in 2000, and like so many professional liberals, is actually somewhat effective out of elective office. In office not so much.

        I have said n occasion that the only reason to vote for a Democrat at that level is that we get better judges. That appears at this time, early in history, to be the case. But if that is all you got, We should be able to wrap this up soon.

        • Ina Fay is a enius.

          Who the hell is Ina Fay? Still I’m sure she’s an “enius” if I only I knew what that meant.

          • Again, you can only take words at face and not see beyond. I’ll bet Gary Larson’s Far Side made no sense to you a all! My first wife would look at his cartoons and her brow would wrinkle and as we say it now would register WTF?

            ou re eally ense.

            • You don’t even understand when you’re being made fun of, Mark, or why. I’ll bet you were a shitload of fun on the playground, and you’ve never understood why. Nor have you gotten passed that …

              • “Past” that, you meant. I had lots of playground fun, but don’t remember the details. Were you that guy that was always the center for flag football and wanted to call the plays and the others always told you to shut up?

    • Justices are socially obliged to attend this dreadful event. The fortunate ones, like me, don’t even have to think about it. If I was forced to attend, I would no doubt snooze too. It’s a way around pain. Good for her!

      I wonder too how badly the cancer treatments are affecting her. It will most likely kill her. We can slow it down some, but it almost always wins out, and the treatments are as awful as the disease. It drains the body, wears it down the point where manly men like Newt seek divorce from the whole affair.

      • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 23, 2012 8:10 AM at 8:10 AM |

        Foreign Dignitaries, Movies stars. primer authors go to that “Dreadful” event willingly! I am guessing you would fill out of place being a nobody….. Meanwhile I would consider it an honor to be allowed to go! Guess that goes to show you how dumb you are about important events like that!

        Ginsberg is a brilliant lady during the day, and that is all that matters, That event would have past the bedtime of people like her who start around 6 am reading briefs and working with staff three hours before court even starts… and the event was at nine o’clock DC time! 12 hours is a long day for the workaholic they say she is.

        Lastly she doesn’t have to apologize if she was catching a nap! The women is 80, and works harder then most people a quarter of her age!!

        • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 23, 2012 8:11 AM at 8:11 AM |

          I got to get better dictation software LOL!

        • It’s a television show, nothing more. Dignitaries love to have their face on TV. Obama a couple of years ago used it as a forum for attacking Citizens United, and that was good copy, but after that he has done exactly nothing.

          You are a surface-phenomena person I see, like Monty/Rod. How deep do you go? I’m afraid of the answer.

  8. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 22, 2012 10:38 AM at 10:38 AM |

    The filibuster means a simple majority guarantees nothing when it comes to passing laws. “The rules of the Senate are designed to give muscle to the minority. So an opposition filibuster in the senate can only be broken with 60 votes – a three-fifths majority. The republicans began abusing this record to death, starting in what looks like 1993, and have never looked back! It is not the Democrats that are keeping the country from Moving forward it is the GOP giving the country, and the state rights over to corporate interests!


    Put the blame where it belongs to the Party of “NO!”

    And this is what the party of “NO” will continue to do to our state rights if you continue to hand them powerful allies in the supreme court folks…….. This is the most important reason to vote the president back into office to stop rulings like this in the future as state rights erode! Thats right I said it, If you look at supreme court records you are gonna see that state rights and people rights were protected when more Dems where in the High Court!

    Power Companies Win U.S. High Court Clash Over Centuries-Old River Rights:


    The justices unanimously another 100 year ruling, overturning a ruling that would have required a unit of PPL Corp. (PPK) to pay more than $50 million in rent to Montana for the use of riverbeds under ten of the energy company’s dams.
    The ruling puts new limits on state claims to ownership of the rivers within their borders, modifying legal rules that date back to the American Revolution. The court said states don’t own major waterfalls and other river segments that weren’t navigable at the time of statehood.

    The GOP, those corporate lackeys, do not give a hoot for your state rights Tea Party, you where austro-turfed right into corporate hands from the get go! The U.S. Supreme Court sided with power and mining companies against states and environmentalists in a clash over the rights to rivers explored two centuries ago by Lewis and Clark.

    How long before the rivers in Eastern Montana are unfit to farm, drink and fish in???? Especially with Rehberg and the GOP trying to weaken EPA rules for safe drinking water!

    Keep fiddling around with social issues as your communities are poisoned around you!

    • Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 22, 2012 10:44 AM at 10:44 AM |

      Oh yea, Finance laws, Campaign caps, election laws, that would have subdued corporate spending in the elections all filibustered by the GOP! Including limiting the filibuster laws in the senate!

  9. Norma Duffy AKA ILIKEWOODS | February 22, 2012 10:57 AM at 10:57 AM |

    In lawsuit, workers, and sheriff officers claim corruption in Lake County Sheriff’s Office:

    Here’s what they got in Lake county for electing the GOP/TP in Law enforcement there.

Comments are closed.