Posted: August 27, 2012 at 8:57 pm
POLITICO: Pro-Rehberg “Crossroads GPS” Group’s Bankroller also Funds Baucus
The week before last I learned that the Koch brothers are one of Max Baucus’ largest donors. Today, this item appeared in Politico. It’s a profile on one of the right wing’s biggest backers.
Seems that Las Vegas billionaire Steve Wynn, who has given millions to Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS (the group that is running negative ads against Tester) is also a major Baucus donor, Politico reports.
Wynn Resorts has also given $350,000 to the Republican Governors Association this election cycle. The RGA is the group that’s running ads against Steve Bullock. He also gave half a million to the Republican Party’s “Leadership Committee” which focuses on electing Republicans to state legislatures and Tier B races.
Does simply typing the word “barf” count as a substantive comment? It certainly sums up all of my feelings on this topic.
Barf is good. Sums it up nicely.
Though the massive amounts of insurance industry money he takes is also disturbing, and of course money from Phillip Morris etc.
Only the good die young! Need proof? See the puff piece that jimmy straussballs (like mouse balls only smaller) of the GF Spitoon ran today on our ex-governeor, tiny tim babcock! The dude is now 93 yrs. old. PROOF POSITIVE that only the good die young!
It’s sickening to see tiny tim portrayed as some sort of elder statesman. The dude is a shizerbag! Need proof? Well, let’s recap his tenure as guv, shall we?
http://www.fluoridealert.org/Pollution/Phosphate-Industry/The-Town-that-Refused-to-Die.aspx
This is your face on greed!
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/oldest-youngest-delegates-meet-at-gop-convention/article_f46158f0-cb29-58ca-bba9-917438bae50d.html
Wow! Must’a really struck a nerve with the link on the Town that Refused to Die. That article has been on the net for years, but suddenly today, it’s been removed! (it worked fine when I posted it!) Good job, tiny tim! You still got it, dude!
But unfortunately for you, I still have a hard copy somewhere. It’s very important history that all Montana school children should learn. It’s about how you nearly MURDERED an entire Montana town with posion! And greed!
Sorry, tiny tim, but I don’t forget nor do I forgive. I’ll dig out my hard copy and RE-POST it for your perusal and enjoyment. You’ve been in the shadows for far too long. I firmly believe in shining light on cockroaches. That’s just the way I am.
ENJOY THE CONVENTION! bhwhahahahahahahaa!
NOW IT’S PERSONAL! Them gawddammed Kockhs have gone too far! One of those crazy sumbitches BOUGHT the Bear Ranch, an old ranch that a cousin owned up in Crested Butte, Colorado. And he is messin’ with the locals and screwein’ UP the area!
You see, Bear USED to be Medved, which means bear in Croatian. My great granddaddy and all his kin changed their name to Bear when they arrived in the US of A. Just easier I guess.
Anyway, they settled in Crested Butte beginning in about 1880. They mined and ranched. And just generally had a good life workin’ hard, drinkin’ lots of beer and homemade wine.
But now, the Big Kockhs have arrived! And these bastards are crazy! Nixon started it all when he GAVE away lots of public land in the area to his billionaire buddies using the 1872 Mining Law as a pretext. But things have gone downhill ever since! God DAMN you sumbtichin’ Kockhs! Leave Colorado alone!
http://aspenjournalism.org/2011/10/24/the-price-of-privacy/
The Koch Brothers have a ranch in Montana too. It’s the Beaverhead Ranch owned by the Matador Cattle company. These welfare queens have been coming to the landboard begging for the state to charge them less money for the state land they lease. This money goes to schools!
http://www.kochind.com/factssheets/KochFacts.aspx
Not just a ranch, the Koch brothers own the largest ranch in Montana.
I believe The American Prairie Reserve, not the Kochs, has the largest ranch property holdings in Montana with their recent South Ranch purchase added to their other holdings south of Malta.
GOOD! I would much rather have the Tragedy of the Commons than the Tragedy of the Kocks! Wouldn’t you, Craig?
What about the counties that lose the tax base from removing property from commercial and private ownership?
Nice try but as long as the land is in private ownership, it’s taxed. Counties lose nothing. From what I’ve seen the American Prairie Reserve lands are still in private ownership and are taxed accordingly.
It isn’t just the Koch brothers, either. Many large and wealthy people are screaming bloody murder about the cost of grazing on federal land. They want it reduced even more even though the current cost is a small fraction of what it should be. Rich people get richer by getting the rules changed to benefit themselves. This is a function of our current political landscape. Anyone that believes differently is either selling something or lying – to themselves and to you.
Exactly roger giving big cattle companies a break isn’t the answer to the rest of Montana who needs thoses fees to do business. the same goes for every other business. They want to send their products to market, on our dime. the hyways our taxes payed for, without paying for the maintenance of the roads they use. Same analogy.
Is this really any surprise? Hasn’t “Mad” Max admitted in the past that he’s only a Democrat because of career advancement reasons? Meaning he decided to be a tool for rich people and the fastest way to get to D.C. was as a Democrat because he’d be stuck in the pecking order behind too many GOPers.
So what you’re basically saying is that we’ve been used. I didn’t know he had said that, of course I wasn’t born when he started running for office.
$10,000 bet that the left won’t run anyone against Baucus in 2014. The useful idiots don’t realize that they are the useful idiots.
If I had the money to spare, I would take that bet. Even if Schweitzer doesn’t run (a distinct possibility), I would almost guarentee there will be a primary challenger. Baucus is not in “good odor” with much of his own party, let alone the Republicans and Independants. I certainly won’t be voting for him again. Sadly, he was one of the first politicians I ever voted for when I turned 18.
Rehberg? No, he won’t retire to his McMansion. He’ll go to work as a lobbyist for his son’s firm. That won’t last long, of course. Dennis will fail at lobbying because he’ll quickly forget that the lobbyists buy the drinks for the politicians, and not the reverse.
Sorry, that comment belonged in the thread below this one.
Agreed! My sources say Brian’s already been deeded higher ground. he will either be the next Presidential or VP Pick.
We need to find someone to primary Baucus now. Of he gets a real challenger, he is likely to “decide to retire”. Look what happened with Rick Hill when Rehberg jumped into the house race in 2000. Hill suddenly decided his eyesight was poor. Then, it miraculously recovered for this race.
Baucus went to congress in during the Ford Administration and in all those decades has blinked less than a dozen times, so maybe he could come up with something similar to the Lasik Defense.
And you’re right, we need a challenger. If Baucus is the nominee, we lose the seat. Which wouldn’t be the worst thing, no frosh Republican could hurt Democrats as much as the beatings from Max’s Finance gavel. But the best option is to hold the seat. Which won’t happen if Max is the nominee.
Forty years in DC is enough.
Even given what I said above, I think it is silly to think that if Baucus does win the Democratic Nomination, that he would be defeated by a Republican Challenger. Baucus is a fixture in Montana and he would beat a general election challenger on name recognision alone. The only candidate (from the Republican Side) that stands even a small chance is Rehberg and I think he is going to retire to his ranch (mansion) after he is defeated by Tester.
Conservation lore has it that the Audubon Society once employed a fundraiser known for his willingness to accept money from oil companies and other dubious allies of environmental causes. When confronted with the complaint that the money was tainted, he replied, “Maybe so, but taint enough.”
I think that’s Baucus’ approach to campaign contributions.
Good one, James. Never heard that one before.
Way on back in ’07, when folk were flush with Tester’s election and setting sights on Max the RINO, I asked the question multiple times at multiple websites: Who do you have to primary Max? Back in ’09 when notable nihilists like Tokarski were screeching that Tester was simply mini-me to Max, I asked the same question, multiple times at multiple websites: Who do you have to primary Jon? The only answer ever received has been the thunderous chirping of crickets. Simply put, I don’t think most progressives have the will to stand against power.
So here we are, two years out from a 71 year old man getting reelected to the Senate (he’ll be 73), and I ask again: Who do you have to primary Max? This time there is an answer, Brian Schweitzer. But if Brian chooses not to run, then is there a plan B? Anyone? (And yes, Mr. Brigham, I am kinda looking at you.) Anyone? ‘Cause I got nothin’. Franke Wilmer, maybe. Dennis McDonald? Melinda Gopher? ~heh~ The well is running a little dry for a challenge from the left, because the state continues its rightward drift. Baucus is going with the flow, swimming downstream. I’m not saying that both parties are the same. Their differences are readily apparent. Max has no party affiliation that trumps personal success. So, who do the Democrats have to take ‘the party’ back from a self-interested entrenched politician?
Democrats have Father Time, who always wins, but he probably won’t run until 2020. In 2014, Bullock, Denise Juno, and Jesse Laslovich (provided he learned from his 2012 primary defeat) are the names that come to mind, but I doubt that any member of the trio will challenge Baucus and the daunting bankroll he’ll have collected by then.
Breaking: RNC adopts plank that includes unfunded mandatory clitoridectomies. More to come….
Daines, comPLETE disphit! Yeah, stevey boy, that’s what we REALLY need to get out of the mess your party created. GOD!
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/daines-keeps-it-brief-in-speech-at-republican-national-convention/article_93cb760c-8662-5ff9-9f87-083f2d5b32f9.html
Steve Daines slogan: Instead of “More jobs – Less Government”, it should be “More for me – Less for you”
Jump on board the CRAZY bus,
And leave the drivin’ to JAYsus!
Stevey Daines
Death for homos.
Death for doctors who perform abortion
Death to the planet
Yet Stevey is for a “culture of life”!
Yes, he is a shizerhole!
Don’t you think it less for him, with less Government, since he’s a part of Government?
And more jobs should be more for the people with the new jobs, right?
And getting out of this mess, needs something new … Obama failed for 3 years.
How bout we just BRING BACK all them jobs Mittens outsourced? Good place to start, right?
Geez, d, you don’t seem real bright. How bout just a little background on yourself. You see, you seem young and dumb. In other words, Randian. Read any OTHER books didja than Aynus Rant?
This forum is usually visited by folks of substance. Hell, even Ingy is educated in sumthin’! Plus he’s got lots of real experience on the land.
What are you?
p.s. D, please provide a list of jobs that YOU have created? You seem to be an expert on the subject. Oh, and then explain in some detail just WHY and HOW the hated gubmint must create jobs for dudes like you!
I BELIEVE! I BELIEVE! I BELIEVE!
I believe that the country is in DEEP shit!
“And if he Joseph Smith have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified…. for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.”
– Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132, Verses 62-63 – with Joseph Smith, Jr.
Hmm. Wonder why Queen Ann didn’t mention THIS little tidbit ’bout hubby’s religion in her speech? Guess that you people have all you need to know!
bhwhahahahahahahhaaa!
You and the administration have no idea how to bring back the jobs … that’s why y’all need to be kicked out.
What is it with you and the insults? Substitutes for an argument? It’s ironic that you’ll call anyone stupid, but you can’t put together an argument, let alone the grammar and spelling mistakes.
I have read Atlas Shrugged. Have you? I’ve also read Animal Farm. Both are scary prophesies for a Socialist nightmare.
I’m just someone who is uncomfortable with letting some of these outrageous posts go unchallenged.
D
p.s. I want smaller government, less regulation, less taxes, promotion of business so that it can grow itself and create jobs … but I’m not running for president. I’ll let Romney speak on this subject.
Not really insulting you, dude. This is the market place of ideas, and you booth seems empty! That’s all. Show us what you got. WHAT are you big ideas?
Everyone wants that! The problem is you if your a republican….
You don’t want everyone else to have that! Like Larry said! The Booth is empty. You have no Ideas on how to implement a plan and you have no Plan, that gives everyone else same rights as you.
Democrats have the plans to do that. (American Jobs Act, ACA healthcare, Dream Act, Streamlined medicare & social security, consumer protection, Balanced Budget) but they have been filibustered, or turned down by every republican in Congress and senate.
Why because they don’t want to help the middle-class, or poor in this country.they just want to help Corporations. You are voting against yourself and your Neighbors by voting Republican. Your just too indoctrinated by FOX News to know it
Democrats have the plans, but your side doesn’t like a black president and will do everything it can to hurt its own interests. what sad little people you have become.
Fairness is a democratic Ideal. Your gonna have to make sure everyone has the same needs as you addressed too!
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don’t want people to have the “rite” to entitlements.
I don’t like people claiming what “need” … and that it’s only “fair” that they get it for free. … among a lot of other problems with this “fairness” standard, who decides what’s “fair” for each person.
Everyone doesn’t want smaller government, or less regulation, or less taxes … Obama is growing these with Obamacare, growing welfare, increasing environmental regulations, restricting energy industry building, increasing taxes.
Why do you think I don’t want everyone to have the same rites as me. Sure I do.
It’s hard to believe that you’re argueing that if Republicans promote business, big and small, I am “voting against [myself] and [my] neighbors”. If businesses succeed, their people succeed and earn, because of their own hard work [self-reliance] … one part of ‘my plan’ is to promote business with tax cuts, less regulation, open competition and forgive me for thinking that this promotes the middle class, albeit indirectly.
and if your saying that I don’t want to help poor people because that means hand-outs and entitlements you’re partly right. I want to have less government, people encouraged to get off welfare with work programs, more people paying for their own healthcare (for a lot of reasons) … and it’s more for me about steering away from a entitlement society like Greece.
I’m sorry that you feel like Republicans are voting against every proposal because Obama’s black, but allow me to disagree … we have to make big-boy choices that the government will not, among other things, cripple the country with debt.
The Dream Act isn’t exactly an economy thing.
Not sure what ‘my booth is empty’ means, but it hurt my feelings. ;)
D
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” -JFK What happened to the Democratic party over the last 50 years? All they stand for now is raising taxes and growing the size and scope of government.
That should have been – “B) interested ONLY in ensuring that President Obama doesn’t get a second term,” though I am sure many will consider my original line a freudian slip…
Where to start…
First, What passes for Republican (or as my brother says, Republicant) is far different than what passed for Republican when I was a Young Republican Leader. Today’s Republican is one that is A) a corportist, B) interested ONLY in ensuring that President Obama gets a second term, C) Socially conservative to the point of regression and D) obstructionist.
Old School Republicans (most of us call ourselves Independants because the Republicans of today don’t want to acknowledge taht we even exist) are interested in Fiscal Constraint, Rational solutions to the problems of the Poor and disappearing Middle Class, Small Government and are usually socially nuetral. In fact, it is the Old School Republicans that were primarily the working middle class when I was in my 20′s and 30′s. We didn’t talk about our religion because that was between us and our God (or Goddess as the case my be). We didn’t look into other people’s bedrooms because we didn’t want government looking into ours. We used to be rational. Not so much anymore.
That said, let’s look at the crap you posted. Obama is NOT growing welfare. The rise in the number of people on Welfare is a function of our failed economy – a failure that can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the primarily Republican Banking industry and Reagan’s Trickle down bullshit. I am certainly with President Bush (elder) when he called Reagan’s economic policies “Voodoo Economics” because there is NO facts, research or even logic to that form of economic policy working. NONE. I defy you to present evidence that Trickle down works. It simply doesn’t exist.
If you are refering to the Republican Talking point that Obama is doing away with the work requirement, than you need to get some real information. That argument has been debunked since the day after Romney uttered it to a rabid crowd of Tea Drinkers. The fact of the matter is that a number of states petitioned to the Federal Government (the majority of them Republican) to relax the rules (let the states have more leeway) on approval for welfare so they could get more federal money. One of the rules they wanted to relax was some of the work requirements though there is no evidence that it has actually been done in any of the states requesting the rules be relaxed. Try again, and please for the love of whatever your hold holy, do some damn research first.
Restricting energy industry building – Again I ask, are you stupid? Under Obama’s administration, more traditional energy projects have been started than under any of the previous presidents in the last 20 years. In fact, the natural gas industry alone has more than tripled under Obama. Further, Obama (with Congress’s approval) has also invested a record amount of money into non tradional energy industries – some with failure, some with success. This is to be expected in any new industry and the idiots on the right that want to point the failures are attempting to convince the American public that it is somehow Obama’s fault. if you are one of them, than you are an idiot. There will be failures as we move toward a more sustainable energy portfolio, but there will also be successes. It comes as no surprise that the successes are being buried by the industry and the press, not to mention the Republicans. They don’t want Obama’s program to succeed as it violates the more cardinal rule – denying Obama another term. The Republicans would rather the new energy initiatives fail and hurt the American People. They don’t care about America or the voting citizens. They only care about defeating Obama.
Increasing Taxes – Only a complete and utter idiot would think that we are going to resolve the current economic crisis without increasing taxes. Period. It is as simple as that. If you do not increase revenue, you will never pay down debt. Yes, spending cuts will help, but not nearly enough. Further, 81% of the voting population understand this basic principle. Hell, even St. Reagan understood it. When faced with a large economic crisis, he instituted some of the largest tax increases in the last century.. and he did it without raising a single income tax (though he did raise corporate taxes and others). He accomplished it by removing many of the loopholes that the rich and powerful had build into the tax code with the help of thier bought and paid for Representatives. Those loopholes have been steadily and secretly built back into the tax code. Do you honestly think it is right that Rmoney, who earned tens of millions of dollars pays a lower percentage of taxes than the secretary for his campaign that makes less than 100,000? I don’t and there is little you can say that will change that opinion. Further, Romney is allowed to hide his money in foreign countries and then get all butthurt when the American Public wants to see records of what he has actually earned.
I could go on, but this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the outright Bullshit you posted. I encourage you to stand up for what you believe in, but do not come here and insult our intellegence by posting Faux News talking points without anything to back it up.
I never thought I would live to see the Democrats become the party of Rationality. They have always (in my experience) been the party to push the limits (sometimes in a bad way) and give more authority to the Federal Government. Now they are the party of “let’s take a rational approach to an issue”. It is scary……
Schweitzer, Senate 2014…remember, he’s got a strong ‘itch’ for the seat he tried to get in 2000 from Kousin Konrad Burnz…..
Isn’t Schweitzer in bed with coal companies? He has not done enough to protect the environment against CO2 spewing fossil fuel big donors. We need someone who is more progressive and not afraid to let people know.
If he runs (and that is a big IF), Schweitzer would easily win. I hardly think he is “in bed with coal companies”. I do believe, though, that Schweitzer would like to see some resource utilization done to bring jobs back to Montana. He is a strong proponant of so called “clean coal”.
The point being made by previous posters, though, is that Schweitzer is one of the most popular politicians Montana has had in a long time. His approval rating spans both parties and he would have no problem getting elected if he runs.
Comments, Montana?
Just protecting corporate farming again. Thats all Denny cares about.