Cue the Circus Music

The State Republican Party sent its team of stalwarts to Tampa for the national convention this week. Among the delegates are veritable treasure trove of politicians who have dabbled in — or fully embraced — the wacky views, hypocrisy, and nutty ideas of the 2011 legislature.  If you liked the national scrutiny last session received, you’ll love this crew.

Let’s take a look at who Montana Republicans sent to represent them on the national scene:

Joanne Blyton, birtherFirst, there is Birther Legislator Joanne Blyton of Red Lodge. Rep. Blyton  voted to support Rep. Bob Wagner’s bill in the 2011 session. Yes, that’s the same bill that later made the Montana Legislature famous on CNN.  

Then, there is state Rep. Ken Peterson of Billings.  Peterson, an attorney, made a name for himself by pointing out a loophole that still allows GOP-ers to prosecute people for being gay–even though the courts have struck down a state law saying that being gay will get you prison time.  The penalty on the books is ten years and a $5o,ooo dollar fine.

Peterson says that gays can still be prosecuted for “recruiting.” Here’s how Peterson describes how “the gay recruitment” process goes down, in his own words:

Here young man, your hormones are raging. Let’s go in this bedroom and we’ll engage in some homosexual acts.  You’ll find you’ll like it.

Next there is Tamara “Tammy” Hall of Bozeman.  Hall  is the ultra-angry, ultra right-wing radio commentator in Bozeman who  pens an occasional column for the Bozeman Chronicle and is supposedly a “motivational speaker” for a living.  Hall’s favorite topics include hating on feminists and Governor Schweitzer and loving on Chick-fil-A.

Stephen Zabawa of Billings is the anti-medical marijuana crusader who appeared in the Billings Gazette after his attempts to get in on a share of a medial marijuana business came to light.

Former state legislator Gary Perry of Manhattan will also attend.  This foot soldier in the War on Women sponsored a bill to allow insurance companies to discriminate against women in insurance pricing when he served in the legislature.  He’ll fit right in with this bunch.

 

Cyndi Baker (left) and Rep. Cleve Loney R-Great Falls (right) at a TEA Party Rally in Great FallsRep. Cleve Loney and TEA Party leader Cyndi Baker of Great Falls are there too.   The couple is pictured here.

Baker was a Great Falls City Commission candidate  who campaigned against school district spending, then turned around and sought a district paycheck.

But it’s worse then that, as the Great Falls Tribune reports, Baker tried to threaten the local government for taxpayer funded payola in the form of a position as “ombudsman” to the local TEA Party anti-government activists.   TEA Party Republican state Rep. Cleve Loney is on the left.

 

Posted: August 29, 2012 at 12:06 pm

60 thoughts on “Cue the Circus Music

  1. Rob Kailey

    The big top has already crashed on this bit of fun. Nothing any of these Montana clowns can do will top the buffoonery of Mittens himself. He held a million dollar fundraiser aboard a million dollar yacht, flying the flag of the Cayman Islands (where his money is hidden.) What totally broke my irony meter is that name of that vessel is the “Cracker Bay”. No shit. The Cracker Bay. Not even Tammy Hall can top that.

  2. Kenneth Kailey

    What floors me is that any rational, thinking American Citizen could consider getting behind the platform they passed at the convention. WTF? When did the Democrats become the Rational party and the Republicans become the radical nutcase party?

  3. larry kurtz

    You guys see this?

    In fact, government documents on the bailout obtained by Rolling Stone show that the legend crafted by Romney is basically a lie. The federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney’s initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster – leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had “no value as a going concern.” Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC – the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers – out of at least $10 million.

    1. D

      Exactly! … she has to pay for that herself. An ‘entitlement’ is when a population doesn’t pay for something, and then demands it, like it’s their inborn or constitutional ‘rite’.

      1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

        Oh come ON, dipshit! Ever heard of a gubmint subsidy, little fella? How old did you say you were again, cupcake? Scratch ANY corporate fascist corporation and you will find the hated GUBMINT money keeping that thing afloat! In other words, the PEOPLE’S money! And that doesn’t even take into consideration outright theft!

        You lose again, loser!

        1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

          p.s. cupcake. They biggest gubmint suckers:

          Defense
          Oil and gas
          Timber
          etc, etc.

          And here’s a clue so you can claim to have one: It AIN’T black welfare mamas!

          BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

          1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

            P.S.S You weren’t exactly a HISTORY major, were ya, dude?

            bwhahahahahahhahahahaaa!

            BTW, do you know how the Mittens family got their money???? Juss wondering. Try GUBMINT HANDOUT!

        2. D

          You’re so mean to me … I’m going to start thinking we’re not friends.

          Now, I’m trying to follow your posts. They jump around so forgive me … Are you saying that a government sibsidy to a corporation, justifies entitlements to everyone? … We’ll skip for a moment that it’s off the Condi joining Augusta topic.

          If I am following your logic, I’m afraid that I’ll disagree … I think the subsidies help grow the economy and indirectly help everyone. Entitlements do not.

          BTW Condi is black. You’re not showing up with your normal racism attacks. Hmmm … Anyway, Condi is awesome! I hope you got a chance to watch her speach last night. I thought it was the best of the night.

          1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

            I got nuthin’ against stoopid people, little fella. But I DO resent stoopid people that vote against their own self-interests! And that’d be you.

            Judging from your comments, you are not very educated nor intelligent. Now, that’s OK, but you really should not vote. You’re not qualified.

            1. D

              Ha!! I’m laughing at your tactics. Just shouting down dissent with insults and bullying.

              Well sorry to disapoint you but I’m going to vote … and honestly I think I’m smarter than tens of thousands of people who are bussed to the polls and told who to vote for … and I think I’m smarter than you. No offense.

              Also, I don’t accept your claim that I’m voting against my own interests.

              1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                You misunderstand, d. I’m not shouting down your dissent, I’m BEGGING you make an argument! ASKING you to add something of merit to the conversation! PLEADING that you show us you’re not a moron!

                That’s all.

                1. D

                  Whatever …

                  Earlier I said, government subsidies help the economy. Entitlements do not. Also, one shouldn’t lead to the other. Separately, I’m against government subsidies. … Which, BTW, has little to do with where you started this thing, Condi getting into Augusta (love it).

                  1. Jack Ruby

                    Hey D eez nuts, do you not understand that there is no real difference between a “subsidy” and an “entitlement”?

                    1. D

                      There is a difference in the economic multiplier effect … but if you force me to choose, fine, they’re the same and I don’t want the governments to hand out either.

        3. D

          Also … I’m not in favor of a government subsidy, or government bail-out. I’d prefer that the companies survive without help and open competition. Lower taxes maybe.

          I was disputing the idea that a payment toward a subsidy does not mean that we have to make a payment toward entitlements … if that’s what you’re saying (like i said it’s hard to follow).

          Oh, and the money that is in the treasury was contributed through taxes, in large part, by the rich and the corporations, not the people that would benefit from the entitlements.

          1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

            Please, for the record, just WHAT was your highest grade level achieved?

              1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

                And that settles that!

                bwahahahahahahahaha!

                Well then, for the record, just HOW much gubmint money you suckin’ up offn’ Unca Sugartit?

                1. D

                  Does it settle it?

                  I’m confused. You think with my small government ideas, that I’m taking government support? I want people to be off of government support as much as possible … so I wouldnt’t guess much … but for principle reasons, I’ll not answer that also.

                  1. Dallas Reese

                    Dude, I’m a little confused. What exactly do you think those folks who receive an “entitlement” do with that dreaded government money? Pocket it or spend it? And just how much of our state and national economy comes from consumer spending, including spending by those receiving an “entitlement”?

                    I would venture that “entitlement” spending contribute as much or more to the economy (and create jobs in the process) than the “subsidies” that the businesses get.

                    1. D

                      First, thank you for a reasoned and respectful post, but …

                      I understand that an entitlement will flow into the economy and it will for it’s part contribute, but it will not fuel the economy the way supporting a corporation will, in my opinion (an economist should make these arguements) … but, again, I don’t want general sudsidies for corporations. I don’t like bail-outs.

                      My principles are mainly against entitlements for non-economic reasons … that the people that receive them sink into dependence … and this eventually leads to Greece, where the people are not driven to achieve, they just want their check.

            1. I built that!

              Umm…Kenneth…

              Strap on your helmet take you seat on the short bus and try to follow…

              Taxes are a “gift” to the government not to me or the corporations.

              Lower taxes is not a gift, as much as a reduction in “penalty”.

              The best person/ corporation to thoughtfully spend the money they earned is the person/ corporation that actually earned it.

              The worst person/ government to spend money is someone who didnt earn it.

              1. Dallas Reese

                We’ll probably disagree on this but I’ll take the “gift” of a lawful society, built and enforced by taxes. I’ll take the “gift” of a military, a sheriffs office, a fire department, built and maintained by taxes. I’ll take the “gift” of roads, bridges, schools, jails, etc, built and maintained by taxes. I’ll take the “gift” of clean healthy water and air provided by gov’t regulation and supported by taxes. And if someone falls on hard times, I’ll take the “gift” of a social safety net provided by taxes. Yeah, I’ll take those “gifts”.

                1. D

                  I don’t want to speak for IBI! … personally I’d say that some taxes are necesary to pay for some “gifts” from the government, and the list that you gave is sufficiently short for my tastes.

                  When the “gifts” expand into free healthcare, expanding unemployment benefits, relaxing welfare conditions, more government jobs managing the larger government etc I get more chaffed.

                  1. I built that!

                    Appreciate the help D.

                    You said it well sir.

                    I was trying to figure out how we went from entitlements to basic infrastructure.

                    Although an arguement could be made that the public sector could do some of those things (and better no doubt) thereby reducing tax burden and promoting economic growth.

                    1. Dallas Reese

                      It’s a simple step. If taxes for entitlements are “bad” where do we draw the line for the “good” taxes?

                      I assume you both support the idea that if someone loses their job through no fault of their own, too bad? And if the economy doesn’t improve fast enough in their area, too bad? As far as relaxing welfare conditions, Obama is responding to requests made by many Republican Governors (during the Bush years) to provide more state influence over the welfare to work programs. There is no “relaxing welfare conditions” going on, it merely shifts some of the administration to states per their requests. I get a kick out of folks who say “Obama did this or that” but don’t bother to check out the circumstances or where the request came from. And with most of the entitlement programs I’m sure you’re against, you have to ask yourselves that Biblical question: Am I my brothers keeper?

                      And IBT you’re exactly right, the “public sector could do some of those things (and better no doubt)…”

                    2. Rob Kailey

                      It’s strange as hell, isn’t it, how many of those who cry a river about ‘stimulus’ being for government jobs completely forget that the overwhelming amount of money from the stimulus went to private contractors who employ people to build things? Martel Construction? High Country Paving? Johnston Industrial out of Missoula? All of those companies profited from government ‘welfare’. All of those companies employ people to build things we all need. And all of those employed people put money back into local economies.

                      D and IBT can wail as much as they want about increase the fantasy of massive increase in government bureaucrats. All they are doing is masking an agenda that objectively anti-jobs.

                    3. Rob Kailey

                      That last paragraph, better written:

                      D and IBT can wail as much as they want about the fantasy of massive increase in government bureaucrats. All they are doing is masking an agenda that is objectively anti-jobs.

                  2. I built that!

                    Dallas

                    I dont believe that if you lose you job to bad. I believe in a safety net, sure. It should be policed to make sure that it isnt abused however.

                    I dont care who requests what for the relaxation of welfare work requirements. If you are able bodied and not actively looking for work you should get NOTHING!

                    The less of the freebie (obamabucks) govt programs there are… you may be surprised to see people get off their lazy asses and find work. Any able bodied person can find a job. It may not be ideal (McDonalds, Walmart, Mowing lawns) but it is a start and it is productive and they would be contributors not takers.

                    Many people dont have realistic expectations of what they are qualified to do (mentally, educationally) and how much $ they can make. Nothing worth having comes easy.

                    “Am I my brothers keeper?” Why yes I am, and so are local charities, churches, food banks, kids groups, etc. But the govt with my dollars…NO! I can donate my own money to folks in need, truly in need, much better than the govt. I have feeling for the $ I earn and make sure it goes to the right people/places. Govt is careless.

                    You ever notice the outpouring of support from private citizens when tragedy occurs?

                    1. Rob Kailey

                      Any able bodied person can find a job.

                      That is a lie on more levels than I can even describe here, but I will point to one. Any able bodied person can find a way to be useful. That doesn’t mean any other able person would be willing to pay them for that, or pay them a wage on which they can survive. ‘Here, I’ll pay you a dime an hour to pick my crops’. If you wouldn’t say yes to that IBT, then count yourself lucky that you don’t have that desperate decision dangled in front of you, and STFU.

              2. Kenneth Kailey

                You are a funny man. Tax incentives are often how governments (local, state and federal) entice and support business. Since these tax incentives are given to businesses, it puts more of a burden on others to pay for the things the taxes should have gone to. Yes, in general, I agree that taxes are a “negative” but they are a necessary negative for the government to meet it’s obligations. The fact that you don’t understand this means that it is you that should be riding the short bus. Tax breaks and incentives are the single largest method of government subsidy. You are an idiot if you can’t wrap your head around that.

              3. I built that!

                Kenneth

                I take issue with the term govt subsidy.

                A subsidy is assistance paid to a business or economic sector.

                That implies it is the govts money. It is not!

                I believe that tax relief is not by definition a subsidy but a reduction in burden. And yes a reduction in burden does promote growth and investment and possibly relocation.

                And yes I suppose others would have to pay more in some occasions but better yet the govt (city, state, etc) could live within their means and stop adding reckless programs of handouts for the least productive in society.

                My previous post took issue with the characterization of tax relief as a gift from govt.

                1. Rob Kailey

                  Semantics. You are correct to point out that govt. money isn’t ‘theirs’, it’s ours. But that leaves you with a huge blind spot. The government, in a representative democracy, isn’t ‘them’. It’s us.

                  And, as Dallas Reese effectively points out, you have yet to define what government ‘living within “their</i" means" actually means.

                2. Kenneth Kailey

                  I really don’t care if you take issue with it or not. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

                  As Rob has already pointed out, it is a meaningless sematics argument. Aid to a company can be given in many ways and reducing their cost (by lowering their taxes) is a form of subsidy – in fact, it is the most common form of subsidy, not only in the US but worldwide. I am sorry if that concept is too hard for you to understand, but then, given your statements here, you obviously dont’ want to understand. You apparently want to continue working against your own interests. I do not.

                  Moreover, it should be pointed out that government subsidies in the form of reduced taxes is one of the ways larger companies can push out the medium and small sized companies. Subsidies – in the form of tax breaks and incentives – are rarely offered to mom and pop (Main street) businesses but are pretty much considered normal for larger businesses. One of your like minded people – Craig – was just arguing that Businesses like Catapiller should use thier employment to extort such subsidies. He is just as wrong as you are and it is disgusting to me that we, as a voting public, allow this kind of rape of our economic system. There is nothing “Free market” about it.

            2. D

              uh, no.

              First, I don’t think Larry has really made any arguement, but … if you accept that he’s claiming since corporations get subsidies people should get entitlements, I am not making that arguement at all.

              Lower taxes is not the same as entitlement spending, is not the same as corporate subsidies, in there effect on the economy. I would have hoped that this would be intuitively obvious. They might have some similarities but they’re not equal and interchangeable.

              … and then of course, the economic impact is just one of the reasons that I’m against entitlements.

  4. Aware and Not Stupid

    Before you kids start throwing rocks at Tammy Hall, you best remember she’s smart and tough, she caught the good Governor shooting his mouth off a few years back and blasted it all over the internet when ol’ Scheister said he’d helped Jon Tester win his election to the US Senate because he knew a lot of folks who could ‘turn some dials’ for that election in Montana. Tammy blew his cover big time, she’s nobody’s fool!

    1. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers

      No she’s not. She’s an idiot. Hey, I have a great idea. If she’s so smart, why doesn’t she post here, Beware I’m Stoopid? She’s a “motivational spkeaker”. Maybe she can motivate us!

      So far, Tim Baldwin is the only rightie with the intelligence and moxie to hold his own here. I agree with little that Tim says, but he presents his arguments well.

  5. D Gregory Smith

    Ken Peterson’s grasp of “recruitment” is disgusting- and slippery. Almost as slippery as his grasp on reality.
    More straight men entice minors into sexual activity than any other segment of the population….

Comments are closed.