GOP Floats New Strategy

Crackpot Derek SkeesRepublicans have taken heat recently because their backward platform and failure to embrace science is repelling voters.

But a new proposal from a Montana Republican could change the game this weekend at the state GOP convention in Bozeman.

Former state legislator Derek Skees is behind the proposal.  Skees proposes a revival of McCarthy-era style “loyalty oaths” with penalties for those who break ranks, the Missoulian reports.

Loyalty oaths proliferated in the U.S. during the cold war era when hysteria over the supposed threat posed by Communists became known as the Red Scare.

Paranoia fueled a craze to weed out “subversives.”  That’s when the infamous question, “Are you now or have you ever been…,” became part of the American lexicon.

But the loyalty oaths demanded by the fanatics did nothing to protect the country against so-called subversion.  Instead, the oaths were used frighten, intimidate and punish anyone who exercised their constitutional right to question or criticize people in leadership.

Skees’s oaths seem intended for the same purpose.  They are an attack on a small handful of Republican legislators who, in a very limited number of instances, did not vote 100% with the hard-right wing.  I wouldn’t call them moderates–many of the group made up the 2011 session’s right-wing leadership.  But they refused to go as far into Area 51 as the Essmann-Priest-Wittich Taliban wanted to take them.

If the Montana Republican party really wants to move forward, they need to realize that their party is packed with lawmakers whose vision is morally bankrupt–that hatred and punishing the working poor and middle class isn’t a viable ideology.  If they can’t do this, they’re going to continue to repulse more and more people and they will continue to shrivel and shrink and lose.



39 Comments on "GOP Floats New Strategy"

  1. An exercise in ideological cleansing.

  2. I’m surprised teabag loon Senator Ted Cruz (from Texas of course) hasn’t proposed this idea already, in tribute and to honor Michele Bachmann who wanted to expose ‘anti-american’ members of Congress. One of Montana’s most SHAMEFUL periods of history was during World War One, when speaking out against buying war bonds would get you jailed for sedition, and Montana passed legislation that was more severe the the national sedition act in 1917, and still in use today, or fragments of! I doubt this and other blogs would even be allowed in the Montana of 1917-1918 if the Internet was available then. So if the ‘baggers’ of the ‘Grumpy Old Party’ (GOP) want a loyalty oath, it might as well be a ‘going out of business’ sign as WWII Army infantry veteran Senator Bob Dole suggested, who was a true American republican who respected his colleagues of all parties in Congress.

  3. Command Directive from CSA ‘General’ Derek Skees: The war was not fought over slavery but rather states rights. (from one of his blog declarations). The Civil War was fought for both, and abolitionists fought for decades to bring attention to the American public that slavery was an immoral and brutal and NOT really sanctioned by the Bible, which is still being ‘roled out’ by evangicals….have we not learned?

  4. They need to just rename the MTGOP the John Birch Society and have done with it. That would at least be truth in advertising. BTW Skees will not get elected Chair, the party will elect someone the good ol’ boys network is comfortable with – then they’ll throw a bone with the powerless vice-chair position to the wingnuts, or women, or whatever faction they seek to appease. Same thing happens with the democrats – vice-chair is a token position of no real power. It would not surprise me if they don’t give it to that militia woman.

  5. Matthew Koehler | June 7, 2013 7:49 AM at 7:49 AM |

    For what it’s worth, some in Montana (such as the Montana Wilderness Association), who favor increasing logging in our public national forests through political mandates attached as riders to unrelated spending bill, also require citizens to sign a “Duty of Loyalty Oath” to participate in some “collaborative” groups that want to dictate to the rest of us how our public national forests are managed.

    For example, the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative (SWCC) on portions of the Lolo, Flathead and Helena National Forests, requires each potential member of the collaborative group to sign a statement that reads, “Each member of the collaborative has a duty of loyalty to the collaborative.”

    When our organization was required to sign this “Duty of Loyalty Oath” to be a part of this “collaborative” group we refused. Apparently groups like Montana Wilderness Association did not. Anyway, what makes this particular “Duty of Loyalty Oath” so troubling is that these federal public lands belong equally to all Americans….regardless of whether you sign a “Duty of Loyalty Oath” to some “collaborative” group or not. Also, consider the fact that out of 24 current members of this “collaborative” group, 33% are current federal US Forest Service employees. meaning that the Forest Service controls a large portion of the voting block of this entire “collaborative” group. Keep in mind that this is the only example in the entire country where a “collaborative” group working on national forest management allows Forest Service employees to even serve as voting members. It’s also the only “collaborative” group in the country that requires a “Duty of Loyalty Oath” prior to full participation. Scary stuff for certain, especially if you are simply a person who wants to take a role in the management of your federal public lands in Montana.

    • Yeah, because signing a good faith agreement so that everyone understands and agrees to the scope of the project is exactly like Derek Skees and his red scare!!! Sounds like this was the first reaposibly run large scale project you were ever (not) a part of!! Get a grip Koehler.

      • Matthew Koehler | June 7, 2013 9:48 AM at 9:48 AM |

        Paul, perhaps you should “get a grip” and get some real information before spouting off. If you have no problem with the notion that before US citizens are able to play a role in managing their US public lands that first they must sign a “duty of loyalty oath” with a self-selective, government run “collaborative” group so be it.

    • Koehler, what is your issue with Forest Service Employees? Do you think that a Forest Service Employee gives up his right as an American Citizen to get involved in activist groups just because they get a job with the Forest Service? Has it ever occured to you that maybe, just maybe, some people seek employment with the Forest Service because they actually care what happens to our public land? I guess not….

      Further, The Montana Wilderness Association and similar organizations do NOT determine what happens with our public lands – Congress does. They may influence the policies that are developed like any other lobbying group – say, like the ones you belong to – but they do NOT control policy. Lobbying groups are a problem, no matter what their flavor if they have an undue influence, but their are many that would argue that your organizations have too much influence as well.

      Paul made a good point when he pointed out the difference between your butthurt rant and the purity test Skee’s is suggesting. Attempt to minimize him all you want, your arguments ring of self interest, not good information.

      • Matthew Koehler | June 7, 2013 10:40 AM at 10:40 AM |

        Moorcat: As much as I love the Kailey Brother’s focus on “butthurt” it’s pretty tough to have a meaningful discussion or debate about the issues I brought up when you so clearly display that you don’t understand some of the basic principles of public lands management, the transparency and public process/input requirements contained with the National Environmental Policy Act and how some of these “collaborative” groups, especially those National Forest “collaborative” groups that allow Forest Service employees to serve as voting members may be violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). For the latter issue, here’s a discussion of these “collaborative” groups and FACA.

        As I stated previously, If you have no problem with the notion that before US citizens are able to play a role in managing their US public lands that first they must sign a “duty of loyalty oath” with a self-selective, government run “collaborative” group so be it.

        • Matthew, you missed the entire point.. these “collaborative” groups do NOT set policy. They suggest policy like any other lobby group. Congress sets policy. Further, I have real issue with the idea that a voting citizen of the United States is denied membership on a “government run” (your words) committee based on their employment.

          If the law is being violated, by all means, file a complaint. You seem very adept at doing that. In the meantime, I suggest that you are misrepresenting the facts.

          • Matthew Koehler | June 7, 2013 12:04 PM at 12:04 PM |

            Kailey, which facts do you suggest I’m misrepresenting?

            And as long as we’re making suggestions, I suggest that you don’t understand much about NEPA, FACA and how some of these “collaborative” groups are being run. Congress does not, as you seem to content, tell the Forest Service where to log, how much to log and how to log. Congress doesn’t tell the Forest Service which road to build, which road to remove and where a culvert should be ripped or put in. The Forest Service determines all of this. Increasingly the Forest Service determines this with “collaborative” groups. In all of the country, Montana is the only place we can find where paid Forest Service employees get to be full voting members of a “collaborative” group, hence the concerns about FACA. I mean, what if the Dept of Defense was to open up a “collaborative” group process to gather input on where to build nuclear missile silos….and 33% of the voting members of that collaborative group were paid, Dept of Defense employees attending the meeting as Dept of Defense employees? And if you wanted to participate in this “collaborative” process you’d need to sign a “Duty of Loyalty Oath” to the “collaborative?” It’s for reasons like this that we have FACA in the first place.

            I can understand how all this might not matter, or might be very confusing, especially to those who don’t work on these issues everyday.

            • I would think the Forest Service employees probably have some expertise to bring to the table that would make them valuable to such a group. The same with DOD experts if you are talking about siting ICBMs. You’re right Koehler that those of us who don’t spend every waking hour on these issues don’t really see why you find such things to be so problematic and as an advocate you are not doing a very good job convincing us otherwise. It really comes off as childish the way you go to every newspaper comment section and blog in the state and copy and paste the same comment on every article about Skees. Its off topic and kind of annoying. If you are hoping to cast yourself and your group in a sympathetic light its not really working.

              • Matthew Koehler | June 7, 2013 1:52 PM at 1:52 PM |

                Hate the game, not the player Abe. I’m sorry that you view my use of the 1st amendment to respond to a identical newspaper article with an identical comment as “childish.” Should I be required to write an entirely new comment for each of these identical articles?

                And once again, read up on FACA, NEPA and some of these other laws and regulations before you comment about issues related to FACA and NEPA, OK? Sorry that you feel that a very real “Duty of Loyalty Oath” required by citizens to participate in a “collaborative” group process to help chart Forest Service management isn’t germane to some “Duty of Loyalty Oath” a GOP politician wants other GOP’ers to sign.

                • I think Kailey 2 said it already but if the law has been broken Im sure your organization will be there to file a non-frivolous lawsuit. You aren’t required to do anything as far as your internet posting habits, Im just giving you my opinion that you come off as 1) annoying and 2) you aren’t very informative on the very issues you claim to be an expert on. Particularly when instead of explaining in an articulate and respectful way your point of view on complicated statutory schemes you get all pouty and brush people off bc they don’t share your “expertise”. Might not be the most effective way to bring people to your point of view but hey you’re the expert. You probably shouldn’t lower yourself to getting into pissing matches with trolls considering your status as a pseudo public figure. But you do.

                  • Matthew Koehler | June 7, 2013 2:15 PM at 2:15 PM |

                    Thanks for the advice Abe. I did post some relevant info and links from the outset, which, if read, would shed some light on complicated statutory schemes. So far, the response to that info was basically “Get a grip Koehler” and an accusation that I’m “misrepresenting the facts.” Sorry if after those sort of comments I don’t respond with the kind of sugar and pleasantries that apparently you require of me, but not, apparently, of others. As I already stated, I can understand how all this might not matter, or might be very confusing, especially to those who don’t work on these federal land management issues everyday. Thanks.

                  • You’re welcome, glad I was able to help you out. If you need any more advice feel free to ask me questions in the comments.

  6. Richard Miller | June 7, 2013 7:53 AM at 7:53 AM |

    Will someone please call the sheriff and have him put out a BOLO alert for this bat crazy foaming at the mouth puppy!

  7. Maybe we should approve whatever “rating system” they endorse on the condition that the rating start at -100 and move upward. Anyone with a negative net rating is no longer allowed to state an opinion on anything.

  8. And the oaths should be signed in blood or they just aren’t credible- and of the oath is broken they should subject to corporal punishment just like their own bills in the Montana legislature called for- if they can’t live up to their own standards why should we have to.

  9. Drunks for Denny | June 7, 2013 11:09 AM at 11:09 AM |

    It kind of reminds me of the 1934 Night of the Long Knives, with Deschamps as Ernest Rohm and Skees as you-know-who…..

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 7, 2013 1:05 PM at 1:05 PM |

      Ya know, Drunk Dude, ya just gotta wonder what made these nazis like Gen. Robert E. Skees, Birther Bob, Jumbo Jimmy Knoxious, et al, all come to Montana! I mean, hell, everything they want is alREADY in place in a place like Texass! And shoot, they can even live in a good, old fashioned values sundown town too, where they never even have to SEE a black face!

      So, why did these inbreds come to Montana?

      Doesn’t add up! For you see, Montana is a state for young people! It’s big country in Big Sky Country! And it’s BEST enjoyed by young folks who can actually get OUT and hike the hell outta the land! Can you even imagine Birther Bob, Gen. Robert E. Skees, or Jumbo Jimmy Knoxious climbing a mountain? Heart attack RIDGE maybe, but NOT a serious mountain!

      So, why are these inbreds here? They ain’t really gonna have much success, and they’re simply setting themselves up for failure. Like all other outta staters who move here and find out that life ain’t exactly like what it is in their teensy, tiny little minds eye view of Montana, I suspect that they’ll simply mosey along some day to some place that might be more compatible with their racist/Nazi/chrisofascist world view! In fact, Jumbo Jimmy’s already gone!

      But why Montana? Maybe some inbred out there can answer for me.

  10. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 7, 2013 6:22 PM at 6:22 PM |

    Get your Kockh on, Reetards! Look, if you want’a make some REAL money like Assam, Fart Fetish, and Pervert Priest, get your Kockh on!

    And poor widdle Eric Oilscum and daughter jen are simply TOO FRICKIN’ STOOPID to be any good to the Big Kockhs. They have YET to enrich themselves as little Kockh sucklings! Sad, so sad. Be like the little TRAIN who wouldn’t quit, Eric and Jen. Suck for all your worth, little reetards! Never quit! I think I can, I think I can, I think I can! Pucker UP, little suckings!


  11. why are we all fighting?

  12. I know when I went to work for the Bureau of Land management years ago. I had to sign an oath to the United States, Pretty much the same oath signed as a member of the military here years ago. so what’s to mind??

    But to sign an Oath of treason, some sort of republican loyalty oath to be above the American constitution??….I mean that is what Skees and other conservative nutcases want people to do…. To be contrary to the constitution, and civil rights act? You would think most Montana GOP would try stringing this Idiot up for speaking against Americans.

    I just don’t understand how the GOP believe the first and fourth amendments don’t count.

  13. Hmmmm, no postings on Shannon Augure? If this was Barkus you kids would be posting every ten seconds or so.

    • I would invite comments on the DUI issue and that does deserve attention no matter what ethnic background. DUI statistics and enforcement is a matter of public safety and if somebody – no matter if they are a legislator or ranch-hand, is subject to the law. I don’t want somebody ‘rocketing’ off the reservation and slamming into me and vica-versa for somebody to pass through reservation land when they’re totally ‘blasted’ and rams into a vanload of native-americans.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 8, 2013 6:10 PM at 6:10 PM |

      What do you mean, Dave? Did Shannon actually nearly KILL his entire staff? No, he did not. I fail to see your point. Shannon was absolutely right. The keystone copper overstepped his authority. I too would have told dirty harry to kiss my ass!

  14. On TV news today, Art Wittich again vilifying and attacking moderate republicans focused on SOLUTIONS, not idealogical pandering for the ‘baggers’ and Koch boyz. Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and even the REAL Ronald Reagan would find this current ‘crop’ twisted and misguided in their mythology and as Senator Bob Dole – no Santa Monica, dope-smoking liberal – declared the GOP should be ‘closed for business’, especially since U.S. Senate ‘teabaggers’ like Cruz and Rand Paul have crapped on Dole’s legislative achievements and harmony he achieved. Now the GOP only filibusters and obstructs good governance.

  15. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 9, 2013 6:15 AM at 6:15 AM |

    Hey, now THERE’S an idea for the Reetards up north! Why hasn’t Gen. Robert E. Skees thought of this before? A new state, that consists almost entirely of inbreds, reetards, christofascists, white supremnits, and racist transplants from down south! Upper Teabagistan! What a great idea!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 9, 2013 6:23 AM at 6:23 AM |

      And for the granola crowd in MiZOOla, New Fernbaristan! Ganja the state flower! Sandals the state footwear! And farmers market the state capital!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | June 9, 2013 6:51 AM at 6:51 AM |

        And for you young dudes who read this site, THIS is for you! You see, THIS is what happens when you protest an illegal, unjust, evil war that was started with a lie! Perhaps you can spot your granma or grandpa in this group. You see, THIS is what Saint Ronny Raygun did as governor. He BARRICADED the exits of the campus at Berkeley, and then, proceeded to TEAR GAS the entire campus from helicopters while BEATING the confined students with his National Guard!

        So, next time you hear someone praise Saint Ronnie the Alzheimeric, remember that Ronnie was our FIRST nazi presidunce! Resistance is futile! The Big Kockh brothers would be SO proud! Fascism makes the trains run on time. Never forget that. And NEVER forget that MOST rightwing Pubbies like the ENTIRE Bush Crime Family absolutely loved and supported Hitler and Mussolini! They would fit right into the new Pubbie party! In fact, Prescott Bush was Hitler’s chief financial supporter until congress had to tell him to knock it off! All true.

  16. Yesterday Christy Clark failed her ‘Teabag Purity Test’ and now FIELDER will run amok as the GOP’s new state vice-chair and watch out for the Militia Moms and visits from Sarah Palin?

Comments are closed.