Poll: Daines in Trouble

A public opinion poll was released today showing that Congressman Steve Daines has an abysmal 39% job approval rating. The poll is conducted annually by Montana State University professors and students, in Billings. Steve Bullock has a strong rating at 53%. Baucus and Tester are in the 40s, Tester having perhaps been unavoidably dragged down by what’s going on in Washington, and by Obama whose numbers in Montana are very poor (29%).

If we are to believe this poll, it means that Daines is the most unpopular Montana elected official since Judy Martz.

Daines must certainly be considering pulling the plug on a Senate run. But worse than that, he could even be staring at the possibility of a contested primary, in either a House or Senate bid.

Already lately, the Right Wing of the Right Wing of the Tea Party has begun protesting Daines’s vote to reopen the government.  Daines broke with the Tea Party at the last minute on the government shutdown, and voted, when the Republicans had clearly lost, for the Democratic position.

It was a major belly flop of a dive, however. Daines was one of the nuts in Congress who helped orchestrate the shutdown, costing America billions in GDP and hurting our credit rating, and costing Montana jobs and economic activity.  We were hurt on reservations and in the tourist centered areas of Yellowstone and Glacier, for the parks and tribal governments were closed down along with the federal government.

Dainesshutdownletter.jpgHere is a picture of Daines’s signature on an a letter, written and signed by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but Tea Party stupidity, and calling for a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded. Notices Daines’s John Hancock on the last page, big and prominent and proud.

But then the GOP’s gambit went south, and Daines (in an increasingly common pattern for rookie Tea Party gunners) realized his recklessness did an about face, to save face. But at 39%, we will assume that the damage was already done.

I doubt the people who still haven’t been able to return to work on reservation communities, or the innkeepers and restaurant owners and hoteliers and outfitters and their employees who make a living on tourism, are going to give him much credit for acting contrite at the last minute, and blowing with the wind. The Chipewa Cree tribe laid-off 86 full-time employees and 37 temporary employees. Those were lay-offs, not furloughs. They also furloughed 33 more employees, according to a tribal council member’s statement on the tribe’s website.

Despite having a blueprint for failure that he could have learned from–namely, the one provided Denny Rehberg, who was a loud and proud Tea Partier and realized, too late, that he’d made a huge mistake by being one–Daines stepped in the same pile of manure as Denny. And like Denny, he is clearly going to pay for it.


134 Comments on "Poll: Daines in Trouble"

  1. To be fair, the same scientists who produced this also can’t spell Tester’s name right.

    • …..and where dead wrong in the Tester/Rehberg election Matchup they continually picked Denny throughout the election process by at least 5 Points. Not a good pollster to base your ass on as a candidate if you’re a republican. They were wrong about quite a few races last year!

      • Just looking at the numbers crunch, I see again they are refusing to show the split on Land-line/ cellphone… which means they are still using outdated models and mostly land-lines.
        They still don’t target age specifics…… And no CATI is not considered all that better over personal interviews because it is computer generated and I am speaking about researchers who researched what advances CATI might bring which is almost NIL. They dont even explain the random digit dial methodology. to prove they sought out Smartlphones numbers.

        410 people is too small a population to sample in Montana, they show no breakdowns for the incoming population around the balkans either.

        Suffice to say it is a student generated paper. good for them for trying to learn a methodology…. but please dont use it for any accuracies!

  2. This poll is crap- the sample size is too small and the people who do it have a history of being wrong- remember when thy predicted Rehberg would win the election in 2012? And Craig Wilson is the dad of Rehbergs political director.

  3. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 25, 2013 2:07 PM at 2:07 PM |

    Quick! Someone notify Dipshit Daines! He’ll want’a get in on the ground floor on THIS one!


  4. My letter, which didn’t into the Bozeman Chronicle, is on topic:

    Steve Daines, in a letter dated October 18 and sent to people on his e-mail list, reveals how ignorant and easily deceived he thinks his constituents are. He begins by explaining why he voted for HR 2775, a bill to reopen the federal government and avoid defaulting on the country’s debts.
    He neglects to mention the fact that it was he – Steve Daines — along with 79 other extreme Republicans in the House, who caused the 16-day government shut-down and all the problems that came with it, including a $24 billion hit to the economy and nearly 900,000 people thrown out of work. In other words, he wants Montanans to admire him for voting for a bill that will temporarily solve a problem he labored to create in the first place.
    For there wouldn’t have been a government shut-down if Daines and other Tea Partiers hadn’t sent a letter to the Republican leadership (Boehner and Canter) in August. This letter urged the leadership to close down the government unless Obama and the Democrats helped Republicans defund the Affordable Care Law. Boehner and Canter, afraid of their right-wing fringe, obeyed Daines et al and the very damaging shut-down followed.
    Finally, in his e-mail letter, Daines has the nerve to complain “that in just a few short months, we’ll be back at square one, facing another debt ceiling crisis.” Obviously he hopes his constituents are too dumb to notice that there will be a crisis in February only if he and his extremist friends want there to be a one.
    He hopes his constituents will see the problems he created as bad things that happened for reasons having nothing to do with him. He’s like the guy who passes gas and blames it on the dog.

    • Got the same self-serving letter from Daines. Checkout the facebook pics at http://montanaorganizingproject.org/, showing everyday citizens – Not Koch-sponsored puppets – PROTESTING vigorously in EVERY major Montana city, even in the rain in Great Falls! I assure you there will be MORE protests to drive the ‘toxic tea’ from our streets and we’ll keep exposing ther ALEC masters and Koch-funded parasites.

  5. He has a little nest egg now so he can further thumb his nose at most Montanans that aren’t in his socioeconomic class. And who paid for this poll Mr. Wilson? Oh, it was a teaching tool or make work for credit project? I think that there are a few more people in Montana with an opinion than the select 410.
    And you get paid for this?

  6. It is a little too early to take any polls very seriously. Americans have a notoriously short memory and this poll is somewhat suspect anyway. What it might do, though, is convince Daines not to run for the Senate Seat. If he runs as an incumbent for the House Seat, he stands a better chance of winning. Further, facing Walsh is going to be difficult for Daines since Walsh will not only pull the Dem vote, he is also likely to pull a lot of the Veteran vote.

  7. Interesting points. But it would seem to me that if Tester’s numbers are depressed in the poll, and Obama is at an astonishingly low 29% (he has never been seen anywhere near that level in any poll I’ve seen), then it stands to reason that this poll’s sample skews Democrat. That means that Daines is definitely in trouble.

    • You might be right (and it would thrill me if you were) but A) the election is still over a year out and B) Daines hasn’t even announced which office he is running for. The polls I have seen (not including this one) show Daines with a slight lead against Walsh and bigger lead against Frankie but again, until things are a little more clear, I am not going to get excited about what a number of Professors and Students polled at. You are probably correct about the poll leaning Democrat but I would be a lot more concerned about this poll if it had been conducted by a right leaning polling agency.

      Again, we will see. A much clearer picture will emerge after the first of the year and we see how Congress deals with the Budget and Debt ceiling in Jan/Feb. Moreover, Daines will have to chose who he wants to run against.

      What will really upset the apple cart is if a Tea party sponsored primary challenge happens – no matter which office he runs for.

  8. People forget that Rehberg had too much baggage with his unconstitutional votes and votes to raise the debt ceiling. When you get endorsed by Romney, McCain, Paul, and Jan Brewer and your 2012 vote totals only increase by 355 from 2010 tells me something. It was time for Rehberg to go. It’s probably time for Daines to go as well since he supported raising the debt limit and more spending as well.

  9. I can only open the door. You must walk through it.

    The Tea Party was created in a public relations firm’s boiler room, and spread by power of suggestion and Fox News, which made sure they had wide media exposure. Its purpose is to give Obama and the Democrats “political cover,” another term that exists on the other side of the door.

    Politics is not for neophytes. You’re being gamed. My only question is about the writers on this blog. Gamers, or gamed?

    • Ah and into the conversations of commentors steps in the conspracy bullpooper?

      In order to have a thought, Mark would have to have a mind…..he has none. Dems did not create the teaparty but Mark is hoping Jeff is as dumb as dirt, and will follow Marks confusing paranoia like a drug addict follows the dealer.

      • Norma, comment not directed at you, as you are very dense packed. Try to understand concept of “political cover,” report back. If Obama wants to pass a right wing bill that the health insurance industry likes, he needs a group that is even more right wing to allow him to appear moderate in passing the bill.

        That’s how politics works. “Obama” did not create the tea Party, but he needs it for cover, otherwise is exposed as a right winger, even a NeoCon. perception management 101.


        • Prez Obama doesn’t need the Tea party for cover they are already doing a great job sabotaging themselves. get it straight Mark, Political cover :is the art of looking or getting people to look the other way….I.E.:

          AFL-CIO policy director Damon Silvers made the labor federation’s position very clear in an interview with Greg Sargent on Friday, October 18, 2013
          “We are opposed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits cuts. Period,” Silvers told me. “There will be no cover for members of either party who vote for such a thing.”

          Or how how Bush’s White House reacted to allegations in 1991 that he had joined in an operation in 1980 to sabotage President Jimmy Carter’s negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran.What those files revealed was how to run a cover-up! Its framework was set on Nov. 6, 1991, by White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, who explained to an inter-agency strategy session how to contain and frustrate a congressional investigation into the so-called October Surprise case. The explicit goal was to insure the scandal would not hurt President Bush’s reelection hopes in 1992.


          Attention Mark you not exuding political cover you are allegedly talking complete bullshit to make a fantasy case that doesn’t exist, except in your mind.

          The only “Dunces” in the room are you, and anyone else who would believe your trash filled expectorate.

          This is again Why I will continue to interrupt you, from teaching and talking trash. Get it? Don’t know how many times I have said it before….. one day it will echo loud enough in that empty shell between your ears to make you stop….. Just saying

  10. We Just dont know enough about how the shutdown will effect Daines yet for me, I know my heart wants to agree he is damaged goods, and I really believe he might be for Senator… but if he decides to stay in the house he might just survive it.

    One thing is for certain the House republicans are the most polorized the have ever been in the history of the USA.

    Even Nate silver explains: Congress has gone through periods of relatively high partisanship before — for example, at the turn of the 20th century. But the degree of polarization in the Congress is higher than at any point since the Great Depression by a variety of measures, and is possibly at its highest point ever. (Most of the evidence suggests the trend is asymmetric: Republicans in Congress have become much more conservative, while Democrats have become only somewhat more liberal.)

    Even Nate doesn’t know how this plays out yet, because we are to far away from the ballot box to discern better information about voting…….

    • By the way you wont find nate at the NY times anymore because he is awaiting a new news channel being made for him, but you will find his only pieces lately at Grantline. Or follow him on twitter like I do.

  11. Yep Daines has turned out to be dumber than Rehberg at extremist Right wing mischief and business. There is nothing left of him that proves he is for montana any more…just idealistic partisanship. …and destoying the Government.

  12. Daines Oh I want to work with the democrats, I just don’t want to vote on anything they put together without my corporates masters approval on wilderness. Or our right to be complete jerks with our Fascist loving teaparty base as they continue to destroy America.

    What a joke this guy has become!

  13. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 26, 2013 9:44 PM at 9:44 PM |

    aaaaaYep! We got hosed! Or as I like to call it, we got Max Fawkused! Or Max Fawked!


    And many on the Dim side are cheering! But I have yet to find any of my co-workers who can actually AFFORD the “affordable” care act, or Fawkuscare. It will die of its own accord. It’s its OWN death panel. And then, maybe we can have single payer!

  14. Larry I believe that was called Bipartisanship, and the GOP would not have voted for single payor not when they have voted “no for everything Obama was doing. the only way to get all the votes was to bring a handful of republicans from the other side.

    No matter what even my favorite guy says in Hindsight, it wasn’t happening Period.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 27, 2013 7:43 AM at 7:43 AM |

      So we end up with a shit sandwich! Hmm. Great logic. It was billed as a stepping stone to something better, a new and IMPROVED shit sandwich, but it’s still shit! I, like most people, would have preferred that they didn’t do anything!

      But unfortunately, the Dims have leaders like Max Fawkus who leads from the rear, with his LIPS firmly attached to the rear of the insurance industry! Which is great for the insurance industry, but bad for people. Will them record industry profits trickle on us in improved health care? Nope. That was easy.

      There remains ONLY one more hope, and that is if Schweitzer decides to run for president. He is the ONLY one capable of taking on the industry bastards and convincing people to do what’s in their own best interests! He has that gift. He could undo Fawkuscare and get us into a Canadian style system overnight! Hell, he could RUN on that platform alone and win now that Fawkus and his ReePube cohorts have Fawked us REAL good! I can’t wait! Think I’ll take my old Schweitzer signs and cross out, senator or guv and write in PRESIDENT! Might as get this party started!

      • I’m really conflicted about Obamacare. I find myself defending it against the hard-right bastards who are trying to kill it — just as they’d like to kill Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — but then I look closer at what I’m defending and wonder if it’s actually worth it.

        After all, it’s a capitalist “solution” that isn’t really patient focused. Mainly, it’s a moneymaker for for-profit insurance companies. If it accidentally helps people who don’t have adequate health care, I’m for it. I guess.

        Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid started out as wholly governmental programs. There were problems with their roll-outs, too, but (unless I’m missed something) they didn’t have to deal with the profit motive of large, greedy corporations.

        Single-payer is the obvious answer to our national health care problem. But our government has been taken over by corporations who won’t let us have anything nice.

        • Turner, So far, so good for me, I have several preexisting conditions, that kept me from getting insurance, and without insurance, getting healthcare is very iffy the way things were. At least now, if I fall down the front steps we’re not going to go bankrupt. In December, I can go to the Clinic for my first real check-up in 10 years. My policy, I got last year thru my job, only required a one year wait on preexisting conditions, instead of flat refusing me coverage (which has happened in the past). The system is far from perfect but it’s better than it was.

          • Obamacare improves on what it replaced, but I agree with Turner: single-payer is the most logical system. My hope is that Obamacare will become a bridge to single-payer.

            In the meantime, I hope that certain Democrats have finally been disabused of the illusion that a health care system based on private health insurance will appease Republicans and the crowd that worships private health insurance. These people are opposed to all government involvement in health care (some even oppose private health insurance) because they oppose all social insurance. They prefer an you’re on your own society.

            • Once again, the “bridge” notion. Please cite the mechanics – how does subsidizing the private insurers, strengthening them, build a bridge to single payer? The only “bridge” I see is failure of Obamacare, the political will to face that failure, and then a small state like Vermont or a large one like California stepping forward to lead. If one state goes SP, all will follow, except perhaps Montana where some Democrat will “accidentally” push the wrong button, vote against it. And kill it. That really happens. It looked it up.

              As it stands, we are all max-out-of-pocket $6,350 PLUS premiums, in my case another $3,000, or $9,000 plus before the insurance companies fork out $1. Americans, most already in debt and stressed financially, are now saddled with that burden. In the meantime, for three years now large companies have been quietly switching to part-time help knowing Obamacare was on the way. So now we have millions of people working two jobs at low pay, and forced to buy crap insurance to boot.

              Thanks, O-Man. You’re a flicking mensch.

              By the way, from a financial standpoint, it is best to buy the lowest premium, as paying a higher premium to buy down the deductible is pointless. It only ends up costing more overall unless you’re in for chemo or have a serious accident or something very expensive. The program was structured to force everyone into under-insurance, so there is no way around it. We’re screwed.

              • The program is setup to point people to the silver plan, but excuse me for jumping in again to your Obamacare fantasy[which you Know nothing about, and only wish to complain again].

                Again you have to stand in the corner with the sharp point hat on.

              • Sadly, there is a grain of truth to what Mark is saying. He is wrong about the ACA possibly leading to a single payer/public option – it likely will if we can kick the nutcases out of Congress – but he while he is exaggerating a lot about the premium/deductible issue, there is actually data to back that up. As I said above, it will be a while before we know the true cost of this to the average American. Yes, many people are paying much lower premiums for their insurance and yes, many of those are in better shape with their ACA insurance than they were before. That said, there are also a lot of people that are NOT getting a better plan for their premiums. These are usually the people that have (or had) good insurance through their employers or are finding that their current plan (or a similar plan) isn’t available from the exchange. There is data to suggest that the average middle class worker will be paying less for premiums but more for deductables/co-pays. While lower middle class and the working poor will definitely be getting a better deal, not so much for those that above that tax bracket.

                The problem with discussing this is that no hard numbers have been released (in part because of the website screw-ups and the congressional attention on those screw-ups). Until the insurance has been in place for a year and hard numbers can be generated, it is all a guess at this point.

                My personal opinion is that it will be basic tradeoff. Because of that tradeoff, there will be a large push for a single payer/public option after about a year of the exchange insurances being in operation. At that point, the insurance companies will do two things – they will lobby heavily against a single payer system and they will modify their insurance plans available to the exchanges to have lower deductables/copays (they will also flood the political coffers of every congress critter they can manipulate but that is nothing new…).

                I am glad that we have a zero deductible/high benefit plan through my wife’s employer. In looking at the exchanges, to get a commiserate insurance would cost us much more than we pay now (out of pocket) because part of our premiums are now paid by her employer. If that ever changes, we would have to downgrade our insurance a great deal to be able to afford it.

                As far as Mark’s assertions about employers forcing their workers to part-time, that has been debunked time and time again. I guess it shouldn’t surprise me that Mark would repeat the same conspiracy theories that Ryan, Cruz and the other nutcase congressmen are using.

                • The answer to my assertion that employers are pushing towards part-time help is that is has been going on for several years now, so cannot have been caused by Obamacare. That’s easily debunked, as Obamacare passed in 2009′ and the four year delay allowed them plenty of time to restructure, which is what the part-time trend is about.

                  Regarding premiums and benefits, I ran a test of various plans available here in Colorado. I came up with a pile of medical expenses that a person might encounter in a year, say a bad one – things like biopsies for moles, ER visits, minor out-patient surgery and two days of hospitalization. Total medical costs I imagined – $14,500. I then selected twelve plans from bronze to gold from various companies and measured their benefits and my out-of-pocket costs (OOP), and added that to the annual premium they charge to come up with “real” OOP, to ROOP.

                  What I found was that it made no sense to buy down the deductible. It costs more in premium than you make up in lower costs. The lower the deductible, the higher ROOP. A “gold” plan ended up costing several more thousand than a bronze one. So I realized that my best option, assuming I will have some medical costs, is to buy the cheapest policy available. The $6350 Max-OOP is a great equalizer. The companies can only flim-flam with fancy names and confuse us with terminology, but the policies are all the same.

                  By the way, I have good knowledge of insurance and finance, so can wade through these things. the average person who is not in my field has to be absolutely confused by all of the horseshit they throw at you, what with in and out-of-network , co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, non-covered expenses, MOOP (they never mention ROOP, which is part of the ACA scam).

                  Regarding what happens in the future, the basic contradiction in this “bridge” thinking is that by making the private insurance Industry stronger, we’ll be able to defeat them in the future.

                  What I realized after doing my homework was something that troubled them very much starting in 2002: California had passed single payer twice, vetoed each time, but the writing was on the wall. Single Payer was on the way. One falls, all states follow. At that point they hired Obama to head off single payer, and that is what ACA did – headed SP off at the pass. You may be right that he only delayed it, but I see us now feeding the monster more food than ever, so I don’t expect to win any battles in Washington anytime soon. It will have to happen at the state level. One falls, they all fall. That is where the battle will be fought. Vermont, California! then the rest.

                  • For those interested in facts, a recent analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found that “part-time jobs rose sharply during the recent recession, as it does in every recession — employers cut workers’ hours when demand for the firm’s products or services weakens. Has this share continued to grow as we approach the start of the ACA’s employer mandate, which was recently pushed back a year to 2015? The answer is no. Part-time workers represent 18.9 percent of total employment — below the post-recession peak of 20.0 percent and the same as a year ago. Since President Obama signed health reform into law in March 2010, civilian employment has grown by 5.4 million, and over 90 percent of the increase is among people who usually work full time. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco have concluded that “part-time work is not unusually high compared to levels observed in the past, most notably in the aftermath of the early 1980s recession.”

                    A more rigorous test examines the recent trend in the share of involuntary part-timers — workers who’d rather have full-time jobs but can’t find them. If health reform’s employer mandate were distorting hiring practices in the way critics claim, we’d expect the share of involuntary part-timers to be growing.”

                    Instead, as shown in the chart below it is down about one percentage point from its peak.

                    “Nor do the employment data provide any evidence that employers have cut workers’ hours below 30 hours a week to avoid the requirement to provide health insurance. During the first half of this year, the share of workers putting in 30 or more hours a week actually rose to 80.7 percent from 80.2 percent in the comparable part of 2012. Although the increase is small, it refutes the claim that shortening of the workweek is widespread.

                    To be sure, some employers have announced they are cutting certain employees’ hours to avoid the requirement to provide health coverage to full-time workers, but they are the exception.

                    Governing by Fox News anecdote rather than actual information is a favorite practice of the GOP, but I doubt people here will be so easily fooled.

                    • All right, I’ll give you that point, whoever-in-the-hell-girl you are, Democratic staffer whatever. But there’s a rather long discussion there of various aspects of ACA, most importantly how it was used to push single payer to the margins. Now you’ve got your minions saying it’s some kind of bridge. I’ve also discussed ROOP expenses, how they are going to be in the area of $10 grand for everyone, and how the legal MOOP if $6,350, too high as it is, is being used as a distraction from the real issue: we are all going to be badly under-insured. Most importantly, and this cannot be emphasized enough, your party worked with AHIP to kill single payer. That’s shameful, pretending to be one thing while,being something else, taking advantage of people’s blind faith in you.

                      It’s a nice debating tactic to pick one thread out of a long argument and harp on it as you did here. I do wish to hell you had the chops to discuss all of the other failings of ACA and your awful party in general.

                      So have at it, “Cowgirl.” Have at it. Answer the charges … Cowgirl … Cowgirl? You here Cowgirl? anyone seen Cowgirl anywhere?

                    • It figures that when cowgirl posts the facts (BTW, I posted a similar analysis a while back in another thread about the ACA), Mark “grudgingly” admit he is spouting conspiracy crap and then immediately shotguns a bunch of unrelated crap. This is his pattern. Moreover, he is attacking Cowgirl for a statement I made and he is so senile, he can’t remember that. This is why no one takes Mark seriously.

                    • The “crap,” sir, is not unrelated. I offered a long and detailed post regarding the Colorado exchange? Your host here chose to focus on one aspect where it appears I am wrong, that part-time employment is unaffected by ACA. The CG is unwilling to deal with anything else as it appears are you.

                      Please go back and read what I wrote and answer the specifics, sir. The “conspiracy” angle, a psychological ploy meant to marginalized dissent, is not a useful debate tactic in this matter, and I do not see how it applies to the real effects of ACA. Please avoid it.

                    • I can’t answer the “specifics” as you put it because it is entirely a hypothetical fantasy that even you admit is self constructed – ergo crap.

                      To quote you – “Regarding premiums and benefits, I ran a test of various plans available here in Colorado. I came up with a pile of medical expenses that a person might encounter in a year, say a bad one – things like biopsies for moles, ER visits, minor out-patient surgery and two days of hospitalization. Total medical costs I imagined – $14,500. I then selected twelve plans from bronze to gold from various companies and measured their benefits and my out-of-pocket costs (OOP), and added that to the annual premium they charge to come up with “real” OOP, to ROOP. ”

                      There is no statistical basis or factual basis to any of this codswallop. You are grabbing numbers out of the air and trying to use them to justify a point you never really made. You go on to use this crap as the basis of a number of assertions that are just as factually challenged as your original “imaginings”.

                      Mark, as usual, you are full of shit. Moreover, the Colorado exchange has little to nothing to do with what we – in Montana – can expect to pay. You have no idea of what you are talking about and you being a glorified bookkeeper doesn’t give you any more insight into medical insurance than it does to nuclear physics. You are a poser and a conspiracy theorist that adds no value whatsoever to this discussion.

                      That is my definition of “crap”. Deal with it.

                    • Moorcat, anyone faced with decisions regarding insurance has to run numbers, though most don’t. Of course, the numbers will be assumptions, but from that come the real comparisons. That’s simply how it is done. If you dive into the insurance market without running test data sets, you’re asking to be swindled. You surprise me with your basic ignorance of how to shop for insurance.

                      You generally put up reasoanable comments and have some detail to support you. For this one, you had nothing. Further, the Colorado and Montana markets are going to be comparable, and you need to run some data sets of your own to compare policies. You’ll probably find what I did, that the insurers are hiding behind fancy names and gobbledygook to put lipstick on their pig, that the higher priced the policy, the more money they make for coverage of the same benefits. That seems to be the angle.

                  • Mark, The high figures you cite for Colorado are probably misleading. How can we evaluate your claims unless you tell us your annual income, how many in your family you’re insuring, etc.

                    Could you provide this info?

                    • Turner, MOOP is $6,350 per individual, and $12,300 for a family, I believe. That does not vary over states or age groups. The only relevant aspect of my income is that I do not qualify for assistance, in reality as a conduit for subsidy of the insurance company.

                      Regarding premium, I am 63 and the best I can do is $400, so I understated that – my ROOP is $11,430. Those numbers vary depending on age, but MOOP does not. It’s 6350/12300 or perhaps 12700.

                      The policies are virtually identical in overall effect, but are deliberately (I believe, knowing the insurance industry as I do) confusing and misleading. So I simplified it at my blog, urging people simply to buy the cheapest policy available, as strategies to buy down the deductible only benefit the insurance company, and are counterproductive.

                    • Also, the law was written to prohibit the IRS from using its collection procedures to collect penalties for failure to have insurance. their only weapon is to offset a refund. That means the penalties would come from working people and those who are eligible for EIC. ergo, those must be the ones the law is targeting for the mandate. I don’t think they care if I have insurance – that is, I underpay my tax during the year and pay it in full in April, never having refunds. Most self-employed people and those who pay via quarterly estimates do this.

                    • He can’t provide the information because he is pulling it out of his ass. He assumes that we will accept his made up numbers for his made up argument without question. In that, he is sorely mistaken. He has shown zero credibility in all the years he has commented on this site and I, personally, see no reason to grant his statements any credibility now. He is even aware of his credibility problem because he keeps qualifying everything with “I believe” or “I imagine”. This is just Mark being Mark and you can completely disregard anything he says on the subject.

                    • Moorcat, I answered your comment up above, but misplaced it in the thread.

                • Here’s the problem Kenneth. the Man says he already has Insurance. Obamacare isn’t here to mess with his insurance it is here for people who cannot pick up insurance because they are poor, or single etc,

                  Even though he will now not have to pay for certain health tests like he did before on a yearly basis, not to mention his insurance must spend 80% of his premiums on his health care, or reimburse him.

                  For all his moaning, Obamacare is not for him and doesn’t have to be unless “He” decides to join it. and it doesn’t change for people like him that say they make Lots of Money. they basically pay the same. Its not for the rich people, he says he is part of. Now is it?

                  Noting where he lives in Aspen Park, Mark is neither rich, nor any more savvy than his neighbors. but the guy lies so much, we will never know the truth will we?????

                  HIs conversation is just as always, Ruse! Nothing else!

                  • By the way the so called gettos of Denver are better Housing than Most of Aspen Park, Colorado…. Just saying!

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 28, 2013 5:51 PM at 5:51 PM |

                      Well, here’s the reality that NO Dims prefer to speak. It’s like G-O-D! We must NEVER say His name, just spell it!

                      The company that I work for had 50 employees, FIFTY, the magic number. Well sir, one got hurt, and one quit. Im MED iately, they’re FREE! The company no longer has to provide health insurance coverage for its workers. Why? Why?? WHY????

                      Well, I thought you’d never ask. You simply DON’T REPLACE EMPLOYEES!

                      Sumbitch! SumBITCH! SUMBITCH! We took it up the ARSE, and Max Fawkus and his Dim cronies helped with the vasoline! Thanks fer nuthin’, Mini. Thanks fer nuthin’!

                      When the Dims put the weenie in, you just KNOW that it’s time to find another party!

                    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 28, 2013 5:56 PM at 5:56 PM |


                      RIP, Lou. Rip. You did your part, amigo. Que Dios te bendiga!

  15. Some thoughts on Turner and Larrys comments:

    ACA: Cheaper Insurance, and better care, probably the easiest I have ever signed up for, besides Racetrack Foundation Care for 40 years and it is better care than I was getting and Paying less deductible from corporate insurance.

    Sure I would love to have single Payer, but lets face it as long as the GOP and some Dem politicos feed the corporate mentality first….. well, without ACA there would be a lot more people living under bridges, after they lost there home to medical disaster…. No, it is not cost effective to be forced to go to an ER. It costs all of us money.I would think people who are money conscience would be aware of this

    But we all know how unconscious the Republicans have been about fiscal responsibility, Blowing another 24 billion in the debt of the United States during the Shutdown.

    Lets face it we would be paying for food stamps and medical ER room visits anyway, if we stayed on the current track. and lets talk about communicable diseases for a second….

    The more people immunized against these newer strains of flu, the better. Not only would a biological threat be less persuasive, but apparently those who get flu shots, have the unintended consequence of better heart health against Heart attacks. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/us-flu-shots-idUSBRE99L19J20131022.

    Is single payer the next step, Why yes, but through not Obamacare. We really gotta sit down and write that better. Really folks lets at least get that on the table….Typed and hashed out.

    In Other Important News to the Uninformed by FOX:

    Fox News Investigates The ObamaCare Website Girl: An Al Qaeda Seductress?



    The only official comment [Jana] Winter was able to wrest from the administration was a typically evasive statement from Richard Olague, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, who said that…

    “The woman featured on the website signed a release for us to use the photo, but to protect her privacy, we will not share her personal or contact info with anyone.”

    [muh ther SUCKer]

    Unconfirmed reports are circulating around the Capitol that Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is clearing his calendar to make room for hearings and will issue subpenas for testimony and documents if the administration is not forthcoming. His current schedule of scandal inquisitions involving Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA, Benghazi, the shutdown’s closure of national parks, Fast & Furious, Solyndra, the Associated Press, Benghazi, and most recently, the ObamaCare website glitches, will be temporarily set aside so that he can concentrate on getting to the bottom of the Adriana affair.

    Recognizing the importance of this investigation, Fox News has also escalated it to top tier status by making it the featured headline on their web home page. With all of the issues facing the country – the economy, unemployment, immigration, national security, etc. – it is encouraging that at least one segment of the mainstream media has its priorities in order.

    [Fox News: Richer people paying rich people to make poor people afraid of poorer people.]

    This is the typical GOP dumbshit: http://youtu.be/mtiJnLn10Fo

  16. The rich will always try to pay one half of the poor to kill the other half as noted in the film ‘Gangs of New York’ and no different today, when Kochs co-opt teabaggers to go after other working class folks (assuming some of the ‘baggers’ already out of the work force subsisting on the ‘Gummint’ and thei VA and social security disability checks, social security, military and local, county and state ‘gummint’ pensions) just
    trying to survive day to day.

  17. Great Falls Tribune’s online/telephone ‘straw’ poll show 43% of respondents NOT happy with Mr. Daines, and of the 36 percent supportive, I wonder HOW MANY of ’em on the ‘gummint teat’ themselves. Will any tea(t)bagger by themselves have the ability to insist on CLEAN water (provided by ‘gummint’) when their Koch masters pollute America’s air, land and water recklessly? Do they realize Dick Nixon enabled the Clean Air and Water acts and EPA?

  18. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 27, 2013 7:06 PM at 7:06 PM |

    COMMIE BASTARD! What does this asshole have against capitalism???


  19. I see that Gov Kasich of Ohio went around his Republican legislature to accept Medicaid expansion. Is there some reason that Bullock can’t do the same thing?

    • Turner, the short answer is No. The long answer is a little more complicated. In very simple terms, The Governor attached a provision in the state budget to accept the Federal funds for the Medicaid expansion and the legislature denied it. Further, they added a provision denying the Governor the right to approve a Medicaid expansion without the Legislature’s approval. The Governor vetoed that provision and it wasn’t overturned by the Legislature. In that state, there is a seven member panel that approves how the budgeted money is spent and the Governor used that panel to approve the Medicaid expansion after the Federal Government accepted the Governor’s “modified” appeal for the funds. In short, the Governor did a quasi-legal end run around the Legislature. The way our state government runs is very different and the means that the Ohio governor used to get the expansion is not possible in Montana. Further, Ohio state allowed for the Federal Money where the our state flat turned it down.

      The move by the governor is being legally challenged but it is questionable whether the challenge will be heard before Jan 1, when the expansion goes into effect.

      These are some good articles on the situation –



      From the second article –
      “The Kasich administration believes its action was lawful because the governor vetoed a legislature-placed item in the budget that would’ve barred the expansion, and because the Controlling Board is permitted by law to approve requests for additional federal dollars.”

  20. sigh. I wish wish wish that voters memories were longer. I believe that these numbers are likely close to correct, but I have a suspicion that Daines will be like Teflon on this. I hope that voters remember and associate the shutdown, because I blame Daines for it. However I fear that by the time the next election cycle comes around, that it will be a long lost memory. I guess it will be interesting to see if the Dems can hold the recollection of the shutdown out to November 2014, and if Montana voters will think it is a valid enough reason to not vote for Daines. At the end of the day, incumbency is a mighty hard thing to beat. (but clearly can be done, hat tip Senator Tester.)

  21. Opps look like Daines is getting smashed on by the extreme right, who now has called him a traitor and loser and want someont oto run against him from the right.

    His name appears on this Video: http://youtu.be/ChnejUuBGqg

    His names is on this site http://www.stopthetraitors.com/

    Not that I would like to see what is right of Daines, considering the guy is already to far right for Montana…..But looks like Daines is out for the Tea party Faithful. Thats what happens when you go to bed with lunatics!

    • While I can chuckle at Daines being on those lists, Norma, unless the Montana Tea party fronts another candidate, it means very little. These guys would rather be dead than vote for a Democrat, so unless they have a Tea party candidate to primary Daines, they will still vote for him. Daines has too much corporate support to worry about the small amount of campaign funds he will get from these people.

      Now if these Tea Party idiots front a primary challenge to Daines, that would be something to write about. It would almost be funny to see someone primary Daines out only to lose in the General. Who was the Tea Party Candidate to defeat the nine term State Legislator Mike Castle in the primary only to go on to lose in the General… Oh yes… That would be Christine O’Donnell… I would laugh my ass off if that happened to Daines here in Montana.

  22. Its gonna be a sit down sitcom popcorn watching moment!

  23. I think Norma has an unhealthy obsession of Mark.

    • Really? Do you have a Bromance going for Mark, cuz you never open your mouth until I trounce the numskull for his fantasies and inaccuracies?

      Or is it just you Mark, using another anonymous name…..This time, the high profile case of a dead teenager?

      Cause really, you’re just pretty pathetic….. all by yourself!

    • Norma is unhinged from reality. Seems to me tokirski’s analysis regarding choosing the lower monthly premium as all the plans leave you underinsured makes pretty good sense. While there may be a few incremental improvements from the old system in the ACA overall health care in this country is still a total shit sandwich. Norma I look forward to your next raving nonsensical post where you also accuse me of being mark.

      • First, as I pointed out above, Mark’s analysis was entirely the result of pulling numbers out of his ass and attempting to make hay with them. It was the true “shit sandwich”.

        Second, there have been a lot of improvements over the existing system prior to the ACA – most of which are ignored by people like you. Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea of an insurance based system is idiocy, but if we have to have one, this one is better than what existed before it.

        Last, but not least, your “analysis” that a lower [premium] choice is the better choice for most people is simplistic, not based on any facts whatsoever and, frankly, wrong. The mid level choice is probably going to be the best choice for most people (based on REAL analysis by REAL professionals). It would help your credibility if you do some real research of your own rather than idolize someone that has yet to make an informed argument on this website.

        • Relax Kenny boy, we’re all on the same side here. So basically you say Mark’s analysis based on the #’s from CO is wrong and simplistic, not based on any facts….but then you go ahead and provide your own even more simplistic analysis which based on literally no facts and tell us the mid level choice is the best. Do you have some research of your own to boost your credibility? I don’t idolize this person at all I think he is a blowhard but in this thread he is the only one Ive seen provide even a rudimentary analysis. You and Norma flew off the handle and started sputtering insults and nonsense the second he appeared. To his credit I think he actually showed quite a bit of restraint in responding to you.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | October 29, 2013 2:45 PM at 2:45 PM |

            A. Froman, aka, AFROMAN! Hey, dude, you of the black persuasion? If not, you should be!

          • Abe, if failed to follow the links that I, Norma, Lynn and Cowgirl have provided on this subject, you are dumber than you sound. Each of us have provided multiple links to credible sources. The fact that you are too lazy to follow them is your own lookout. BTW, it is Kenneth, not Kenny. I neither flew off the handle nor did I start “sputtering” insults. I called his crap for what it was (in his own words – imaginings). Until he can provide solid analysis like the rest of us have to back up his ridiculous claims, he is simply what he has always been on this site – a self absorbed blowhard that argues just to argue. See, I have a stake in this fight. I have explained my stake in this fight on multiple occations. Mark’s only stake is to create as much confusion as he can so he can sit back and laugh at us all from his ivory tower.

            • Why so upset? See when you call people things like “dumber” without any real provocation by way of the written word it sometimes appears to third parties that you are upset and sputtering insults. So I guess I just missed where you were linking to your original research you performed that shows the mid level plans would be the best fit for most people. I’ll go back up the thread and take a look. Cowgirl did link to some useful info and put Mark in his place regarding the point about part time workers and I see Lynn linked to a Suzanne Somers opinion piece although I must dispute that Ms. Somers is a ‘credible source’. Ill have to go back and look for your original research though I must have missed that unless it was in another thread perhaps. Was it peer reviewed? No doubt you would never publish your research without such scrutiny.

        • Moorcat, as I asserted, the equalizing factor among all policies is max-out-of-pocket to MOOP. All are built around $6,350/$12,700. They then do a dance with you, varying their co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance to confuse you about their offering.

          It does not matter that the data set I used to compare 12 policies was made up. What mattered was the final outcome, and what I found was that higher premiums did not buy better coverage IF you have medical costs that exceed MOOP. So I concluded that the best option is to assume the norm – that you will have some medical costs, not exceed MOOP, have very little coverage of those costs. In that case the best option is the lowest premium, as I found that using premium dollars to buy down the deductible is counterproductive – real out-of-pocket (medical costs plus premium) go up.

          But assume you have no medical costs at all. What’s the best option? The lowest premium.

          Assume you have catastrophic medical costs – cancer or diabetes or the like. What happens then? MOOP kicks in. What’s the best option? The lowest premium.

          We’re all underinsured now. We cannot buy our way out of it. I do now know if that is better than before. JC offered good insight on the situation for those too poor to even pay MOOP at my blog. That was encouraging.

          • I do “not” know if we are better off than before. The insurance companies for sure are.

            • For once, you finally said something I can agree with. The insurance companies ARE better off because of the ACA. This should not be surprising given that the origins of the ACA were written by the Heritage Foundation- an insurance company lobby group.

              • You and I have often clashed in the last and I have done more than my share to produce rancor between us. But you are right often enough, I am wrong often enough. We’re not friends by any means, but for my part, I’ll treat you with respect.

      • If the shoe fits……………..

        • Aren’t you the one who was caught red handed posting responses to someone under the handle “Michael Searilika” or some name like that? You basically busted yourself making up fake identities to support yourself and then forgetting who you were logged in as. Im wise to your tricks Norma, nice try.

          • Right? whatever? Michael is my son. he doesn’t post much here because hes in the Marines, but go ahead bring him up he reads this blog when he has internet time… Im sure he’d find the time to tell you you’re a dork Bwahahahaha

            • Sure, he conveniently has internet time and appears when you need a little online back up, got it. Just don’t forget to log back out afterwards this time.

            • So did Mark dig up two knuckleheads to back him? is this his solid readership? “2” Bwahahahahaha

              Poor bastard, scraping the bottom of the Barrel for liars and cheats. see Cowgirl was right, you are just muddying the waters for the extreme right. and you brought over , or made up a couple of crazies to back up your crazy theories to a bunch of liberal minded people who are just laughing there asses off at this very moment…..

              • So what was the official explanation you gave when “Michael” was responding directly to another poster but did so logged in as “Norma Duffy”? I forgot the specifics it was a while ago.

                • No you’re confusing my son with a nickname both Rob Kailey and Michael used sometime back….he was here helping me with my dying mother at the time… but keep guessing I find it fascinating and we are getting closer to pinpointing who you really are.

              • Your actions were right up there with James Knox when he would log in and out of his multiple personalities at the Billings Gazette and then forget he was logged in as his alter ego and sign the post “James Knox” at the bottom. You and James are quite the duo.

                • Come on Farris, AKA Abe froman, AKA mark bromancer, What else you got…. cause that was kinda Piddly.

                  Man your digging down into the stench of the septic tank with your last comments there, and no proof to back them up except you opinion( which doesn’t count for shit because you took a false name)….. lets see who you really are? Waiting?

                • Abe – don’t feed it. It only gets stronger.

  24. Did Abe answer somewhere with invisible ink that only other incompetents can view?
    4:17 PM abes last comment to 4:56pm my last comment before you barged in, is still 39 minutes Rob. Nice try again at changing the subject, but again you have failed!

    • Excuse me, dimwit. Apparently you missed the obvious. You demanded Abe’s response and then 8 minutes later laughed at your victory for supposing the stupid and being proven right by 8 minutes of silence.

      In all of my dust-ups with Mark, not once did I wrongly accuse another handle of being Mark until I was ‘crisp’ enough to be verifiably certain of it. In case you missed it, that’s how my bad blood with him began. Anymore, you accuse others of being Mark willy-nilly and think that is enough to dismiss any disagreement. When you find yourself wrong, you now accuse them of being his “brown-nosers”, and worthy of dismissal all the same. Do something you’re unaccustomed to doing and think for a minute. How do you suppose that affects this website? Others come here wanting to state their opinions and grievances only to find themselves drowned out by Norma’s bullshit dismissals. Lately, you do that to anyone, even those who agree with you on fact and principle. To you, this website isn’t about fact or principle or even anyone else having fun. To you, this website exists solely for Norma. Larry is dismissive, demeaning, derisive, humorous and unbelievably verbose. But he doesn’t make the conversation all about him. You do.

      Here’s a verifiable truth you ain’t gonna like, Norma. You are the most Randian Objectivist who comments here, ever. You think the weight of your experience and the power of your accomplishments have built the railroad of this website which no one has right to regulate or challenge, because they are just not as important as you. I’ve tried to tell you this reasonably; I’ve tried to clue you in politely. But no, you are just that perfect and impressive and your vagina defies any disagreement from a gender you don’t recognize as yours. You are more than willing to destroy a building you didn’t even design if it means you have less importance when discussing the structure. (I have some small faith that you will actually get the references.)

      Other people, good people, are trying to talk about things here. How about, for once in your life, you let them do it without butting your big fricking nose in the middle to tell them how unimportant they are because they aren’t giving all shits about you?

      • Michael Searalika | October 30, 2013 5:55 PM at 5:55 PM |

        WOW just wow, Talk about a woman hater with a room-temperature IQ, an obnoxious or non-existent personality trying without success to tell a woman like Norma she is TOO LOUD, TOO ASSERTIVE, or TOO OPINIONATED might prove you have the brass balls to talk rudely to women you dislike, but it doesn’t prove much else. Does it Rob?

        I have watched you, harass my mother now for almost a year because it bothers you, she is smarter then you in most subjects, braver than you, telling the uncomfortable truth.

        Your Buddy Mark is scum, plain and simple( You hear that mom stop even acknowledging this piece of shit)!! A total waste of conversation and time, yet you the great “Know it all” cover for this deranged fool? What does that make you?

        You and your brother, who collectively have so many countless issues, that I grow dizzy reading them online, are both incapable of fair minded conversation. You cry like little girls to be noticed in writing, and you’re bereft of any accountability to be honest. You get called on it by Norma and you don’t like it? Too bad! Your Opinions are no larger in scope, no grander in design, and no better conceived than her’s, or any one women. Females have the same right to comment here as you. So tell me Rob when will you finally man up?

        Shorter Rob:
        When a man gives his opinion, he’s a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she’s a bitch.

        Is that the way you think?

        Your an Ass Rob, and so is every other male, bereft of commenting with any kind of decorum here.

        • Michael, if you are who you and Norma say you are, then you should know damned well that I’ve never been “Mark’s Buddy”. ‘You’ and I have had more than one conversation about it. If you had better than average IQ, you’d see that that logically that suggests only a few possibilities: 1) you aren’t who you pretend to be, 2) you have some kind of mental dysfunction or 3) you’re making shit up. None of those make a reader inclined to trust anything you write here.

          Regardless, your mommy is now accusing random passerby of being Mark T. Do you find that rational? Gender has nothing to do with that, anymore than her gender adds weight to anything she writes, or lessens weight from any rebuttal. She obviously thinks it does; you do as well. Do you find that stance rational?

          How’s this for “manning up”, cupcake. I freely admit that Norma has ‘the right’ to comment here, same as me. Just as I have the right to tell her she’s being a fucking idiot when she’s being a fucking idiot, and you have the right to spew bullshit in defense of mommy. (And you actually think I’m the one who needs to ‘man up’?)

          Mark is wrong and sometimes delusional about a whole lot of stuff. But there are things he’s right about. One of them, and he’s definitely not alone in this opinion, is that Norma does more damage to this website and liberals in general by her behavior than she actually does good. A man wiser than you or I once suggested something along these lines: When you go out of your way to demean, dismiss and bluster against Faux News watchers and TeaPeep idiots, they will drag you to their level and then beat you with experience. Yup, she’s fighting the good fight and going out of her way to throw others under the bus while doing it. Somewhere along the line, Norma quit worrying about what was right and what was wrong. Now she just worries about being right and never questions whether she might be wrong. Even being challenged on the smallest point by people who seem to believe in the same values, she trots out her resume, wildly accuses sexism or misdirects from argument to identity. That’s exactly what FAUX news and Objectivists do, only they are a helluva better at it. It’s been said that the strength of stupid people is that they don’t realize they’re being stupid. Never question that I think your mother a strong person.

          • Look since it might take a couple of days for Michael to answer again, since he is on mission….. I am gonna step in and answer this for the Bullpucky it is, cupcake Kailey.

            See I have been commenting on Blogs, even owned websites for years, since 98 to be exact, and I have never been Banned like you, and Mark have harassing people. Why? I tell the uncomfortable truth….. Stuff guys like you don’t like to hear because, you think I have to be validated by you to move on in my life. Attention,that Ain’t Happening anytime soon Rob

            Some people prefer the passenger role, because it imposes no real pressure to decide or stand accountable for their life results (That fits Marks role in life), and every once in awhile he’ll get to summon someone over for peanuts and a drink…..

            But you I believe to be the Irate customer of life…..Whenever something doesn’t work out of the box, or you have to expend time to put something together. you demand instant customer satisfaction. Life isn’t McDonalds Rob, and I am not here to serve you.

            I don’t plan on leaving Cowgirl anytime soon, I like it here. I enjoy a lot of the commenters, and I really like Cowgirls take on the world in Montana. Apparently it must me mutual, because I am still here, and have been asked in the past to post stories….. I just haven’t had the time to do this as perfect as she deserves yet…..So you are not that special after all, are you?

            The only people complaining about me here, are failed bloggers like you elsewhere. Peoples whose sites I don’t visit and won’t comment on. I notice you won’t say the same crap you say to me here at Dons site, because he will call you on it…

            So take my advice, cuz if you’re not bleeding, vomiting, or on fire, chill out and stop crying! You are to insincere Rob to ever be hurt by my words!

            a little proof you dont have: http://web.archive.org/web/19980524144404/http://www.fasthorses.com/

            • Phhhtttt! Your ego is off the charts, and that’s why you will lose in every venue you seek to compete.

              Look at your sorry-ass self, telling others who you think have failed. I’ve never failed an election. Have you? I don’t have to, as I pointed out clearly that you have to, post my resume to feel important. You do it, yet again, loser.

              My point was never that I or anyone expect you to serve us. It’s that you expect others to serve you, and demonstrably demand such. I have never demanded that you be kicked off this site, abNormal. I don’t think you that important. Your caterwaul about sexism is demonstrably false. Your complaints and demands about most things are demonstrably false. You are just a loathsome human being, and think yourself important. I’ve tried to help you understand why you aren’t, but you don’t care. Fade into obscurity, idiot. I will enjoy watching that, in this venue and so many others.

            • To add insult to injury, it should be pointed out that you were absolutely wrong about Klakken not winning the Mayor post in Dillon. I saw your comment on the Butte TV site. Can I ask a simple question?

              As a business owner that operates in Dillon, how wise do you think it is to call the incoming Mayor of the town you do business in “A conspiracy theorist” and “an idiot”? Do you think, for a second, that all the very public things you have said about him won’t get back to him?

              Personally, I am glad to see Malesich (and assumedly his pet hit attorney – Wilber) on their way out the door.

  25. Huh? What?

  26. Mr. Froman,
    I am shocked that you think you can come and go on this website and post when you please, the nerve. When you are summonsed by Norma you are to respond, she spends all day posting on every political website she can Google, and I think you should show that same level of dedication.

    • I think there is a real possibility Norma is really James Knox. Think about it. Trolling a democratic website driving away readers. Delusions of grandeur. Self proclaimed computer experts. Cant remember who they are logged in as at any particular time. Marinate on that one for a while.

Comments are closed.