Video: Tester speaks to forest bill failure

Is the deceit necessary? (0.00 / 0)

Tester was supposed to be the "straight-shooter."  The anti-Washington, or at least a regular guy you'd enjoy having a beer with now and then. Political disappointment is one thing. The outright deceit of Tester's handling of FJRA, DREAM, wolf slaughter, ESA threats, biomass subsidies, war(s)funding, "earmarks" and other issues important to Montana voters is unseemly at best. Many will write it off as a good man gone Senator.  Others will be less forgiving, seeking a better choice at the voting booth in 2012. The truth will be told by comedians, artists and activists, but without Tester to lead an honest public debate on issues, Montana has lost its best chance in decades to have eyes, ears, and a voice in Washington, D.C.  

---

by: steve kelly @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 17:44:41 PM UTC

Deceit? (0.00 / 0)

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.

There are many claims of back-room dealings in the creation of the FJRA as well as it's inclusion in the Omnibus bill, and I have little interest in arguing their merit here.  But there's not one other thing on your list that speaks of "deceit" on the part of Tester.  Even as regards the FJRA, Tester spoke to what he wanted to do regarding forest jobs when he debated Conrad here in Bozeman.  If you don't believe me, look it up on YouTube.  

A couple of other things to keep in mind.  Your characterization of "wolf slaughter" is complete crap.  And that comes from someone who believes strongly in the protection of Canis Lupus.  Many of Tester's so-called promises (which weren't), including those of biomass funding, were made after Harry Ried had assured him a spot on the appropriations committee.  What Tester said of earmarks is that he didn't favor them ever.  That was pure ignorance talking.  I find it hard to fault the man for it considering that McCain, having served in the Senate since Charlemagne was king, decried all earmarks while running for the Presidency.  And it had to be pointed out to the fossil that most foreign aid funding to Israel is an "earmark rider".  Whoops.  When Tester was still a newb running for Senate, he stated pretty plainly that he was against the foreign boondoggles but wouldn't ever vote to hurt the troops.  In all fact, his record on military concerns and veteran's affairs has been exemplary.

I dare say, Steve, it appears that Tester didn't lie about issues important to Montana voters.  It looks a whole lot more like you're just disappointed that he doesn't stand on issues with you.  The truth of my observation is born out by this:

without Tester to lead an honest public debate on issues, Montana has lost its best chance in decades to have eyes, ears, and a voice in Washington, D.C.

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 22:29:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In my opinion, the word deceit applies. (0.00 / 0)

In the context of the original posting - just to keep this simple - I find it unsupportable for Senator Tester to repeat a meaningless poll to defend his bill after it was attached as a non-germane amendment - a "rider-earmark" - to the Omnibus bill that did not pass.  One of the reasons his bill is not so popular is that it makes "historic" (Tester's words) policy changes to national forest policy that have not been adequately debated publicly by Sen. Tester and his constituents. Tester has dictated, and no, I do not agree with that common political practice as a tactic to dis skeptics.  His bill undercuts The Wilderness Act, the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act. And it defies a lot of peer-reviewed science.  I think a bill like that calls for extensive public debate, at least one public hearing in Montana, and at minimum one in the House of Representatives.  I thought I acknowledged my political disappointment above, but this goes beyond that.  Nevertheless, you are more than entitled to your opinion. We are all more or less still free to express ourselves, even if our elected officials refuse to listen.    

---

by: steve kelly @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:24:40 PM UTC

Steve (0.00 / 0)

You will notice (or not) that my disagreement with your earlier comment had little to do with the FJRA.  I wrote clearly as much.  It was much more to the point that you accuse Senator Tester of blanket dishonesty on issues of which he has been completely honest; issues on which you will now write nothing.  The FJRA fight is done for now.  Hoorah.  We won.  Your false attacks on Tester remain open to scrutiny, mostly as regards why you would foist such drivel?  What do you get out of it?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 23:40:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]