Contribute
Support Left in the West to continue our work:
Blog Ads

Syndication

RSS

Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Full Disclosure
Matt Singer works for Forward Montana. He also is a partner in DP Productions, a small, Montana-based T-Shirt company.


Search




Advanced Search


In defense of Forward Montana

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 21:01:41 PM MDT


Seeing all the hyperbole and misstatements recently made to trash Matt and Forward Montana has frankly p*ssed me off. I'm not going to speak about Forward Montana, its charter, membership, or funding sources, because that's all Matt's gig. I will say this: I trust Matt, I believe he's committed to certain ideas that Forward Montana is working towards - and that includes getting young people and communities excited about politics and participating in our political system - I know he's not using us - the dozens or hundreds of local members - or his organization for any George Soros schemes. As far as I can tell, Forward Montana is exactly what it claims it is.

I hosted a Forward Montana even in my house on Sunday, part of the "beer, brat, and ballots" push to get neighborhoods conversing. I went out this past week and knocked on my neighbors' doors and invited them to my house to meet Ward 6's council candidates, to have some sausage or veggie burger, salad, to drink beer, and to talk politics. It was not a partisan event. As host I tried to lead the conversation, I never offered my personal opinion on any issue or candidate, and made sure both Ed Childers and Lewie Schneller had their full say. (Not an easy task if you know how gregarious Lewie is.) Turnout wasn't great, but the conversation was.

That's Forward Montana.

No one was brainwashed. No one was talked into voting for any Forward Montana candidate - but who the "Forward Montana candidates" are, you'd have to guess. Neither Matt or Forward Montana has endorsed any city council candidate. Look it up.

I'm a progressive, and I joined Forward Montana because it's a progressive group working towards progressive goals. And one of those goals - maybe the most important for me - is to get people involved in the political process. Without public interest and scrutiny I believe our representatives - whether at the local, state, or federal level - would scr*w us in a heartbeat. If we don't care, why should they? It's our government, it's our responsibility, and only we can make sure it's working in our interests on our behalf. That's progressivism. And there are Republicans who share these sentiments, and Democrats who don't like what Forward Montana is doing.

And that's what Forward Montana works for, too. If you don't like people participating in our democracy, fine. But how about debating the substantive issues instead of slinging mud, accusing legitimate organizations of being astroturf fronts built for some insidious purpose, without having a shred of evidence to support your allegations? And why repeat these rumors if all you have to go on is some anonymous comments and an unfounded blog post? Did you email Matt and ask him your questions? Have you met any Forward Montana members? Have you attended an event? Do you know what a 501c4 organization is?

Enough already. Of course it's Matt's obligation, not mine, to correct the misunderstandings and explain the legal status of his group, its mission, history, and membership. Let this post serve only as a testament to Matt's work, a character reference for a colleague and a friend.

Jay Stevens :: In defense of Forward Montana
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
What? (0.00 / 0)
Veggie burgers and Lewie Schneller and I  wasn't invited!

It's a conspiracy I say!  A conspiracy!


so (0.00 / 0)
Max returned the money too!
So i would expect the same rape and pillage from you all on him that you gave to Conrad.

[ Parent ]
Max... (0.00 / 0)
You must be new to this site.

[ Parent ]
I think instead of a nice Merlot (0.00 / 0)
Hmmm maybe not this wine is from Sour Grapes!
HAHAHA! Jay, get off your high horse, did you think that after years of left in the west bashing people, that it wouldnt come back to haunt Matt... I mean really, poo poo or get of the poddy! Really grow up Jay. You have two children, sticks and stones or the golden rule have never been preached in your house. Come on really?

seriously... (0.00 / 0)
Matt's not guilty of anything. The folks we bashed -- Burns, Butcher, etc -- were.

[ Parent ]
re: seriously (0.00 / 0)
Then please tell us, Jay, what exactly were Burns and Butcher guilty of? Unless there were charges filed, it's more of the same "lies and bullcrap" line coming from the braintrust.

[ Parent ]
really? (0.00 / 0)
You want to back those horses? Really? I'll get into if you want, but are you really claiming Burns and Butcher are models of citizenship? 'Cause I'll take you up on it if you want...

[ Parent ]
re: really? (0.00 / 0)
It's water under the bridge at this point. No? But you were the one who implied that Burns and Butcher were "guilty" of something, which suggests there was crime committed.

[ Parent ]
seriously (0.00 / 0)
Do the words "pervasive fraud" mean anything to you? Not my words, BTW, but the court's.

And I'll gladly present the evidence of Burns' corruption to a neutral observer, countered with your defense (if there is any) of Burns, and we'll see how it goes.

Considering the state of Bush's DoJ, claiming that Burns should be considered innocent in the court of public opinion on the basis of a lack of a conviction is a weak defense indeed.


[ Parent ]
hey Jay (0.00 / 0)
How do you feel about Pat Williams? Why did he choose not too run again, was it because people were looking in on him too. So a pot and a kettle on your house!

[ Parent ]
never seen any serious accusations against Pat... (0.00 / 0)
Make your case, if you've got one. And not just a laundry list of Soros orgs that gave to his campaign. Remember, it's not the donations that matter, it's what they make you do...

...like, say, support forced prostitution, drug smuggling, and a sweatshop industry...


[ Parent ]
Burns returned the money, right? (0.00 / 0)
That means he took it in the first place, which puts him in the wrong, regardless of whether he was charged.  He was No. 1 on a bipartisan list of bribed politicians.  What were you saying again?

[ Parent ]
Democrats kept.... (0.00 / 0)
their bribe money, so they're innocent, right?  S**t, I don't believe any of these politicians when they say they "returned" money.  Where's the receipt or as Lanny Davis would say, "Where's the poof"?

Just look at that friggin darlin of Halloween.  She "returned" the Shu money, so now she's back in Chinatown trying to get it all back.  The Clinton crime family in action...


[ Parent ]
pah! (0.00 / 0)
Clinton is an honorary Republican. I don't understand why you hate those two so much...

[ Parent ]
hey pilgore (0.00 / 0)
Max returned the money too!
So i would expect the same rape and pillage from you all on him that you gave to Conrad.

[ Parent ]
You're talking about Abramoff right? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Since when did I say I liked Max either? Ever? (0.00 / 0)
You guys really should drop the party line bulls$#t.  We give Max as much crap as anybody!  Maybe that's the reason we identify ourselves as progressives and not liberals or Democrats.  We don't support somebody just because they're a Democrat.  Trust me, I wouldn't have busted my ass nearly as hard to get John Morrison elected and you won't see me trumpeting Max next fall either.  I've supported Republicans in the past, as is evidenced by many of my posts here.  Look at my diaries.  I was raised in a Republican house.  You guys are the worst researchers in the world!  And I hate Hillary too.

[ Parent ]
That's their style. (0.00 / 0)
It's a dumbass way to spin. I love when they do this. The only time they think things should be equal is when they are down. They already know how you feel, they just get off coercing you into saying it.

[ Parent ]
And another thing! (0.00 / 0)
It's telling that you equate a false shot made out of malice with genuine watchdog concern, as if the two were somehow equal. That shows a distinct lack of ethics. This isn't a tit-for-tat game.

[ Parent ]
Re: And another thing! (0.00 / 0)
Matt Singer could put at least one angle of this to rest on a semi-permanent basis if he would categorically deny the allegations contained in the "anonymous" comment left on Ms. Minjares blog.

When will he do it? While it's admirable he has his friends rushing to his defense he's had ample time to claim a narrative contrary to the one being provided by the anonymous commenter and yet has chosen not to do so.

What "shows a distinct lack of ethics" is claiming the high ground by sermonizing on the ability of getting young college students involved in politics when he "used the student government (ASUM) as a front group to provide the incentives of free transportation, food and drink to get voters to the polls. He also openly joked with his counterparts about how easy is was to get students to vote for Tester. "You just give 'em a free sandwich and they pull the lever for your guy" or something like. He certainly wasn't praising the student's noble intentions."

Deny that!


[ Parent ]
er... (0.00 / 0)
While I agree Matt should respond...do you really judge his character based on an anonymous comment dropped on a post meant to misrepresent Matt and Forward Montana? I mean...c'mon! Let the guy post his name if he's going to make an accusation like that.

[ Parent ]
Let me play liberal..... (0.00 / 0)
here and say it's the seriousness of the charge that should take precedence.

[ Parent ]
re: er... (0.00 / 0)
You guys judge the character of people on the right all of the time, with or without anonymous comments. Are the rules different when it suits your interest?

The fact is, when I read the anonymous comment I judged it on it's merits, and there's just too much detail there for it to have been made up by either Ms. Minjares or someone else. I realize you guys desperately want to believe the anonymous post was all "lies and bullcrap," I really do, but the longer Matt Singer refuses to categorically deny the allegations the more true they seem to be. As "squid" said, the charges contained in the anonymous comment were damn serious and should take precedence if he wishes this to be put behind him. If either he can't or won't defend himself this is not going away.


[ Parent ]
Anonymous libel is for chicken sh*ts. (0.00 / 0)
No wonder the poster wouldn't sign their name to it. That would require personal accountabilty for their smear. And personal accountability is something the right - wing-nuts fear.

I've done a lot of poll watching. i never found I had the time to stand around and talk politics, though. I was too busy watching the polls. Tell me, how do you mark off your voters as they sign in, when you are off chatting it up, somewhere else? That right there tells me the anonymous poster was full of anonymous crap.

I've never given any money to Forward Montana, I live outside the boundries of the city. But I'm sending them ten bucks, now. They are obviously doing something very neccesary and doing it well, or every right-wing-crack pot in the county wouldn't be so afraid of them.


[ Parent ]
re: Anonymous libel is for chicken sh*ts (0.00 / 0)
Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jay Stevens, during one point during the last election cycle, claim he has received "anonymous" details of a forthcoming indictment of Burns, and actually make a bet (which may or may not have been paid) with someone else based upon it?

Sorry guys but I call it like I see it. Matt Singer is obviously hiding something regarding the "anonymous" commentor on Mrs. Minjares site. Another blogger has vouched that the person is real and has nothing to gain over this debate. Your side, however, has everything to lose which is why the wagons are starting to circle around Singer and proclaiming from the roof-tops that he doesn't have to answer the "anonymous" accusation.

You guys sure seem to forget much of your American history when you poo-poo "anonymous comments." Much of the debate going on during the time of the American Revolution was via anonymous pamphlteers. Thomas Paine ring any bells?


[ Parent ]
You're Right, Rich! (0.00 / 0)
We should remove Matt from office, post haste, and never vote for him again.  We should shut down his website and turn Forward Montana into the FBI as a terrist organization ... or something.

What do you think ought to happen, Rich?  What do you want done?  (This oughta be comedy gold.)


[ Parent ]
re: You're Right, Rich! (0.00 / 0)
You make this too easy Wulfgar. I want Matt Singer to man-up, something you spend an awful lot of time demanding from others on your blog, and answer the anonymous allegation. Either it's an outright lie, there's another POV on the conversation, or it's true.

In any case, you guys are walking a tight-rope here. You've invested everything in your collective relationships with Mr. Singer, and if there is more information the anonymous commentor could have posted but didn't, for obvious reasons I don't think I need to explain, you guys become a laughingstock, adult instruments of someone barely old enough to drink alcohol.

I, for one, will offer a full retraction and apology if and when Matt Singer categorically denies the allegation, and the anonymous commentor recants. Just don't expect it too soon, kay?


[ Parent ]
Since you're too stupid to get it ... (0.00 / 0)
I'll explain it, Rich.  The only ones demanding that Matt "man up" are the ones who won't believe him anyway.  The rest of us are actually his friends, and there isn't any investment that we need fear. You assholes are demanding answers and we already have them.  We're laughing at your claims of authority, bud, cause you got nothin' but a dude who's either too full of shit or too chickenshit to actually come forward.  Until you can get Mr. Anonymouse to "man up", you've lost.  You got nothin'.

Here's my offer to you:  I'll stop pointing my finger and laughing when you lot quit being so comical.  That sounds much more fair than your non-deal.  (Hint, dumbshit:  an anonymouse commenter will *never* recant, ever.  Your deal ... isn't.  So suck it.) 


[ Parent ]
re: Since you're too stupid to get it (0.00 / 0)
Typical pap from the most vulgar and repulsive blogger out there. Birds of a feather and all. Sorry Wulfgar but I don't need a bookstore clerk with anger issues to explain anything to me. Anger becomes you, in the end it's all you've got.

If you "already have the answers" then post them. Post the email from Matt Singer where he categorically denies the anonymous allegations. Can't do it? Didn't think so.


[ Parent ]
Still demanding a response (0.00 / 0)
Still suffering because one won't be forthcoming.  'Guess it sucks to be you, Rich.  Notice, as soon as the fear sets in with you, you attack my character and blame me for it.  You are a coward, Son.  I'm sure you'll find ways to cope, but you ought to at least respond to the challenge you made ... you know ... the one that won't ever be fulfilled because you banked on a someone more cowardly than yourself?

[ Parent ]
re: Still demanding a response (0.00 / 0)
Didn't think you would be able to post an email from Mr. Singer denying the allegations. Talk about banking on someone more cowardly.

[ Parent ]
actually, no, I didn't (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Kilgore was there... (0.00 / 0)
Check it out. Your commenter may have "remembered" the incident in a most convenient way.

[ Parent ]
I did make the bet... (0.00 / 0)
I admit to the bet, but I didn't "receive" an anonymous comment and posted it. I linked to a rumor at the TPM Cafe. And noted it as such.

It's pretty funny how righties have assumed I had secret knowledge or something, or manufactured that. The only thing manufactured, tho', is bullsh*t from folks who backed the wrong dog.


[ Parent ]
re: I did make the bet... (0.00 / 0)
First you didn't, then you did.

Look, I'll be the first person in line to offer an apology, but I'll never have to. OTOH, you guys have now been goaded into creating a body of commentary that's going to be awfully difficult to back away from when Matt Singer finds it impossible to refute the truth.


[ Parent ]
So how do you happen to know Tom Paine's name? If he wrote his stuff (0.00 / 0)
anonymously I mean?

When they signed the Declaration of Independance, they just put down "Anonymous" right? No names, it was better and safer to just put an x.

That's why the founding fathers faught so hard to allow anonymous evidence in the courts. No right to face your accuser, you little un-American ignoramous.

As for what Jay wrote or didn't last cycle, i wouldn't know. I didn't read this blog much last year.

I'm glad you read it faithfully, though. I hope you learned something, but your kind never seems to.

I'm glad your anonymous poll watchers don't bother to watch the polls. Kind of makes it hard to get your people out to vote like that, doesn't it?


[ Parent ]
Was he? (0.00 / 0)
Was Matt involved with ASUM during the last election cycle? Not to my knowledge, and I would actually know a thing or two about that. ASUM has a charge to get people, especially students, to vote. We took water to the court house. People were standing there for hours ready to execute thier civic duty. It was the right thing to do.

I hardly doubt that the people waiting in line to vote could be so easily persuaded. They already knew who they were voting for. Tell me something. Can you, after standing in line for an hour or two, change your vote because someone gave you sandwich or bottle of water? Please keep in mind that you would have to be clairvoyant enough to know who they were supporting so it would change your mind. Well, maybe not. I mean who expects a Republican to care about making sure people vote.

Anywho, if you do change your vote on such bases please let me know. I got five bucks ready to buy you a bottle of water, and a crust of bread.


[ Parent ]
This is how they debate --- (0.00 / 0)
They smear, and force you to defend yourself. In defending yourself, you are taken off message, and you get stink on you. You're derailed. That's the whole purpose of the exercise.

I can only conclude that Forward Montana was somewhat effective, otherwise the smear would never have happened.

Anyway, I should come clean. I sent $25 to forward Montana. I'm the guy behind it.


Did you.... (0.00 / 0)
convert it to yuan before you sent it?

[ Parent ]
Might be... (0.00 / 0)
worth a little more nowadays huh?

[ Parent ]
Were the comments true? (0.00 / 0)
If those comments were/are true, someone should report the matter to area attorneys/prosecutors.

I think you're referencing me here (0.00 / 0)
because I was the one who used the term 'astroturfing', so I will respond.  First I'd like to ask where I opined that FM was built for nefarious purposes?  Second, why not email/attend/meet/investigate?  Because I was offering an opinion on a blog.  I guess if I took this hobby more seriously, then I should have.  I don't.  I'm not a professional blogger, nor do I want to be.  I call them as I see them with the information I have.  I'm an average guy in a small town in a small corner of Montana who likes spouting off.  From my perspective, I'm not yet convinced the astroturfing label doesn't fit.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; I can live with that, and I can admit it if the evidence is presented to counter my supposition.  I just offered my practically irrelevant opinion on what the organization looks like from where I sit.  Further, Matt certainly doesn't 'need' to respond to me, my screed was just one knuckleheads opinion anyway.

not consciously I wasn't (0.00 / 0)
Sorry if that stung you a little. I didn't have you mind when I wrote the post. It was really aimed at the original smears, which did claim Matt was using Fwd MT as a front for his nefarious personal political goals -- or, rather, George Soros'...

[ Parent ]
No apology needed (0.00 / 0)
Just by reading it it looked like you were addressing me.  Stung?  Well, slap away, I've got thick skin, it didn't bother me.  We're just having a spirited conversation.

[ Parent ]
I was there. (0.00 / 0)
I worked a Party at the Polls in coalition with Forward Montana at the University Center, the on-campus polling place as an employee for MontPIRG.  While I was there, a Republican poll watcher and his wife engaged me in conversation and asked what we were doing.  I told him we were part of a progressive effort to turn more students out to vote.  He was VERY interested and continued to hang around for several hours. 

I stressed to him that we were part of a nonpartisan organization and we were not endorsing any candidate, but we were progressive.  None of us, my volunteers, who included ASUM senators, or myself were wearing or displaying any pro-Tester items.  At no time did we tell anyone who to vote for.  Obviously, many of us did vote for Jon but all of us voted early and at no time were we acting in a partisan way.  We actively engaged students and asked them if they had voted yet.  If they said they were not registered, we directed them to the ASUM shuttle, which ran every couple minutes to the courthouse.

Unfortunately for all of you righties, most of the students who went to vote just didn't like your guy.  He was old, he was envolved in a corruption scandal, and he didn't make several trips to the UM campus asking students for their vote.  Jon did.  He spoke to packed houses on campus on several occasions and the students believed in his message, which he gave passionately.  That's why he won the election.  No one who worked for MontPIRG or Forward Montana in that cycle ever endorsed a candidate.  The people knew who they were voting for already.  So suck it up and get ready for '08, righties.


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Would kind of likely reform would you support?
Baucus plan, with or without public option
Baucus plan, but only with public option
I don't support the Baucus plan, period

Results

Blog Roll
  • 4 & 20 Blackbirds
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • Cece-in-MT
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • David Sirota
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Granny Insanity
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Lamnidae
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana Netroots
  • Montana Politics
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Piece of Mind
  • Pragmatic Revolt
  • Prairie Mary
  • Rebels Are We
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox