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
July 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 29 30 31
* * * * * * *
<< (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


Links...

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 14:25:21 PM MST


Explosion rocks downtown Bozeman! Twitter coverage

Politics, Peaks, and Valleys has an awesome analysis of the upcoming primary for the Democratic nominee for the House, between Dennis McDonald and Tyler Gernant. It's a must-read. Here's a taste: "Posing with guns is all the rage among progressive candidates in Missoula. They'll stumble over themselves to be photographed with one, not realizing that if they're not being real, they'll only show utter poserdome and un-gunliness that is evident only to the initiated. When transparent, it can be offensive as hell."

Max Baucus joins Jon Tester in telling US Attorney General Eric Holder he won't find support from Montana's Senators for a ban on assault weapons.

Bills looking to demonize and harry illegal immigrants have fare poorly in the state legislature.

Good news for Montana: new Attorney General Eric Holder says the feds won't go after medicinal marijuana patients, in an excellent post by Ryan Grim on the movement itself.

Joan McCarter -- at New West -- wonders if the next generation of the Republican party will have a western face.

FiveThirtyEight's Sean Quinn interviews Jon Tester on topics ranging from "clean" coal, the Senator's work on the Veterans' and Indian Affairs committees, and health care, among other topics.

Jay Stevens :: Links...
Kos: "In the last week alone, following passage of the stimulus bill, the favorability ratings of congressional Democrats increased by a whopping 13 net points as formerly disaffected Democrats and leery independents registered strong endorsement of the bold action to fix the economy. A plurality of Americans - 46 percent - now approve of the congressional Democrats, compared to 45 percent who disapprove. Congressional Republicans lag far behind, with a dismal 17-68 favorable/unfavorable rating.

"For all the GOP talk of "unity" and having 'won the stimulus debate,' the fact is, the American people don't like them or their do-nothing obstructionist agenda."

Communist China is more popular than the Republican party.

Jon Stewart vs. Rick Santelli. Stewart makes the case that it was networks like CNBC that told people to go out and buy in the face of the downturn -- which makes Santelli's rant against "irresponsible" homeowners facing mortgages look...hypocritical?

And given that more than 11 percent of all mortgages are "troubled", according to CNN, it's hard to argue that so many foreclosurers are the result of personal irresponsibility.

Even I -- very familiar with John Yoo & the gang's possibly criminal obsequiousness to the Bush administration's views on executive power -- was a little shocked on some of the opinions they penned during their days at the DoJ.

Interesting news from the Bush DoJ: "In a memo written five days before President Barack Obama took office, Steven Bradbury, the then-principal deputy assistant attorney general, warned that a series of opinions issued secretly by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel 'should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose.'

"Bradbury said he wrote the 11-page document to confirm that 'certain propositions' in memos issued by the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003 "do not reflect the current views of this office."

Hmm, sounds to me like they were busy covering their *sses from what they perceived to be actionable or even criminal opinions written for the Bush administration in the Gonzalez DoJ...

More good policy news from the White House: "President Obama on Wednesday ordered his administration to change how government contracts are awarded to private businesses, saying he intended to reverse some practices of the Bush administration and do away with no-bid contracts that have cost billions and led to corruption investigations."

Kevin Drum: "There are lots of things to hate about our current medical system, and all of us have our own favorite things to hate. This is mine: the fact that the system massively overcharges you if you're uninsured, and they do it just because they can. If you're uninsured, you've got no leverage, no alternatives, no nothing. So you get screwed. It's like the shopkeepers who charge twenty bucks for a pair of flashlight batteries after hurricanes. Maybe it's the free market at work, but if so, that's all the worse for the free market. In the healthcare biz, it just doesn't work."

The census is the new voter fraud.

Look who's going all "family values" on us! Diaper David!

Michael Lewis has a well-written and very interesting Vanity Fair piece on the collapse of Iceland's economy.

Sarah Palin: too sexy! Certainly the media was a little preoccupied with the governor's looks, eh?

A Republican House member from California believes we're entering Ayn Rand's world from "Atlas Shrugged." Of course, in reality, all the mediocre sluggards holding the rest of us down were the high-finance capitalists and their conservative enablers...

The Rush Limbaugh follies.

Act I: Newly elected head of the RNC, Michael Steele, slams Rush Limbaugh, calling him an "entertainer whose comments can be ugly." Act II: Limbaugh slams Steele, and calls for his supporters to deny the RNC donations. Act III: Steele apologizes.  "...I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,' said Steele, "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. ...There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership." (Robert Gibbs: "I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party.") Act IV: Bobby Jindal kicks Steele while he's down, saying Limbaugh "is a leader for many conservatives and says things people are concerned about." Act V: GOP "troops" tell Steele to STFU and raise money.

Tim Egan: "Limbaugh played his role, ever the fool. A brave Republican could have challenged him, could have had a 'have you no shame' moment with him, giving the party some other identity, some spine. Instead, they caved - from Steele, to the leaders in the House, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence, to Gov. Bobby Jindal, who would be ridiculed by Limbaugh for his real first name, Piyush, were he a Democrat.

"You could almost hear their teeth clattering in fear of the all-powerful talk radio wacko, the denier of global warming, the man who said Bill Clinton's economic policies would fail just before an unprecedented run of prosperity.

"But Limbaugh has a fear of his own. If people see him purely as an 'entertainer,' as Steele suggested, he will be exposed for what he is: a clown with a very large audience."

If you're a Republican and said something negative about Rush Limbaugh, the DCCC created a handy tool for you!

On the left, a debate opens around the fractures opening in the GOP. Former Salon and Clinton blogger, Peter Daou, opines that Democrats should not "elevate" Limbaugh as the face of the Republican party: "There was a moment, a brief moment, after Barack Obama was elected president, a moment long gone, where the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity could have become marginalized, bit players rather than media movers and shakers, the detritus of a sorry era. But instead, they have been granted more power -- out of some contrived political calculus."

Daou has two concerns: First, the toxicity of engaging Limbaugh threatens the political work that needs to be done for health care and the economy; second, that Limbaugh will wear Obama and Democrats down.

Sean Quinn begs to differ: "...the Obama brand and Limbaugh brand are in direct opposition. Obama's brand is about intellectual curiosity, empathy, personal respect for his ideological counterparts, and problem-solving. Limbaugh plays 'Barack the Magic Negro' on his show and makes fun of Michael J. Fox' Parkinson's disease."

For Quinn, engaging Limbaugh means cementing the narrative that won Obama the election in the minds of the voters, that the Republican party is of wild-eyed and unresponsive extremists, and Obama the antidote to what ails our political discourse. That is, by identifying the Republican party with its most toxic spokespersons, voters will continue to seek civility and serious policy from Obama and the Democrats.

It's hard to argue with the president's approval ratings, especially given the tenor and toxicity surrounding the debate over the stimulus package.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Links... | 19 comments
Tester and Baucus (0.00 / 0)
Tester has proven his cross over appeal by taking leadership for gun rights.  As a "right wing fanatic" I even crossed over and voted Tester in 2006 for this very reason, and he continues to prove himself.  By assuring Americans that their guns rights won't be tampered with, we can focus on other issues.

I've seen no assurance, (0.00 / 0)
I've just seen a press release.  Mr. Tester also railed on against earmarks, but when presented with the opportunity to remove them from the budget, he voted no (as did Mr. Baucus).  Actions matter, words do not, both for the Senator and for his supporters.

[ Parent ]
??? (0.00 / 0)
You should probably do a little research before make claims like that...

To wit Tester didn't oppose earmarks, but wanted earmark reform, which would include transparency for earmarks. His first vote cast in the Senate was for the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act," the law that prohibits anonymous earmarks. If anything, Tester's been a pioneer in accountability in the Senate, no mean feat for a first-term Senator.

Off hand, I can't think of any campaign he's reneged on. Perhaps on Iraq -- although he was never for unilateral and immediate withdrawal.

Jon's always been a passionate defender of gun rights. He had a better record on the Second Amendment then ol' Boss Hogg Burns. I don't see any evidence he'd waffle on this issue.

Now, if you wanted to talk about Baucus' record...well..that's another ball of wax.


[ Parent ]
Research? (0.00 / 0)

Tester didn't oppose earmarks

Mr. Tester:


Quite frankly, I don't support earmarks, period.

If a project's a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I'm not for earmarks because they don't pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up.

And how does he back that up?  With this no vote, which was an attempt to strip the earmarks out of the current budget.

He doesn't like 'em, period, but he won't vote to remove them.  Which matters more, what he says or what he does?


[ Parent ]
Sounds to me like Tester (4.00 / 1)
is saying that if a project is worthy, and if it can "pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up" then it's not going to be called an earmark:

TESTER: The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good project... can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day.

Tester's referring more to process here, than substance. Abit of semantics. So if you bring what once could have been called "earmarks" out into the open and debate them, well, then they're no longer earmarks, and are just regular "projects" in a piece of legislation.

Of course, then there's ole Connie B's bluntness:

BURNS: I'm proud about what I brought back to Montana. That money's going to be spent somewhere in America, and I want Montana to get her share.

Which reminds of how a bunch a bunch of kids at a birthday party act after they've smacked the piñata down.


[ Parent ]
what JC said... (0.00 / 0)
I realize that the rightie blogs have been busy as beavers trying to equate Tester's record with Burns', but that dog don't fly. Sure, if you take a quote out of context, you can pretty much say whatever you want, but if you take a look at Jon's rhetoric, he's always been about transparency for earmarks, not the elimination of earmarks altogether, in the context of high-powered lobbyists and interest groups buying government projects through a secretive Congressional process.

Something, by the way, ol' Connie was expert at.

Who's against bringing federal dollars to the state? Are you?


[ Parent ]
For the record (0.00 / 0)
I've yet to bring up Mr. Burns because he's gone and I don't miss him. You guys seem to be trying to get me to defend him, but I'm not interested, because I never liked him.  Further, I'm not sure his positions are germane to the discussion; we have a different Senator now.  It's his words and actions that matter today.  

Semantics? His "Quite frankly" statement looks pretty cut and dry to me, but whatever. Even if I allow your argument (which I don't), why didn't he vote to remove those earmarks because of how they were passed?  I'm fairly confident the Senate didn't have a transparent, open debate on these 9000 plus projects.  I get that you're inclined to take him at his word.  I also think that's a dangerous thing to grant to any politician.


[ Parent ]
Whoops (0.00 / 0)
I forgot to answer your question.  Who's against bringing federal dollars to the state?  Me.  We get more back than we send up; we're freeloading off ol' Smitty in some other state.

[ Parent ]
I brought up Burns (4.00 / 1)
because his response is emblematic to a certain segment of the Senate. This isn't just an issue about our MT Senators. I don't care if you defend him or not. But there are a lot of other Senators that are sounding just like him now, what with the republicans leading the way on earmarks for the Omnibus bill. Do you defend any of their statements?

I'm not arguing semantics with you. But I think that Tester is subtly arguing semantics on the issue overall. Hopefully its not just a political stance, and there is some substance to his notion of transparency. Everything I've seen so far seems to suggest so, which is a good thing.

If he thinks that the earmarks could be brought up and discussed individually in committee, or on the floor, then they cease to be earmarks.  As to his vote on the McCain amendment, you're assuming that it is the best way to proceed--wholesale excision of all earmarks. Which isn't necessarily the appropriate (heh) thing to do.

Jon, on the other hand might assume that he'd rather get the earmarks out in the daylight, and discus them, and have the Senate consider each on their merits and decide individually if they deserve to be appropriated. Absent a specific comment from him on the issue, I'd hesitate to draw conclusions on his vote.

Furthermore, McCain's SA 592 (to which you referred to above) did not specifically strike out just earmarks. Here is the text from his amendment:

SA 592. Mr. MCCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1105, making omnibus appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes; as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. CONTINUING 2008 FUNDING LEVELS.

Section 106(3) of Public Law 110-329 is amended by striking "March 6, 2009" and inserting "September 30, 2009."

So McCain was basically trying to use earmarks as a reason to extend the current funding authorizations for almost 7 months at current (2008) levels. I saw him on the news pounding his fist on the bill, and sounding oh, so grave about earmarks. But it was really just political posturing by him to continue current funding levels and priorities.

So basically, Baucus and Tester most likely voted against punting the issue of authorizing an Omnibus bill to September, when what Obama wants to do is to take control of the budget process. If I remember right, the Omnibus bill was up for authorization in the fall, and was delayed by Congress until Obama took office so that he and the OCngress could work together on it. Now McCain wants to play Johnny-come-lately again and insert his desire to fiddle with budget into the process.

I'd congratulate Max and Jon, if their intent with their nay votes was so Congress and Obama could begin shifting federal funding priorities now, instead of next fall.


[ Parent ]
Mr. McCain, grandstanding? (0.00 / 0)
the hell you say!

Seriously, I have no problem whatsoever with axing all of the projects.  But I'm digressing, or maybe digesting...I don't know what our Senators are thinking, nor do I really care.  The result of their actions is a business as usual pork fest, which is why Mr. Tester's statement of "baloney" holds exactly zero sway over me.  He can say all he wants, but I won't be listening, I'll be watching.  The idiots back there tend to like it when we're "focused on other things," it allows them to do some of their best worst work.  


[ Parent ]
If you think that Tester (0.00 / 0)
is leading a "business as usual pork fest," then list the "pork" out right here and now, and let's talk about it, in specifics. Otherwise, you're just spouting dittohead talking points, and I'm not interested in debating that garbage

[ Parent ]
$400,000 to combat bullying in Montana (0.00 / 0)
http://mtpundit.com/2009/02/25...

Finally!  Taxpayer money being put to good use!


[ Parent ]
and "development of emergency protocol for school shootings" (4.00 / 1)
You got a problem with emergency protocols? I know we have problems with bullying and shootings in high schools. $400k is chump change, if all it does is result in the saving of one kid's life.

The funding is intended for the Montana Safe Schools Center.

Here's the intro for the MSSC:

...acts of targeted school violence and school emergencies remain a concern for everyone in the school community.

Some believe that Montana schools are immune from the emergencies that plague other parts of the country; unfortunately that is not the case.

Within the past decade, Montana's administrators have dealt with school shootings, fatal bus accidents, deaths of students and staff, attempted abductions, serious bullying, chemical spills, infectious disease outbreaks and arson - all events that impacted the lives of the entire school community. These events occured from pre-K through high school...

Many school emergencies can be prevented; but all can be mitigated - lessening their impact on schools and the people within those schools. Careful assessment of risks and creating appropriate policies and training can go a long ways toward changing an emergency situation into a manageable event with minimal long-lasting impact.

You know, Krugman had it right. Rusty exemplifies the republican party's descent into the party of Bevis and Butthead.  


[ Parent ]
Dittohead...heh... (0.00 / 0)
I never said he was leading anything, only enabling.  If you don't think there's any pork in there, then I'm not interested in debating either, I can get obtuse anywhere.

[ Parent ]
It's terribly important...... (0.00 / 0)
that schools have a protocol to follow for shootings.  Bottom line, the police know EXACTLY how to handle school shootings. Schools must also know their part, otherwise it ain't gonna work.  School protocol fully integrated with police protocol is the ONLY thing that will work in a school shooting situation.  Through the tragic incidents of the past, the police have developed immediate, effective responses to stop the mayhem immediately upon arrival and eliminate the threat. There is no longer a let's wait policy like at Columbine.  Now, the police go looking for the perps.  But they can only do this if the shool personnel are fully trained and fully prepared to act immediately when the threat presents itself.  For you  see, when everyone knows their part in the process, the perps are easily distinguishable from the innocents.  And that makes all the difference in the world.  And let's face it, it's gonna happen.  It's only a matter of time.  Unfortunateldy, schools are a favorite target among mentally deranged folks.  They know that schools are  basically defenseless.  This is GOOD money spent wisely.  Me personally, I'd rather save kids than fatassed  bankers!

p.s. It's a sad commentary on our world when we no longer have fire drills in schools, but school shooting drills!  And that is exactly what is happening.  For you see, statistically speaking, the chance of a shooting is FAR more likely than a fire.  When was the last time you heard of a school fire?  Welcome to the new reality.  Preparation prevents tragedy.  Only a dumbassed Repubbie would complain about this money.


[ Parent ]
MyDD on Bozeman explosion (0.00 / 0)

When Main Street Blows Up

SNIP

...there was an explosion that put a giant crater in Main Street of Bozeman, Mt. The Governor's mansion is more than 100 miles away, yet Governor Brian Schweitzer was explaining what happened next withing three hours. Yeah, and he had the National Guard ready when he threw down.

In talks with senior officials after today's explosion, credit was given to the drills Schweitzer began running when he became governor. Listening to the press conferences (via www.KMMSam.com, my old radio station), it was clear that everyone knew what to do. Worst disaster to hit Bozeman, but all is good.


Just shows how true leadership in a crisis behaves.  No Brownie to add to the disaster.

Larkspur

Transparency for earmarks, jaybird? (0.00 / 0)
Why earmarks at all?  
If the legislators are not going to legislate why do we need them.
We could hire illegal refugees to carry earmarks to the whitehouse.
All they need is a signature of approval--for that we could send a rubber stamp to India...  

Links... | 19 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Should Congress focus more on creating jobs or reducing the short-term deficit?
Creating Jobs
Reducing the Short-Term Deficit

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