Melinda Gopher Joins Congressional Race

by: Matt Singer

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 09:36:45 AM MST

Call Denny Rehberg: Thank him for changing positions (again) on health care reform

by: Matt Singer

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:46:00 AM MST

Mind-bogglingly, last week, he took to the floor of the U.S. House to complain about the road signs marking projects as funded by money from the Recovery Act. Apparently, these signs are a waste of taxpayer money motivated by politics.

So how do we know that Congressman Rehberg is full of crap with this concern?

Because yesterday, franked mailers -- the ones produced, printed, and mailed at taxpayer expense -- from Rehberg's office hit mailboxes extolling Rehberg's commitment to health reform (large pdf file). Lying to voters is one thing. Lying to voters on the taxpayer dime is another thing. But lying to voters on the taxpayer dime while complaining on the floor of the house about tax dollars being used for political purposes? Breathtaking in its mendacity.

This guy is literally all over the map, helping whip votes against health reform, taking credit for it in mail piece. Its reminiscent of his moves on SCHIP. And his taking credit for all the in-state appropriations he voted against.

Same story, every single day.

When the Youngest Candidate is the Most Grown Up

by: Matt Singer

Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 08:59:47 AM MST

"One Dennis is demanding an apology from the other Dennis for having a couple of drinks," Gernant wrote in a written statement. "The other Dennis turns around and releases his attack dogs on Dennis for being a mob lawyer from California. This kind of petty political posturing does nothing to help the 158,000 Montanans currently without health insurance."

I should also note, strangely, that I received another copy of Dennis's original completely over-the-top email this morning at 5:04 AM. It still contains the same typos and the same random email from a someone who lives in the Flathead area as a primary source of investigative journalism.

This is embarassing.

Reward good behavior. Throw Tyler Gernant some change before the end of the quarter.

Ay Yi Yi

by: Matt Singer

Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 10:05:23 AM MST

I've been amazed at how much the Montana press lets the Republicans get away with it.

But then I read paragraphs like this from an email from McDonald's campaign: "We know of several incidents in the press over the last few years: getting so drunk that he fell off a horse in Kazakhstan; getting into a bar fight with his staff in Missoula at the Iron Horse; passing out on a cot at a bar in DC; and now getting into a drunken wreck up on Flathead Lake that almost caused [sic] the life of a young man."

As far as I can recall, Denny didn't get into a fight at the Iron Horse. One of this staff people threw a punch at a guy who was out-of-control. And he didn't pass out on a cot at a bar in DC. His operation made a hilarious mistake on a compliance form.

I suppose the lies might as well fly both ways.

Finally, Someone Has the Guts to Question Rehberg's Irresponsible Behavior

by: Montana Cowgirl

Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 20:16:14 PM MST

Here's the deal, folks: In spite of what Rehberg's "crisis manager" says, the facts speak for themselves.

After the accident, Rehberg's "crisis manager" tried to deceive Montanans by saying that Rehberg's BAC was "only" .05 (when tested at the hospital 3 hours after the accident.)  Unfortunately, this means that at the time of the accident, Rehberg was legally drunk.

BAC levels decrease at a rate of .015 per hour.  So 3 hours before Rehberg was tested (the time of the accident) Rehberg's BAC was .095.   Because Rehberg was impaired, he was incapable of judging whether Barkus was sober, and he took his two young staffers on the boat with him.

Here's another major point: Rehberg failed to designate a sober member of his party who could make sure everyone got home safe before everyone started drinking.  State and federal experts spend millions of dollars every year for decades on DUI prevention and the importance of designated drivers.  Trying to say that you don't know about designated drivers in today's world is like trying to say you didn't know smoking was bad for you.

Finally, what we have here is a shameful pattern of alcohol-induced bad behavior.  I can think of at least 3 other incidents:

This one,  when Rehberg drank half a dozen shots of vodka, jumped on a horse, fell off, got trampled by another horse, broke a rib and allegedly called the locals "cone heads." Initially Rehberg's spokesman told reporters the Congressman had no shots of vodka. Then the Congressman admitted he had "two or three." And later, a Marine colonel who was on the trip told Roll Call Rehberg really had six shots.

And then there was this. Rehberg's reelection campaign report lists a nearly $300 expenditure on Feb. 25 for "lodging" at the Tune Inn, a storied dive bar on Capitol Hill. An inn, the Tune Inn is not.  "There's a cot in the basement," a bartender explained. "But usually people just pass out on it."

And then there was the bar brawl involving Rehberg and his thugs in Missoula.

And these are only some of the recent incidents that have made the papers.  

Newest Chapter in Rehberg/Barkus Crash: Where are the tough questions??

by: MTboots

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 12:24:18 PM MST

Where are the other witnesses in this story?  Is the media really just going to take Denny at his word?  Did anyone at the Docks see Barkus stumble or hear him slur his words?  Did anyone at the campground smell alcohol?

It's troubling that while we wait for official information, Rehberg is being treated by the media as the one true source in this incident.

From the Missoulian today:

He chatted about health care, he said, and cap-and-trade legislation and taxes, and spent some time talking to the disc jockey. Rehberg ordered steak and potatoes - "as I always do" - and drank a pint of beer. Later, someone brought him a second beer, which he doubts he even finished.

(Following the accident, Rehberg's blood-alcohol level tested at .05. Barkus' BAC has not been released, although investigators have said they believe he was drinking that night.)

Rehberg said he thinks Dustin Frost, his state director, had a beer, and Kristin Smith, his deputy chief of staff, had a white wine, although he does not recall Barkus drinking. But, he added, "when I'm working, I'm paying attention to me.",

A Roll Call story recounting Rehberg's 2004 CODEL to Kazakhstan, excerpted below,  indicates that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't rely on him as a valid source...especially when counting is involved.

First, Col. Arthur White, the Senate's Marine Liaison, who accompanied Rehberg and Burns on the Congressional delegation, dissected the e-mail line by line. The mysterious sender of the e-mail said Rehberg drank "some 20 shots of vodka" during a ceremonial lunch in Kazakhstan, then ran into the woods, "returned on a horse, fell over (stumbling drunk) and was trampled by another horse."

"That's not true," the colonel told HOH. "He probably had half a dozen." (For the record, half a dozen is two more than Rehberg confessed to having; and six more than Rehberg's press secretary first asserted his boss had consumed.)

Rehberg's Poor Decision - leaves young man's future unknown

by: BJ N

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 11:59:17 AM MST

Although the Rehberg PR team claims the congressman was not intoxicated (hours after the accident when blood was drawn) based on his passed indiscretions we can only surmise alcohol will be a contributing factor in this accident.  

It is reprehensible that a leader in this state would endanger the lives of his staff, his friends and others by allowing irresponsible behavior to take place on a boat in the dark late at night.  Below is part of the article mentioning Dusty - it appears to me Rehberg is more concerned with his own image and covering up his alcohol problems than he is with his state director.  

Thirteen Questions the Montana Media Should Be Asking about Cong. Rehberg's Boating Accident

by: MTboots

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 10:09:34 AM MST

2. How many alcoholic beverages were consumed at dinner?

3. Who was Congressman Rehberg meeting at dinner? Who saw the Congressman and the other boaters when they were at dinner and at other points throughout the evening?

4. WHO EXACTLY (names, titles) are the officials running the investigation? What are their relationships with Sen. Barkus and Congressman Rehberg?

5. Was there drinking and/or drug use on the boat?

6. In what CONDITION is Dustin Frost?  Critical, Serious, Fair and Good are conditions. Stable is not a condition.

7. What was Congressman Rehberg's BAC at the time of the crash?  Exactly how long after the crash was DR's .05 BAC measured?  Did doctors have to 'wait' at all until he was sober enough for surgery?

8. Who at the campground arrived first on scene?  What do they say about the condition of the victims?  Was there alcohol in the area?  Did anyone ask them to get rid of alcohol containers, etc?

9. Why haven't we heard anything from/about Barkus as a public official?  Don't his constituents have a right to know about his condition? Exactly when will we hear from his lawyer?

10. Did Congressman Rehberg know all along that Barkus was going to ferry himself and his employees across the lake?

11. Was ANYONE on the boat sober enough to operate the boat? If Congressman Rehberg was sober (as Iverson has indicated), why wasn't he operating the boat?

12. What was Barkus' BAC at the time of the crash?

13. Did Barkus' boat have legal lighting?

MT GOP Legislators Aren't Joining Rehberg in Gym Idea

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 06:25:25 AM MST

Rep. Pat Ingraham, R-Thompson Falls, uses arguments dubbed here as some of the dumbest against health care reform.

Read It, Congressman. Or Don't Vote.

by: Matt Singer

Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 10:35:26 AM MST

Pogie asks a good question: is Congressman Rehberg comfortable voting against the bill if he hasn't read it in its entirety?

Here's what I want to see: a video of our Congressman personally reading the complete bill.

Even better would be some kind of statement from the Congressman of what he will vote for. Montanans want to see health care reformed. Unlike our Representative, who is one of the richest members of Congress, a lot of folks here can't afford more delay and denial of fixing this system.

So put up, Congressman, and either pledge to read the full bill before voting either way or just come out and be honest with us -- you're with Senator DeMint's strategy of opposing reform at all costs.

Rehberg Attended the Luntz Meeting on Killing Healthcare Reform

by: Matt Singer

Wed May 13, 2009 at 13:49:31 PM MST

Last week, I wrote about the meeting that House Republicans had with GOP spinmaster Frank Luntz where Luntz essentially told the GOP to express sympathy for people's struggles with our broken healthcare system and then use messaging to kill any attempt to reform it (notably: this includes his advice -- smart advice, I should add -- to try to rhetorically wed Democrats to the highly unpopular insurance industry).

Yesterday, we learned that our own Congressman was one of the people attending that meeting, learning the talking points to scare the American people. We've got the details, including a copy of Luntz's memo, on the Forward Montana website. Take a second to send Dennis Rehberg a message: don't play politics with healthcare reform.

Here's a Glimpse Behind the Curtain at the Message Machine of the Cynical Far-Right

by: Robert Struckman

Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 10:59:03 AM MST

It's the same story on the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Big Business, anti-union contingent avoids a real discussion of the act by spewing a verbal loop of nonsense that the bill somehow restricts the rights of workers to the secret ballot.

Remember, this is Republican opposite land, where everything means the opposite of what they say it does. Of course, the bill does nothing to the secret ballot. Nothing at all. Yet the far-right has been able to spread this message throughout the media simply by endlessly repeating it. Check out this Web page from MediaMatters. It's insane.

And then yesterday a Politico reporter offered us all a glimpse into the ridiculously well-funded Republican machine that manufacturers this baloney.

The (anti-)ECFA campaign began in earnest in 2005, when Mike Murphy and John McLaughlin began polling aspects of the bill and settled on the worker sign-up provision as the most vulnerable.

"We developed a framing that it was really a privacy issue," said Murphy, describing what became a campaign against taking away a "secret ballot" for workers.

But such deceitful tactics have a fatal flaw. Eventually, we get wise to the deceit. That's what happened in the last election. That's what's happening now. The far-right is spending millions pushing their anti-hope, anti-change message. (Remember: they like the economy like this and won't stop, even when the rest of us live in tarpaper shacks and pay for the privilege of working.)

And yet the popularity of the Employee Free Choice Act is rising. Every week more legislators sign on as co-sponsors. The Employee Free Choice Act will allow us to get economy get back in balance.  

Rep. Rehberg supports Obama economic plan... 0.37% of it.

by: Equo ne credite

Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 14:30:24 PM MST

Words in Obama's speech to Congress: 5,931

Words in the one sentence Rep. Rehberg could get behind: 22

Percentage of Obama's speech Rep. Rehberg got behind: 0.37%

Americans' approval of the speech: 80%

To put this into context, the last time Bush broke 80% was January of 2002. Only one American soldier had been killed "smoking evildoers" out of their caves in Afghanistan; a position so un-controversial comedian David Cross points out "Nader would have bombed Afghanistan."

The again, it's probably easy to get out of touch with regular folks if you're the 26th richest member of one of the world's most exclusive and powerful clubs.

Congressman Dennis Rehberg: Plagiarist?

by: I can't fight this feeling

Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 19:59:51 PM MST

My guess is that phrase is something House Republicans campe up with, don't ya think? - promoted by Jay Stevens)

On the eve of U.S. House of Representatives taking up the Jobs Bill (again) I took another glance at Congressman Rehberg's reasons to oppose this bill that would create millions of American jobs while providing tax cuts to blue-collar and middle-class families.  So I looked at his (cliché-filled) op-ed.

When I first read it, I glanced over the following part of his op-ed (which appeared in the Gazette
on February 1st):

Long before the party-line vote in the House, I laid out four principles for an economic stimulus package. I wanted the bill to be timely, targeted, temporary and transparent.

Okay...when I read it again today, I wanted to know how 'long before the party-line vote' Rehberg had come up with his alliterative way to save the American economy from Armageddon.  I went to his website and found the press release, it was dated January 26th, two days before his op-ed was sent out.

Under a headline: Rehberg Lays Out Principles for Real Economic Stimulus Package, our Congressman lays out the timely, targeted, temporary and transparent theory.

Wait...I had read something like that before, and not in a Rehberg Press Release.  Why did that sound familiar?  

Google "timely, targeted, temporary and transparent" and you'll quickly figure it out.  The morning of January 26th, the same day Rehberg sent out his 4T's, the USA Today opined:

Lawmakers would do well to remember the Four T's: Every provision should be timely, targeted, temporary and transparent.

So Congressman Rehberg, struggling to come up with an excuse for why he should be against job creation and tax cuts PLAGIARIZED the USA Today?  Did our Congressman read the USA Today, steal their ideas and then send it to Montana newspapers?  Did Montana newspapers publish an op-ed with stolen intellectual property?

Embarrassing...at best.

Rehberg's Recovery Plan: More Help to Rich People

by: Matt Singer

Thu Feb 12, 2009 at 12:34:21 PM MST

Bad news -- it's more crap economics. Let's take a look at "Rehberg's" bad plan, which is strangely located on Rep. Eric Cantor's website.

The details:

Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families:

Rather than a refundable credit based on payroll taxes, House Republicans propose reducing the lowest individual tax rates from 15% to 10% and from 10% to 5%. As a result every taxpaying-family in America will see an immediate increase in their income with an average benefit of $500 in tax relief from the drop in the 10% bracket and $1,200 for the drop in the 15% bracket. A married couple filing jointly could save up to $3,200 a year in taxes.

This is a bad idea in three ways -- first, it cuts taxes most for people least in need of help; second, it puts the most money in the pockets of people with the least propensity to spend (therefore having a lesser stimulative impact); and third, it continues to lock-in the continuing upward spiral of redistribution up the food chain.

Since the '80s low-income and middle-class earners who primarily pay payroll taxes have been subsidizing the general government operations funded (historically) primarily by the progressive income tax. Cutting income tax rates only exacerbates the extent to which working class Americans keep subsidizing the tax bill of the rich.

The Dems, in comparison, are cutting payroll taxes (e.g. FICA), which means working Americans will start seeing their withholdings drop and their regular paychecks get a bit bigger in a few months. Average is going to be something like $25 a month. Not huge, but definitely some help -- and it adds up to hundreds of dollars a year.

Next piece:

Help for America's Small Businesses:

Small businesses (those employing less than 500 individuals) employ about half of all Americans, yet they can be subject to tax rates that siphon away one-third or more of their income. House Republicans propose to allow small business to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income. This will immediately free up funds for small businesses to retain and hire new employees.

The problem is that my sense is that tax rates are not what are limiting production right now. The limit is concern about the economic future. So this tax cut is highly likely to go into savings, awaiting the day when demand returns so that business owners can scale up again.

No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending:

The stimulus proposal pending in Congress includes record levels of government spending that will substantially increase the current deficit. House Republicans are concerned that this level of spending will result in some proposing near-term tax increases on American families. House Republicans are insisting that any stimulus package include a provision precluding any tax increases now or in the future to pay for this new spending. House Republicans believe that any stimulus spending should be paid for by reducing other government spending, not raising taxes.

Ignoring all of that, though, the idea that you can stimulate the economy during a liquidity trap without government spending is just nuts. That's how you do it. It's textbook stuff. Macro 101, really.

Assistance for the Unemployed:

Incredibly, the Federal Government actually imposes income taxes on an individual receiving unemployment benefits. House Republicans propose to make unemployment benefits tax free so that those individuals between jobs can focus on providing for their families. The plan would also extend unemployment benefits from March to December, 2009.

Stabilizing Home Values:

The real-estate market is paralyzed as potential buyers wait on the sidelines waiting for prices to fall even further. This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. In order to encourage responsible buyers to enter the market and stabilize prices, House Republicans propose a home-buyers credit of $7,500 for those buyers who can make a minimum down-payment of 5%.

Let's not reinflate the bubble, eh?

Final Thoughts

I can see where this is half the cost, but it is a really terrible proposal in terms of getting the economy moving again. I'm not sure where their economic predictions are coming from, but I'm guessing they're pretty well cooked.

Matthew Yglesias and Greg Mankiw, a rare man who is both a respected economist and a former Bush White House advisor, have had some back-and-forth lately and Yglesias brings up a smart point at the end. The Democratic Recovery bill is likely not anyone's dream bill. Democrats won't like some of the provisions added by Republicans. I'm not a huge fan of the Collins/Nelson changes, etc.

But there is a difference between understanding this legislation is imperfect and assuming that the alternatives must be good. The Republican plan is terrible. Interestingly, I'm not seeing backing of it by any respected economists of the left or right. More interestingly, the Republican Whip's page that features it doesn't have anything of the sort either.

Rehberg Claiming Montanans Oppose Recovery

by: Matt Singer

Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 12:16:41 PM MST

Time to light up some phones, I suppose:

Washington, DC Office
2448 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC, 20515
phone: (202) 225-3211
fax: (202) 225-5687

Billings District Office
1201 Grand Avenue Suite 1
Billings, MT 59102
phone: (406) 256-1019
fax: (406) 256-4934

Great Falls District Office
105 Smelter Ave. NE
Suite 16
Great Falls, MT 59404
phone: (406) 454-1066
fax: (406) 454-1130

Missoula District Office
301 E Broadway
Suite 2
Missoula, MT 59802
phone: (406) 543-9550
fax: (406) 543-0663

Helena District Office
950 North Montana Ave
Helena, MT 59601
phone: (406) 443-7878
fax: (406) 443-8890

Unless you like recessions, that is.

More BS from Rehberg on Stimulus

by: I can't fight this feeling

Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 20:39:58 PM MST

Rehberg's been defending his vote (in a very defensive fashion) in an oped that's appeared in the Gaz and the Trib (and maybe other newspapers.)  He sent out the editorial last Wednesday, after the vote on the legislation.

In it he says something very interesting.

Dennis Rehberg explaining his no vote on economic recovery, last Wednesday:

We need to jolt our economy back to life like a defibrillator stimulates a heart beat.  That means getting the money where we need it in the short-term, not over multiple years.  Targeted means we need to do it in a way that maximizes the tax dollar's return on investment, by targeting the engine of our economy - jobs created by small business - while avoiding cosmetic projects like resodding the National Mall.

That makes sense...why would we pay for that?

ABC News, last Tuesday, the day before the vote:

On Tuesday evening the House Rules Committee stripped two provisions from the stimulus package: the family planning money that President Obama personally lobbied Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to remove yesterday, and the $200 million to refurbish the National Mall.

I think most can agree that this legislation is the most important that will ever face Congressman Rehberg...so I believe that we deserve an answer.  Is Rehberg purposely misleading Montanans about what was in this legislation?  Or is he such a backbencher that he didn't even know that this wasn't in there?

Either way, I want an answer.

A quick e'mail to Denny Rehberg

by: Heartland1

Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 14:13:58 PM MST

I've read your rationalization for failing to vote in favor of the stimulus package presented to you yesterday, and found it wanting.  I sincerely wish you would not use the expression "Montanan's realize..." when trying to justify your own preconceptions.  Perhaps the term, "Montana millionaires like me, with free goverment health care realize..." would work better when you justify your votes against the interests of the average Montanan.  You should have voted for this stimulus package, and I expect a better response when it comes before you again.  I'll be following the issue closely.

Sincerely,

Jeff Shelden

Electability: Inspiration vs. the Big Machine, and what it could do to Rehberg

by: JC

Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 15:34:11 PM MST

He asserts the following:

Examples abound where the winner of a primary is not the stronger candidate to win a general election. Why? Because the voters who affect the outcomes of general elections are largely different people from those who affect the outcomes of primaries.

He then follows up with a description of who the deciding voters can be:

In general elections, only two groups of people affect the outcome. First are persuadable voters, who always vote in generals, but are switch-hitters. They vote for Republicans in one election and Democrats in the next. And they rarely vote in primaries.

The other group is mobilizable voters. Democratic mobilizables would vote Democratic, but have to be motivated to go to the polls. Sometimes these mobilizable voters can be motivated to vote in a particularly exciting primary. But most don't vote in primaries -- and only rarely in general elections.

He goes on to say that an inspirational candidate (like Obama) can motivate both these voter groups to turn out and vote for him. While other candidates can attract one or the other--persuadables focus on the candidate's qualities, mobilizable voters on the other hand are disengaged, and need to be feel empowered to turn out and vote--Obama is a rare politician that can do both.

Barack Obama's ability to inspire is the quality that makes him such an electable general election candidate. Most candidates are really successful either at convincing persuadables, or motivating mobilizables. Barack Obama can do both

Congressional Transparency on a Map

by: NishaT

Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 09:50:29 AM MST

This trust that lawmakers create in the district extends to who they meet with in Washington. The Punch Clock motto has always been "Members of Congress work for us, and we should know what they do every day." Fenno made this point a different way, "Trust is, however, a fragile relationship. It is not an overnight or one-time thing. It is hard to win; and it must be constantly renewed and rewon. "

In this spirit, Sunlight has decided to help out by creating a trust-building tool. This tool, the Punch Clock Map, is a Google map mashup with corresponding RSS feeds that lets citizens see for themselves just how elected officials spend their time and how they serve their district's needs.

The Punch Clock Map provides a visual representation of the meetings detailed by the eight members of Congress who post their daily schedules online. Currently, that includes: Sen. Max Baucus, Rep. Kathy Castor, Rep. John Doolittle, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Bill Nelson, Rep. Denny Rehberg, Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Sen. Jon Tester. (As Rep. Alcee Hastings posts an abridged weekly schedule, his is not included.)

To let citizens monitor how their elected officials address their district's needs, the maps mark the home-base location of the organization or individual who met with the lawmaker, not where the meeting occurred. If the lawmaker's schedule provides a location, organization or individual (who can be easily identified), those meetings are plotted on the map. (The map does not include internal business meetings, committee hearings, meetings with constituents without easily identifiable addresses or location and meetings with other current members of Congress.)

The Punch Clock Map is an extension of the Punch Clock Campaign, an initiative the Sunlight Foundation began in 2006, which asked all candidates for congressional office - challengers and incumbents - to promise, if elected, to post their daily schedules on the Internet. Inspired by the 60 percent of Americans who 'punch a clock' to account for their time at work, Sunlight asked why members of Congress should not also account for their time to their employers: the citizens they represent.

Building trust is an essential part of the representative - constituent relationship. Posting a schedule helps maintain the trust that lawmakers go through such efforts to maintain and it also helps instill trust in the constituents who are always looking for ways to not trust their lawmakers.
I am the outreach coordinator for the Sunlight Foundation