11/2/2006
Rasmussen Continues to Say 4 Point Race
by Matt Singer @ 1:35 pm.
Rasmussen has a new poll (for members only) that is apparently Tester up by 4 — 50-46. Rasmussen has a better track record than Zogby. This is essentially unchanged from the last Rasmussen poll, which was Tester 51-47.
This is all about turnout.
| Comments (3) | Permanent Link | Categories: elections, '06, Front Page |
Tester Way Up in Early Vote
by Matt Singer @ 11:18 am.
I had a hunch this would be the case. An internal Tester poll has the campaign way up among early voters. Early voters will comprise as much as 1/3 of the electorate in some counties. Most importantly — this makes the GOTV operation a whole Hell of a lot easier on Election Day for the Dems.
I voted early (hence the “lapel sticker” up above). If you haven’t yet, get down to your county courthouse. That way, on Election Day, you can focus on getting other voters to the polls and keep lines short for your fellow citizens.
| Comments (3) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Productivity Growth Stops?
by Matt Singer @ 11:01 am.
Yeesh. Talk about bad news. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is saying productivity growth was equal to zero last quarter. Put another way: we’re not increasing more for the same amount of resources.
Productivity growth is the only true form of long-term economic growth. It’s also one of the big goals of supply-side economics: give entrepreneurs more resources to invest and they’ll manage to increase productivity. Given that we’re not basically six years into a massive supply-side policy and productivity has stopped growing, we may want to try another approach.
Paul Krugman offers some thoughts on the economy. Ezra was apparently present for the roundtable where Krugman talked and said that there was close to unanimity among the panelists that a recession is coming and we can’t do a damn thing about it.
Also worth keeping in mind? For most of the past six years, productivity gains have been significant. Despite those gains, typical worker wages have not increased. So even as things were getting better, things were stagnant for the typical American (the productivity gains went to profits and wealthy shareholders). Now that things are stagnant for the country (assuming BLS’s quarterly calculations end up being correct), what’s going to happen to the typical worker?
| Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Categories: economic, Front Page |
Senate Race: A 1 Point Margin?
by Matt Singer @ 10:23 am.
Zogby is polling it as a 1-point race: Tester leading 47-46. The last poll Zogby did had it as 46-42. That was in early October. Zogby’s been polling it closer than most, but this just goes to show: this is a damn close race.
Get to work.
| Comments (7) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Links to the linker…
by Shane Mason @ 10:20 am.
Since Jay spends so much time putting together those great links pages, I am afraid that no one is linking to some of his better work. He has a couple of posts recently that are must reads.
Jay talks about the conservative thought police in an interesting piece about recent trends from the right. He questions the Billings Gazette’s endorsement of Dennis Rehberg and discusses their endorsement of Jon Tester. Not afraid of anything, he has a good piece on the ultra-rich sticking it to the regular-rich. Check them all out.
| Comments (1) | Permanent Link | Categories: cultural, food, arts |
11/1/2006
Max Does the Right Thing. Thanks.
by Shane Mason @ 11:14 pm.
I pointed out how sleazy it is that Burns has been trying to piggy back on Max Baucus’s popularity. He has been pulling a page from the Rehberg playbook and campaigning as a democrat, using Baucus’s record and hiding his own. Following the radio ad that ran in the Butte area disputing Burns’s claims, Tester is now running a television ad where Max sets the record straight. Matt McKenna says the ad will be running statewide and
you would have to be under a large rock in a deep hole not to see this ad over the next week
In truth, I think that the ad is very powerful. See for yourself.
| Comments (4) | Permanent Link | Categories: political, montana, Conrad Burns, elections, '06, dickhead |
Schadenfreude
by Matt Singer @ 10:06 pm.
Voter fraud at the highest levels of the rightwing?
Ann Coulter going to prison for five years?
That’s a guilty pleasure I can live with.
| Comments (5) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Senate Online Poll, Please Vote
by Shane Mason @ 3:00 pm.
Quick. Go to the Billings Gazette and vote for the senator of your choice. It is right on the front page. The current results are:
Conrad Burns 57%
Jon Tester 40%
Stan Jones 2%
with about 25,000 votes.
| Comments (13) | Permanent Link | Categories: political, elections, '06 |
In Other News…
by V @ 10:58 am.
This article is too funny not to write about. I will only give you the headline.
| Comments (12) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Burns is Embarrassing Us Again…
by Shane Mason @ 10:15 am.
Burns once again made the state of Montana look stupid in the national spotlight. This time it was the Daily Show. They showed clips from the Helena debate where Tester claimed there was no plan in Iraq and Burns responded that there was a plan, only it was a secret plan. Stewart looked completely bemused and thanked Burns for protecting Bush’s super secret plan that was so secret he was not even telling the Army about it…
Stewart notes that a vote for Jon Tester is a vote for blowing Bush’s elaborate super secret plan…
Video of the debate
See the whole episode at Comedy Central.
UPDATE: Touchstone let us know in the comments that the video is up at Crooks and Liars.
| Comments (6) | Permanent Link | Categories: political, montana, Conrad Burns, dickhead |
The Case for Tester
by Matt Singer @ 9:31 am.
The Billings Gazette has endorsed Jon Tester in a very solid piece:
In January 2004, as a leader of Montana Democrats, state Sen. Jon Tester held a press conference at which he advocated increased worker training, responsible development of natural resources, expanded employee health care and better funding for education.
As they point out, Tester led the Montana Dems to do precisely that as President of the Montana Senate. The Gazette reviews a bunch of Tester’s record, basically concluding that someone who lived up to his promises in Montana is more likely to be trusted than Conrad Burns. Great closing, too:
Tester has pledged that, if elected to the U.S. Senate, he will adhere to stricter ethical standards than Congress requires in reporting and refusing lobbyist gifts. Contrast that with Burns’ decision to celebrate his 71st birthday with a $2,000-per-person party at a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm. Or his choice in September to take the Vonage private jet from D.C. to Bigfork to his annual golf tournament. Nothing illegal in either case, but is that the image Montanans want their senator to present?For those Montanans who are appalled at the burgeoning national debt, concerned about U.S. foreign policy, alarmed that today’s spending will be paid for by our children and grandchildren and fed up with business as usual in Washington, D.C., Tester is a fresh alternative. Those who want change have an intelligent, hardworking, common-sense choice in voting for Jon Tester.
That’s two editorial boards coming down for Tester. Where will the rest cast their lot?
Change or more of the same?
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: democrats, elections, '06, Front Page |
A Clarification
by Matt Singer @ 9:05 am.
Wow, I’m walking backwards a lot today. When I wrote yesterday that rumors had PETA endorsing Burns, it was a joke. PETA doesn’t do political endorsements and they probably wouldn’t endorse Burns.
I just found it pretty humorous that Erik Iverson’s knickers were in an uproar over a guy slaughtering a few cattle for his neighbors when state inspectors didn’t have a problem with it.
| Comments (3) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
An Apology
by Matt Singer @ 8:47 am.
I owe John Adams an apology. Writing recently, my words implied that John Adams is not to be trusted. I actually was trying to make a bigger point that muckraking journalism is not always the best way of finding the truth and that point can be made, but to imply that John specifically lies was not my intent and it wasn’t fair. It was sloppiness in writing (which happens when you’re writing quickly and with no editor — my bad).
Muckraking journalism is good. It raises questions that need to be raised. It brings out viewpoints that otherwise would often be quiet. But muckraking journalism can also make targets of the pieces feel that their side won’t be heard fairly and they decline to cooperate for that reason.
TPMMuckraker.com does a great service for breaking and explaining scandals, but they’re not the place I’d go for the “balanced” journalism perspective.
Similarly, in Montana, John Adams has written two good muckraking pieces — one on John Morrison, one on Walt Schweitzer — but there’s a reason why neither Morrison nor Schweitzer was especially eager to go on record. It’s because muckraking can also appear to be “hit piece” journalism.
Now, I berate the media pretty regularly for the “he-said she-said” style of journalism and Adams’ style, thankfully, is a break with that. The fact that the style itself lends to being excluded from hallways of power and can often, necessarily, omit the perspectives of the powerful should not be held against John specifically. And he certainly shouldn’t be accused, even implicitly, of lying.
In the opening of A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn admits that his history book is not “balanced” — that it is a work focusing on people’s movements, the fight of racial minorities, of organized labor’s rise, and of the plight of lower classes. The book, though, fits insider a larger context of studies of history that Zinn argued, rightfully, focused too much on political leaders and not enough on people.
We’ve got quite a few journalists (including some pretty good ones) writing the day-to-day of the people in power in this state. It’s good we’ve got a muckraker, too.
| Comments (14) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
They Are The Dividers…
by Shane Mason @ 12:00 am.
President Bush will be here later this week to stump for Conrad Burns. Is he coming here as the decider? The uniter? No, he coming as the divider. Here is a preview from speeches he has made this week:
“When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer? It’s just say no. When it come to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats’ answer Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer? Just say no. When it comes to trying terrorists, what’s the Democrats’ answer. Just say no.”
He is not saying ‘the Republican plan to keep America safe is better than the Democrats’. What he is saying here is that we want the terroris to succeed. We want to see American lives lost. This isn’t how we work together, this is how we marginalize 50% of the American population.
“The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses.”
I could point out that with over 100 Americans killed in Iraq this month, his approach to Iraq is working out really poorly. I am not saying that he wants us to fail. I am simply pointing out that he is incapable of a coherent strategy. There is a difference here. I am not questioning his motivation as he questions all democrats.
You can say that my ideas are wrong and I will have an active and spirited debate with you on that. However, if you question my motivations or patriotism then the debate is off the table and a fight is on the table. Too often that is what it comes down to from both sides and it is simply not OK. We have heard it time and again from this president and Conrad Burns. I hear it echoed here from thoughtless commenters “The democrats want us to fail in Iraq“. No, we don’t want to see people die. We don’t want to hear the death tolls everyday. If that was our goal we would not be trying to force a strategy, we would let Bush’s ’secret’ plan continue. Failure is where that secret plan is headed.
We want America to succeed with its values intact: the values of acceptance, equality and all the right granted us in the constitution. We want us to be the nation that works together to solve it’s problems. We don’t want to be a country that marginalizes 50% of it’s population. We want to be a country called The United States of America. We are done with dividers, we want uniters. We are taking our country back and we are starting on Tuesday.
| Comments (14) | Permanent Link | Categories: political, montana, republicans, ideologues, Conrad Burns, elections, '06, dickhead |
10/31/2006
Trick-or-Vote Party Tonight - Missoula
by Matt Singer @ 11:07 am.
The best Halloween Party of the night is going to be Forward Montana’s Trick-or-Vote celebration.
| Comments (9) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Natural Tightening v. Momentum
by Matt Singer @ 9:41 am.
Hotline has an interesting post on the subject. They note that the NRSC is, in fact, coming back to play in Montana. So does Burns have momentum or a natural tightening?
My own gut was that while Burns appeared stalled at 42 or 43, that couldn’t last forever. Democratic challengers just don’t win in Montana at the top-of-the-ticket (U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and Governor). We just don’t. Perhaps Jon (now writing at the Montana Main Street blog) could fill us in down in the comments on the last time this has happened (Jon wrote a book on the history of Montana politics). But it’s been a very, very long time.
So Burns clearly was not going to finish the race at 42 with Tester pulling 56 or whatever. That just was never going to happen whoever the candidate was.
A much more likely scenario is akin to the 2004 Governor’s race, which ended up a four point race with Brian “70 percent” Schweitzer squeaking out just about 50%. From day one, this was going to be a close race. Commenters at dKos have been wondering why this isn’t in the bag yet. All I can say is “Welcome to Montana.”
I think we’re just seeing some natural tightening. But we’ve got two of the most insane field operations in the country here. We’ve got both political parties and both campaigns on air. Independent expenditures are just flying. (Rumor has it that Burns secured the PETA endorsement after word emerged that Tester slaughters livestock.)
We’ll see who fights this one out to a victory.
| Comments (16) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Justice in America
by V @ 9:37 am.
Salon reports on a serious problem in the appointment of American justices and campaign finance.
At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show.
Why is this a problem?
For one, it is bad for justice. One of the driving forces in campaign finance is a decision by the Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. If campaign donations made to key members of the Judiciary Committee can buy a judgeship then we have a serious justice problem. If, too, the judges are the deciders of the bounds of political speech made by money, then their donations make any rulings on the subject suspect.
Far be it for me to quash the political free speech of persons who want to be judges, but I do think that they should have the good sense to stop themselves.
On the other hand, this article is not proof positive of favoritism for funds. It does raise the question and shed some uncomfortable light on the judiciary. Like so many modern questions about the judiciary, this is one of appearance and not necessarily actuality. Even if the judges were not part of a pay-to-play scheme to control the judiciary, these donations leave an impression that there might be such a scheme, and that these judges might be a part of it.
The integrity of the judiciary is too important to be tarnished in this way. We could ask for no greater proof than the recent accusations of activist judges, and the responses from virulent, anti-judge mobs. These jurists should know that the integrity is too important, and this more than anything makes me wonder if they are really qualified to sit on the bench at all.
The article is generally good, and it makes a lot of interesting points. Give it a read.
| Comments (2) | Permanent Link | Categories: law, Front Page |
Some Thoughts from Big Sandy
by Matt Singer @ 9:09 am.
Apparently someone from Big Sandy is a mite bit disgusted with neighbors who have decided to throw “a good man…under the bus in favor a man who’s not even from Montana.”
Iverson is, of course, parroting this shit. It’s pretty obnoxious. Looking at election results, it’s pretty plain that a solid third of Jon’s district voted against him. And it’s a die-hard Republican district. So now these dicks are portraying their political beliefs as the beliefs of their entire town.
It really couldn’t be further from the truth. Tester won that district cause most people supported him. I’m guessing he’ll run stronger in his home district than most Dems do and this person writing says most of Big Sandy supports him. For any Dem, that’s a pretty big victory.
| Comments (3) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Abramoff Had “Implicit Control Over Mr. Burns”
by Matt Singer @ 9:04 am.
That’s according to a friend of Jack Abramoff who says that Burns’ staff would have “starved to death” without Abramoff’s restaurant.
Iverson downplays all of this saying no one has any reason to believe an Abramoff crony. I suppose that rules out trusting Abramoff, this guy, and Burns.
But here’s the real thing: What would be this dude’s motivation to lie about Burns and his staff? We already know that they ate at Signature’s a lot. That’s been reported. We already know that they carried a lot of water for Abramoff. That’s been reported. We already know there’s a federal investigation. That’s been reported.
This guy isn’t some crazy man making things up. He was apparently friends with a bad dude, but that doesn’t make everything he says a lie, any more than it’d be fair for me to claim that Shawn “Former Burns Staffer Now Pleading the 5th” Vasell always lies.
| Comments (0) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
Jon Tester is a Very Bad Man
by Matt Singer @ 8:48 am.
He butchered meat for his neighbors without a license.
Excuse me. That should have been:HE BUTCHERED MEAT FOR HIS NEIGHBORS WITHOUT A LICENSE! That’s apparently Lee’s big scoop. Tester committed a misdemeanor, repeatedly talked to the relevant meat inspectors (proven by state records), and was never cited.
Hmm…
I didn’t know whether to give a damn about this or not, so I went to check out Sarpy Sam. He’s a good source, cause he doesn’t really like Jon, but he’s also the most regular commentator on farm and ranch issues I know of. Here’s his take:
Sorry, I might not be a fan of Tester but this is nothing. One Neighbor helping out others, even if money changed hands, is the Montana way of doing things and is no big deal. Being visited by inspectors and never being ticketed again is not a surprise. Sounds like the way I am used to things being done in Montana. The only weird thing here is Jon’s decision to close down the business when he ran for State Senate. Being as a Montana legislator is a part time job, they meet for 90 days every other year and get paid peanuts, you would think he could be able to keep it open. Did he know he was breaking the law and that was the reason for getting out of the buisness? I doubt it, but it’s still curious.
My own guess is that shutting it down when he was running because something needed to go to create time to be on the doors. A Dem doesn’t win where Jon won without putting in a lot of work in the campaign. From that time forward, Jon ended up in leadership pretty quickly and spent a lot of time traveling the state. Shutting down the small butchering business made more sense than shutting down any other income producing portion of the operation.
Still, this is apparently what they got. A misdemeanor that even the state doesn’t see a need in enforcing.
I’d like to see the ad, though:
NARRATOR: “Jon Tester illegally slaughtered innocent cows on his property without a license.”
ACTOR 1 (wearing meat inspector costume): “Put down the bolt gun and step away from the animal.”
ACTOR 2 (wearing PETA buttons): “He’s just such a horrible man. I’m voting Burns this year.”
Sigh…
| Comments (5) | Permanent Link | Categories: Front Page |
— Next Page »
