Well – finally. The Lewis & Clark County Republican Central Committee (LCCRCC) has – after nearly six months – gotten its stuff more or less together and come up with the remaining three candidates to submit to the county commissioners for their ultimate selection to replace Derek Brown.

The first three were selected in January by the secret “conservative caucus” of the LCCRCC (who hold their meetings at one of the local funeral parlors) and the committee at large was thwarted in their attempts to interview or question these candidates:

Pat Faber – owner Aqua Bona Consulting; unsuccessful Republican candidate for Montana legislature in 2010

Gilda Clancy – previous one-term legislator and long-time Right-to-Life activist.

Dan Wickens – self-employed; former campaign volunteer for the wannabe pirate governor, Neil Livingstone.

Following the disaster that was the January meeting, the whole process went … (wait for it)… (wait)…
…to Hell in a Handbasket, with several of the well-qualified candidates withdrawing from consideration. After much angst and an arbitrary delay by the committee leadership, the final four candidates appeared in a segment that had more closely in common with the interview portion of a local beauty contest than a substantive discussion of qualifications for a serious job in the public sector. Good thing the candidates were better than the shallow and largely unenlightening questions they were asked.

Ultimately, these are the final three candidates submitted for Commissioners Hunthausen and Murray to consider.

Steve Bostrom – former pastor of now defunct church. Currently chaplain for city of Helena (who even knew the city HAS a chaplain!) and active in local service club.

Susan Geise – resident of, and librarian for, the community of Augusta. Has served in Montana legislature and been active in Montana Republican politics for over twenty years. She was a “conservative when conservatism wasn’t cool.”

Tom Rolfe – fleet and commercial sales manager of local car dealership for over 20 years, native Montanan, former legislator, active in local church and service clubs, LCCRCC precinct committeeman since 1980’s, active in Republican politics since “fifth grade”.

So now the speculation du jour among the local political junkies begins: Who should Mike and Andy pick? Vote — and then share your thoughts and insights below.

Poll open until midnight Friday, May 17th.

Guest post by Loki

Well Senator Baucus saw the light at the end of the tunnel… and it was Obamacare (partially authored by Baucus) speeding at him for an inevitable catastrophe. With no way to escape he abandoned ship as fast as liberals usually abandon ship. While of course taking no blame for actually sinking the ship.

This left the position of senator open game for the next election. The ensuing Democrat scramble looked like the Oklahoma land rush. Every Democrat party member announced their intention to run for the office. It was almost like they thought the job was a guaranteed payday with benefits… well ok it is.

Of course the media had to announce their candidate Brian Schweitzer. They quickly gathered at his feet salivating while asking his intentions, subtlety showing their intentions of full support for his campaign by laying on their backs wagging their tails hoping for a belly rug.

But Schweitzer did not stand for the occasion and gracefully acknowledge his acceptance of their adorations. For Brian was lacking in support. Not the support of the media or the Democrat party but of the Unions.

You see Brian upset the Unions with his blatant display of capitalism with the Stillwater Mining takeover. What you say, our ex-governor is not only a capitalist but also a destroyer of the environment. Well yes… yes he is.

But that didn’t stop the unions or the Democrats from showing their support of this board member who supports the rape of the land (liberal viewpoint of mine owners).

We really need to invent new words for sycophants and hypocrisy. Because they don’t really describe how low the liberals have gone in their support of Schweitzer.

It will be a tough race. I hope we pick someone competent to run against whichever extremist liberal runs for the senate.

Guest post by Loki

By now we are pretty familiar with the Tsarnaev family. We know that the father and mother sought refugee status in the USA and brought their two children with them.

We know that a lot of questions are being asked and the Obama administration is doing their best to cover their collective asses. But I have a few questions that are not being asked by the media that I think should be answered.

• If Dagestan was so terrible why did the parents go back?
• If the USA was so terrible that the parents left why did the leave their children in such a horrible country?
• Did the parents ever hold a legitimate job or were they always on welfare?
• How did any of them get the money to make these trips back and forth to Dagestan?
• Did the family ever plan on becoming American citizens or was their plan always to eventually go back?
• If their plan was always to go back then why did they come here in the first place?
• Is lax revue of refugees being used to infiltrate America?
• Were any of the family registered to vote and with which party did they identify?

So far questions that are unanswered are all we have. But will there ever by any answers or will this be just another Bengasi cover up.

We know the Justice Department under Holder ruined the questioning of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev by Mirandizing him only 16 hours into the 48 hour limit and without telling the FBI in advance. What other road blocks will they throw up to cover their asses? And will they be able to delay answers till after the 2014 election?

Guest post by Loki

Well I was reading about how the liberals were celebrating Hitler’s birthday (April 20th) in Colorado this week. Oh wait, that was wrong, conservatives were supposed to be celebrating when they bombed the marathon in Boston. Or at least that was what the liberals and media talking heads were hoping. Well hoping is not exactly right. They were trying to blame the bombing on tax day, Hitler’s birthday, Waco, Timothy McVeigh… well anything that they falsely associate conservatives with. ‘Til of course the actual bombers were revealed to be ‘peace’ loving Muslim terrorists.

Anyway back to the narrative, the liberals were celebrating pot legalization ‘On a dark and stormy night’, no wait, it was the middle of the day. When the ‘peaceful’ rally was disrupted by gunfire. At least three were wounded. Which is like a gazillion times more than have ever been wounded by gunfire at those ‘evil hate filled’ Tea Party rallies.

Which just confuses me, I thought the meme was that pot smokers were peaceful? They wouldn’t be lying about that would they?

I wonder how long it will be before the ‘peace loving’ pot addicts will start making weekly trips to Montana because of our relative closeness. How many Montana addicts will be making the drive to Colorado to load up the minivan and return to Montana to become dealers to support their habits? Lots I’m betting. Spreading their ‘peaceful’ ways into out schools and society.

I will now fear public transportation and worry how my food is being prepared in the local restaurants and fast food joints. I will also have to avoid ‘peaceful’ pot rallies and go to those dangerous Tea Party rallies… which are much safer.

p.s. I have several pot heads in the family. Their world revolves around pot, booze and other related drugs. So before you liberals start with the anecdotal examples don’t bother. I hate to be bored.

Interesting side note. When I searched for a picture to go with this story I looked for “Pot sellers”, and the liberal Google site returned pictures of people selling clay pots. So lame.

Guest post by Loki

I could never understand liberal’s love of dictators and communist. For some reason they seem to gravitate to some of the worst dregs of the world. I am reminded of this because of the recent trip of Jay Z and Beyonce to Cuba.

But it is not just the trip to Cuba. Jay Z also chose to wear a “T” shirt with a picture of Che Guevara on it. Jay Z must be totally ignorant of Guevara’s history and his dislike of black people.

For those a bit younger who were not taught in school Guevara was the henchman for Fidel Castro. It is reported that he relished his position as head of the execution squads to kill all those who opposed Castro and capitalists. Trials were not considered a prerequisite to the executions. Women and children were also killed.

Jay Z is both a capitalist and black. Guevara would have executed him without a trial.

My only thought is that Jay Z being a deluded liberal thinks that he would be part of the ruling class because of his compassion.

It is sad that Jay Z and Guevara inspire today’s terrorists. Boston bomber quoted Jay Z the day after the bombing. “Ain’t no love in the heart of the city…”

Guest post by Loki

I have noticed that the gun control advocates have been using the limits to the 1st amendment to justify limits of the 2nd amendment.

But the comparison are not equal and are like comparing apples to cabbage, even more lame than comparing apples to oranges. Examples below. Post others if you think of them.

Limit on free speech, you can’t yell fire in a theater. Yes, but you actually have to yell fire first, we don’t ban free speech before you commit the crime. Plus if you are found guilty of yelling fire in a theater you retain your right to free speech while in prison and after your release.

You can’t slander or libel someone. Well you can’t shoot or shoot at someone either. But those are felonies and slander and libel are civil laws. Not even an equal comparison. Plus if you slander or libel someone they don’t take away your free speech. Shoot at someone and they take away your rights to guns forever.

Free speech does not come with prerequisites. You don’t have to have a background check to see if you are sane or intelligent enough to speak. Joe Biden is a perfect example of lack of checks.

Free speech does not have limits on how fast you can talk or how fast you type or how much you talk. You can get the fastest computer and put out your words with no limits. Guns… not so much.

Free speech allows the public to take advantage of the newest technologies with no restrictions. New gun technology has to be checked before allowing public use.

You can take free speech with you into a bank, a church, a courthouse, on a plane or anywhere else you please.

You can disrupt others trying to exercise their rights to free speech using your rights to free speech without repercussion on any campus in the country. Just ask Ann Coulter how many times she has been yelled at while speaking.

If you rob a bank you keep your rights to free speech. But they take your guns away. But they also take your guns away for embezzlement, fraud, felony DUI, or any other felony.

You can take your free speech across state lines with no problem. Take your guns across state lines and you might be in trouble.

There are no limits to free speech because it might be scary. They want to limit “assault weapons” because they look scary.

Guest Post by Loki

We keep hearing about how the Republicans are waging a war on women. Bullsh*t.

It is the Democrats. They realized that young single women tend to vote Democrat and older married women tend to vote Republican. That was when they figured out that dependent women relied on the government while married women relied on their husbands.

So first they had to create a permanent single women voting bloc. They told women that they didn’t need men. They could have it all. They could have a job, have children and never get married. Marriage was a tired old religious belief that made women serfs to their husbands. But it is nearly impossible to have a job and children without a spouse. The women needed government assistance. But once they were on government assistance they found it was nearly impossible to stop. By then the government was providing them food, housing and medical. And if they tried to rejoin the workforce they lost all their support. The men realized they couldn’t afford to marry women on government assistance because of the massive cost of taking on a family. Besides they could have all of the benefits without the responsibility and if the woman got pregnant the government would take care of that problem.

Don’t believe me. Look at the “The Life of Julia” the government put out. A man is not a part of her life (which makes me wonder how she has children). The government becomes the titular head of the household and the woman supports the government because she is now dependent on government support. A wicked circle.

Now that is the real war on women, enslavement for votes and keeping them enslaved in fear of the government not being there for support.

This also tends to explain minorities voting Democrat hoping for a future and instead getting lifelong dependence.

Guest post by Loki

I’m a bit late with this opinion.

Recently the Obama News Network has been pushing a poll on the infamous Obamacare. When people were asked about each part of Obamacare separately, i.e., no upper limits, children on insurance till they qualify for Medicare (or something like that) that people were in favor of the parts.

That is about as silly as sh*t and as obvious as the media’s support of President Obama. Because the next half of the question is never asked. Would you also like your children to live in a bankrupt country paying huge taxes to pay for your current healthcare? Would you like to convert the country to European socialism? Would you like to make mediocrity the life long goal for your children?

The poll is as silly as going to a school ground and asking all the little boys and girls if they would like a pony. Of course they would. But they don’t have to feed the hay-burners, their parents get that bill. There is the bait, the Obamacare individual parts and the switch, foisting the payment into the future and your children. It is like going to the car dealership and getting your hearts desire and not asking about payments and signing your children’s name to the contract.

Just another example of the collusion between the President and the media. And the simplistic greed of the public.

Guest post by Loki

I was listening to KBLL radio the other day when they had a story from ABC news on how Mark Kelly (Gabby Gifford’s husband) tried to save a baby seal from a dog. The ABC story was calling him a hero. But I know that KBLL and ABC news are far left liberals. So I did further investigation on the internet.

I found out that the dog was actually a family pet of the Kelly family. So I dug deeper and actually found the original ABC story before they found out who was the owner of the dog. The following is their original story when they thought the owner was a conservative gun owner. Trust me☺. I wouldn’t make a story up like ABC news or fawn over it like KBLL radio.

Original ABC news story;

A tragedy struck the beaches of Laguna Beach today. A know gun nut and assault weapon owner was with his extremist daughter on Laguna Beach. The daughter owns a dog known to be of a vicious nature was walking the dog on the beach endangering innocent sunbathers and their children. The dog attacked a seal pup innocently lying on the beach sunning itself. Unconfirmed reports say that the daughter of the gun nut purposely turned the dog loose. Whatever the case, the result was that the dog viciously and mercilessly attacked the seal pup leading to its painful death. The father of the daughter immediately helped his daughter remove the dog from the scene of this vicious and unprovoked attack. The owner of this lethal dog and her unknown father have as yet been identified.

And that is how the news media would spin the truth for conservatives. Honest.

Ok – I know many nouveau conservatives have a visceral reaction to the word “compromise” but I have a news flash for you – COMPROMISE – is how governing happens. Smart compromise allows all parties to leave the negotiation without feeling like they’ve been taken to the cleaners. Strategic compromise takes the concept to a whole ‘nuther level that leaves the other guy accepting what he asked for, but maybe in not quite the way he anticipated receiving it.

Let me share an example of how this might work as the Montana Senate grapples with HB2. One of the most controversial issues facing the Republican majority is the Democrats’ passionate commitment to the Title X funding for women’s healthcare. Because the current proposal calls for the money to go to Planned Parenthood, the fiscal and social conservatives are united in their equally passionate opposition to the idea. Which means that the Republicans can win this struggle – but they would end up being vulnerable to the Democrats’ “War on Women” charge – which, as we saw last November, is a fairly potent weapon. This is shaping up to be THE issue that could blow up the whole session.

The requested appropriation is for $4.5 million dollars for the biennium to fund such things as contraception, mammograms, PAP tests, and other “female plumbing” care. This amounts to about $35 per year for the 66,000 Montana women who currently live below the poverty level. The liberals have crossed their hearts – hope to die, stick a needle in my eye – that not one penny will be spent for abortions. But the Pro-Life lobby just has a real problem believing that money sent to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider will only be used for approved services.

I suggest the Republicans agree to fund the full amount, but offer it in the form of vouchers issued directly to eligible women that can be redeemed for allowable services or products through county health departments, licensed physicians, or pharmacies. This has the added benefit of providing this important care to women all over the state – not just those in Billings, Great Falls, Missoula, and Helena where PP is located.

Seems pretty much a win-win proposition to me. The Republican majority gives the Democrat minority the full amount they’re asking for, but changes the recipient from an organization the conservative voters generally find distasteful to the actual persons who need the assistance and will use the funding only for the uses intended.

Are the Democrats so tied to Planned Parenthood that they can walk away from millions of dollars in funding for women’s healthcare? Would the governor be willing to veto that line item?

Might be worth finding out…