It’s enough to gag a maggot.
The Democrats and their trusty sidekick, reporter Jennifer McKee, who, I am absolutely sure, are totally committed to protecting their own Constitutional rights such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press, are apparently totally comfortable sacrificing the rights of anybody they disagree with. Like that pesky little thingy in the – what – Fifth Amendment? – that sorta says something to the effect that in this country a person is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty.
They’ve hoped, they’ve dreamed, they’ve fantisized even – that Conrad Burns would be indicted over the Abramoff scandals. And here it is – the last few weeks of the campaign and the DOJ has let them down. Senator Burns is NOT a target of any investigation. Dang it. They just can’t catch a break. Poor babies.
They clutch desperately to their last shred of hope – the “testimony” of that scoundrel and convicted felon, Jack Abramoff, himself. In a much touted Vanity Fair article, Abramoff bragged about his complete access to the Senator. How pathetic! These deluded souls have hitched their wagons to the rantings of a narcissistic, self-agrandizing liar. Remember all those times Abramoff was quoted about his extensive personal ties to the President? And it turned out that he had spent – oh, about forty-five minutes total – at the White House over a period of about four years. And always at those intimate little functions for five hundred or so of the President’s nearest and dearest friends. Might the guy have a bit of tendancy to hyperbole? Ya’ think?
Yet Jim Ferrell and his buddies continue to beat the dead horse. So what if Conrad isn’t a target? They’ll just have Jennifer McKee drag out a few dusty tricks from the School of Yellow Journalism (her alma mater?) and – presto – there’s a story in the newspaper* about an “article in a magazine” quoting “anonymous sources” claiming that “someone in the Justice Department” is investigating whether Senator Burns is a “subject” of an investigation.
There’s less substance in that story than in a Paris Hilton conversation on molecular biology! Get over it already! There is no “there” there.
To be perfectly candid, I don’t understand the strategy with this tactic. The people who are buying into it are already anti-Burns – no new votes in that camp. The true undecided voters out there are weighing all this blather about Abramoff against the stories about Jon Tester going to San Francisco and Washington DC to hob-nob with and raise money from the elite left-wing liberal lobbyists. The smart ones have figured out that Tester will be beholden to the liberals who are funding his campaign, and will base his votes on how THEY feel about gun control, abortion, immigration, national security, the war on terror, and taxation. Given the basic conservatism of the Montana voter, I wouldn’t want to have the spotlight on Tester’s political allies and new best friends if I were running his campaign.
As much as the democrats hate to let go of it, the Abramoff controversy is more fiction and wishful thinking than fact. But the other side of the coin – the funding from the likes of George Sorros, and the special interest groups and PACs of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, NARAL, and Hollywood – is a reality for Jon Tester. Just wait until the next campaign finance reports come out!
At that point Jon is going to think his promise to kill the Patriot Act was the high point in his campagn.
*BTW – This “story” appears almost verbatim on the Montana democrat party website without attribution to Ms. McKee. So who’s plagerizing whom?
Neat blog. If you get tired of running solo drop me an email.
Very nice. A bit wordy but ready made for the opinion page in the IR.
Please write more often, daily would be great but every couple of days would be good.
My comment was censored. Neat blog.
The purpose of the site is not to provide another outlet for spewing ordinary political venom – got enough of those. I’m looking for essays with literary merit and possibly a new angle on a subject. I’ll be more than happy to not only publish them – but also feature them as content in the “Other Handbasket” on this site.
In the meantime, sorry if I hurt your feelings, but I refer you to my first post and quote, “It’s good to be Queen!”
No, but he is the SUBJECT of investigation. Don’t play your readers and the people of Montana for fools. They know when something is not right; Burns’s relationship with Jack Abromoff was just not right. To say Burn’s is not the TARGET of an invesigation is just using Clintonian semantics as a weapon.
IF this is true, that you are beholden to moeny you get from out of state, then the voters know who to support. I’ll show you again:
Conrad Burns: 78% out of state
Jon Tester: 47% out of state
You should consider how weak your horse is on an issue before you try and use it to attack the other guy.
Given the prices at the pump, should we place the spotlight on Burns’s best friends? The oil comapanies?
Again, you should not attack on an issue that your own candidate is super weak on:
Conrad Burns: PAC Contributions 37%
Jon Tester: Pac Contributions 12%
When the next funding cycle comes out it will show the same, Burn’s is bought and paid for by out of state interests.
It is interesting to note that a large number of those PACs giving to Burns are big oil, big energy, big tobacco and big wacko (Roy Bunt’s Rely On Your Beliefs).
Oh Shane! I just don’t know where to start. Let me guess – you are between 18 – 29 and the product of the public education system. I can tell because you obviously have a problem with grasping the concepts in an essay.
For example, I was not talking about out of state money as an influence on government per se. The point I was making – and that many of my readers seemed to understand – is that voters can look to the supporters – whether in-state, out-of-state, extra-terrestrial, or whatever – of a candidate to determine if he is likely to support the issues the voter supports. Jon Tester’s supporters are the left-wing extremists who support higher taxes, abortion, gay rights, illegal immigrants, constitutional rights for terrorists, taking “God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The majority of Montana voters don’t support those positions. Jon keeps trying to convince us that he reflects the values of the average Montanan. Maybe he means the ones who run around in spiked leather jackets, steel-toed boots, multiple facial and body piercings, greasy, spiked dyed-black hair and other Goth accessories, like his son! Trust me – that’s a bit -ummm – below average!
One other point that hopefully you’ll have the brain-power to comprehend – Conrad Burns has NOT been identified by the DOJ as a TARGET or a SUBJECT of an investigation. No matter how many times you cross your fingers and squinch your eyes shut, you can’t make that be true. Sorry.
You’ll have to try to read my upcoming post about lobbyists – the potential education value will be enormous for you.
I am actually 33 and very well educated. A quick google search would have told you that, if you were half as smart as you like to believe.
So. it is really funny that you keep making my point for me:
So, we can deduce that Conrad is likely to support big oil and big energy? Oh my! You are right!
Everything that you say bad about Tester, I show you how Conrad is worse. I like your strategy though, just say ‘You didn’t get it’ and that dismiss any counter argument. The simple fact is, you are wrong. Tester is ahead in the polls by seven points and it is going to be even worse on election day.
Also, good idea to align yourself with the racists over at WRiM.
Dead blog.
I will let my readers decide the quality of your education – starting with the grammar and spelling. Perhaps not your best subjects? Ah, well.
If Shane doesn’t like your blog, then you must have a good one. Welcome to the Montana blog community.
Note that Shane did not refute your point that Tester will be on the side of the “left-wing extremists who support higher taxes, abortion, gay rights, illegal immigrants, constitutional rights for terrorists, taking “God†out of the Pledge of Allegiance. “. All he could do was use the old oil companies whine. Which way is the price of gas going Shane? I also suppose you can prove that oil companies have given direct contributions to Burns? If you can, I believe you’d have a story there. Corporate contributions are illegal. Individual contributions by people wanting someone friendly to them remaining employed are not.
I have enjoyed reading your blog. Please continue the writing. It tickles me so when Mason and company get fired up over someone else’s opinion. I attended the (GASP) Great Falls Gunshow over this past weekend. Senator Burns had a table inside and was conversing with attendees. Tester on the other hand had several people in the parking lot putting paper under wiper blades. I do not know where he found these folks, but I got a little excited when I saw a derelict looking person handling my vehicle. When I asked him what he was doing, he turned and walked away without putting the propoganda under my wiper blade. When I asked him for a copy he kept walking. I looked at the paper on the vehicle next to mine and it was Tester’s so called stance on “anti-gun-control”.
I have had the gun control conversation with Jon Tester on several occasions. The last time over a beer in Haps. Jon Tester supports all forms of gun control. Don’t let him tell you any different.
If Shane doesn’t like the blog it is a winner.
His hatred of capitalism is also apparent in his posts. I’m sure his support of democrats is to help bring about a socialist USA.
I also like how he and his fellow liberals completly ignore (along with the MSM) that democrats also took money from Abramhof.
It’s coming. Just like, believe it or not, a few folks knew that electing monkey boy as president would lead to disaster. Burns isn’t giving 6 figures to his lawyer for a latte. The man can barely get out a complete sentence, but hey, I guess that’s presidential material now.
If ya’ll had trouble reading that, paste it over a Nascar and maybe that will help.
Adios,
Californiamontanacan
You make fun of Shane’s spelling and in your “essay” you use these words:
“fantisized,” “self-agrandizing” and “plagerizing.” To quote you, “How pathetic.”
My bad. I stand corrected.