Unlike the progressives I decided to wait before discussing the tragedy in Newtown. The progressives called for gun control while the bodiesâ€™ still lay in the school. They will not hesitate to use any tragedy to further their goal of eliminating the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution. While they always call for civility and decorum they show none themselves.
The usual arguments were soon blaring on the TV news shows; the militia should have gun rights and not people, the framers of the Constitution could not have know about automatic (which are already illegal) weapons, nobody needs 30 round clips.
They try to frame the argument so they can argue against gun rights. Here are a few rebuttals.
The Constitution gives gun rights to the militia (National Guard). The government always has gun rights. They donâ€™t need to have gun rights. To know that the framers of the Constitution meant the people all you have to do is read what they said to others and wrote. They wanted the people to remain free and the only way to assure that was to allow the people the ability to protect themselves from the government.
While it is true the framers of the Constitution could not foresee semi-automatic weapons they also could not foresee television or the internet. The progressives would howl if you tried to limit the media to moveable type and hand presses for their local papers.
Yes, nobody needs 10+ round magazines and assault weapons to protect themselves. Unless they are Asian store owners protecting their property from rioters in Los Angeles. Yet another false argument from the progressives. It is not up to the progressives or the government to decide what our requirements will be should the need arise.
Soon President Obama will be inaugurated. Thousands of Secret Service Agents and police will be guarding him with fully automatic weapons. Yet no progressive will ever say that they donâ€™t need assault weapons to guard the President.
Progressives are elitists. They assume that the â€˜commonâ€™ people are not intelligent enough to own weapons. That is why they live in gated communities with armed guards. And they see the 2nd Amendment as an impediment to government control of the people.
Finally a rather disturbing statistic that I guarantee will not be reported by the media. On average there were more children killed in abortion clinics in Connecticut every day of 2012. But no progressive will ever be against the false Constitutional right of abortion or the murder of those innocents.
Evidently some people not only vote with their “lady parts” – they use them to think with on a regular basis.
Last Friday, Republican candidate for Superintendent of Public Education, Sandy Welch went to court to ask for a recount in the race where the final tally showed the difference between the two candidates to be less than a half a percent. Under state law, she was entitled to a recount, although she would have to pay for it. To be perfectly candid, I don’t understand why Sandy chose to go through the courts to get a recount when she didn’t have to, but I am sure there was a reason. Anyway, the judge granted her request.
Judge Stadler reached the ruling after hearing arguments from both set of attorney’s. Attorney’s for Welch submitted the request for a recount, citing election misconduct in nearly 20 counties across the state of Montana…
Judge Stadler stated he could not overlook certain problems with the election and ordered the recount.
“This recount is to be ordered statewide, and is governed by existing Montana law. Where the applicant will post a cash bond, in the amount determined to be the expense of the recount.”
Welch will have to pay $115,000 for the recount, but rumor has it that a Republican group has already offered to put up $100,000 of that cost.
Now, most people reading this story would grasp that: 1.) Sandy was entitled to a recount by law, and 2.) She would have to pay for it. “Most people” however doesn’t include the mental midget who appears to be the mouthpiece for Montana Women Vote, one Melissa Smylie. Using every bit of the intellectual firepower contained in her afore-mentioned “lady parts,” Ms. Smylie commented on the KPAX story:
Sandy Welch is wasting valuable resources when she would REFUSE TO PAY bond for the 3rd count of the ballots herself and yet expects THE STATE to pay for it instead. If it wasn’t worth her money why is it worth my tax dollars. Thank heavens Public Education in Montana is safe for four more years and 2200 votes is more than a fair margin.
Now, I have no idea where she got the idea that somehow taxpayer dollars were to be used for the recount, but I am even more perplexed at her misunderstanding that this would be the third count of the ballots. She also, somehow, read into the story that Sandy had refused to pay for the recount. Say wha???? If this is the best we can expect from a public education these days, this country is in dire straits.
Using “lady parts” for recreation is one thing, using them to vote is another, using them to think with is downright scary.
Conservatives are in a tricky poker game with President Obama. We couldnâ€™t manage to throw the worst president since Carter out of office. We again had the East coast conservatives picking a moderate candidate to run for office. But we also didnâ€™t have any outstanding conservative candidates. This is simply amazing to me. Progressives can run a newly elected senator for president. Yet we canâ€™t run a young conservative because they donâ€™t have enough experience. The old guard hung onto their power, our loss.
Obama is a lousy president. But he is a great manipulator. He learned well from his Chicago thugs and his days as a community organizer. Because of this he threw Susan Rice out to carry the lie (Hillary was smart enough to leave the country) to the media. Then when the lie was exposed he ran to her defense. The media enthusiastically helped with calls of racism, sexism and old white men. He looked like a hero to the left. He will get who he wants to replace Hillary.
The narcissist in chief coming off his presidential win is cocky and pissed that Republicans would even run against him. He is now posed to get his way with the budget cliff. The media salivates in the wings waiting for Obama to signal the attack.
The Republicans have a very bad position. If a compromise is not achieved the media will blame them. If a compromise is achieved the media will throw accolades on Obama for the great victory. If the tax cuts expire and are re-written in 2013 they will then cease to be the Bush tax cuts and will become the Obama tax cuts. This will cure a long standing sore point with the progressives as they keep repeating the lie that the tax cuts only benefit the rich. Plus Obama will be able to shove Republican noses in the dirt as he raises taxes on the rich while â€˜savingâ€™ the poor.
Then Obama brings up the borrowing limit acting like he wants to be king and make laws from the oval office. This may be his only step over the line. His hubris has exceeded his abilities. On this one he will lose.
As Obama refuses to negotiate and waits for the conservatives to hang themselves the only solution I can see is capitulation. But it has to be done with finesse. Donâ€™t vote, or vote present. Let Obama and the progressives get most of their way. Let him tax the rich. But keep the Bush tax cuts and keep them as Bushâ€™s tax cuts.
The economy will not come booming back. It will continue to languish. Then call out the president and Reid. Ask them why the tax hikes have not stopped the deficit spending. Ask them why no recovery. Hammer them on their spending. Hammer them on the rising debt, the rising poor numbers, and the continuing unemployment. And keep it up till 2016.
The economy will eventually recover. Either excruciatingly slow under Obama or quickly under capitalism. And we want to be in control when it recovers.
Ah, leftovers! The best part of Thanksgiving dinner. Memories of long ago times with a grandmother and a six-year old sharing turkey and dressing on toast in the dark quiet of the morning after. Turkey, cranberry and cream cheese sandwiches on Saturday – To. Die. For. And that last appearance of the whole shebang on Sunday evening. Heaven. Much to be thankful for.
There are other kinds of leftovers though. Like the unidentified green and growing stuff at the back of the refrigerator. When the kids were in school, I could always claim “science projects” – not so much any more. So every now and then, it’s necessary to don masks and gloves and attack the far reaches of cold storage.
So too are the unfinished drafts of blog posts that remain in WordPress memory, nagging for completion or deletion. It’s time to clean out those leftovers…
SQUIRRELS, SHINY THINGS, and SALAMIS
What do those three things have in common, you ask? Benghazi. And the various attempts by the Obama Administration to avoid coming clean on the fiasco in Libya.
You remember the little dog from the Pixar movie Up – the one that was so easily distracted by squirrels? This one…
First diversionary tactic: The YouTube video that supposedly caused the riot that eventually resulted in a full-blown military attack. Hey – it pretty much worked for the MSM for over two months, so you have to give them credit.
But eventually, even the slow kids figured out there was more to this tragedy that took the lives of four brave Americans. So the Administration trots out the shiny things: Paula Broadwell and the Kelly girls. Not just the shiny things, but the CIA Director, a four-star general, classified information, and SEX!!! Woohoo!!! Entertain the unwashed masses. Oh, boy has that worked or what??? Hearings in Congress, all sorts of media coverage and cleavage – what more can you ask for?
How about an answer to the real question?
Here we are almost three months after the attack and we still don’t know what happened to the cavalry.
When our guys were under attack and endangered by RPGs and mortar rounds and calling for help, WHY DIDN’T THEY GET THE HELP THEY NEEDED???? Live video of the attack was streaming into the White House and the President and his security team were supposedly watching as events unfolded and the calls for reinforcements came in.
Obama has said that he directed his staff to get whatever help was needed to the stranded Americans – so what happened? If the president gave that order – who countermanded it? Why was General Ham relieved of duty when he began to activate his forces? (And – by the way – where is General Ham these days?)
Quite frankly, I don’t care who’s playing Hide the Salami with whom as long as our troops are adequately protected. It’s way past time for Congress to focus on the serious stuff. The families of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen A. Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods and the American people deserve the truth.
Or is this a case of Obama lied and Americans died?
Last summer, I was searching for a location to host a fundraiser for a political candidate. Because I live less than a half a block away from a lovely city park where private parties are held all the time, my first thought was to see if that venue was available. I called City Hall and learned that the date was available and the terms were reasonable, so I booked my event and agreed to stop in to fill out the paper work and leave the deposit the following day or two. Fast forward – I appear at the City Clerk’s office prepared to finish up the details. As I fill out the form and chat pleasantly with the clerk, I come to the question that asks what type of function is contemplated. When I fill in fundraiser, the clerk ask what organization the event is for, and I respond with the name of the candidate I was holding the party for. After the tiniest of pauses, she politely informs me that it is against policy to allow political gatherings on city property.
HUH?????? Can we say “Freedom to peaceably assemble”?
Then a couple of months later, in the parking lot of a private business, I was told that I could not display a candidate’s sign in the window of my personal vehicle.
SAY WHAT??? “Freedom of speech” anyone?
I tend to prefer the passive-agressive approach to conflict management, so I didn’t raise the issue on either occasion. But isn’t that how we will lose that which is most precious – by ultimately accepting the small infringements on our liberty without objection?
Not that protests haven’t been made, but still we meekly take our shoes off and empty our pockets in order to board an airplane. We object among ourselves because others have demanded that their priorities are more worthy than our own – yet we accept racial, gender, or religious preferences, even when we know that such demands are unfair, if not patently unconstitutional.
How long until there are no more little things to lose? Or are we already past that point?
There are other leftovers in the blog archives that never got hit by the publish button – but they are too old and moldy for even a leftover post. I’ll use the delete function – it’s like the garbage disposal. Some things are no longer appropriate for human consumption….
Since the election returns came in Tuesday night, politicians, pundits, and just regular ordinary people have been scratching their heads about what happened and how the Republicans got their butts handed to them nationally and statewide.
You can go online and find essays, columns, and analyses ad nauseam to support whatever view supports your own preference: Romney was too conservative, Romney wasn’t conservative enough; the Republicans need to embrace social liberals, the religious right needs to toughen their message; whatever… I’ve read so many articles, posts, and comments, I can’t even remember all of them, but there is one thought that I stumbled across a couple of days ago that has remained forefront in my brain. Unfortunately, I don’t remember where I read it – but a big H/T to the brilliant soul who succinctly summarized the fundamental difference in the two parties that led to the results that we, as Americans and Montanans, will be living with for the next four years at least. Another H/T to my friend, Linda, for supplying the visual image that illustrates the words:
Click to embiggen
Now before my Republican friends go breaking their arms patting themselves on the back for having superior intelligence, and my Democrat friends head to the tool shed for pitchforks and ropes – I am not commenting on the relative intellectual capabilities of either Democrats or Republicans. Each party has it’s own quota of smart folks and mental midgets. The difference is that, especially in this last election cycle, the Democrats clearly understood not only the intelligence level (average) of the electorate, but the engagement level (not much) of the average voter, and designed their message to appeal to that reality. While the Republicans were dishing out thoughtful, reasoned, intellectual arguments to support their policies, the Democrats employed “bumper-sticker” themes to convey their message.
The whole election came down to one central issue – and it was reduced to a bumper sticker: “Freedom or Free Stuff?” And the Democrats won handily – because they understood that most Americans really don’t know what “freedom” means – but, by golly, we totally get the concept of “free stuff” – and we don’t want to lose out on any of the goodies!!!
Let’s use the abortion issue as an example. For many social conservatives this is such a fundamental, theological, and moral issue that they can’t conceive of anyone not “getting it.” To this group the “Right to Life” is not a slogan, but a commitment to the basis for this country’s very existence. They are passionate about this issue; the public is about evenly split on whether abortion should be legal or not. And in reality, this is an issue that directly impacts very few Americans. Less than 20% of the US population is ever confronted by the decision to have an abortion, and less than .004% of the population will actually have an abortion in any given year. Why aren’t Republicans/conservatives able to “sell” their message successfully? It’s not like they’re going against a huge philosophical opposition. How did the Democrats win this one? By framing the Republican’s position as “taking away” something the voters already had. Add to the mix the whole “war on women” thing. While Republicans were snickering at dancing vaginas and shaking their heads in disgust at a creepy ad comparing first time voting with losing one’s virginity, the Obama campaign was confidently putting the message out – those nasty Republicans wanted to take away something from a group that perceived an entitlement that they didn’t even have! The Democrats understood that by framing the issues of abortion and contraception as “free stuff” instead of the more complex issues of freedom of religion and right to life, the majority of voters would perceive the conservatives’ position as a threat to them and their stuff!
Most voters aren’t budding Einsteins, nor are they political junkies – they get their news from Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart. Why would anyone expect much intellectual depth and sophistication from someone like that? After all, a sixty watt bulb that isn’t plugged in isn’t very bright.
Like it or not, the Democrats understand the fundamental motivation of the majority of the electorate: “Free Stuff.” Unless, and until, the Republicans learn to frame their positions in terms that appeal to the majority of the voters, it won’t matter how “right” they are – they will continue to lose when it counts.
And that, my friends, calls into question the intellectual superiority of the Republicans.
At least that is what one would think if you look at the female single under 30 voters.
According to polling the under 30 single female voters voted for President Obama because he would take care of them. Political ads showed women losing their voter virginity to someone special who would give them free birth control pills. And should they get pregnant then the President would take care of them just like the â€˜Life of Juliaâ€™ ad. The government would give you the day after pill, should that fail they will help you raise your child and support you through to your retirement.
Hurrayâ€¦ women are finally free of men. The government will take care of them.
Obviously they donâ€™t understand the financial and emotional destruction of their lives that single motherhood can bring to them. And welfare is definitely not the answer.
The thought that so many women can be fooled by these lies is utterly frightening. How can conservatives convince them to vote Republican when they believe in the fairy tales of the Democrats? Is this demographic forever unattainable by conservatives because we wonâ€™t lie to women?
Younger women must have been taught that they are helpless and doomed if they can not get the government or a man to support or protect them. I guess the National Organization of Women has utterly failed in freeing women. That is if that was their goal and not to make women dependent on the government. It is obviously a failure of the school system to educate them to be ready for the real world. These results seem to confirm the sexist ideas that women are completely ruled by emotions and not logic. At least till they have matured.
Older women tend to be more conservative and vote on logic and what is good for their family. They obviously have learned how to spot the lies and the reality of life. They probably heard the lies too many times before.
So does this mean that the under 30 single female demographic is forever out of reach to conservatives. I have no clue, because I was raised to respect women and not lie to them to get my way. And I have no idea how to appeal to adults that still believes in Santa.
The uproar over voter fraud by democrat candidates and operatives hit a high note yesterday when intrepid conservative activist James O’Keefe published a video of Virginia Rep. Jim Moran’s son and campaign director conspiring with an undercover reporter to create phony IDs so someone could vote more than once. The Virginia Attorney General immediately announced an investigation, and there is even word that the FBI might be brought in. Pffft. Ordinary stuff.
Let it not be said that good old Montana – land of the Copper Kings – can’t compete in the big leagues of political corruption, however. Such things as illegal voter registration, absentee ballot fraud, and other such nefarious schemes are no more than junior high pranks in comparison with the sophisticated scandal our own Democrats have put together. The Fat Lady will break crystal hitting this note.
And at the heart of the whole mess is a Helena District Court judge – Kathy Seeley.
Prior to her 2008 election to the bench, Seeley was a 25 year Assistant Attorney General in the Attorney General’s office. The 2008 election was hotly contested, but Seeley, who up to then was a political sleeper, emerged victorious with bipartisan support.
Following the SCOTUS’ decision in Citizens United, rendering the 1912 law limiting the rights of free speech for corporations unconstitutional, Montana democrats have had their knickers in a major knot – one they just can’t seem to get past. Then in a subsequent lawsuit challenging the legality of Montana’s campaign contribution limits, U S District Judge Charles Lovell struck down those limits on October 6. Before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Lovell’s ruling a mere six days later, the Montana GOP donated a tidy sum to the — shock! — republican candidates for governor and attorney general. Well, if that just didn’t frost the libbie’s cupcakes!
Steve Bullock – who, by the way, has just been found guilty of serious campaign violations and is facing thousands of dollars in fines – broke land speed records in filing a lawsuit to have the contributions to Hill’s campaign declared illegal. Both Bullock and Bucy are trailing significantly and plain old ordinary election fraud will never be enough to get them into the win column.
A secret weapon of the megaton variety was called for:
Here come da judges –
Federal judge Dana Christensen and Helena’s own Kathy Seeley. These two give a whole new meaning to the term “activist judges.”
First, Judge Christensen denied Hill’s request to move the hearing on Bullock’s suit to federal court, which seems like the logical and reasonable venue since the original suit seemed to have sufficient standing for a federal judge to rule on it and the federal court of appeals deigned to throw their two cents in on it. But, no – Hizzoner, who was appointed to the bench less than a year ago by Barack Obama and has a record of overwhelmingly supporting democrat and liberal candidates for office, tossed the ball right back to cute little Kathy Seeley – who didn’t have such an obvious and well-known political bent.
Ta-da!!! The stealth judge!
And in less time than it takes to say “political corruption,” their little time bomb went off like a good little IED is supposed to. Without any kind of hearing, law or case citations, Seeley issued an unprecedented ruling:
In her order, Seeley said Hill and his campaign â€œare temporarily restrained from spending, using or realizing any benefit from the campaign contributions in excess of the aggregate amounts permitted by (state law).â€
She ordered Hill and his campaign â€œto stop any agents, such as media buyers to whom these funds in whole or in part have been transferred, from proceeding to purchase any media time with these funds or otherwise benefit the Hill campaign through the use of the funds.â€
â€œInsofar as advertisements have been purchased with these funds and are set to air immediately, they must be canceled,â€ Seeley ordered.
Wowzer. Anyone want to bet how she’s gonna rule at the hearing on Monday? If you said “in favor of her former boss/co-workers and BFFs Bullock and Bucy,” you’d be in the running for the title of Captain Obvious.
Yep. The future former Judge Seeley just gave her buddies huge — as in about $530,000 worth — of in-kind contributions! For my out-of-state readers, that may not be big stuff where you come from, but it’s serious campaign cash in big Sky Country! In Bucy’s case, the hit for her is like a 63% increase in her cash on hand. For Bullock, it covers the probable fines and costs from the various campaign finance violations he’s already been convicted of and at least one that is still pending.
You just have to hand it to the Montana democrats – they do know how to cheat – and cheat big! None of that silly little voter ID stuff for these guys – they know those tricks won’t work here. They get real creative and go for the gusto. I mean if you can’t pull in a favor or two when you need ’em from the folks you put on the federal and state benches… duh!?!?!?
But conservatives have learned to take the punches and fight through ’em. So for those of you who think it’s time we stopped these corrupt politicians and judges, join me in supporting the money bombs for:
Who knew that Montana’s 2012 election had such a Shakespearean quality about it? Let me explain…
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”
We aren’t thinking star-crossed lovers here. More like “Lord, what fools these mortals be.”
But perhaps the first quote is more accurate than most realize. Consider:
bullÂ·ock noun \ËˆbuÌ‡-lÉ™k also ËˆbÉ™-\ 1. A bull that has been gelded; a steer: 2. A bull that is not fully grown. 3. Biblical: The customary word for bulls offered in sacrifice
In other words, Montana’s democrat candidate for governor: An immature, impotent male destined to be slaughtered on the altar of party politics.
What has been clear to the audiences in all of the gubernatorial debates over the past few weeks is that there is a serious deficiency in experience and gravitas in Steve Bullock. Time after time, Rick Hill’s maturity, knowledge, and depth of experience have left Steve consternated and confused, befuddled and frustrated.
This is not something that should be a surprise to anyone. Steve is a young man with a very thin resume: Political appointee for Mike Cooney and Mike McGrath, a few years of private law practice, and four years as AG. “Young and dynamic” – all adjective, no verb. For a party with a dearth of top-tier candidates and a virtually non-existent second string, Steve was the strongest possible candidate this year for the state’s top job. Unfortunately, as was pointed out on this blog months ago, a defeat in this election is likely to destroy his political future. But, when your party calls, good little democrats willingly let themselves be sacrificed.
You think this is an exaggeration? Nay, not so.
Turning our attention to the subject of smelly things, let’s now focus on some real BS – a/k/a Brian Schweitzer.
In the recently published MSU-Billings Poll, Schweitzer’s approval rating was still over 60% – a not insignificant accomplishment for a modern politician after eight years in office – particularly one who has continually pissed off is held in such disdain by the majority of the state’s legislators. One would, therefore, expect that said popular politician would be out on the campaign trail stumping mightily for his fellow democrats. It’s not like this is a slam-dunk election for any of them, but certainly, the relatively unknown and underfunded Kim Whatshername could use a little political capital tossed her way. And in the biggest race of his life, Steve Bullock could definitely use some of Schweitzer’s help. But do we see Brian on the rubber chicken dinner circuit?
Nope, not so much.
In April he was in New York City hobnobbing with the likes of David Letterman, Howie Rich, and the Naked Cowboy. And – what do you know?!?! – at the Democratic National Convention last month, Big Bri was not just rousing the delegates with his customary schtick. There he was – literally! – flooring columnist Dave Barry with his hysterical instructions on… (wait for it)…
â€œWhoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important mattersâ€
â€• Albert Einstein
Montanans are generally pretty forgiving folks, but they do expect their public officials to at least keep their corruption private.
Unfortunately, Pam Bucy, the Democrat candidate for Attorney General, was so anxious to let the voters know about her campaign activities on Facebook that she forgot that sometimes too much information can bite you on the butt. In Pam’s case, her FB posts confirm that she committed fraud by claiming sick leave for hours she used for campaigning.
A press release from the Montana GOP (which will never be published by the LSM in this state) lays out the specifics:
– On May 24, 2012, Pam Bucy announced on Facebook that she gave an interview with National Public Radio at the Lewis and Clark County Courthouse. The same day, Pam announced on Facebook that she â€œHad a great time talking with local Democratic leaders and activists over our partyâ€™s statewide weekly conference call.â€ She recorded her time that day as 8 sick hours.
– On April 19, 2012, Pam Bucy attended a Planned Parenthood lunch event. She recorded her time that day as 6.5 regular hours, 1.5 sick hours.
– On March 22, 2012, Pam Bucy attended a Missoula Wine, Women and Politics event, which ran from 5:30-7:30pm. She recorded her time that day as 4 regular hours, 1 vacation hour, and 3 sick hours.
The payroll information was obtained from the Department of Administration as a result of a Right to Know Request for time sheets for the first half of the year.
So what’s the big deal, you ask? Well, first of all, Pam is a long-time state employee who makes around $90,000 a year in her current job at the Department of Labor & Industry. She’s been around long enough to know the rules, which are pretty dang clear and easy to understand:
Sick leave abuse occurs when an employee uses sick leave for unauthorized purposes or misrepresents the actual reason for charging an absence to sick leave. As provided in 2-18-618, MCA, sick leave abuse is cause for dismissal and forfeiture of the lump-sum payment.
The argument can be made that this only happened these three times, but that does sort of beg the suspension of credibility – The only times she broke the law was when she published evidence of her infractions??? I suspect a thorough audit of her time sheets for the entire year would turn up some other questionable occurrences where she claimed to be sick and was seen at some political event in apparent good health. But that’s not the biggest issue. Nor is the fact that she cheated the taxpayers out of about $600 bucks. If she had taken those hours as “annual leave” she would have been paid – unless she had used up all her vacation and comp time and would have been relegated to “time off without pay”. In which case she does owe the taxpayers some money.
The real issue is much bigger – and more serious: It’s about character and ethics.
Here we have a person who is seeking to become the chief law enforcement officer for the state of Montana and she is either too stupid to understand the state sick leave policy (the law!) or too arrogant to think she has to obey the law. Other state employees are disciplined – some even fired – for fraudulent use of sick time.
This is nothing short of a game-changer. If you can’t trust a person to do the right thing on the little things, how can you trust them to do the right thing on the big things? And if the head of the department plays a little fast and loose with the laws, can you trust that the corruption won’t trickle down through the ranks? If Bucy is elected, will the Department of Justice become a haven for tiny frauds? Will defense attorneys be able to focus the spotlight on the law enforcers instead of the law breakers? How many felons will be freed on technicalities because the officer just fudged that itty-bitty piece of evidence? Will Montana suffer through the national disgrace of a major crime lab scandal?
It’s interesting that both the Billings Gazette and the Bozeman Chronicle have endorsed Bucy. Assuming the editors of those papers were unaware of this story, I wonder if they will now withdraw their endorsements in light of this information? Or maybe this is an effort on the part of these papers to insure four years of juicy stories about corruption and scandal in Montana’s Department of Justice…
The Attorney General is an important official in the state of Montana. The office is not a ceremonial one. If the top law enforcement official doesn’t adhere to the highest ethical and moral standards, the state will ultimately pay a huge price. Pam Bucy has shown that she does not hold herself to the level of accountability that the citizens of this state deserve and will presumably be held to.
Senator Alan Simpson put it another way: “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.”
Pam Bucy does not have integrity. She is not worthy of public office.