Watch a Campaign Implode

October 26th, 2006 | by Craig |

Boom.

I don’t think the Ranger’s gonna like this, Yogi.

Now that’s an October surprise!

  1. 31 Responses to “Watch a Campaign Implode”

  2. By Mike on Oct 26, 2006 | Reply

    Makes one wonder how or why the Harris Miller camp didn’t release the damning references during the primary campaign. I suppose the writing can be dismissed as fiction, which it was, but it IS certainly damning and will most likely be fatal to the Webb campaign at this point in the calendar by shifting the momentum to Allen…unless there’s more to Macacca-gate than we already know about.

    Watch the Webb folks counter sometime tomorrow with the “why won’t Allen release his sealed divorce records” mantra.

    What I find so pantagruelistic is how much political capital the nutroots and Kossacks have invested in both the Webb and Lamont races…with not much to show for their efforts :-)

  3. By Jim - PRS on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA “I got yer macaca right here”.

  4. By Randy on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply

    I don’t know if implode is the correct word. I would think assplode would be more like it after reading the crud on Drudge.

    ew, ew, ew

  5. By Craig on Oct 27, 2006 | Reply

    Randy, Randy, Randy.

  6. By Mark T on Oct 28, 2006 | Reply

    Down goes Webb. Some choice they had….

  7. By moos on Oct 28, 2006 | Reply

    Uh - Mark - you left Webb wide open on that one. . .

  8. By moos on Oct 28, 2006 | Reply

    “pantagruelistic” ?!

    Thanks, Mike. . .

  9. By Shane Mason on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    What sort of testimony is it that the one political issue mentioned in the last weeks on a blog called “Montana Politics” is about a race in Virginia? Oh yeah, and one that essentially says ‘This party sucks, join a different republican party’.

    I mean, I suppose there is nothing important going on in the world of Montana politics right now.

  10. By Mike on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    Anytime Karen :-)

  11. By Mike on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    I’m not speaking for Craig or anything but I believe the “testimony” that mentioning a Senate race in Virginia on a blog called “Montana Politics” is simply related to the fact that it’s his place and he post what he wants to.

    At this point in the campaign “nothing important” is really going on, blog cacophony not withstanding. Tester will win by 5 +/-, Lindeen will lose by 15-20 and I believe both houses of the Legislature will remain, nominally, in Democratic hands.

  12. By Craig on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    Shane–
    If the content is not to your liking, please feel free to visit other sites.

    The editorial staff here has been busy with other things that have a higher ROI, and since the pay here is, well, not much, those things have taken priority.

    However, please feel free to drop a line to management, and they will see to it that you get a full refund, including any TCP packets that were dropped in transit.

    Thanks,
    MGMT.

  13. By Craig on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    [I]t’s his place and he post what he wants to.

    If I can find a kewpie doll, I’ll hand deliver it this week, Mike. ;)

  14. By Craig's Spousal Unit on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    I’m not speaking for Craig or anything but I believe the “testimony” that mentioning a Senate race in Virginia on a blog called “Montana Politics” is simply related to the fact that it’s his place and he post what he wants to.

    What Mike said.

  15. By Shane Mason on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    That’s sweet folks, thanks for the kind treatment. I suppose that I should keep my interest to myself in the future and comment on your points instead of making an observation and asking what it means.

    1. This gave Webb the perfect ‘in’ to note that while he was fighting in a war Allen was working on a Dude ranch. Funny how many liberals fight in wars while conservatives are playing with themselves and dreaming up ways to start new wars.

    2. This also gave Webb the perfect in to note that his books had been on the reading list of the United States Marine Corps.

    3. This showed Allens choice of hiding from the realities of war as opposed to facing human nature head on for what it is.

    Many excellent books about the United States military and wartime service accomplish their purposes, and even win awards, without systematically demeaning women, and without dehumanizing women, men and even children.

    That is human nature folks. That’s real war. When Allen was a republican, these books were hailed across the boards as acurate portayals of the hardships of war. Now a dude ranch guy wants to swiftboat him for it. And that gets hailed here in the comments as a brilliant political move?

  16. By Shane Mason on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    This sentence

    When Allen was a republican, these books were hailed across the boards as acurate portayals of the hardships of war.

    should have been

    When Webb was a republican, these books were hailed across the boards as acurate portayals of the hardships of war.

  17. By Lightfoot on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    Shane, would you expound for me on this ‘liberal versus conservative’ and ‘veteran versus non-veteran’ point you’re making on Webb and Allen? I’m not completely clear, but it looks to me like you’re saying that Allen’s point of view on wars and military is rendered moot because he didn’t serve, as opposed to Webb’s clearly excellent service record. Thanks.

  18. By Craig on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    I suppose that I should keep my interest to myself in the future and comment on your points instead of making an observation and asking what it means.

    Shane, sometimes it’s just because I don’t have the time/energy/inspiration to say much of anything. It’s not like my thoughts on races are secret; they’re everywhere. I’m not the standard-bearer for conservative thought, so I don’t feel too compelled to post on every single solitary issue that comes down the pike.

    Like Freud observed, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    In fact, I think in the future it would be safe to assume that if I’m not posting it’s because I’m busy doing other things.

  19. By Shane Mason on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    ould you expound for me on this ‘liberal versus conservative’ and ‘veteran versus non-veteran’ point you’re making on Webb and Allen?

    Who do you trust more to plum your new bathroom, an plummer or a hand from a dude ranch? Not to say that the dude ranch guy can’t have his own opinions and views into the issue, but who is he to tell the guy that wrote the book on plumming that it is too detailed with too many real world scenarios?

    The main problem here is not that Allen has a view on war, but that he is trying to stifle a real view on war from someone who has been there.

  20. By Lightfoot on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    Thanks Shane. I would then ask if that line of thinking also carries over elsewhere then? Conrad Burns is a Veteran of the Marine Corps. Jon Tester did not serve. Using your ‘plumber’ analogy, wouldn’t it then say that Burns would have a more accurate vision for the future of not just our Armed Forces, but our Veterans as well? Sure Jon can have his own opinions and views into the issue, but who is he to tell the former Marine who was stationed in Okinawa and Korea about the impact of deployment on troops? Just asking, thanks.

  21. By Shane Mason on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    No Lightfoot, I would not. First, pardon my original spelling of ‘plumber’.

    First, Conrad was a small arms instructor who served 3 years without combat. That does not make him an expert on war strategy. Nor does Webb’s experience. Nor does Tester’s. What I said was that Webb was qualified to write a book about the experience of war. Many who have read the books and experienced what Webb wrote about claim the books to be accurate and insightful about the ‘experience’ of war.

    If we want to return to the plumber analogy, we could say that if a plumber came to your house to install a hot tub but when he left you discovered that he over billed you and your basement was flooded, what would you do? You would call him and say “Hey, you don’t know what you are doing. You messed up my whole house!” And then he would say “You don’t understand what I was doing. I have a secret plan to plumb your house! I am not going to tell you what it is though cause you would just tell the leaks! It is a secret plan to plumb your house”.

    Well, you would be disappointed. You might let him come back a second time and try to fix it. If he made it even worse, you might let him come back for a third time to fix it because you believe the best in people. When it gets even worse, you sure as hell aren’t letting him come back the 4th time.

  22. By Lightfoot on Oct 29, 2006 | Reply

    First, I don’t recall saying anything about war strategy. I also never said Burns was in combat. He was, however, deployed overseas. Second, what you said was “Who do you trust more to plum your new bathroom, an plummer or a hand from a dude ranch?” and I would think that since Jon has not been deployed overseas, it would give Burns the advantage in understanding the challenges faced by our armed forces while deployed. It appears you disagree with that solely based on political ideology, some would label that hypocritical.

    I’m not sure how you can legislatively equate Burns’ record to a flooded basement and overbilling, even with the plumber analogy - but I’ll trust that it somehow works for you.

    Do I think Burns is perfect? Far from it, but I like the majority of his voting record. Not like I’m thinking I’m going to change your mind or anything though… I still can’t get the image of you in a democraticcheerleader’s outfit out of my head. That’s good ol’fashioned nightmare fuel right there.

  23. By Shane Mason on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    Do I think Burns is perfect? Far from it, but I like the majority of his voting record.

    OK, then you should vote for him. But please stop thinking about me at this time of night. It is a bit creepy…

    :)

  24. By Shane Mason on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    OK, a real answer.

    Perhaps Burns’s past does give him in insight into troop deployment that Tester doesn’t have. It does not give him an insight into a valid insight into the reasons to deploy troops. Nor, as I said does it give him any insight into the strategies of war. To him, they are a grand secret that no one needs to know.

    I would say that there is likely more things that Burns and I agree on than disagree on (like, we both agree that the sky appears blue when viewed from the ground and we both agree that beer taste better than bile). However, there are a number of key issues that we disagree on. I wont enumerate them here, I have done that here and here a number of times. I will say that I don’t think that ‘earmarks’, gay marriage bans, blind support of a failing war strategy and the Patriot Act are things that excite me into voting for anyone.

    Flooded basement and overbilling? Well, we have a huge deficit right now and he brags of earmarks. Our constitutional rights are being eroded by the Patriot Act and signing statements. Getting pretty wet in here.

    However, I had no illusions that I was going to swoop in and change anyones mind in the first place. I just wonder why anyone who calls themselves conservatives would favor Allen over Webb. Just because Allen wears the old moniker of the conservatives? Republican doesn’t mean today what it meant 20 years ago. I think that the same can be said of Tester and Burns.

  25. By Lightfoot on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    Just to clarify, I hadn’t been thinking about the cheerleading outfit until I started writing about changing anyone’s mind - and the ‘democratic cheerleader’ came roaring back into my mind like a runaway freight train. Scary. Also, I don’t recall anyone in the posts above saying anything about supporting Allen over Webb. I think Craig’s post only highlighted the fact that mentioning incestual pedophilia in a fiction novel might be a politically limiting move for Mr. Webb. I concur.

    Now, to your statements. Do you really think the deficit is due to earmarks? It’s not. And how can you demonize appropriations by Burns, yet remain silent on Tester’s current ads with Max Baucus, where the announcer says “Jon Tester delivered XXX”. Seems to me it’s the same animal.

    I’d also like to know what constitutional right (please name one) that you, personally, have lost due to the Patriot Act or any signing statements or Exec orders.

    Thanks for the good exchange.

  26. By Shane C. Mason on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    Yes, it is a good exchange. First on Tester and earmarks. Tester supports a pay as you go system, under which funding must be provided for any new service or to offset any new tax cut. You know, the same way we all live our lives and balannce our check books. Not promises to build 800 mile fences on 2000 mile borders without providing funding.

    I would direct you here for a list of specific problems with the Patriot Act. See my post on Left in The West for constitutional issues with signing statements. You see, even if I have not specifically lost rights (which I have, see the first link), overreach by the executive branch upsets the ‘right’ to checks and balances. Again, even if I have not specifically lost rights, remember this?

    When the Nazis came for the communists,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a communist.

    When they locked up the social democrats,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a social democrat.

    When they came for the trade unionists,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a trade unionist.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out.

  27. By Lightfoot on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    Sorry Shane, going to have to invoke Godwin’s Law on you for that last part. :)

    Now, back to appropriations. Conrad has been responsible for numerous projects impacting our State. Those have been done within the confines of the budget, and he’s voted against those that would go outside of the budget with the exception of emergency funding. When some of these groups that don’t support Burns talk about him voting to cut meth, or veterans funding, or education funding, or food for babies - name it. It’s 9 times out of 10 a budgetary roll call vote asking for an increase in the budget to provide for X. That doesn’t mean these programs haven’t already been provided for in the budget, these votes are for additional increases outside of the budget. The appropriations, which are a part of the discretionary budget (a relatively small portion of annual spending) are done within the confines of the annual budget, and meet that criteria of ‘pay as you go’.

    Now for the exec orders and signing statements - since the Administration’s role is to enforce the law, they arguably have that right of interpretation barring intervention by either of the two houses. Congress can make a law that revokes the intent of a signing statement, and the SUPCO can rule it unconstitutional. For whatever reason, they don’t. Doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t at some point.

    Now to the PATRIOT Act. Your PFAW link has some interesting verbage in it - most notably the word ‘meaningful’ when speaking of FISA or other judicial review. That would say to me it is left to personal interpretation whether the Judicial review is sufficient or not. Do I particularly like all the provisions of the PATRIOT act? No. Do I think it’s some grand plan to erode the constitutional freedoms we enjoy? No.

    If I recall correctly, the provisions in the PATRIOT act are not new, but just expanded definitions. These tools were previously available in similar incarnation to Law Enforcement for RICO/Mafia proscecution as well as international drug trafficking. It’s now been expanded to terrorism as well. I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing.

    I guess, if the person in charge was someone you trusted to do the right thing, Shane, I think you’d have less problem with the provisions of the PATRIOT act. Since you clearly don’t trust our current Administration (and that’s entirely your right) naturally you will have additional concern over the provisions, and I don’t know that I could say if the positions were reversed, I wouldn’t hold the same concerns. That might make me a hypocrite too, but at least I’m forthright about it!

  28. By Shane C. Mason on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    I guess, if the person in charge was someone you trusted to do the right thing, Shane, I think you’d have less problem with the provisions of the PATRIOT act

    Not true. I dislike government intrusion in PERSONAL issues from any source. Perhaps it is intesified by this administration. Would you deny that Cheney’s lifelong goal has been to increase power of the executive branch? You can’t, he has said as much. Would you deny that this administration has made power grabs for increased executive power? I would hope not, since they have said as much. Does that not scare you even a little?

  29. By Lightfoot on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    Scare me? No. It may be misplaced, but I still have trust in the tenets of the Constitution and the separation of powers. I do believe, if push came to shove (and Lord knows it’s been close a few times) the Legislative and/or Judicial branches would push back. What I see is the old axiom of ‘give an inch, take a mile’ and the current Administration (not unlike others before) is willing to snatch up any spare ‘power’ it sees available. That doesn’t mean to me that the perceived power isn’t fleeting and that Congress doesn’t have the will to take it back when needed.

    I agree with you on Government intrusion into personal issues - provided those ‘personal’ issues don’t jeopardize my family’s safety. Gay marriage, flag burning, etc is all red herring histrionics designed to polarize issues that I frankly think the Federal Government has no business messing with. That said, if someone is checking out a mess of library books on how to build a radiological bomb, trolling internet sites doing the same, and making international calls to known terrorists, I’d damn well hope the Law Enforcement folks would be able to direct further scrutiny on said person. As Dennis Miller said, noting that 16 of 19 hijackers were from the same country is not profiling, it’s being minimally observant.

  30. By Gman on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    Shane, I’d like to hear your tune if the Clinton Administration was doing the same thing as the current one. What I also find interesting is that you criticize gov’t intrusion into what you refer to as “personal issues,” yet you seem to withhold criticism when the gov’t intrudes into other areas of our lives. For example, you don’t seem to have a problem with the fact that the gov’t confiscates a considerable portion of the average citizen’s income (mine included) to redistribute it to another individual or group. I’m sure I could go back into your comments on MtPolitics, your own blog, and Left in the West and see your indefatigable defense of gov’t intrusion into the lives of its citizens. Ya, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but so is Medicare, Social Security, and umpteen other social programs. Your problem is that, like most liberals, you distinguish between gov’t intrusion relating to personal issues and gov’t intrusion relating to pocket-book issues.  

  31. By Shane C. Mason on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    And those counrties were…. Iraq? Nope.

    Ok, well said. Nice to hear your thoughts on this. I am going to say that I think that the issues like ‘gay marriage’ and ‘flag burning’ are a bit more seriouse thanhistrionics, your playing theatrics with someones right to equality. That is another issue though.

    If someone is doin the things you listed, by all means, watch them. Any court in the nation would grant appropriate orders to do such. However, the patriot act removed onus from the government to show that you are behaving suspiciously. It remove checks and balances from that system.

  32. By Lightfoot on Oct 30, 2006 | Reply

    The country, as you know, was Saudi Arabia. Didn’t mean to intone it was Iraq. Also, I’d say theatrics is just as good as histrionics. Equality is just that, civil unions should be handled by the State, not the Fed, and ‘marriage’ is a religious ceremony/stamp of approval that the government should have no part of. Flag burning is offensive and disgusting, but so is gangsta rap, white supremacy literature, and Madonna and Britney liplocking on MTV. Still protected speech though.

    Now that I think we’re probably sympatico on that, I’ll tackle the final point. I disagree the PATRIOT Act removed the requirement of demonstration of suspicious activity. There’s still judicial review, in my opinion, and to dismiss FISA as a rubber stamp is to do a disservice to the Judicial branch, also IMHO.

    One final thought: Dissent is healthy, and should be welcome in a Democracy. Crap-ass naming games of legislation to things such as ‘PATRIOT’ by arranging words in the legislative title to get the convenient acronym is, in my opinion, a not-so-subtle tactic of implying anyone who disagrees with said legislation is not a Patriot. If I were asked for what I thought was the major fault of the bill, it would be that. You and I may disagree on the path to take, but I fervently believe you’re no less patriotic that I am - and that disagreement of direction helps us eventually discern the correct path… somewhere inbetween where the extreme sides stake out their positions. Not to say that you’re extreme, Shane. I’ve met extreme, and you’ve got a ways to go! Okay, now I’m rambling.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.