A Chicken Is Not Pillage

I Couldn't Agree More

The driving slogan of Jon Tester's campaign is "We need to make Washington look more like Montana."  I couldn't agree more, and with help from the freeper bunch, we're well on our way.

(Photo courtesy of James Larson, plying his craft at What's (not) Right In Montana.)

It's  really heartening to see that even the Montana supporters of the GOP clearly see that Jon Tester can change the face of politics in Washington.  Flat-tops all around, I say.  And yeah, the buck (responsibility) starts with Schumer and all members of the Congress.  That's the body of government that will improve greatly when Jon Tester joins the ranks, and changes the way that Congress acts, and maybe (if James has his will) the way that Congress looks.

Thanks For Nothin'

While the rest of the Democratic favoring websites in Montana complete the evisceration of Conrad Burns, started by Jon Tester during yesterday's debate, I figured I'd best take out the broadaxe for a bit of light pruning on our side.

This morning, while getting ready for work, I had a chance to see the new TV ad which purports to defend Jon Tester against the hollow accusations of the Republicants.  I missed catching who funded that advert, though I do know it wasn't from the Tester campaign, but I have one thing to say about whoever wrote it, and those who authorized it's airing:

Fire them, immedeately.  Not next week, not next month; Fire them right fricking now.  They are incompetent in the context of this campaign.

You know that Monty Python skit where the guy goes in to purchase an argument, and ends up in a shouting match of:  No it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, it certainly is, nope no it isn't.  Yeah, the commercial is kinda like that.

The Republicants have accused Jon Tester of having liberal values.  Their examples are laughable:  supposedly, Jon Tester favors gay marriage, flag burning, and higher taxes.  The rational response to these allegations is complete laughter, followed by a sound thrashing of the stupidity behind the claims.  The way one goes about that thrashing is to show that Jon's record is clear; he accepts the Montana amendment concerning gay marriage and opposes federal mandate being superimposed upon it, he favors the First amendment over meaningless time wasting amendments that would help us mirror Cuba and Iran concerning our flag, and the lies about his stance on taxation are just that, lies.  Jon favors fiscal responsibility over Conrad's drunken-sailor debt based spending.  This is the message one gets from Tester when one bothers to listen to him.  This is the message that has been carried forth by the Montana bloggers who favor Jon Tester over Porky Pig Burns.  To say these things would have made an effective commercial.

But that isn't what's airing.  What is presented to the public in that ad is a whole lot of "No he doesn't!  Jon thinks marriage is what the Republicans call it, and Jon doesn't want flag-burning, and Jon thinks taxes are icky and should be lowered!  Neener, Neener!"  It's really kind of pathetic because it insults the intelligence of it's viewers, and in my opinion, insults Jon Tester.

Whoever wrote that advert clearly forgets that a candidates personal beliefs often must be tempered if that person actually cares about representing the voting constituency.  It may indeed be true that Jon Tester personally believes that "marriage" is between a man and a woman.  I don't care what the hell he believes for himself, and I'd bet that most of Montana is with me.  What matters to the voters is whether or not he believes that the Congress should waste time defining a word such that rights are denied to some.  Personally, I find flag burning kind of annoying as a means of protest; flag signing by half-baked rock start wannabees is even worse.  I'm certain that Tester finds it kind of stupid too.  That isn't the fricking point.  The point is, will Jon Tester support wasting time and money to support Republicants in their quest to deny us our rights to free speech.  I guess that was just a small subtlety wasted on the idiots who wrote and authorized this dick-waving excuse of an ad.

Let's face it, Jon Tester doesn't need help from those who will whine on his behalf.  If he's got something to say, I trust that he'll say it.  If I don't like it, then too bad for me.  But the last thing I'm going to accept is some half-assed whining on Jon's behalf, that appears for all the world as if Jon wouldn't agree with it.

So, to those out there who find themselves so clever in imagining that they can speak for Montana or for Jon Tester, I hope you find yourselves fired in the morning.  Seriously, I desire your unemployment.  I want you kicked out, because you really don't understand what the hell you're doing.  Hopefully, you'll learn from this and go on.  Regardless, you need the boot, the pink slip, the grand "adios".  Quit your day job, and go back to writing the great American fantasy novel, because you are no help here.  Thanks for nuthin'.

To those who have voted before for Jon Tester, I ask that you ignore the ignorant and listen to the man.  You may like him, you may not.  That's what a grassroots campaign is all about.  When they push, we push back harder.  We don't fall on our butts and wail "liar!" between tears.  We look for the truth.  The truth is, the Republicants have nothing, so they will come up with meaningless attacks the likes of which we've no reason to respond to.  Responding petulantly is the worst way to proceed.  I hope that those who are deserving of unemployment, those associated with this stupid advertisement,  will see that ... eventually.

Now, There's A Thought!

I try very hard not to discuss abortion with people.  It's one of those topics where good and nobly held beliefs collide in a contradiction, with little or no resolution that will make everyone happy.  Wittgenstein would say that, since the question has no obvious answer, then there is something wrong with the question.  I firmly agree.

For myself, the question has always been one of choice.  NOT, a choice between abortion and having a baby, mind you, but rather a choice that each of us must make constantly concerning our responsibility to ourselves and our responsibility to others.  I'm not raising this issue as my attempt to resolve the abortion debate.  I bring it up because the scope of the argument needs broadening.

In our modern world, reproduction has become a community act (get your mind out the gutter, conception is still a very private act).  We have attempted, in ways various and sundry to ease the burden on those who choose to have children.  We have tax-cuts for dependents, family leave (thank you , Bill Clinton), and insurance coverage for pre-natal and natl care (for those affording the coverage, of course).  It would be silly to pretend that the cost of those does not pass in part to us all, a community based act if ever there was one.  I accept my burden in that task, and dutifully pay my portion of insurance premiums and taxes that cover the costs of others having babies.  This helps the community.  We offer this support based on the idea that pregnancy is a given health condition, with certain medical and medicinal needs.  We don't do this because the community owns the baby or owes the mother.  We do this because women and babies are an important part of healthy communities.

However, it has always galled me that there are costs associated with a person's choice to not have children as well, and as a community, those costs have been ignored.  Many would immediately argue that not having kids doesn't help the community, it is not a health condition, and hence is not worth of communal support.  And I would respond, that's just crap.  Many women live, work and help in our communities.  Their value for such can't be measured on whether or not they choose to bare children.  The contribution of over half our population cannot be devalued based on their effective role as breeders.  Women (and men) must have choices as to whether or not they will add to the population.  They must have the tools to be healthy members of our communities.  That's why health insurance exists, isn't it? If we believe in this as value, if we believe that women have value beyond their ability to spawn, then reproductive choice must be defended and supported.  Yet we don't do this.  We offer honestly given monetary support to the health event of procreation, but none to the health condition of avoiding pregnancy.  Both cases speak to our communal concern for the health of its members.  Yet, seemingly, we can only support the state of pregnancy (or trying to get pregnant, or even getting a harder  erection for men ... insurance pays for Viagra, right?)  That would be laughable, if it weren't so wrong.

Fortunately, I'm not the only person who seems to think these things.  Jon Tester, in a missive today, cuts right to the quick of the issue:

Over the last five years, radical activists have been waging a stealth campaign targeting reproductive freedom—and the choice they are targeting is whether Americans should be able to plan their families.

We’re not talking about access to abortion. We’re talking about access to contraception.

Contraception shouldn’t be a controversial issue. It prevents unintended pregnancies and prevents abortions.

The emphasis is mine, but important, nonetheless.  The ability to choose the state of your health shouldn't be a controversial issue.  It just shouldn't.  Americans should be able to choose the contributions they make to the communities in which we live.  No woman owes society her babies, and no man owes society a random number of children.  We can control the outcomes of our behavior, and the state of our own bodies, our health, and decrease a stress on our communities.  Why should the question ever be asked as to whether  or not reproduction is required?  It's been answered, and most of us like the result.

Yet today there is a quiet war being waged regarding access to contraception. And here in Montana, most insurance plans don’t cover birth control, even when they cover Viagra.

I don’t think that’s right.

The thing I like the best about Jon Tester, right now ... when he doesn't think something is right, he does something about it.

I have requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General of Montana to clarify whether insurance companies that provide prescription drug coverage must also, by law, cover contraception.

I think we have a good case and that we’ll prevail on this issue. The law is on our side. That’s good.

This is an issue of fairness and basic health for Montanans. It also gets to the heart of Montana values – freedom, choice, and responsibility. This is about making sure women and families have access to health coverage and Montanans can make their own decisions.

That means that soon, in Montana, women and families will have the insurance coverage they need and deserve.

That’s the sort of thing we should all be able to agree on.

There is little to nothing more that I can add to what he's said.  Any effort to reduce abortions and assist our communities is just peachy to me.  I have to admit to being surprised that a Montana politician would come out with a stance so strong, so thoughtful ... so absolutely correct, that my already high respect for him went up several notches.  Montana is about choice, for women, for men, and for families.  What Jon Tester has done is simply the right thing to do.

I'll Take That Bet

Read this soon, because the Montana GOP dickheads don't even know how to do a proper website.

According to the Sidney Herald, Gov. Schweitzer recently 'joked' to a senior citizens audience there that he could have predicted the characteristics of Hurricane Katrina because his l5-year-old daughter is named Katrina. "Her path will be uncertain and unpredictable. She will arrive very late. She will do damage, a lot of damage, and when it's all done, somebody else will be blamed." This from the mouth of the same governor who recently told the Washington Post that he has "God-given abilities." Enough said.

This from a bunch of assholes who worship at the alter of a drug-addled prick with "intelligence on loan from God".  They won't get the irony, but I'm sure that you will.

Here's what NationalJournal.com (10/5/05) has to say about the Morrison-Tester contest. "As much as we know the liberal blogosphere loves Tester, the reality is that he'll get killed in a general by Burns....The Pearl Jam fundraising concert (which raised far less than hoped for) while cute for a good press hit, will not excite the right-leaning Bush voters that any Democrat has to woo in order to win." Probably won't see this in any Tester campaign literature.

That's funny (not).  It did appear in the campaign emails, with a response from Tester.  So what do I win, assholes? 

One has to wonder why the Montana GOP would want Morrison over Tester.  Isn't that what they're implying?  Could it be that they fear Jon Tester?  Sure looks like it to me.  And somebody really ought to point out to these butt snorkelers that Bush isn't running in 2006.  Burns is.  And there just aren't a whole lot of Bush leaning voters left.  Conrad's in deep dutch.   Conrad's going down.  Let's get 'er done.

Okay, I'm Definately On Board

Just like Matt V, and everyone else on the Jon Tester mailing list, I received an email today from Jon Tester.  He references an article that appeared in  the National Journal, that tried to break down next year's contested Senate Races.  Just to save you clicks, I'll quote the relevant Montana part here.

Conrad Burns (R)
     Last ranking: 6
At some point, we could envision moving this up some but only if John Morrison and not Jon Tester gets out of the primary. As much as we know the liberal blogosphere loves Tester, the reality is that he'll get killed in a general by Burns and the NRSC, which will just paint him as out of the mainstream.

The Pearl Jam fundraising concert, while cute for a good press hit, will not excite the right-leaning Bush voters that any Democrat has to woo in order to win. We can only imagine the direct-mail pieces the GOP could come up with to bury Tester in a general. Morrison is the Democrats' best bet to keep this race competitive.

Excuse me?  A "reality" to who exactly? What "mainstream"  is it that matters so much to Montana voters?  This requires a helluva lot more explanation than is provided in that blurb.  Hopefully someone wiser than the author will provide it someday, to us simple manipulable Montana folk.  (Yep, I'm a little testy about being told what I will believe.  Imagine that.)

Jon Tester took a little offense to the implications of that dismissal, and for good reason.  From his email:

You might have seen it last week, a little article in the National Journal, Washington, D.C.’s, most insider publication, that said that any candidate seen with Big Sandy’s Jeff Ament and Pearl Jam was a surefire loser in Montana.

Quite frankly, I was a little ticked off. But I didn’t give it much thought because taking advice on winning elections from Washington, D.C., can be a bit like taking a business ethics class from Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist tied to Conrad Burns and under indictment for wire fraud and conspiracy.

Unlike Matt V, I am anti-DC establishment, and become more so by the day.  This bunch of politicking losers are the same bunch who handed the Senate to the Republicans in the first place ... specifically because they've lost touch with the people who vote.  Jon rightly points out that the Pearl Jam concert wasn't a "stunt", it was friends being friends.  If the Republicans want to match Jon's friends against Conrad's friends, then we got us a winner, here.

The quality of Tester's friends:

I grew up with Jeff Ament of Pearl Jam. Jeff is a Big Sandy boy like me. His father was Mayor, and gave me my first flattop haircut. I taught Jeff’s sisters and brother music in school. And Jeff and I used to play pickup basketball games together.

Jeff has been fortunate to make a good living doing what he loves – playing music. Year after year he gives back to the people and youth of Montana, the state he still calls home today.

And the quality of Conrad's friends?  Hmmm.  Indicted lobbyists and money launderers.  I will continue to document those until this race is over, and Conrad loses.

But here's the part that gets my hackles up:  (from Jon's email)

But then one of my primary opponents, John Morrison, decided that he needed to distribute this article across the state of Montana.

The greatest threat from Washington DC today is the cronyism of an incompetent and untrustworthy administration, that keeps Congress as a pet to be petted when they comply and slandered when they actually choose to hold to their values.  By promoting this weak endorsement from the National Journal, Morrison tells me that he would like to be a lap dog, because he will be "electable" in the sense that Washington insiders would endorse.  I'm sick of lap dogs in Washington.  The guy I endorse says this:

Let me tell you this: I don’t like Washington insiders telling me I can’t be seen with my old friends from Big Sandy. Montanans stick together, and don’t forget friends just because some D.C. insider thinks that friends are disposable. That’s not the Montana way.

Jon Tester understands that Montanans actually value our state, our relationships, and our loyalties.  If that belief is destined to lose to Conrad Burns, then at least I'll sleep better at night knowing that I voted for a person that I believe in, instead of an electability goal that walks like a man.  Morrison's pedigree means nothing, if he would accept and promote the arrogant argument that he, and he alone, can struggle against Burns.  Conrad's greatest failing as a Senator has been his clueless self-interest.  Since I first went to his website, Morrison's people have updated his Endorsements page several times ... and his issues page not at all.  That speaks to the same self-interest that I revile Conrad for.  I don't care who thinks a candidate is just spiffy, half as much as I want insight into that candidates beliefs and loyalties.  I want a candidate loyal to Montana, to Montanans, his friends and his neighbors.  Do we elect Senators to represent establishment groups and interest parties, or to represent us?  I think the latter.  And that's why I can finally, strongly, endorse Jon Tester for the US Senate.

As Matt V rightly points out, the most stirring part of Jon's email is this:

I’m running for the U.S. Senate because I think Conrad Burns has lost touch with this state. I sure won’t forget my Montana values and roots – and family and friends.

I don't give a tinker's damn if Bill Bradley supports John Morrison.  I don't vote for my Senators to please Bill Bradley.  That a famous friend and townsmen of Jon Tester would support him speaks volumes to me.  And that Jon would passionately support him right back ... THAT'S the integrity I'm looking for.  So, I officially support Jon Tester for the US Senate.  Please do so as well.

UPDATE:  I am a bad lazy blogger.  I didn't notice that it wasn't Matt who posted this issue to Left in the West, it was V.  Corrected now.