Nightfall Is Coming Quick For Conrad

So, the Montana Democrats have gotten aggressive about exposing Conrad Burns as the lobbyist whore that he is.    The press isn't backing down either, complete with special reporting from the Billings Gazette.  I'm sure you've read at better websites than mine about the advertisement letting Montanans know just how cozy Burns was with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Of course, Montana Republicans have a had a complete freak-out over this  (though they offically appear to be whistleing through the graveyard and completely ignoring it), along with the National Republican Senatorial Committee.  "Liars!" they scream.  Jack Abramoff never gave Conrad any money!!!  That defense would be believable, if it had any relation to the facts.  First, let's not be stupidly obtuse about the verbage.  No one is claiming that Jack Abramoff handed Burns a wad of cash.  Claiming that Abramoff's efforts funneled money into Burns' coffers is not at all refuted by being moronic enough to only deal with the literal.

So let's follow the facts over time, before we start screaming about falsehoods, shall we?  Fortunately, my lazy self doesn't have to do the legwork.  Josh Marshall has already done it for me.  Now I'll tell anyone who reads this right up front:  if you want to argue about this, and you haven't read that TPMCafe post, then you're an idiot, and I won't deal with you.  There's been a lot of horshshit thrown around the Internets about how much smarter and informed the folks on the right are.  So if I or any of these links offend you, put up, or shut up.

Add to this whole mess the news from this afternoon that an indictment is coming down for SantaJack, and the fact that he will likely sing his lungs out on the path to an easier deal, and I'll bet ole Conrad has one whopper of a headache this afternoon.  (UPDATE: It's official, that a warrant has been issued for Jack Abramoff.)

I probably wouldn't have written anything about this, though I've been watching it very closely, except for this  and this, from the Electric City Weblog.

Yesterday the Tribune editorialized about how the state Dems took a page from the "Republican attack book" in running their mudslinging ads about Conrad Burns. Thus, they equated the Democrats false charges with the Republican demands for an accounting from Gov. Schweitzer over the Inaugural Ball. Because, of course, the Tribune couldn't simply criticize the Dems...any criticism of the Dems will virtually always be a part of a scolding of both parties.

There's more ridiculous assumption contained in that statement then I can possibly deal with here.  Are the ads "mudslinging"?  It ain't mudslinging if it's true, pal.  And I'm amazed by 2 things:  1) your keen understanding of the motivations of the Great Falls Tribune editorial staff  (assume much?)  and 2)  that you would fail to link or present any evidence  ... well really ... of anything  (yeah, I guess you do).  Seriously, what does the MTGOP ticker about the inaugural ball have to do with the Montana Democratic Party trying to expose Conrad's shady but profitable associations?  Hmmm, nothing?  You're the one who uses the term "false charges".  Back it up, Cowboy.  This ain't about the Trib, it's about Burns.  See how simple that is?

And speaking of simple, let's drop the bullshit logic, 'kay?

If the ad were true, they wouldn't change it, period.  They got caught, and they know it. Don't buy the spin.

Dude, they added two words, no doubts so that people wouldn't be misled by the literalistic spin you're spouting.

Dennis McDonald, chairman of the Montana Democratic Party, said the ad will be changed to reflect that the money came from Abramoff, as well as associates and clients.

Let me clue you in on something that we learn in logic very early on:  additions are often made for clarity without, in any way, changing the truth value of a claim or statement.  So please, do tell me how the ad is "misleading and false"?  So which is it,  misleading or false or both, and exactly how?  Your words, pal.  Feel free to back 'em up.

(And by the way, why isn't Demosthenese all over the defense of Senator Burns?)

Further update:  From a good friend, who I'm just not sure I should link to here right now, comes these tasty tidbits: 

Burns says he met Abramoff only once for 10 minutes in his office, and the lobbyist asked for nothing.

How marvelous for him.  Only a few million problems, though:

Montana newspapers editorialized against Burns in March after a Washington Post story said he helped win a $3 million government award for the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan to build a school. The Interior Department ruled the tribe was ineligible because its Soaring Eagle casino makes it one of the richest, the Post reported.

The tribe, an Abramoff client, donated $32,000 to Burns from 2001 to 2003.

A meeting of ten minutes is worth 3 mil???  One has to wonder.

Comments

[Tony]

Well said Wulfgar but you will only hear the sound of crickets in rebuttal.
Just amazing. I went to Electric City once...eeeuwww.
I wasnt aware of the pending Suncruz indictments, amazing how busy that man was....