Focus On The Focus On Burns

I know that title may not make a whole lot of sense, but bear with me.  It might after the realization that this is two ... two posts in one.

First, in a previous post of mine concerning Conrad Burns'  efforts for the wealthy Saginaw Chippewas, commenter JP posted this:

Right or wrong, the Blackfeet are given the same consideration as the Saginaw Chippewas.  That’s the law.

Being more than passingly familiar with Montana's Reservations, I found that doubtful at the time.  It wasn't my desire to argue that point stridently with JP then, in some large part because I like the guy, and feel that he's got the toughest job in the state.  Well, the fine work of Jodi Rave, as presented by Matt at Left in the West, shows that Conrad's support may indeed be more finely tuned to the money, than to his state of representation.

"The senator is from Montana, but has never taken an interest in it," said Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff in a case where a half million Native landowners have sued the Interior Department for mismanaging money owed them for natural resource development.

As always, I urge you to read the whole article, as well as Matt's presentation of it.  Also, keep in mind these few things:

JP, in the mentioned comment also claimed this,

I can also list hundreds of thousands of dollars in other infrastructure projects and quality of life issues Burns has done for the tribes. I’ll provide them if you want.

At the time, that wasn't the focus of the issue.  Now it is, so I believe that we will probably be seeing a presentation of those facts in the next weeks to come.  But remember, focus is the name of the game.  JP's list concerns hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The amount that Burns acquired for the Saginaw Chippewas was 3 million for one school.  Half of keeping focus is context, after all.

Also, in his whorl-wind, "I'm a victim" tour, Conrad continues to claim that he changed his position on the Saginaw Chippewa's request at the behest of Michigan's 2 Democratic Senators.  Uhm, not true.

But according to letters released from both Burns and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Burns began advocating for the program more than a month before he received official requests from the Michigan delegation for grant money.

(I really hate sending people to the FireBurns website because the layout is absolutely nuclear on the eyeballs, but I had to considering what I will say in the latter part of this post.)

The web of Burns intrigue continues to grow, and will be followed diligently by Left in the West, no doubt.

Which brings me to the second half of this double-header post.  Seriously, if all you're interested in is frying ol' Conrad over a campfire, read no further.  What comes now isn't about what he's done, but more about how we are failing in efforts to show it.

The above story about Burns was posted online by Left in the West, David Sirota and even the Daily Kos.  Markos and David both link to the same Billings Gazette story.  (It's a helluva story to read, so do it.)  Matt, on the other hand, links to another take on the story.  I've every confidence that the same story with different opinions and views will be presented elsewhere.  But, ya' know what's missing?  Focus.  Now, you can tell me, if you want, that the magnifying glass is clearly focused on Burns.  Go right ahead.  And I'll ask you, which one?

Just so that we're clear on what I'm getting at:  Kos and Sirota are much (MUCH) wider read than Matt Singer, yet Matt Singer brings a different perspective to the table.  More to the point, Matt brings a different audience.  There are a few (and I mean very few) who will encounter Burns' latest escapades right here.  After all, I'm a football lovin' gun shootin' moderate who really dislikes Conrad Burns.  That's the voice I bring and the audience I reach out to.  There are others who will encounter this story at Matt's place, those who recognize his voice, but would never be caught dead reading Sirota or dKos.  Those two, on the other hand, have among the loudest bellows in the entire lefty blog-o-world.  Their commenters will comment, add and critique; but no one in Montana who avoids them and reads us will ever get this valuable additional spiff.  Is that focus?  I think not.

It lays the burden on us (Montana bloggers) to bring added message to issues that directly affect us.  Like it or not, that's a bottom supporting the top approach, and it will not work.  Markos called Left in the West the "go-to" site for Montana progressive politics, especially concerning the Senate race.  It's damn nice that he said it, but he sure doesn't seem to support that view with promotion and linkage (the currency of the blog-o-world).  Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive here, but I've noticed that a lot lately.  The right-wing websites are phenomenal at focusing the message by integrating promotion of every facet.  The left ... not so much.  Not so much at all.

And the first person to suggest that I'm writing this as form of self-promotion gets this pre-emptive bitchslap.  I got no banners, I wear no ads, and frankly I've never given a flying-frack if anybody but my friends read this drivel of mine.  But there is a job to do, here.  That job is to defeat Conrad Burns.  Focusing up concentrates the message on those who provide no heat on the ground.  Focusing down to the roots ... now that gets results.

Comments

[Matt Singer]

In their defense, both David and Markos have linked to my writing on this race and other posts I've made.

Markos is, in fact, the only national blogger to highlight the INSA/US-Asia story to my knowledge. He did it at the bottom of a post about the race.

And, honestly, as much as I like my reporting on this race, I can't expect DailyKos to become Montana-central.

[Wulfgar]

Purhaps you mistake my intent, Matt. I never expect that dKos will become Montana central. But when you do the heavy lifting, how hard is it for him to you give you the spotlight? It's a link, that's all. "See this guy if you have more to say." It ain't that tough, but it happens all the time. Keeping informational resource at the top is bad strategy. And like it or not, it's one of the reasons we (Democrats) tend to lose.

[JP]

First of all, Rob, I appreciate the kind words. I don’t know if it’s the toughest job in the state, but it’s definitely a lot more work than most would believe. I will preface this by saying that I am fully aware that I am presenting an opposing viewpoint to a group that generally doesn’t like Conrad, and are not likely to change their minds regardless of what I say.

That said, I’m appreciative of the opportunity you’ve generously offered me, and once again I’ll do my best to add some food for thought.

Let’s start with today’s Missoulian, and my quote from an earlier post. What I said stands. Ms. Rave’s article doesn’t disprove what I said in any way, shape, or form. The introduction of the Cobell lawsuit into the story changes the issue significantly. Let’s look at the law, irrespective of Burns.

There is a separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch, and Congress can’t intervene in litigation issues before the court. It would be exceptionally improper for Burns to discuss said litigation with the lead plaintiff while on an airplane ride.

The ‘fine work’ of Ms. Rave also didn’t include the document I personally handed to her which included over $11 Million in funds specifically for the Blackfeet. Remember the deplorable conditions at the detention center that made the news last year? Burns went to visit the location, and then allocated funds to fix that horrible mess. Didn’t get reported by Ms. Rave.

I guess my point to this is, there’s another side to the story, and for whatever reason Ms. Rave chose not to include it even though she was given it.

“Half of keeping focus is context.”

When I said ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’, I purposely understated because I had no empirical facts at my fingertips, and that’s just the way I work. Upon further review, the total amount of funds brought to Montana tribes by Senator Burns since 1998 totals over $225 Million dollars. Happy to document that, and the press already has it.

“Uhm, not true.”

What Burns said is true. You’re confusing ‘program’ and ‘project’ (and believe me, it’s easy to do. I have a hard time keeping track of this stuff and I do it for a living.)

The Tribal School Demonstration Program (or ‘program’) was originally started in the late 90’s, and the Burns-Dorgan letter requests the continuation of the program. There is no mention of the Saginaw Chippewa in the letter because the request hadn’t been made yet by the Michigan Delegation.

Let’s look at the program, and why it’s a good thing:

Prior to the demonstration program, Tribally-operated schools were eligible for 100% federal dollar replacement, or, in other words, the federal government would build a completely new school entirely with taxpayer dollars. All tribes, rich or poor were eligible for this.

The Federal government would allocate X dollars in a fiscal year, let’s say $100 million (for the sake of argument. I don’t know what the actual dollar amount is.) All tribes wanting replacement would be placed in line, and the top of the list would get its money, then the next, then the next until the year’s allocation was spent.

The demonstration program (which continues today) provided a separate pot of money that could be used for cost-share replacement. In other words, tribes that had the financial means to provide at least 50% of the replacement funds could move over to this program, thereby alleviating some of the burden on the original program.

In short, tribes with money could pay part of the cost and get their school replaced faster. Those that couldn’t afford to cost-share moved up the list faster because some tribes moved to the other program. More tribally-operated schools got built, and built faster.

About a month later, the request for the Saginaw-Chippewa was made by the Michigan delegation, as I showed you in the letter. Burns didn’t start working on the Sag-Chip project until the request came in, but he was supportive of the program even before. No inconsistency there.

Now I'll sit back and wait patiently for the bludgeoning to begin.

[New Lurker (I GOTTA get a new screen name!)]

Hi JP,

I appreciate you taking this debate seriously enough to come to the table yourself.

Since we're talking focus, I feel that the focus of Senator Burns' notorious Marianas Islands vote is a little skewed. While I feel a little uneasy about a Montana Senator recieving contributions from garment moguls in the Commnwealth, I don't really care if that's what changed his mind, or if he even changed his mind.

What I really want to know is how MY Senator can justify voting AGAINST protecting human rights in factories working under the banner of MY country?

Yes, I've read his statements. I feel that both the "I had some questions about the funding" and "I haven't a clue why" excuses are unacceptable.

Can you document something further for us here?

[Eric Coobs]

Senator Burns is a good man.

And no matter how much the liberals smear & criticize him, he will mop up the canvas with either Tester or Morrison, take your pick.

It reminds me of how the liberals pinned all their hopes on John Kerry, and predicted a big victory for him!

[Wulfgar]

Eric, I respect your opinion about Conrad, and you've made your prediction well known (here as elsewhere). But here's the thing, politics ain't football, and political predictions don't mean squat. I can predict that John Lynch will prove himself a more capable Safety than Troy Polamalu. The similarities of my prediction to yours are these: they're based on what we've seen, and we won't know the result until the game is played.

It's the differences that matter. Your prediction assumes that Burns is a good man, and a win in an election will prove that. No, no it won't. My prediction will hold or fail, given the Safety performance on Sunday. Yours proves nothing about the man that we elect, save his palatability to the electorate. Ain't nothing about quality involved in that.

Second, my prediction is based solely on the performance of a given person, with no result that affects me other than who I get to see in the Super Bowl. Your stating (or rather constant restating) of your prediction is actually affected by the performance of what you do, and those around you. That's a pretty big difference if you ask me.

Lastly, and most important, our metric of quality isn't objective when it comes to your prediction. The qualities of my prediction can be shared. Who has more tackles and assists? Who has more time spent in blitz packages? Who makes more plays in pass coverage? You can actually talk intelligently about my prediction in the same terms as I do. Your prediction ... not so much. You think Burns is a good man, and will wipe the floor with other men. I think Burns is liar, and a lousy Senator; I think Burns as a person is a guy I don't give one salient crap about. I don't care if he's a good man. I care if he's a good Senator, and he isn't. When it comes to your prediction, Eric, you and I aren't even talking the same language.

I mean, look at yourself, claiming that "libruls" only smear and criticize him. Gimme a break. Of course we criticise him. That's what people who think he's screwing up are supposed to do; and you think it's somehow reasonable to "blame" them for it? That's just silly. If he does wrong, someone is going to point it out. That's kinda how this works, right?

So, I'm glad you've commented, yet one more time, that you think Burns is a winner. I hope you understand why I maintain a "we'll see" attitude about it. But you'd probably help your cause a little if, like JP, you'd actually present an argument instead of a prediction. 'Kay?

[JP]

New Lurker –

I’m happy to add some points to the Northern Marianas issue. First some background.

In 2000, (then) Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK) introduced legislation impacting immigration issues in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI). The legislation didn’t have companion language in the House, and ended up passing by unanimous consent and dying.

Shortly after the vote, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued two separate reports that demonstrated the significantly negative effect Murkowski’s legislation would have on the economy of the CNMI as they continued their recovery from the Asian Flu. Also during this time, the Speaker of the House, Ben Fitial, met with Conrad about this and other CNMI issues.

(Insert sidebar here: “Just why in the hell does a Senator from Montana give one flip about the Northern Marianas?” Good question. As Chairman/Ranking of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Burns controls the funding levels for the Department of the Interior. All territorial islands/protectorates fall under the blanket of the Office of Insular Affairs within the DOI, and also have no Senate representation of their own, so they bring their concerns to the Chair/Rankings of the Committees that have oversight.)

Murkowski’s legislation would have cost taxpayers a good penny compared to the pending reforms underway in the CNMI legislature. With Burns concerned about expenditure of taxpayer dollars, and being a strong believer in letting local jurisdictions tackle a problem before a heavy-handed federal approach is taken, he voted against it.

Now, allow me to sound whiny and petulant for a moment. When the original article was written, and Burns was interviewed for it, I asked for additional time to do the historical research necessary on a vote that had occurred four and five years previously. We didn’t get that time to do the proper research, and Burns had to go from memory. Sure, it’s an excuse, but it’s a valid one (and one that certainly can be argued and pilloried). I would just ask you to think back five years and wonder just how many crystal clear details you can remember of what you were doing/thinking at X o’clock on the X of (Month) in 2000 or 2001. Now, if I gave you 24 hours to think about it, and let you look into your records, I’ll bet your answer would be a lot more cohesive and comprehensive after a little time.

The short summarized answer to your question is this: Burns felt it better for the local leaders of the CNMI to address the labor issue rather than Washington, as decisions are usually best made at the local level.

Again, thanks for letting me provide a different thought.