The Bozeman Chronicle Reaches For Stupid ... Again

King Of Swamp Castle:  Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

I couldn't help but think of that when reading this opinion piece from the Bozeman Chronicle's editorial staff today.  They, apparently, want us to forget Abramoff, the scandals and the negativity, and just concentrate on what happy puppies our candidates can provide us with.  I'll stop short of saying that that's deceitful, because it's more fun to refer to it as colossally stupid.

The message wouldn't be so bad, if the presentation wouldn't have wallowed in abject idiocy.  Example the first:

We know from a myriad of news reports that Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff is something less than ethical. We know he gave money to the campaigns of Sen. Max Baucus and Sen. Conrad Burns.

Whoa.  Stop right there.  You'd figure, with the recent dust-up over the Helena IR making the same false claim, that the Chronicle editors would be smart enough to tell the truth.  You'd be wrong.  Max Baucus took precisely *NO* money from Jack Abramoff.  The Chronicle's  statement is not just "factually incorrect", it is simply a well debunked lie that only the truly stupid would continue to support.  However, the Chronicle rarely disappoints when looking for the truly stupid.

Furthermore, one has to wonder about the intellect of those who continue to say that just because someone else did something the same as Burns that what Burns has done does not matter.  Show me the other Senator who reversed his position on giving 3 million bucks to a tribe that didn't need it.  Then we'll talk.

And finally, the editors seem too clueless to accept the obvious point of their own column.  This is 2006, a re-election year for Conrad Burns.  Max Baucus has nothing, not one thing, to do with the  ethical troubles that Burns faces in getting re-elected.  Baucus isn't running against Burns.  However, men who didn't get any money from Abramoff or his clients are.   Comparing where they get their money to where Burns got his seems not only a valid campaigning technique, but damn prudent for the voters, I've no doubt.

The over-arching stupidity of this op-ed lies in it's initial assumption.  That assumption is that the candidates aren't answering the questions that the Chronicle poses. The fact is, some candidates are trying very hard to answer those questions and get their message out.  They have websites, they have help on the Internet, they do public appearances.  But the Bozeman Chronicle seems absolutely clueless about all of this.   In other words, the very people whose job it is is to *report* facts and get answers are whining because they themselves aren't looking for those answers. 

Dear Bozeman Chronicle,

In case you forgot, reporting is your job.  If you want to present the Abramoff scandal items, you will.   If you want to report where candidates stand on issues, then you can ask them and report it.  The one thing that you really shouldn't do is blame politicians and parties because you feel unequal to the task of doing YOUR FUCKING JOB!

Love, Wulfgar.

Comments

[Eric Coobs]

Do you really expect an answer?

[Wulfgar]

From the Chronicle? Of course not.

Now, if you meant "do I expect my fellow statesmen to recognize bullshit when it appears in the paper", well yeah; yeah I kinda' do.

[Rocky Smith]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901476.html

While I don't support Burns, I can't agree with your statement that Baucus got no money from Black Jack. The Washington Post story linked above says otherwise. I'm not saying Max did anything illegal or that he did favors for Abramoff. I'm just pointing out that he DID get money from Jack. To say he got no money at all is simply false. I'm very suprised that you would lie for Max. Max is definitely less involved from what I have seen so far, but to say he got no money is an outright lie. If he didn't, why is he returning it?

[Wulfgar]

Wrong, Rocky. Check the facts. I said "none" and I mean "none". The WashPost article that is being spoonfed by the state Republicans cautiously mentions Baucus getting Abramoff "related" money. It's a not so subtle slight of hand geared solely to coerce the distrustful into calling people like me "liars". But the facts are on my side.

[Rocky Smith]

So this is supposed to be the list of all Abramoff contrfibutions, Wulfgar? If so, where is Conrad Burns' name? It isn't on that list either. MAYBE Max didn't get a check directly from Black Jack's hand, but he did get money. Why else would he be returning it? So if Abramoff gives me $1000 and I then give it to you, you can say you didn't get any money from Abramoff? You are being less than straight forward on this. Partisanship? You are splitting hairs to attempt to say Max is totally free of any Abramoff money. I'm quite willing to say that Burns did get money and looks dirty for doing it. I haven't said Max sold a vote or anything similar. He DID get money though. I think the Washington Post is a respectable source. Why don't you author a post on how they lied too?

[Wulfgar]

Rocky, you called me a liar, remember? And now, since the facts support me and directly contradict the Chronicle, you say I'm being disingenious. What the hell color is the sky on your world?

[Rocky Smith]

Okay Wulfgar. You are right and the Helena Independent Record, The Bozeman Chronicle, and The Washington Post are all wrong. Why then is Max returning money he "didn't get"? You don't seem to want to acknowledge that Baucus did get money, even if indirectly, from Abramoff. I contend he did. I have not claimed that Max did anything illegal, nor do I claim he got a check directly from Black Jack's hand. He did get money though. Read the Post story. He returned money. What part of that won't sink into your mind? The Washington Post is not a media arm of the Republican party. I don't think the story is a falsification. I don't even think you are really lieing. You just want to wiggle around by the fact that Abramoff's money wasn't in the form of a direct check from Abramoff's account to Max's. Running it through a third party account makes it all clean in your world though, I guess.
Burns appears to be in a lot more trouble in that he may have voted the way Abramoff wanted him to. If that's true, Conrad deserves to get trouble. I wasn't going to vote for him anyway. I think I have made the point that I'm not one of his fans many times in the past.
But Baucus is returning money he never received? Keep on tilting at windmills, my friend.

[Wulfgar]

Rocky, I remind you, yet again, that you called me a liar. Are we clear on that? I didn't lie. You seem to want to believe that I'm saying the Washington Post lied. No, they didn't. What they did do is use the rather slippery phrase "Abramoff related" money. Now what the hell is that supposed to mean? The Chronicle, on the other hand, wrote, and I quote: "We know he gave money to the campaigns of Sen. Max Baucus". Now tell me, please, how there is any truth to that? If you wanna know where the money that Max is "giving back" came from, then do the research and let us all know. (Hint, I already do, but I've no interest in derailing the point I was making in this post simply to correct your ignorance. That's exactly what the GOPpers want, and they won't get it from me.)

You've been played, Rocky. You're supporting the GOP talking points without even realizing that you're doing it. There's a huge difference between getting campaign funds from Abramoff clients, and getting campaign funding from Abramoff's illegal activities. The newspapers we "libruls" are so obviously lying about are attempting to paint those two as the same thing, and you're helping them do it. They aren't the same thing. Period.