A Chicken Is Not Pillage

This Politician Thinks You're An Igner't Pup

Steve Eschenbacher is running for office.  He thinks that the people he is running to represent are stupid.  He thinks that they're a bunch of commie pinkos.  And now we find that Steve Eschenbacher, idiot for HD 96, thinks that those who support and work to elect Barack Obama are just dumb little kids.

That money would be put to better use elsewhere, along with the staffers, those sweet young innocent naifs who actually believe in (Obama) because they don't know any better.

That's right, Missoula.  If you support Barack Obama, Steve Eschenbacher thinks you're a idgit pup who just don't know any better.

I'm not going to waste any more time insulting him than he wastes insulting you folks, and insulting himself.  I'll just remind you that Steve is an elitist that thinks you're a tool.  Vote accordingly, Missoula.

Mansfield Metcalf Dinner Part 1

Let's call this part The Beginnining.

The journey with my beloved to the event in Butte (by way of Dillon) got off to very sour note.  On Saturday morning, the Bozeman Comical ran a lead story that was little else but a Republican hit piece.  It described in garish fantasy how the visit from the Democratic Presidential candidates was ... get this ... bad for state Democrat and a *good thing* for Republicans.  The central theme was that Montana Democrats are afraid to identify as such, and that secretly we all want to be and vote Republican.  Oh, and obviously McCain will win Montana in November.  It was truly a biased op-ed masquerading as journalism (a claim born out when we got to read the fuller version of the AP story in the Montana Standard later in the day.  I tend to view such journamalism with rather derisive humor (especially when they identified Matt Singer as just a "liberal blogger" instead of the CEO of Forward Montana.)  My beloved took it rather more ... harshly.  I guess I should remind her more often that the introductory rate we got for our subscription gains the Comical no profit.  The passing of dinosaurs is her favorite theme, and our local fishwrap is just one instance of the extinct  misunderstanding their own obsolete nature.

So, we booked off to Dillon to pick up the rest of the crew and head to Butte.  We go to Butte.  Driving driving ... (this is the part of the story where there should be a montage to indicate the exciting passage of time.)   And we get in line to get in.  Folks, I am not lying when I say that that line was approaching  a quarter mile long, if not well more than that.  And it was cold.  As amusing as it would be, I won't wax descriptive of the wait to enter, mostly because it wasn't that amusing.  What I will happily say is this:  there were one helluva lot of strong determined people who wanted to enter that event, and nothing was gonna stop   them.  For an hour and a half, we all froze together, joked together, distrusted and trusted each other.  But very damn few, if any, called it quits and left.  There were several people I knew who walked past to get in for floor seating, including Monica Lindeen and Matt.  And dude, would please get a better jacket?  The retro look is cool and all, but you're somebody now, and you ought to dress the part ...  The high point was when the Obama cavalcade drove by.  Cops, SUVs and a bus.  Most of the crowd thought that a way cool thing.  I loved it because when the bus went by it was a way warm thing.  Yeah I was excited too, but still.  It was warm for a second and certain human things come first

On the way through the door, I got to do something I've been waiting to do for just shy of three years.  John Parker, who is running for Attorney General of Montana, was passing out stickers right at the entrance.  And I got to shake his hand.  Ya' see, three years ago John Parker had had enough of Roger Koopman's crap, and let him know it.  I've wanted to shake his hand and thank him ever since, and now I have.

Let's call this part of the narrative The Eventening.

Of course I got pulled for the raised-arm-scary-dude security check.  My belt buckle set off the alarm.  I told security that it would, but still, I got the wand.  If I get cancer in my balls, I'm suing somebody; that's for certain.  We all, upon re-meeting, fled up into the stands to find good seats.   Let me just say that the Butte Civic center stadium seating  *sucks rocks*.  It is cramped.  There are no walkways.  The seat-backs add to the aforementioned problems.  It is a poor venue.  But, and that's a huge bootay but, the people were mostly great.  We helped each other get situated, we made room.  There were a few folks who got pissy about pass-through, or stepping on seats, but most  of the people there were common in cause, and very polite.  While I was trying to arrange dinner boxes for our group, I ran into a co-worker (very excited to be there, and probably very cold from the wait) as well as my state representative, Franke Wilmer, looking beautiful and charming as always.

Okay, let's us be honest here.  We all felt somewhat out of place, out of time.   This was a huge huge event.  There was not one person there, great or small including myself, who didn't feel the gravity of what Montana was experiencing.  Our next President was in the house, and was going to speak.  We all felt that awkwardness, that discomfort at socially accepted norms not known, and that simple confidence.  This night was making history.

Throughout the night, I saw many people I knew (most within the 'protected zone').  Some people I've worked with.  Some I have politicked with, and some I still do.  Some I blog with.  I do remain saddened that more social groupings - meetups - get togethers could not have been arranged.  But I was rather heartened by the idea that we were mostly there for common cause.  Let me be honest in pointing out at this point that 10 dollars a seat should not have separated the groupings.   No, I'm not saying that we should have had their food or their legroom.  But we should have not been divided into the center of importance and the masses above.  In that venue, it felt rather artificial and unnecessary.  Throughout the night, I felt that mildly unfair juxtaposition rather acutely, considering the nature and character of the speakers we listened to.

Dennis McDonald is alright by far.  I've never had the opportunity to meet the guy, but I do look forward to the day.  He appears humble, hard-working, humorous and jovial.  He introduced Barack Obama ... and the crowd went wild.    There were many more Hillary signs at the event, but there was no denying the thunder of Obama's support.  I think Obama supporters outnumbered Clinton's by a factor of 3 to 2.  This guy is popular in Montana, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  Obama was very gracious to Montana and his hosts.  I was actually impressed that he admits that he doesn't know what many of us take for granted, fishing.  His praise for our state officials appeared genuine.  This Chicago boy actually seems to like Montana, and his visit here.  I hope that he will fulfill his promise to return, and learn to fish ... though I can think of many who could probably teach him better than our Governor.  I will write more on the substance of the speech later.  And just for the record, though I had planned to do so, I was not the guy who yelled "Freebird!"  during his speech.

When Barack left the stage, a form of chaos ensued.  Word to the wise:  never act with kids or animals, and never follow Obama with a speech of your own.  Jon Tester took the stage, and after an impassioned plea of behalf of Jim Hunt, he introduced Max Baucus.  Max, the video is lame.  Just sayen' ...  Max is not a good mass public speaker.  I've known that for  very long time.  His speech here was ... very lame.  It's possible (probable) that I have a biased attitude but I was not impressed.  He kept saying "I will do thing X.  ARE YOU WITH ME?"  And I kept saying, yeah, but are you with us? 
It's at this point that I have to make enemies by writing the truth.  Good God in heaven; what a rude bunch the people on the floor were.  Most of us unwashed masses in the stadium seating were too confined to noisily talk and socialize while the other speakers were speaking, but not so with the floor.  It was damned hard to hear Max (partly his own fault) and it was hard to hear anyone after him until Hillary.  I guess I'm old school, but I was taught that if you have someone speaking, you damn well better listen.  (I've been struggling with this because I didn't want to offend, but ... the folks in the Forward Montana crowd were as bad as any.  V, you looked sharp.  But the eyes in the sky of the unwashed masses see all, and the party rude was ... well ... rude.)

When the chatter below really got offensive was when Stephanie Herseth Sandlin  spoke.  First, I paid attention because she's hot.  No, really, she's hot.  (Yeah, I know I'm a pig).    Second, I really wanted to hear what she had to say.  She's bright, and there's no doubt about that.  Third, I only heard about 2/3 of her speech because of the noise.  I was not amused.  What I did hear, I can't say I was impressed with.  I enjoyed the western anecdotes.  But, mostly I was left with the impression that she talked much and said little.  I find that sad because I really think she had much to say.  She was to be the keynote speaker, but there's nothing like getting up-staged by Presidential candidates.  I hope to hear more from her in the future.  She's obviously bright, and very committed.  And she's hot ... did I mention that?

The nicest thing about listening to Jon Tester and the Governor Brian Schweitzer is that they didn't need attention or the microphone.  Those guys ... project.  They are Montana, through and through.  It's impossible to be a Democrat in Montana and not adore these guys.  Many would have us believe that it's because they are 'characters'.  Nope.  They're just good people doing a good job, good and loudly.  It's hard to fault that.  And Jag is just too damned cool.

Which brings us to the final act, Hillary Clinton.  She looked good, when she finally took the stage.  The other speakers compressed time, and we found ourselves with dead air at 25 to 9.  Still no Hillary.  At 9, still no Hillary.  Dennis McDonald made the introduction at 5 after.  I was looking at my niece and telling her that one thing that will not thrill Montanans is to keep 'em waiting (with her agreement.)  Still, when Ms. Clinton took the stage there was much energy, and a rather sudden quiet.  Her speech was almost a direct mirror of Obama's, with more Chimpy McWorthless hate, and less standing applause.  She said many good things, but most of us were too tired (or in the case of the floor folk, too drunk) to receive the message quite as enthusiastically.  Still, she is a helluva speaker, and she energized the crowd ... somewhat too often to go home.

I just want to say to all of you folks leaving in the middle of Hillary's speech in order to beat the traffic:  You suck!  How rude can you be?  The speech was not bad, and was actually something you might have wanted to hear.  You folks suck!

I will save my after-thoughts (The Endenning) for later.

A Question Of Decorum

Aha!  I see that Franke Wilmer has indeed filed to retain her seat as the State Representative from House District 64.  Which, of course, leaves me with a very important question.

Hey Franke, since I still have my yard sign from two years ago, can I go ahead and put it out ... or would setting it out this early be considered in poor taste?

Oh Sweet Gods Of Irony

I've been waiting, rather patiently in fact, to see if anyone would notice something peculiar in Jeff Krauss' refusal to sign the Bozeman Anti- Iraqi-War proposal.  It's rather telling that no one, 'til now, has.  Let's go to the tape:

Bozeman Mayor Jeff Krauss said Wednesday that he would not sign the resolution because he did not agree with it, making it one of the rare occasions when he has declined to sign a resolution the commission has voted to support.

"This is one I feel like taking a stand on," Krauss said.

Fair enough, except ...

Krauss said he opposed the resolution for two reasons: he considered it inappropriate for the city to be discussing a federal issue; and U.S. troops' perseverance in Iraq is saving lives.

Wait, what?  He's refusing to sign because it's inappropriate for local politicians to discuss but his refusal is based (in part) on the belief that what we're doing is for the best and he takes a stand to defend that?  (Just for the dim among you {Hi Dave} he is a local politician  refusing to sign as a message about how he won't support the wrong message.)

Imagine my head spinning in Exorcist-like fashion.

Jeff, I like you, and agree with one of your points.  More to the facts, I agree that nothing done at the local level ... any local level ... will change the hard-headed-hearted policy of the Commander in Chimp.  But, Dude, even you've gotta see how silly the irony of your stand looks at this point.

You Gotta Love The Simple Truth

Sarpy Sam cuts right through the bull far better than I ever could.  Read that post and tell me he isn't right.  Better yet, tell him.  I dare ya'.

Building A Road, Or Party Power?

I will once again urge those of us on the more leftward side of issues to read more conservative Montana blogs.  And no, I am not talking about the site'o'stupid.  MTPolitics, The Montana Misanthrope and Montana Headlines are, of course, well within our radar.  The Montana Conservative and The Western Word should be as well.  It is the latter, to which I address this post.

It seems our resident REO fan has to take issue with Senator Baucus because Baucus procured funding for the rebuild of the Going to the Sun highway, without making certain that all the money would come to Montana companies.  Montana companies that apparently don't have the qualifications required are ... unhappy ... about this turn of events.  How tragic.  The Federal Highway Administration has set the baseline of requirements so high that Montana firms are excluded from being the general (prime) contractor on the project.  It looks for all the world like only two US companies have the qualifications required.  Jack the Blogger (who annoyingly refers to himself in the third person) appears to think that this is some kind of outrage on the part of our Senior Senator.  Wulfgar the Blogger's response is a hardy "SO WHAT"?

Here's our points of agreement:

1)  The Going to the Sun road needs repair/rebuild.

2)  It is, exactly as Kaiser described it, a "unique project because it's so mountainous, it's environmentally sensitive, and it's dangerous."

3)  Montana firms will get considerable amounts of subcontractor work out of the 10 year project.

The points of disagreement are rather more telling.

A)  Glacier National Park is Federal property.  They (the Feds) can require whatever they wish in a contractor to rebuild Federal property.  If they want a contractor who understands rose hybridization, they have the right and duty to request such.  Baucus has no say in that.

B)  It's kinda icks me out that Montana business persons would whine so much about not receiving pork.

C)  If Baucus had procured rules that favor Montana contractors, it would be seen (and really would have been) nothing more than a pork project.  Does Jack the Blogger really favor such things?

D)  Jack writes:

the Feds have written the language so restrictive that Montana companies cannot compete for the job as prime contractors. They can only pick up slivers of the multi-million contract as subcontractors.

???  Slivers?  It's a 50 million dollar project.  I'd take "slivers" of that in a heartbeat.  Subcontractors can make significant amounts of money on any project.  Please, let's define the slivers before we bitch, okay?

E)  Bird in the Hand.  More Montanans will get jobs out of this project.  Period.  That's a given.  But Jack laments:

hundreds of jobs for Montanans are lost over the next 10 years because of the “more powerful” Federal Highway Administration.

How in the hell do you know that?  You don't.  There's nothing in the article written that says that.  The Montana contracting firms interviewed are pissed because they could have made more money (profit)  as the general contractor.  There is nothing to suggest that Montanans will lose jobs (or more accurately, job opportunities) because of this.  Get real.

Nope, I think if you look at it rationally, Jack is playing party politics.  If we had Burns in place, then the fantastical might have happened.  Who the hell knows.  What is certain is this.  The GTTS rebuild will bring tourist dollars.  Montanans will get jobs rebuilding the road.  Montana firms will prosper because of this project.  And, we all agree, it needs to take place.  I'm having a hard time seeing the downside here.

Watch Your Lange-uage, Sir!

My goodness, what a potty mouth that man has on him!  Gracious Sakes, Alive!

Okay, by now, pretty much everybody (and my brother) has commented on Mike Lange's little meltdown.  Be sure to watch the video (I especially like the uncensored version).  Even the Dark Lord in his Orange Hell has weighed in.  So, apparently all that's left is for Montana's proud and curmudgeonly R-rated blogger to take a stance and give comment, Right?  It's what you're all waiting for, AMIRIGHT?   Okay, probably not so much.  But I do have a few comments to share.

1)  I expected that from John Sinrud well before  Mike Lange.  Kudos to Lange for taking the initiative.

2)  Anyone who was surprised by this is pretty silly.  This stuff is diriger for hard line Republicant's.    It's their way or the highway, and if you don't agree then you can shove it up your ass.  Seriously, how can anyone be surprised by this when Vice President Dick Cheney told a sitting Senator to go fuck himself?  This isn't the exception, it's the norm.

3)  As you've probably guessed, I have no problems with the profanity at all, and in fact, find it amusing that there are those who do, left or right.  Our children are not so fragile that hearing words spoken in anger and disgust will scar them.   Yes, words have power, but only so much as we give them (individually).  No, the amusing part of this foul little meltdown on Mike Lange's part is that he represents the party of personal responsibility and family values.  And yet he accepts none of the  former and cares not a whit for the latter.  No, the problem here isn't dirty words; it's stupid hypocrisy.

4)  I am upset that Mike Lange gives those of us who cuss a bad name.  Stick it up your ass?    God Bless in the same paragraph as I don't give a shit?  Mikey, Mikey ... you're doing it all wrong.  You really need to unleash, man.  If you're pissed off and you have a point, then let it flow.  You presented theater, not invective.  It just doesn't ring true.

Ya' see, Mikey hasn't really got a point, other than that the Governor won't flow his way.  He's not appearing to be pissed off; he's just being petulant.  Like the little boy who  screams poopy to hear himself stretch a boundary, Mikey thinks that telling the Governor to  stick it up his ass is  high dungeon.  No, no no no no.  No.  You tell the Governor to shove it up his ass.  You call him a sonofabitch, not an SOB.  You don't whimper about how you'll follow your buds off a cliff when you're attacking the cocksucking muckraking motherfucking asshole who stands in your way.  Take charge, you pissant.  Jesus Christ in a jumped up fucking sidecar, you are pathetic, Mikey!

The simple fact is this.  As Ed Kemmick well points out, Schweitzer attempted no bribe; he attempted statesmanship.  And Lange threw a hollow tantrum that helped the Governor.  Lange had no reason for anger, and so his invective resounded with stupidity.  There are many reasons to use profanity.   Lange had to search for one, and couldn't find it in the end.   He wasn't tough in stance, he was silly.  Most of us laugh at the silly.  Schweitzer certainly did.

5)  The real reason behind all of this is that there will be a special session.  They were the one's shouting "Stay Till May", right?  That was the Republicant goal all along, to derail the  process and make their betters look bad.  To call their efforts a dismal failure would be kind.  Schweitzer's popularity has risen.  I'd shudder to think what harm Lange has done to his political future.  But I strongly suspect that a special session will be greeted with horror ... as it should be.  After all, it will mean that brave citizen legislators are torn from their homes just as our soldiers in Iraq are.  I don't doubt that there will be those who will point out that the Governor's actions will mirror those of the President who sadly had to extend the term of our soldiers serving in Iraq.   As Truly Tragic as this is, we must think of Kim Sinrud.

Quote Of The Week

State House Representative Bill Jones (R-Bigfork) said a mouthful.  The House Judiciary Committee has tabled a bill, passed by the Senate, that would abolish Montana's death penance penalty.  Jones, in committee, voted to carry the bill forward.  But it isn't just this bill he spoke of when he said these wise words:

"There's more liability for those who obstruct the legislative process than those who vote their conscience," Jones said.

I send an open plea to the failure that is the State House of Representatives:  More of that, please.

(For the record, I weakly support the death penalty.  That support is fading.)

Not Very Clear On The Concept

After everything I've written, it should be damned clear that I am not an anti-gun crusader.  Only an idiot would think that arguing reason would put me in the camp of the GFW (gun fearing wussies, which is Kim DuToit's pet term for anyone he thinks might not appreciate the righteous weight of his gun-lust).  Of course, there are idiots out there, so let me be clear right up front:  there are things about the proposed Montana Gun Rights bill (House Bill 693/340) that I like.  I like the fact that it states clearly a person's right to self-defense in the face of harm.  I like the fact that one need not appeal to the nanny-state police force before using firearms in self-defense.  I deeply like the fact that it addresses the most manipulated plank of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.  It brings it into the public purview and removes the shallow thinking that one person's feelings of intimidation based simply on their delicate perception of another trumps another person's Constitutionally granted rights.  If I hike up a trail with my .44 on my hip, HB 693 ensures that I won't get hassled because of some security-mom horrified that her children on a nature hike were exposed to this brawny hairy scary guy who obviously wants to kill everyone with his big bad hogleg.   Security-mom can suck-it-up.  I need the Mag against the grizzlies, and they don't intimidate.

Unfortunately, that right there is what I don't like about HB 693/340
.  It allows and codifies the legality of intimidation.  Section 1, article 5 reads: 

(5) the use of firearms for self-defense discourages violent crime and prevents victimization; and

I, for one, would like to see some proof of that.  That is an unfounded assertion of the bill that I find ludicrous, and dangerous.  I'll be the first to admit that proper use of firearms can have the stated effect, and that's why we allow cops to carry guns.    Security-mom, trying to defend her children with a weapon she's fired at the range *twice*, is more likely to have the gun taken from her, get more people killed and escalate violence both before and during a criminal act.  If I'm a bad guy gonna rob you, and I think you're armed, I'm gonna pop you before you know my intent.  If you think I'm full of it, look at the pattern of crime in areas like South Central LA, where most folk are assumed to be packing and murders accompanying larceny are astronomical (compared, of course, to Montana.)  The intimidation factor involved in firearms does not necessarily preclude violence or victimization.  It might just solidify the resolve of the violent.  The above article is pathetically poor language to put in a bill.

But what I really don't like about HB 693/340 is Section 3.  Read this:

NEW SECTION.  Section 3.  Defensive display of firearm not a crime. (1) A person who displays or shows a firearm for a defensive purpose may not be held accountable for a criminal act.

That right there would ensure the very intimidation that we fear might prohibit us from defending ourselves in the future.  If I walk down the street with my Mag swinging in my hand beside me, I'm definitely announcing to the world that I am defended.  Or, I'm announcing to the world that I'm just gonna light up the universe of anyone who pisses me off.  Or, I'm announcing to the world that my ex-wife  is about to get a big surprise.  Regardless of my intent,  those who encounter me will make assumptions, including law-enforcement.  HB 693/340, places the burden of proof on those individuals who would challenge my right to walk down the street with a bad-ass Mag swinging in my hand.  Do I have a criminal intent, or am I just displaying my weapon for defensive purpose?  The burden of proof would lie with the one who would accost and challenge (and thereby threaten) the guy with the gun in his hand.

Security-mom:  You can't just walk around like that!
Billy Bad ass:  Are you gonna stop me?  It's my right.
Security-mom:  Put that thing away in front of my children!
Billy Bad Ass:  Are you threatening me?
Security-mom:  I'm calling the Cops!

Cops arrive:  Halt, or we'll shoot! 
BBA:  But I'm not breaking the law.  Back off, Copper.
*Pakoww*  *Blam, Blam, Blam*

According to HB 693/340, Billy Bad Ass is in the right.  Too bad he's dead now.  Say hello to the lawsuits, and have fun paying for them.

The legalization of intimidation actually goes farther than that, though.  Let's say that I have a neighbor who has trespassed on my property and done damage to it (yeah, I'm looking at you, Paul.) If I pull a gun on him to let him know that I'm not putting up with his shit, am I in the right?  As long as I don't point it at him, I am.  I can claim "feelings" of threat at any time.  If he shows up at my door to apologize for his buttheadness, I can blast him.  Shit man, I didn't know what his intent was.  He might have been here to do me harm.

And, ya' see, here's the real stupidity of this law.  It prohibits things that are almost impossible to legally adjudicate.  The bill reads:

(3) The right to show or display a firearm does not include:

     (a) pointing a firearm directly at another person or sweeping another person with the muzzle of a firearm;

Uhhm, If you think you're threatened, and the point of carry is to be able to defuse a hostile situation, then isn't aiming the weapon kind of neccesary?   Hells yes, it is.  Read above.  The  Bill states that the threat of using firearms will prevent crime.  If I think I'm going to be attacked, pointing my gun at the kids down the street won't exactly help, will it?

(c) deliberately provoking another person into threatening words or actions when possessing a firearm; or

And, exactly, who in the hell is going to prove that?  Pointing a weapon at the  Meth-head standing on my stoop, while screaming "Get the  F~@k off my porch, doper!" is pretty threatening, and likely to evoke a threatening response.  And one would have to say it's also effective according to the supposed spirit of the bill.  But yet, it's illegal by the language of the bill.  WTF?

d) an offensive display or showing of a firearm while verbally threatening another person.

Please see the above.  What the hell is the point of letting someone know you're armed to the teeth if you're not going to threaten them with using those firearms against them?  That's just patently stupid!  So, you can't point your weapon, you can't elicit a response while declaring your weapon, and you can't  tell somebody what the consequence is if they force you to use your weapon.  Does this make any sense at all? No.  No it doesn't.

Folks, I hope you've learned by now that I am not at all in favor of dumbass law.  And HB 693 is dumbass law.  It's even deeper dumbass law when one recognizes that it's defenders are basing it's efficacy on a meth addict's twisted threats against a maintenance guy.  Even worse, the Montana Republicant party has jumped into this sewage of a bill, based on a lie, with attack ads and bone-headed stupidity.  And the final insult is that rabid defenders of our right to keep and bear arms, regardless of the stupidity involved in doing so, are swallowing the MT Rep's cum-load whole, anus to oral even.

Folks, this is just idiotic.  The NRA wants you to think that this is a gun rights issue.  It isn't.  It wasn't introduced as such, and it makes no sense.  This is just hearkening back to the 'good old days' of gun-slingers and shoot-outs.  HB 693/340 is bad law, and needs to go down, and the Republicans need to be held accountable for thinking that you're stupid.

What convinced me to write this post was a paragraph from the Gazette article on this issue.

Marbut still strongly believes the new gun rights bill is needed, in particular to make sure it is OK for people to brandish a gun to defray a potential conflict and to put more burden on prosecutors to disprove claims of self defense.

Brandish.  What a polite word.  To me, there are certain incontrovertible laws to human existence, and one of the most high is this:  You never *EVER* pull a weapon on somebody that you don't intend to use.  I don't care whether its a knife, a baseball bat or a gun.  If you pull it, you will (or should) use it.  Marbut is an idiot.  This bill, if made law, will encourage more violence, and enable it to happen without due consequence.  I guess that's just Republicant-think, but it makes me sick.  Apparently, the State House Republicans are unclear on the concept:  Self defense is violence, and allowing the use of guns to be exempt from the consequence of that violence is holding to the idea that there is something noble about intimidation, something strong about violence morally empowering the weak of spirit and the weak of will.  If the goal is to decrease violence, you don't encourage more, yet the House Reps seem to think that's a good idea.  Not even, on both counts.

We Done Winned

Wow.  So this is what taking back control of the country feels like.

To be honest, I'd love to play the cheerleader, and write holy screeds about how we won.  The problem is, I'm kind of a rational type guy, and I know that we didn't win.  A lot of candidates I supported did.  And that's a start.  What we as voters have done is break the strangle hold that the Republican rubber-stamp Congress has had on our nation and our public will.  It's been pretty delightful to read a lot of the wingers screaming about how terrorists and the UN are happy with yesterday's results.  Get a clue, asshats.  Those folk didn't vote yesterday; the American people did.  And the vast majority of the American people are probably pretty damned happy with yesterday's result as well.  Though the wingers get all freaky by the thought, here's the truth of it:  if the American people don't like what's happening with our government, we're more than capable of changing it.  And, bottom line, that's exactly what we did.  To that degree, we sure as hell won.

Bush is no longer in charge.  Now, he has to deal with the will of the people, pesky bunch that we are.  Using his presser today as an indicator, I'm sure it's gonna take his frat-boy brain weeks (if not months) to realize that the people sent a message yesterday.  This is our country, George, not yours.  Quit fucking it up in our name.  Firing Rummy was a good start at actually serving the people.  It would have been a better start if Bush hadn't have lied his ass off about it in order to influence the election.  To be honest, that kind of bullshit, alone, should be an impeachable offense.  But I don't want W impeached.  I want him around to see the crap he's piled on our plates get thrown right back at him.  I want him to see that we, the people, don't suffer foolishness and incompetence without limit.  I want him to choke every time he says the words "Speaker Pelosi".  I want him to see, for the first time in his over-privileged sheltered life, that the American people are not his subjects.  We are in charge, and he works for us.  That asshat has never really had a boss before.  Since the overwhelming majority of us have, it's time we show him what it's like.  That's what we did yesterday.  We've given him a gift, a gift that will keep on giving for the next two years.  He's actually going to have to do his job, and I take sweet pleasure in the knowledge that he's going to hate every minute of it.  After all, "It's hard!  It's hard work!".  Too bad, George.

Of course, we have a job to do as well.  Winning was a start, but not the finish.  Mr. Tester is going to Washington, and Conrad is going ... oh, shit, I don't care where he goes.  We need to make certain that Congress speaks for us, in both houses.  Yesterday, we made a statement about who works for whom.  We can't drop the ball now.  We need to make sure that Jon Tester represents Montana, and hold him accountable 6 years from now if he doesn't.  I think he'll do fine; in fact, I think he'll do great.  But if he doesn't, then I will be among the first to remind the people of Montana exactly what we said yesterday:  "We are in control".

I do want to congratulate Franke Wilmer, our newest state Representative from HD 64.  She is terrific folk, and she'll be hell-on-wheels in the legislature.  And I'm going to pre-emptively congratulate J. P. Palmnichowski.  I am saddened, however, that Gallatin County saw fit to send 3 of the biggest headaches back to Helena.  Roger 'the lie-monkey' Koopman, John 'useless' Sinrud, and Jack 'workers be damned' Ward.  Strangely enough, 3 different people today tried to tell me that Gallatin county is historically Democratic.  I like to refer to those folks as 'history challenged'. 

Still, the mandate remains the same.  Those folk have their job, which is to represent us.  And we have ours, which is to make sure that they're doing their job.  We won big, yesterday, folks.  Not Democrats and not Republicans.  We the people won, but we'd best be ready, 'cause the next game gets played in two years and the people can't afford to lose.