A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Why Does Dennis Rehberg Hate His Mother?

Okay, so we're all very tired of our do-little Congress.  Our friendly Republicans would have us believe that  it's all the Democrat's fault; after all, aren't they in charge of Congress now?  The Righties here in state even want you to believe that the current state of the economy is all the Democratic Congress' fault.  (Here's a joke for you:  Texas oil-man President sends his Vice President to meet with his BFsF, the Suads to attempt a resolution to high oil prices.  The VP comes back, winks and claims his meetings were beneficial.  And oil goes up another $30/barrel.  ~wink~  Oh wait!  That's not a joke.  That's actually what happened.)  But this post isn't about the colossal failings of the Republicans in their leadership role (dare you to say that and keep a straight face).  No, it's about their hatred for the country, beginning with their own mothers.

I think we have a little insight into why this Congress is bogged down.  It's probably because it's over-populated with tantrumming Republican children.  Case in point:

Every year, Congress passes another resolution affirming their support for our National Mother's Day.  Now, I love my Mother, and I hope she knows that even if I usually am a slouch about the whole arbitrary Mother's Day thing.  But seriously, I'm not alone in thinking that such ridiculous Congressional rituals and resolutions are a huge waste of taxpayer's time and Representative's effort.  Fine, hold the vote and get it over with.  On Wednesday, the House did.  The resolution H.R.  1113  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day"  passed the House by a unanimous vote, 412 to 0.  No problem and let's get on with the taxpayer's business.  But wait ...

The only thing more godawful wasteful than meaningless Resolutions are Resolutions voted twice, that serve no one but Congress itself.  The only thing that could be worse than that are voice-count Resolutions manipulated by one party for *no* reason other than to waste effort and time.  And which party did that?  You guessed it.  The party of hating mom, apple pie and condescending to Nascar did that; the Republicans.

Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt called for a recount  voice vote, and 177 Republicans  said "Nay", they are not  "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day".  And who should we find here?

Montana

Nay       MT-0 Rehburg, Dennis (R)

I guess Dennis doesn't like dear ole Mom or something.  If you think I'm going too far, just take the word of the House Minority Leader:

House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

This couldn't be more plain; Dennis Rehberg is on record as NOT supporting Mother's Day.  At best, this can be seen as a huge flip-flop from the stupid among the House minority.  At worst, it is a blatant attempt to derail the honest efforts of the US Congress.  The next local righty who blames the Democrats for accomplishing nothing will get laughed at.  The next local righty who tells me that Dennis Rehberg isn't the lowest form of loathsome party suck-up will get pointed to this vote.  He is Montana's sole Representative to the House, and he just said that Montana doesn't support Mother's Day.  The worst part is that he said it just to disrupt the people's business for no good reason at all.

I don't mind that Dennis Rehberg hates his mother; I just wish he didn't hate his country enough to screw with its governance.

Ur Doing It Rong!

Like most folks throwing words into the Great Online, I don't have a lot of faith that political types with aspiration aren't constantly pandering to our desires and fears.  It's often hard to tell whether they are  sincere or lying to you, the voter  (unless of course, they announce that they're going to lie to you.)  But one thing you can be pretty well certain of is that if a politician tells you to your face that they don't like you, they probably aren't lying.  They really don't like you.  Most politicians are smart enough not to tell voters how much they don't like 'em.  Some politicians just aren't so smart.

This is especially true in local and regional contests.  So imagine my surprise when 2 candidates for the Montana House of Representatives hurled insult at the very voters they wish to represent.  Carol Minjares, The Frightened for H.D.  97 in Missoula really doesn't like Missoula.   In a post about 3 young Republicans running in Missoula, she headers it by referring to the city as "the People's Republic", an obvious (and worn out) euphemism accusing Missoula of being communist.  Not to be outdone in racing to the bottom, Steve Eschenbacher, Idiot for H.D. 96, picks up the same insult.

"The People's Republic of Missoula", written without irony (or any sense of how not-funny that 'joke' has gotten) by two folks who need votes from Missoulians to get elected.  They really don't like you, Missoula, not the town, not the people.  They apparently seem to think that they can save you pinkos from yourselves, but they certainly won't do it out of caring or respect for you.  So, when the time comes for you 'commies' to remind these idjits that Missoula and Montana are democratic republics, cast your votes accordingly.  Kindly show these fools the meaning of 'EPIC FAIL'.

Republicants For The Promotion Of Cowardice

Pete Talbot picks apart the lame attempt by Eric Iverson (MiniMe to Dennis Rehburp's  Dr. Stupid) to promote the GGF, Great Gun Fear (The Gubmint Gonna' Take OUR GUNS!!!)  What Pete doesn't highlight quite to my satisfaction is the shear disdain that promoters of the GGF have for voters.

Through more posts than I can link here (given my laziness) I have attempted to show the lunacy of the GGF.  I have argued that no politician would be stupid enough to think they could succeed in such an effort without an epic FAIL on their part.  I have argued that law-enforcement would  not even attempt to follow such a dictate, and if they did, it would be with the help of military or paramilitary enforcement, i.e. you're screwed anyway.  I have shown that most every gun restriction can, has been and will be subverted by the clever populace.  There will be no taking of our guns.  None.  Not Ever.

MiniMe argues that there are people, fearsome frightening people, who *want* to take our guns.  MiniMe wants you afraid of those people.  MiniMe thinks Montanans are cowardly enough to be afraid of those people ... Boo!  This is an insult and absolute bullshit.  I for one have never been afraid of what other people want, except for those with power who want us to be afraid.  There are people out there who want everyone to be blond and blue-eyed.  Though I don't fit that bill, I am not afraid.  There are people out there who want us to accept everything they say as if from authority, when they have very little.  I'm not afraid of them either.  No, it's the one's who want me so afraid that I give my rights and money to them and their friends.  That, I am afraid of, because they tend to be successful in making my fellows afraid.

MiniMe, the NRA, and other lying politicians and political organizations all want us filled with the GGF.  To them I say, "Bite me."  Worse still, they want us terrified of the scary black man who 'wants' to take our guns.  They know that some seemingly rational, non-bitter people will suddenly become bed-wetting children when faced with the GGF.  They bank on it, and I do mean 'bank'.  They want your money to prevent the GGF, when in fact it's already prevented, in part by the very fact that you have those guns.  The Scary Black Man ain't gonna take anything, and he hasn't said one word about his desire to do so; yet MiniMe will lie to you, for he desires profit at your expense in money and dignity.

Barack Obama has been called elitist because he believes that some folks cling to gun ownership (the GGF) out of poorly thought out fears (bitterness).  But he supports the Second Amendment, and is willing to defer to the will of Congress and the people.  Some of my best friends on the right use a litmus test for truth.  Does someone use an issue (like race, guns, gender) to make money?  Despite the claims of Hillary Clinton (Republicant candidate Senator from New York) or John McCain (lobbyist Gelding candidate from Arizona) Barack Obama hasn't attempted to gain funds with his comments about taking guns (comments he's never made).  MiniMe sure has.  Eric Iverson is an elitist because he believes that he can toy with your feelings and manipulate your base fears, and he can make a buck for Richy McRehburg while doing it.

In bringing this to a close, I would be remiss if I failed to point to this comment from Carol Minjares, Fearful Rabbit for H.D. 97:

So they assembled a list of lefty notables who hunt and fish to certify that Obama is an okay guy who won't take our guns away. Wow.

Apparently, MiniMe's manipulation of the cowardly works on some folks ...

She's terrified.  Vote accordingly, Missoula.

Why I Can't Take The Montana GOP Seriously

Looky what's I got in my e-mail, a missive from the Montana GOP titled "Answers Montanans Deserve To Know!".  You'd figure, with such an impressive header, that they would be asking Denny Rehberg whether he believed his continued support for the Iraqi boondoggle is good for Montana, or will more likely bankrupt the country.  Perhaps Montana Republicans want to know why Senator McCain, their Presidential candidate, can't tell the difference between Iranian Shi'ites and Sunni al Queda.

But no, in a classically retarded bit of 'concern trolling', they want Montana Democrats to find out where the Democratic candidates stand on a gun-ban in a city 2000 miles away from Montana.  A gun-ban ... in Washington D. C.  Not the fact that the national economy is going down the crapper.  Not the continued borrow-and-spend policies of the Republicans, which has put our dollar below the currencies of most every 1st world nation.  Not our continuing military losses in the eternal occupation of a country that doesn't want us there and was never a threat to us.  These things affect Montana.  But, no, what the Montana GOP wants Democrats to ask of the candidates, candidates that Republicants will *never* support or vote for,  is a gun ban that has already been challenged and heard by the Supreme Fricking Court.

~sigh~

Every rational intelligent person already knows that the Supreme Court will endorse the individual right of citizens to keep firearms.  The only real question now is whether the Republican Bush administration has argued effectively that the "reasonable" term of law equates to local governments limiting access, such as to handguns in DC.  Montanans needn't worry about such trifles because our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in our own Constitution.  We can, however, hope for a loosening of gun restrictions (contrary to the hopes of the Republicans) based on the SCOTUS interpretation of the term "reasonable".  Perhaps Iverson and the Montana GOP have missed this point, and don't get that it's now a non-issue to Montana.  Or, more likely, they're playing the 'fear card'.

"The GUBMINT gonna take your guns and HitleryoBamamuslimangryblackman gonna let 'em!!!"

What a bunch of retards.

The Montana Republican Party understands and appreciates the excitement Montana Democrats feel about having their leaders candidates come to our state. But it's our hope they will also use this wonderful opportunity to demand answers to issues important to Montana.

I'm sure we will.  But Heller v. DC ... that just ain't among them.

Idiots.

MY GOD! We Are Powerful!

Redstate.com goes a' begging:

(Short version: We need you to open your wallet and give what you can to build RedState 3.0. Go here to help. We need the money ASAP.)

And why?  Liberals!  Liberals have failed to aid the incompetence of the Red State Inaction Network.  Allow Erick (the red) to explain:

You see, when we started RedState in May of 2004, we used a website program called Scoop — the same program a lot of similar sites on the left used. But, as the number of visitors to our site grew, Scoop kept crashing on us.

If we’d been a liberal website, we would have been able to fix the problem quickly and relatively cheaply. The online left loves Scoop. Unfortunately, there weren’t really any conservative Scoop developers out there to help us. We kept crashing and were out of money. We had to close down or take drastic action.

Well, we didn’t close down. We ditched Scoop and moved to the best alternative at the time, a program called Drupal. But, in accomplishing the switch, budget constraints forced us to sacrifice some popular site features in order to alleviate the strain on our overused servers.

Needless to say, we always regarded those “downgrades” as temporary, and we hoped to restore the eliminated features – and to add new and even better ones – as soon as we could afford to.

Unfortunately, we still can’t afford to. But we’re convinced that America can afford even less to have us operating at anything less than our absolute peak potential during the coming presidential election season.

Just so that we're clear, Lefties are responsible for Redstate's plight because  the Redstaters are incompetent at administering and programming their chosen software.  The really funny part is what was emailed, and not posted publicly; but quoted by Atrios (from whom I get this word):

The good news first: RedState.com is about to embark on a major upgrade of our website that will make it easier, more informative, and just plain more fun for you to visit.

The bad news: our liberal “friends” – you know, the ones who believe so strongly in free speech and open debate – have done what they can to prevent us from making these improvements, so that our influence will be minimized just as we head into the 2008 presidential primary season.

No, our Blue State buddies haven’t succeeded in stopping us from improving our website. But they’ve made it more difficult and more expensive – which is why I’m coming to you for help.

Incompetent flip-floppers too embarrassed and cowardly to even take responsibility for their own beliefs.  I guess that's the fault of us lefties as well.  What was that phrase so enamored of the myopic few?  'Society-owes-us-help-hand-wringing-kittens' was it?  But, just for the comedy Redstate  provides, I'm sending 'em a buck.

Hehehehhh.  No I'm not.

Never Misunderestimate

I really think that Atrios is wrong, here.

Perhaps someone else has made this observation, but it occurs to me that George Bush has completely undercut the Republican party's war on government, a key pillar of their brand. You can't spin a story about how the all powerful macho gov't, headed by commander codpiece, is going to take care of everything and keep you safe while simultaneously disparaging government in every other way. The narratives collide and become incoherent. So, yes, attacks on "socialized medicine" or whatever just don't resonate like they used to.

He's wrong in that such narratives don't have to 'resonate'.  They only have to confirm.  There's been no lack of writing about comparative values recently.  Steve, rather tritely, accepts the butt-ignorant thesis that 'liberals' dismiss truth for more important values (silly liberals).  Dave suggests that liberal values are the core values of fascism, when compared to American ideals of Freedom and heart-tugging bumper-stickers.  There's a rather common theme underlying it all.  That the other  (libruls, Democrats, hand-wringing socializing pussycats and anyone that thinks idiots actually exist beyond the dread left) are more extreme and dangerous than the Daddy state.  That's a given of identity politics, going right back to the confirmed thesis of "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" (not us).

People question values all the time.  They mull policy, to whatever degree they understand it.  They studiously consider moral and personal impact of change (bidden and not).  And they make decisions ... inside that box.  And as the right is so very fond of saying "actions have consequences".  Yes, they do, personal consequences if not public, and that's the meat of the dish.  When one decides to support policy A, they don't mull Hobbesian repercussions (though many in the blog-o-world  laughably might claim to.)  It would be shallow to argue that people even weigh consequence against self-interest.  People favor self-damaging policy all the fricking time (knowingly or unknowingly, though there's likely some pesky ego critter who will always assume that for you it's unknowing and themselves 'enlightened'.)    No, no no. The line in the sand is drawn much closer to the naked skin.  When we decide on such externalities it is invariably swayed by who that image makes us to ourselves.

I know many good folks who would argue that I just wrote "we decide based on who we are".  Nope, I didn't.  I wrote that we are what we decide, and subsequent decisions will either confirm or deny that.  Exhibit A:  there's a dude who writes, regarding the S-CHIP debate,

For the record, I’m against CHIP root and branch. That doesn’t mean that I’m against helping those in need. I would endorse a system of direct subsidies to those in need if it expanded competition and choice

Fair enough.  As logically inconsistent as all get out, but fair, I guess.  He is against policy that helps those in need, but he isn't against the value of helping those in need ... if it confirms his other ideals.  The import is fairly clear.  His claim focus is the gradation of differing values, but what is objectively at stake is what he desires to see as himself ... a guy who isn't against helping those in need, even though he quite clearly just wrote that he is.  CHIP quite clearly helps those in need, but it doesn't confirm his identity by subscribing to his "values", hence he's against CHIP (and helping those in need).  Kind of a paradox, isn't it?

A CHIP type program that favored this person's values would 'resonate' with him, I've no doubt.  But at that point, it isn't about doing what should or needs to be done.  It's about confirming the correctness of one's view of themselves.

Take a wider look.  The vast majority of Americans favor the S-CHIP.  No problem.  But as the exampled individual points out, they favor the S-CHIP as long as it doesn't violate their sense of identity.  It should only be used for the poor and needy ... as long as the word "needy" doesn't get threatening.  As long as people feel that they're not being taken advantage of, they will espouse the virtues of caring for the children.  Tsk.  It's not about the children.  It's about identity.  We all want what's right.  But more than that, we all want to see ourselves as wanting what's right ... even if we don't.

And that's why Atrios is wrong.  A message can resonate, but will only cause action if it confirms identity.  GW and the wacko-sphere don't need to send a resonant message.  They only need to scare people about who they are.

A well known pundit attacks a 12-year old and his family, and all that need to be shown is that they might be gaming the system better than most.  Yeah, MM and her gang of flying monkeys look like assholes, but ... Suddenly all these people who are *in favor* of helping the needy are concerned about the definition of "poor".

Another well known pundit calls Jews imperfect, and implies that they need to be converted to Christianity (no word on whether we need to kill their leaders first).  And that's just okay, as long as it 1) annoys libruls, and 2)  doesn't upset the love of Israel ... because we all love Israel, ya know, don't we?

Another well known pundit has a come-to-Jesus moment while dining at a Black restaurant  and *holy shit* it's positively civilized!  Some racists take offense, but we don't see color here, so lets sweep that under the rug for awhile.

There are those who argue that we must stay in Iraq or we will appear weak and questionable in our resolve.  And we won't look like the Mistress Dominatrix that has so many Washington pundits a-quiver.  Some of these folks seem to think that spending on a fool's errand is bad, but they support this crap anyway.   To not do so would be ... weak?  I haven't a clue.  But it is obviously about their self-image, and has nothing to do with death and destruction and more of the same.

Hehehe.  No.  The right wing smear machinery will not damage brand Republican.  Because Brand Republican has a lock on identity.  Follow the Democrats and be uncertain and fearful.  Follow the GOP and you are right about everything, even when you're wrong.  Reagan established that, and he couldn't have damaged the country more.  9/11 gave legitimacy to the idea that our identities could be challenged, and we must be on guard against that very thing.  With us (tiny little me) or against us (huge frightening you).  No message need resonate from such a group who believe this.  They have no need to trade in such.  They have something better.  They have fear.  They can confirm who you are against what frightens you.  Souls have been  sold for such comfort.

I Want A Cookie NOW, Mom!

The foot-stamping defenders of appropriate speech are at it again, demanding that the leftlibdemocomfascists do what the children want, when they want it done.  It's always fun to point out that what they are demanding is the same as always, that the lldcfs (read 'Democrats') aren't sacrificing one of our own to appease the god of rightful thinking (which would be the whiny little children's view of themselves.)  Here's a tip, kids:  if you want Murtha sacrificed to sate your outrage and hate ... do it yourselves, if you have the balls.

To put some context to this, I have an introduction to make.  Steve, meet Clif.  Clif, this is Steve.

Now Steve was all bemoanin' that us Democrats aren't hating Murtha to Steve's required level of desire, thinking that we're letting him hide behind his military service .  But then, we know that Steve ain't the sharpest of the knives in drawer.  That's why he focuses on something Murtha said that appears to be  the actual fact of the case, and has his temper tantrum about that.  He missed completely the story that CREW (you know, that left wing organization that so viciously slandered Conrad Burns) has placed Murtha on their Most Corrupt Congress-person's list.  I guess CREW didn't get the memo from MoveOn.org, did they Steve?

Of course Steve didn't notice it.  That would have meant he would be honor bound to acknowledge the 18 Republican congressmen on that list of 22.  Or perhaps, Steve would have had to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of people who grant mythological power to military service are Republicants, such as himself.  Murtha isn't immune to attack from the left because of his military service.  He's only immune to cheap shots from lying chicken-hawks because of his military service.  And Steve, that's a problem for your side ... not mine.  Whine all you want for the cookie.  The only kids who will whine with you are those who want one to.  It shouldn't be at all surprising that we adults just don't want to give you one anymore.

The Injured Reserve

Since I've introduced the Good the Bad and the Ugly of the new Montana wingnut-o-sphere, I've upset at least one of the old guard, who no doubts feel slighted because those others are the new hotness, and he's just the old and busted.  So, just for Steve, I'll take a quick peek (critique) at the aging players of the Montana fantasy-based community.

Before I begin, let's get a few things clear.  I will not write bad things in a generic way about either MTPolitics or the Electric City Weblog.  Both Craig and GeeGuy are thoughtful hard working folk who do not conform to the standard wingnut blueprint.  Neither of these gentlemen are "concern trolls", they offer generalizations but do not personalize them into their mythologies and they aren't dismissive of disagreement.  When I engage them, I have and will continue to do so directly and personally, with the respect that they are due and that they have offered in return.  If you expect to see a slap fight between either of them and myself, this is not the day or the post.  So move along.

Let's begin with the Granddaddy Glibertarian, Mr. Dave Budge.  Though Dave will go long periods without posting, he then gets a bug up his butt and posts a storm.  I still find him to be among the best writers on the web in Montana.  But like many of those who identify to the right, he's beginning to lose it a little.  Rather than deal with people honestly, he's showing a much greater tendency to belittle and revile based on ideas that he finds personally demeaning, and not so much on the merit of the idea.  He's always been contrarian, but he's slipping a little further towards silly in doing so.

Case in point, he's taken to referring to those who disagree as "neo-socialist hand wringing pussies".  If the "pussy" part isn't a projection, I don't know what is.   Just like 'Raaaeeeaaain on your wedding day' Dave takes a post from Matt Singer explaining the challenges faced by the young and under-privileged, a call to use the collective power and compassion of us all to aid us all,  and uses it to promote his fantasy that personal motivation will solve the problem.  In one fell swoop, he places rather unspecified blame on all who don't live to his lofty standards and feels ever so much personally better because he doesn't have to look at his own failings in regard to a very real problem.  He claims that what is desired is a "permanent mindset of victimhood', taking for himself his own forced sense of superiority.  Simply put, Dave uses a fabricated Ad Hominem for self support.  Ironic and handy, isn't it?

This is becoming an ever more prevalent tactic among the wingnut-o-sphere.  It's odd coming from Dave, considering how often he admits his own vagaries of fortune and personal struggles.  Perhaps he's just being egged on by his personal cheerleader, the master of the illusion "I did myself  and the truth is what I say it is", Mr. Mike Harris.  Regardless, Dave Budge is still an interesting and powerful read; just don't engage him in arguments that devolve into the size, shape and texture of gnat nuts.  Being right and correct in the minutia on the Internet ain't that important, except maybe to Dave.  Now if we could only get him over his fascination with DoughBob Pantload.

Along the lines of self-importance, one has to begin to respect Eric Coobs.  He was ever so very proud of having the premier wingnut website in state, and now, he's just a has been.  His claims to fame are still there ... lack of reason, racist commenters and trollish aspirations.  But he's just not any fun.  He posts very irregularly, and when he does, his comments are immediately stolen from him by the trolls that run his website.  It would, no doubts, have been better for him not to delete a years worth of his content (and others more bright than himself), but Eric apparently couldn't stand responsibility that came with speaking freely, and allowing others to do the same.  If Dave is seeking a hand-wringing pussy, he need look no further than Billings.  The laughable part is that Eric claimed his deletion was to protect his other authors, as if their efforts were his own.  And now, bereft of the intelligence they provided, Eric is alone.  Many of the other right wing websites won't even link him.  'Kinda sad, really.

I've next to nothing to say about the Montana Misanthrope, except that you should read him.  He gets it all right.  He's personal, personable, humble and thoughtful.  I seriously hope that he's gonna be around for a long time.  He is a man that I would like to one day call "friend".

Montana Headlines remains erudite, but I think he's starting to lose it.  As things become more desperate for the right wing, the right wingnuts reflect the angst.  So it is with MH.  Over the last several days, MH has been all about Jon Tester and the tainted money of Hsu.  In doing so, he's fallen (and the "he" is just an assumption because MH is one of those brave forthright bloggers) into most of the wingnut pitfalls available for folk to lose themselves in.  He boldly claims what the left was deriding Conrad Burns for (tainted money) completely forgetting the number of us who showed quite clearly what Jack bought from Conrad with that tainted money (rich casino schools, child rape in the Marianas ...)  Talk about moral equivalence!  Supposedly, Jon Tester claimed to be a saint ... only in the fantasy of MH. 

But MH is a clever little weasel.  Just as the Burns campaign tried to tie Jon Tester to Chuck Schumer, MH is trying to tie Tester to Hillary Clinton.  That's pathetically weak logic, though sinister.  Tie Tester to someone not favored by Montanans.  It's also pretty dumb.  If this were Tester's reelection year, it might make sense.  As it is, it's flailing around with a cotton pillow attempting to bruise an issue no one gives a fuck about.  And don't think that MH is above lie and spin.  Check this:

But then, since the donors in question are in New York, Tester may be concerned about offending his New York constituents -- he knows he'll need them again in 2012. (While 7 of the top 10 zip-codes on the Conrad Burns donor list were in Montana, 5 of the top 10 zip-codes for Tester were in New York City.)

Seriously, I invite you to follow the link.  Unlike MH, I trust my readers to be able to count and think.  *4* of the the top 10 zip codes for Tester were in New York City, not 5.  3 of the top ten zip codes for Conrad Burns were in Billings alone.  But Billings isn't as big as New York is it?  The millions of online contributers to the success of Jon Tester are logged as one city, and that's what MH wants you to focus on, because MH is lying to you in a spin kinda way.  And, as the website "open secrets" says so not plainly, where the donations came from may not be reflected in where they were registered, or reflective of who gave them.  MH is promoting lies, and thinks you stupid enough to believe it, dressed with candy and all.  Please notice a couple thing:  1)  how much money did Conrad Burns have on hand before the election cycle and, 2) where did that come from?  How willing to swallow crap are you, Montana?

Still, Montana Headlines is a worthy read.  It is very well written, and appears personal.  Just be willing to check up on what you're handed there, before taking a bite.  I understand bullshit doesn't taste so good.

Not Farm Boy Ryan is useless.  He hardly posts, and it's so mundane even the wingnuts won't link him.  Two Helena Handbaskets is even worse on posting.  7 posts  since New Years.  Not a recipe for success, or even a worthwhile endeavor.

Andy Hammond is the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts.  And let me just come out and say that I don't think Andy Hammond is his real name ... duh.  He posts whatever the gun-counter-gomer posted the day before.  Waste of time, and the true enemy of anyone rational.  We should flee these people as lepers were shunned in the middle ages.  They're more toxic, and vastly more barfy to be around.  Hammond makes absolutely every wingnut error possible to be made.  When Stephen Colbert takes the stage and speaks to 'his people' ... it's a vision of Andy Hammond he has so embraced for mockery.

And then there is Steve.  He's more thoughtful than Hammond, and more intelligent, but vastly more lame because he's so entrenched in his Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  He sees himself as a defender of the people, while willfully and angrily wasting the people's resources (he's entitled, don't you know!)  He engages the enemy while shrugging off all responsibility for the enemy being engaged.  (Don't start somethin', it won't be somethin' ... asshole.)   I offer you this, gentle reader:  Read better websites than Steve's.  Captain Ed, the Gun-Counter-Gomer. Michelle fucking Malkin.  Read LaShawn Pinhead Barber before reading Steve.  You will enjoy it more, learn more, and be more hysterically amused.  Steve really offers nothing, save potential amusement at the waste of material.

I guess we're done here.

Turf Toe

Yeah, I got football on the brain.  So what?

Actually, I'd rather be playing Doom than posting, but I kind of felt the need to respond to something that the lads at Intelligent Discontent and Left in the West have been noticing, the growth of right wing blogs in Montana.  I know a little bit about blogging, and just hoped to share a few ideas.

What sparked the interest was the introduction of a blog so purely an GOP astroturf effort it isn't even funny.  That would be the Hardliner blog ... no dissent allowed!  Of course, the GoOPers already in play, and the new baby bloggers, are just loving the fact that all us lefties consider them all to be astroturf efforts ... it makes them feel all big like, I guess.  But they seem to be missing two very obvious points:  Nobody accused them all of being astroturfing, and neither they or their readers appear to know what astroturfing is.  (I think that's just part of being in the Fantasy-based Community, but some of them might figure it out ... someday.)

Simply put, astroturfing is an organized attempt by a central organization to gather popular support through the illusion that the grass roots already support the ideals or the organization in question.  It's marketing; "join our cause, cause the cool people already have ..."

The Hardliner blog really is an effort at astroturfing, with fake comments and everything.  Too bad, it's an unbelievably transparent and weak effort.  It isn't engaging to the reader, it has no personal identity and promotes no relationship between author and audience.  It reads like the GOP ebrief, but less informative and vastly more dry.  They are precisely as Jay Stevens referred to them:  Robo-bloggers.  I'd bet my bottom dollar that as many of us and the left read it and laugh, as those on the right who think it has value as a 'blog'.

However, just because the Hardliner can be dismissed as ineffective, one who pays as much attention to the Montana Blogo-world as I do would be very remiss in similarly shrugging off the rest of the wingnut explosion.  So let's us just take a look at a few of them, shall we?

I can't find much fault with Carol Minjares' effort, save that her blog has the clunkiest name for a website ever.  It's not that it doesn't make sense (that would be my world) it's just that it's completely freaking ugly.  Carol, I offer a constructive criticism:  if you have to post the pronunciation of your website's name, choose something else.

Mizzoolopoless is your fairly standard wingnut fair, because Carol is your fairly standard Republicant.  It's arrogant, dismissive of disagreement, and wastes vastly more time telling the opposition how to behave than actually promoting the conservative ideals.  However, Carol is engaging, personable, local (that's the biggy) and appears to seriously enjoy what she's doing.  It's a good site.  My only other suggestion is this:  if she's gonna waste her seemingly vast amounts of free time posting 6 times a day, she should expand the number of posts that appear on the front page of the blog.  (Strangely, I have the same complaint about Left in the West.)

The other enjoyable new wingnut website is Scoop Montana.  I'd link, but either through laughable error, or a blogwise death-wish, Scoop has made his site "invite only".  Not a good way to reach out and touch someone, bud.  I hope he corrects the issue, because Scoop had all the pluses of Carol, and a great sense of humor.  It was, and hopefully will remain, an enjoyable read.

The other newish conserva-blogs aren't really all that at all.  The Conservative Cowgirls at Ridin' for the Brand have a few problems.  They don't post much, a serious issue for most of the righty websites in Montana, what they do post is fairly simplistic and doesn't attack the enemy nearly enough to draw the rabid Kool-aid drinkers and they just don't get personal.  If you're going to start a blog with a name and persona that screams "personality", you really should include a dose of that in what you write.  They're Girls!  They're Cowgirls!  They're ridin' for the brand,  lazy GOP!  Ehhh, so far, not so much or all that good.

The comedy twins are the newest of the group.  I know that I've given Steve a hard time for being stupid, but at least he writes his pap with an advanced degree of skill.  The 'boys' at Montana Pundit write like poorly schooled 5th graders.  But let me light a candle for them, rather than we should curse their darkness.

Boys?  "Pundit" is what we like to call singular.  There are two of you.  That would be what we refer to as "plural", or "Pundits".  Spell check is your friend.  I don't have the finest spelling skills in the world, to be certain.  But then, I'm not parading myself in front of the world as a consultant or University student with this ugly nightmare:

Hagen- Former lobbiest in Helena and now living in bozeman and is a campaign/direct mail consultant

TJ-  Former inturn for Sen. Conrad Burns, and a curent student at MSU

Seriously, I'm tempted to believe that this is anti-astroturfing from someone desperately wishing to discredit wingnut bloggers  (that is, more than they do so themselves.)  So far, their content is simple restatement of the shallowest misconstructions of the happenings of the day.  Their attempt at audience appeal will meet success only if the audience is 13 years old, drunk or desperately seeking agreement, like Andy Hammond.  I'd hoped that they would offer something worthy of challenging, but this blog is just ... bad.

It is worth noting that Pogie overstates ... but not by much.  All of the conserva-blogs in Montana that have sprung to life recently are anonymously written, with the exception of Carol's (and mad-props to her for being forthright and personal.)  And I don't think it at all untoward that he refers to them as cowardly.  The Hardliner bans commenters that are not Erickson approved.  The Scoop guy had to have tried something to control access, or he wouldn't have his recent issues.  The Pundit boys have a great opportunity to promote themselves in business (consultant) and education, but prefer to remain hidden and obscured ... no doubts dressing for success (LOL).

Dear Dennis Rehberg,

I thank you for whining about the 'liberal' bias of Internet information in Montana.  It has given us 'libruls' a new playmate in Carol Minjares.  But next time, could you please establish a competence clause before unleashing the rest of these folk upon your thinking constituents?  Thanks in advance.

Love,

Wulfgar.

Point - Counter Point

Point.

Counter Point.

For the record, I tend to agree with Sam.  Exclusion is not a good political tactic, and it isn't good policy either.  Yet the MT GOP tends to be really good at exclusion.