« Linky Love Bites | Main | BeaverCheese.org »

April 28, 2006



First, thanks for taking the time to reply with some substance.

Second, way to solidfy a long-held belief of mine: you would rather demonize someone with cute rhetorical jabs than debate the issues. It's unfortunate that your last point, which featured some good points, was drowned out by your immature attempts to equate me to a child with a temper. Were they self-esteem jabs, attempts to discredit me before your readers even got to my points, or unbridled immaturity?

Now, on to the points of your post:
1) I'm glad to hear that you volunteered to Baucus, though I assume you'll agree that he has (wrongly) been criticized by many liberal Democrats.

2) Never call someone a coward that you don't know. I believe you are supporting an un-electable candidate. I've met Tester quite a few times, and he has always been gracious with his time and upfront with his views. I admire what he is doing, and I would be pleased if either him or Morrison won. I support Morrison, however, because I find that he has the experience and mindset to tackle D.C. Moreover, I believe he is more electable: he has put longer hours in raising money, he has contacted the right folks, and he isn't taking many breaks from campaigning.

3) You're a smart guy, so don't say unthoughtful things like this: "So, according to the toddlers who follow the shiny nickle, Conrad Burns is a shoe-in for re-election." Republicans always raise more than Democrats, but they don't always win. Equating the effects of fundraising by a Republican with the two Democrats show an incredibly lack of knowledge of this important fact: Dems. need to raise lots of money, but they rarely have to raise as much as Republicans.

4) Morrison has done what is known as picking his battles--he isn't out there shouting his opinions on every issues under the sun. He is focusing his time on what he deems are the two most important issues facing Montanans: small businesses and health insurance.

5) The fact that he had an affair is certainly cause for concern. What is interesting is that you assume I would automatically dismiss it. I don't, but I appreciate the fact that he admitted he made a grave error and approached it with humility. He and his wife are strong now, and I believe him when he says its far behind them.

6) I'm from Montana, and being a free Montanan is why I invest so much in Montana. It's also why I support Morrison, who understands that every ounce of his enegery and every minute of his time must be spent sharing his vision with Montanans. I think it is good for Tester that he is comfortable not winning this race. I don't think that's good for Montana.

8) You continue to demonize others you disagree with by assuming that if someone is supported because they are electable, they automatically have no substance. Its unfortunate you do this, but that's your personal fault, and one I don't care to argue about.


To na

"I'm from Montana, and being a free Montanan is why I invest so much in Montana."

Please Please Please do not say things like this. For one it sounds stupid, its almost as bad as "I love freedom because I'm an American". Second of all it makes you sound like you are better than everyone, as if you are the only person out there who has anything to invest in Montana.

I am not going to get into the rest of your points, because I don't want to. But I am begging you never use corny lines like that. You'll never get respect.


First, you're welcome ... sort of.

Second, read again. You wigged out well before I ever took your sorry ass to task, so don't blame me for reacting to your stupid petulance. I was willing to leave you alone, but no, you couldn't have that. How the fuck is this my problem? Don't pretend. You came to my website and demanded answers. You had the temper tantrum, not me. When you march into my backyard and tell me how fucked up I am, don't think that I'll respect your opinion. You want my respect ... earn it.

1) I won't agree. Baucus has supported things that Democrats, liberal or otherwise, should revile. That he has been critisized goes with the job. He (and you) can deal with it or not.

2) If you weren't cowardly, then why did you imply that Tester was an un-electable candidate without ever saying why? Your own profession is one of comparative advantage ... that Morrison is "more" electable than Tester. To this very moment, you've claimed that Tester is un-electable and yet you've never clarified why. Hmmm, why would this be? Could it be ... cowardice? Convince me otherwise, please.

3) Silly man, that was necessary for the logic of the argument. If you weren't arguing earnings (as so many do) than what were you arguing? It had to be given. Move on, if you think that you can.

4) You claim that I don't know jack about electability. Fine. What is electable about a one-issue candidate? That's one you've not even come close to addressing. And don't pretend it's actually two issues. Even the dumbest among us know that that's just a line of bull.

5) Oh, gee, I am so glad that you're comfortable with his fornication out of wedlock. Truthfully, I couldn't give a rat's ass about it. Pretending that it won't matter is just goofy. Do you honestly think that the GOP won't anal rape him with it? You're the expert on electability, so please, enlighten me. And know this: there are those of us who really don't care if gays get married. It will help them in so many legal ways, but they will never do that in Montana. Thanks be to the noble officials of Montana for protecting marraige from the horror of loving couples being legally protected. You know, like the guy who drooled and dropped his pants to hit that shit, while his wife was at home wondering why her husband was banging that fine ass ... but, they both thought, we must defend marraige against the threats of the gay. Yeah, I'm buying that. Sure I am. Guess what, cupcake, most of Monatana won't buy that at all. Yeah, Baby, bum-chicka boom-bah-ba-bahm-ba-bom-ba. Tap that jiucy thing!!! Ooohh, yeah, Montana votes for that! Sure they will. Gimmit to me babay!

You have to know that the GOP will play up the sex angle, don't you? Really? They will. I can't stop that. You can't stop that. It will happen. Yeah, Morrison is electable alright. Not.

6) That makes no damn sense whatsoever. You're a Montanan ... in Washington ... and that means ... what again?

7) Miss something?

8) This is perhaps the stupidest thing possible. Read what I've written. I don't "demonize" because people are electable, I demonize them because they have left themselves open to ridicule. That has nothing to do with Monatana, and everything to do with the fact that they are worthy of mocking. John Morrison is worthy to be mocked. Why on Earth wouldn't one favor Tester?


Sheena - "its almost as bad as "I love freedom because I'm an American"." It's mentalities like this, I fear, that give Republicans more than enough ammunition. Since when did the Democratic Party become a party scared of the American flag and hesitant to proclaim their love of and respect for freedom?

Wulfgar - I never wigged out--I was frustrated that you and other commenters on this blog were replying to me with inadquate one-liners. I was not angry that you were't taking time out of your work day to reply 10 page respones; I was frustrated that you and others were making sny, 1 line comments.

1) Fair enough. I asked Baucus about criticism from his base about 2 years ago, to which I thought he gave a very poor answer. I know and agree that everyone deserves criticism because no one is perfect. But that is different than attempts to bring down someone becuase they aren't liberal enough.

2) I said, word for word, in my last post "I believe you are supporting an un-electable candidate." A) Money B) Name recognition C) Favorable rating D) Unfavorable rating E) EVERY Rasmussen poll has Morrison doing 5 or so points better against Burns than Tester.

3) Money for Democrats is more than simply money--it shows how much support they have. Comparing how money is used to evaluate candidates against Republican fundraising doesn't work.

4) First, stop with the senseless name calling and demeaning of those you disagree with. Whether you like it or not, most people would not consider myself or Morrison a moron. Second, candidates are remebered by only a handful of qualities/issues. When I speak to folks about Morrison, they automatically think a few things: 1) Fundraising 2) Small business 3) Health insurance. When it comes to Tester, I have noticed that it is far more difficult for people to narrow down a handful of things about him precisely because there are so many! Candidates need to run issue-focused campaigns, something which I am thankful Morrison is doing. Just because he isn't writing an op-ed about a different issue every week doesn't mean he lacks an understanding of other issues.

5) It's paragrphs like the one you posted on 5 that prevent this blog from being anything more than a personal rant, and keep it from attracting more viewers. And here I thought we were about to have a civil discussion...I sure hope you don't debate like this in person.

8) Arrogance like that is what turns off countless moderate Democrats and independents from the Democratic Party.


Hi, gang! Debate summary at my place!


Ugh. How embarassing. I've still got the old address attached to my name. Now click on the "Touchstone" to go to the site...



Great wrap-up of the debate. Thanks for being afraid to point out pros in candidates other than the one you support.

tim huffman

I hesitate to interject my two cents into this speed screed, but I've gotta say Wulfgar has a point. We should be supporting the guy who SHOULD be elected. It just might turn out that he wins, and wouldn't that be nice. An aside about Tester's farming; most Montanans I've ever met understand that you gotta make hay while the sun shines, so critcism based on time spent planting is way off base. I recently read a comment (on this blog?) that Tester must be "posing" as a farmer while actually very busy as president of the MT Senate. Our state bodies have very few "career polititions" and the pay just about covers the time and money away from work. I hear the bennies are good though.



Like it or not, modern day campaigns require every ounce and every minute of a candidates energy and time. I support a candidate who fully appreciates this, and acts accordingly.


OK... Let's see if I have this straight..

Some guy from Seattle University claiming to be a "free Montanan" (one has to wonder if he is somehow under the impression that slavery exists here...), has decided it is his right to not only demand that Wulfgar answer his comments but then proceeds to tell Wulfgar how he should run his own Blog?

I have seen arrogence but this really takes the cake.

Na, I would respectfully suggest you get your blog. It will make you happier. Doing things like telling another blogger how he must run his blog is not only stupid, it is ignoring the basic fact that you aren't the center of the universe.

Now, let's look at your silly points...

1)assume = Ass our of "U" and Me. That may be your take on Baucus but not necessarily Wulfgars or anyone elses. Don't assume. It is bad for your emotional health...

2) Whether you like it or not, you appear a coward here for many reasons - not the least of which is that you use the handle NA (as in not applicable). A "real man" would not be afraid to identify himself. That isn't the only way you assert your cowardice. Wulfgar simply pointed out another instance. You mustered up your courage (or your testicles finally dropped) and you stated flat out that you believe that Tester is unelectable. Of Course, you really don't explain why he is unelectable.... Making me wonder if they really did drop...

3) You go on and on about how "Republicans have to raise such and such money and Dems don't"... Are you smoking something? In general, candidates have to raise money. More money is good, less money is bad. We get that. Beyond that, you have yet to prove a damn thing. Wulgar has contended a number of times that A) Morrison's financial lead will not overcome a grassroots effort to get the man that SHOULD be elected in office and B)Morrison's money may not count as much in the face of the issues people have with Morrison himself as well as Morrison's shortcomings on the issues. Your ranting on the differences between Democratic Fundraising and Republican Fundraising is your little potato. Get your own blog and plant it. It doesn't belong in this garden, Sweet Pea.

4) As many people posting here has already pointed out, Morrison has yet to pick a battle. His one issue has been something that has been addressed and is therefore safe. It certainly isn't the only issue facing Montana voters and for most of us, it isn't even an important issue. Morrison has failed to address the really important issues and that is what has a great many Montana voters concerned. If you are too focused on the Morrison's 'one trick pony' that is your problem...

5) Unlike Wulfgar, I could care less if Morrison had an affair. Wulfgar and I disagree a little on this and it is OK. What does concern me (and you have yet to address) is the appearence that the affair contributed to unethical behavior on the part of Morrison in executing his duties as State Auditor. I also have a few issues with him having an affair and then supporting the Marriage Amendment, but then again, I have an issue with ANY politician that supports the Marriage Amendment.

6)So you are a "Free Montanan". Explain to me what that means because I certainly don't get it. I realise that Seattle is an aquarium but I think you have neglected your diving gear because you appear to have water on the brain... As far as the time spent on the Campaign, Morrison doesn't appear to spend any more time campaigning than Tester does. My issue (the one that started this whole discussion...) was that I incorrectly assumed that since Tester was planting his fields instead of campaigning, that he wasn't really concerned with running for office. Wulfgar has pointed out the error in my view (the whole Cincinnitus idea) and I understand now. You really should look him up since you are going to school. You might learn something... It will also show you one of the basic differences between Tester and Morrison.

8) Wulfgar doesn't demonize people who argue with him. He demonizes idiots. We disagree occationally and he doesn't usually demonizes me (well, mostly - we are brothers after all...). You came onto his blog, attacked him, demanded answers, and then told him how he "has" to respond to you. What arrogence. What stupidity. I would have demonized you too. You deserved it. Your arguement here is a perfect example. You have chosen to completely ignore what Wulfgar said. He asked you what makes a candidate "electable" and you chose to ignore the question. This is typical of every comment you have made here and elsewhere. It isn't Wulfgar with the problem. It is you...


Matt Singer

Look, I think Baucus has his strengths and his weaknesses, but it's a load of crap to characterize his critics solely as liberals and all the criticism as unwarranted.

If you were to draw up a laundry list of criticisms, there are some that are quite fair. His assistance in passing Medicare Part D, which is an expensive boondoggle that does little to help seniors while sending billions in taxpayer money to big pharma. Worth noting, Baucus's chief of staff left shortly after that deal was cut to go work as a lobbyist, representing many clients, including Big Pharma. So, yeah, that's a problem.

Baucus's role in the negotiations was actually criticized by staff at the DLC-affiliated, centrist Progressive Policy Institute.

He also led the charge undercutting the party's negotiations on Bush's tax cuts in 2001. Having assisted with both the tax cuts and Medicare Part D, Baucus is probably more responsible than any other Democrat in Washington for the current deficits.

There's more, of course. The bankruptcy bill, the energy bill, trade deals, etc., etc. You can defend all of those votes if you want to.

But saying that Max is basically a decent Senator is a lot different than claiming he's above criticism.

Like it or not, modern day campaigns require every ounce and every minute of a candidates energy and time. I support a candidate who fully appreciates this, and acts accordingly.

This is ludicrous on it's face. IF it is true that modern campaigns require every ounce and every minute, then we have no representation in governement. After all, anyone sitting in govt. is spending every ounce and every minute working for themselves instead of for, you know, the electorate? Regardless of how silly that notion is on it's face, it is even sillier to think that any of us (you know, the constituents?) would favor or respect that. That you do, na, speaks volumes about you. Let me point out what has been truly said so very many times: YOU will get exactly the representation you support and deserve. Some of us, however, want better.

Na, this statement from you is also very telling:


Great wrap-up of the debate. Thanks for being afraid to point out pros in candidates other than the one you support.

First, that comment would have been much more appropriately left at 4&20 Blackbirds, if for no other reason than to let touchstone know that you read his effort. That would have been "polite", and since you seem to be all about that, I just thought I'd let you know the ettiquete. Second, you are already convinced that everyone isn dissing your man, Morrison. By reading, touchstone was more than fair to Morrison, and favored him at many points, before Morrison droppped the ball and split to go spend more of the every ounce and every minute, elsewhere.

So let's just be upfront about this. The only one deluded that what has happened on this website is a "debate" is you. I said things about the candidate that you favor that you didn't like. You've already made up your mind who your voting for, and worse, you've made up your mind that all us web-guys in Montana hate your guy and will attack him at will. You came in, not to debate, but to educate all of us in how deluded we are, based on your own fantasies of rightious knowledge and power.

Here's the deal, cupcake. You let it be known right up front that I wasn't going to convince you, and instead, must bow to your will. I'm a reasonable guy, so I'll make you a deal: You drop the bullshit sense of entitlement, and we'll talk. Otherwise, I will happily keep poking you with a stick.

Let's take a look at where your delusions have lead you, shall we?

Wulfgar - I never wigged out--I was frustrated that you and other commenters on this blog were replying to me with inadquate one-liners.

Uhmm, wigging out is a normal reaction to frustration, not a exclusion from it. I completely understand. If you have the expectation that you are owed response, it makes sense to expect one. So this is the first thing you need to get straight:

Neither I nor my commenters owe you anything ... ever ... for any reason.

See how simple that is?

1 redux) Great. We'll discuss Baucus in a couple of years.

2 redux) You did say that you thought Tester unelectable. However, this is the very first time you have bothered to state why. However, if we take a look at your first numebr 2 retort, we see, not that you think Tester is "unelectable, so much as you see Morrison as more electable. I've stated many reasons why I find that false. You have dealt with next to none of them. That level of avoidance is precisely why I don't like Morrison or his campaign. You may think that's sensible, I think it cowardly. On this, we will not agree.

3 redux) Now that's just silly. Democratic money is "special" money because it shows that the money fairies favor one guy more! Uhhn. no. Campaign funding is the same all the way around. Burns has big oil, Morrison has trial lawyers, and Tester has me. I won't go so far as to suggest that your view favors the purchase of our elected officials ... oh the hell with it, yes I will. Your view of "special" money favors the outright purchase of our elected officials.

4 redux) That's a decent and somewhat thoughtful reesponse. Of course you preface it by again telling what to do and how to behave. So I just have to pick up that stick, poke you and call you a moron.

5 redux) Again, you seem so very clueless. Do you see blog-ads on this site? Have you encountered any commercial endorsement or claims to be media of any kind? It's your ability to miss the obvious right here that leads me to think you a moron. So, let's review that which should be blatent to any of even minimal intelligence:

This is my goddamned place for personal rant. Period. End of story. Expect more, and I urge you to get used to disappointment. Require more from the web, and I suggest you follow Moorcat's advice: Get your own blog, fuckwit.

8 redux) If any "moderate Democrats" or independants are pushed away from the Democratic party by rough speech and pissy attitude from a blogger (who according to you won't get read anyway) then they are wimps. But it is nice to know 2 things 1) the enormous power that my website commands over Democrats, and 2) that Democrats are so value-poor that we would favor polite speech over believeing in anything.

If that's your picture of the party, na, then I can fully understand your support for Morrison.



It's precisely the attitude of "This is my goddamned place for personal rant. Period. End of story." that prevents your blog from being a more professional blog that can change minds. You say you don't aim for anything else, but I think it's becuase you can't create anything else--anything that is productive and truly stimulating, like Matt's blog.

It's easy to bitch and whine to the abyss that is the internet. It's an entirely different task to manage a professional, thoughtful blog that stimulates people and alters minds. Matt is sincere in his attempt to change people's minds. You just want to bitch for your self.

In any event, I'm done posting here. I'll still probably continue to read your site, but never post. And I think it's a riot that by and large, the only other people commenting on this site are other liberal bloggers. At least one of them is sincere, though.


na, your mind was already made up when you got here. Why would I have wasted my time in trying to change it?

I am glad, however, that it has finely dawned on you that this wasn't about debate or mind-changing half as much as it's been about me just screwing with your sense of entitlement. To that degree, we've made progress ... and I've had fun.

sheena rice

na while I realize that I am responding a little late I feel as though I had to because you missed my point. Statements like "I love freedom because I'm an American" are illogical on the fact that Americans are not the only humans who love freedom, sorry.

Furthermore do not tell me that I am a liberal who is afraid to express love for my country, because I do. However I express my "love of freedom" by using my right to dissent, holding protests, and the like. Don't by making stupid statements that don't make any sense.

Anyway its too bad that you feel the need to stop posting here. I'm sure it won't be for too long.


You all must get lives before it's to late. Reading this palaver reaffirms my position on blogs. You all have a nice day...


uhhh - your farmer makes more $ in government payments than some Montanans make working. Oh yeah, so does the governor, sorry. . . what was I thinking.

As for Morrison, I had a serious health insurance problem a few years back - with an insurance agent. I was convinced to document everything - after being told that his (Morrison's) office was trying to nail this cretin for years. After months of phone calls & letters - they told me to take it to a lawyer. Which I didn't do. Sigh. . .

Eric Coobs

Interesting thread. There's nothing I can add to this one!

Hey na - if you get tired of liberal blogs you're welcome to come hang around over at my place!


If NA has a problem with Wulfgar, he will never survive over at your place, Eric. The commenters on your blog will eat him alive.


Eric Coobs

I just tell my bloggers to play nice, and they all get along....what are you talking about?


Eric -

Thanks for the invite, but I already read your blog.


You might, na, but you don't posture there, throwing around your entitled demands for answers, do you? In fact, it's likely that you don't comment at all.

We'd know, of course, if you had the hootspa to actually expose who you are ... but I think it's pretty well established that you don't. How very sad.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad