A Chicken Is Not Pillage

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.

Burns Makes The List

So I'm doing my abbreviated run through the web this afternoon (life is busy so I'm cutting online time shorter), and I figure I'll mosey on over and see what's up on the 'Filter.  Hmm, Why Americans don't  care about privacy, captive Great White, America's 10 Dumbest Congressmen ...  Whoa, that looks good for a hoot.  Let's check that out.

Now, I'm expecting an article just dealing with the House, taking the term Congressmen a touch too literally; you know the usual suspects like Cynthia McKinney, Jean Schmidt, Mark Foley.  But no, much to my pleasure they tackled a few Senators as well.  By now, it should be obvious that Senator Hoof-in-mouth made the list.  Coming in at number 8, Montana's (by way of Missouri)  own Conrad Burns is truly distinguished in this ignoble company.  And I do adore the caption to his picture where they label him 'The Ethnicist'.

Don't be mistaken; I know full well that the Radar article is a silly and snarky fluff-piece.  However, I do wonder how ridiculous you have to look to Washington insiders to make a list of this nature when Mark-paging-young-studs-Foley, Ted-InterTubes-Stevens, diagnosis-from-video-based-on-cat-dissection's Bill Frist, William-frosty-bucks-Jefferson and Rick-man-on-dog-Santorum don't get the nod.  I'm guessing that Conrad's placement means he's pretty much a buffoon.

Are You Buying This Crap?

The Montana GOP is so stupidly fact challenged, I often wonder how they manage to put their pants on in the morning.  Take a look at the latest e-brief, and tell me that their not full of shit.

First, they laud the newest Zogby poll, claiming that Burns and Tester are "neck and neck".  Actually, Tester leads Burns by 4 points, 46 to 42, extremely bad poll numbers for an incumbent with Burns' monetary assets.  As the dipsticks claim, that's a toss-up.  Their reasoning?

The poll has the race favoring Tester 46-42 and that is well within the margin of error and makes this race a toss-up.

I'm not saying that they're wrong about that, but I will happily claim that they are being stupidly inconsistent.  Slightly later in the brief, they claim that Republicans "Lead in State Legislative Races".  That's a lie, and little Chucky Denowh knows it.  After all,l they link to a headline that actually says:

GOP slightly favored in statewide polling

Uhmm, read the article and you find this in the second paragraph:

But the difference is within the poll's margin of error, so the proportion of voters favoring Republicans or Democrats is considered a statistical dead heat: Forty-five percent of those polled said they prefer Republican candidates for the state House, while 42 percent chose Democrats.

By the very reasoning that they use in the Senate race, there is no favoring of GOP candidates in the state.  It is a dead-heat.  It's even a closer margin than that they claim as insignificant in the national Senate race.  Why the inconsistency?

That should be obvious; the state GOP thinks we're stupid and wouldn't recognize such a ploy.  I'm happy to disappoint them.  Are you?

Had enough, yet?

Why Not, Conrad?

I've listened to Sunday's debate twice now, and there was something conspicuously missing from the discussion.  There was no talk at all about limiting or shrinking the size and role of government.  It might surprise you to know that I actually favor such a thing, and neither candidate brought it up at all.

We can blame it on the questions asked, but the whole thing seemed more free-form than any debate I've ever witnessed.  So why wasn't it mentioned?

Jon Tester actually scored points with me on this score because he does favor limitations on the Patriot Act.  But that doesn't shrink the useless security apparatus we've built to support it, now does it?  The current administration, with the weak toadying of Congress, actually created another Cabinet Department , seemingly to tell us to buy more duct-tape.  And what has the Department of Homeland Security actually done?   Hmm, not much.  They've castrated FEMA, given us the colors of our fear (the greatest Internet joke EVAR!), and given jobs to the administrations friends.  That can't be what we want, is it?  If current events teach us anything, the actual job of securing the nation is being carried out by the DOD, the NSA, the FBI and Interpol.  None of those are under DHS.  The Bush II electric bugaloo has expanded our government for no reason.  Can either candidate for Senate tell us why?  Not in that debate.

As I've indicated, there are two very real side-effects of shrinking the government.  The first is that it shrinks the role that government plays in our lives.  That certainly isn't happening.  The government is now paying journalists to infiltrate our media with friendly reporting on policy.  Can anyone defend that as a lessening of government influence?  The Patriot Act is being used to influence the failed and useless "War on Drugs".  I'd call that an expansion of the government's powers to influence American life.  Before the Bush administration, I didn't have to worry about phone tapping, or Internet message harvesting, or "No Fly" lists or even having to secure shampoo before flying.  The fed wants you to believe that this is the fault of terrorists.  No, it's not.  The terrorists aren't scrutinizing my "Gee Your Hair Smells Terrific" before I fly in order to make my fellow passengers feel better.  Underpaid and under-trained government lackeys are, and damn it!  They're doing the job they were hired to do.  The same goes for every single program that the government sponsors.  You get a bunch of people just doing a job that they were hired to do, and a bunch more people suffering under the effects of further intrusion into their lives.

Now, no doubts, there's gonna be a bunch of critters who would tell me that we need such measures to keep us safe.  And to them I say, no we don't.  Less is more ... if it's efficient and effective.  And those were the words that were  most lacking from Sunday's debate.  Now Conrad tried to tell us that the government is doing a good job of keeping us safe.  There's a whole lot of debate about that very thing.  He thinks the govt. is being effective.  I don't.  I think it's annoying us all and achieving  results through the same methods employed before Conrad helped to expand our government's influence in our lives.  You see, the Fed hasn't turned up one credible threat against American lives since 9/11, and HOLY COINCIDENCE, BATMAN ... there hasn't been another attack on American soil since that time ... except the random nutcase plowing people with his car ... or that little  sniping episode in DC ... or the anthrax attacks for which no one has been held accountable.

So we aren't safer, right?  The government has swelled such that my shampoo of mass saturation of hair oil is now deemed a deadly weapon, but I'm not any safer.  The only effective result of government expansion has been the steady drumbeat of college Republicans called to the federal payroll to incompetently screw with my life.  "Here's your flag pin, son; you've earned it.  Now go on out there and keep the conservative faith ... and try to keep from being caught.  'Cause if you screw up, we'll disavow you like a two dollar whore!"  Let's face the facts, here, people.  Expanding government isn't effective if there is no efficiency.

There can't be efficiency without accountability.  And wouldn't it be nice if there were a government department that scanned and tracked efficiency, such that some might be held accountable?  Well what the hell do you know, there is one, and has been for a very long time.  It's called the GAO, the General Accounting Office.  They're the ones who let us know that the Iraqi Provisional Government flat out lost 9 billion dollars, and misused beyond 27 billion more.  Has a bill for services been submitted to Paul Bremer?  No.  He got a medal instead.  The GAO is the office that originally alerted the press to the fact that a fricking petting zoo in Alabama is supposedly a greater terrorist target than Hoover dam.  Now how in the hell can this, any of it, be seen as efficient expenditure of government funds ... your fricking money?

Well it can't.  That's obvious.  The sad fact is, our government isn't efficient and hasn't been for quite some time.  It's bloated, and spends money like they have it to spend.  The Republicans will tell you, as Conrad Burns attempted to on Sunday, that it is all the fault of Democrats who want nothing more than to raise your taxes.

??? Democrats want to raise taxes and that somehow forgives the inefficient spending that has gone before?  Huh?  Does this make sense?  I didn't think so.  I didn't think so at all.    This is why Congress looks nothing like your family or mine.  If I have a bill to pay, I have to pay it, or face legal consequence.  If I want to buy an expensive add-on to house or health or whatever, I have to borrow the money.  And I know, every single day, I know I have to pay that money back.  Congress doesn't have to.  They can continue to borrow, and borrow, and borrow.  Conrad Burns has voted multiple times to keep borrowing more .., borrow borrow borrow.  Some one has to pay this money back, right?  Someday, someone will have to reach deep and pay the money back;  Paul Bremer's missing 9 billion?  You'll pay it back or your children will.  The funds for homeland insecurity while you get inconvenienced?  Yup!;  you're paying for it.

On Sunday, Jon Tester actually gave a shout out to the idea that we are biting off more than we are willing to chew.  Our government has no efficiency and we will pay, especially for the Iraq war.  Conrad?  Well he was just happy that we increase our debt by less than we expected.  In my house, that means buying less beer than I'd hoped.  In Conrad's house, which he doesn't own and will be dead long before he accepts his responsibility for funding, well ... eat it, my bitches!  He's gonna pay you the money that he thinks is his, even though its yours.  He will "provide" for Montana.  What he won't do is take responsibility for the growth of an inefficient canker.  What he won't do is stop the spread of government into your life that you pay for.  What Conrad wants is to buy you toys ... a skating rink, a ball field, a YMCA.  What Conrad wants is for you to thank him for providing his services in borrowing your money.  Conrad wants to expand the role and price that government plays in your life.  Conrad wants you scared and greedy such that you agree to expand the role and price that government play in your life.  Conrad is inefficient, and Conrad is ineffective.

I'm sick of the expansion of the Fed that Conrad tasks me to pay for, (whether I will it or not.)  I'm done supporting those who spend my money to benefit themselves, and that means I'm done supporting Conrad.  I was unhappy that no one at the Hamilton debate supported the idea of shrinking government.  The incumbent has the clear advantage in such a discussion, but Conrad can't muster such a thing.  He's too terrified, and wants to buy your vote.  He's scared that actually holding to a value will doom his chances since he hasn't been able to hold to anything for so very long. Give me a break, Conrad.  I don't need more government control, more government waste.  I need less; and you aren't supporting that, are you?

It Seems People Noticed

The whole problem with being a busy person while trying to document  the gaffs of Conrad Burns, is that by the time I'm ready to write about one, he's already made another.  Fortunately, Matt and Neal are all over the hysterically funny epic of the mighty Conrad Burnt requesting that the Governor take action ... when Gov. Schweitzer was already a month ahead of the game.  Yeah, Conrad certainly has his fingers on the pulse of  Montana, by golly.

No, what has surprised me today is the buzz that Conrad is getting in the web-o-world over his dire warnings concerning turncoat taxi drivers of mass destruction.  Perhaps we in Montana are just getting used to Conrad doing the five-toe-tonsil-tickle, but I didn't find his comment that outrageous (enormously stupid and droll, yes, but not that outrageous).  On the Conrad foot-swallow meter, I wouldn't give it more than half way to the arch.

But see, when you say something that incredibly stupid, and the First Lady is around to watch you do it, it tends to get press.  So much so that Conrad was honored with the title "Worst Person In The World", by Keith Olberman (hat tip to Shane).  And if it hits the press (outside of Montana)  it's definitely gonna hit the blogs.

Of course Kos noticed it.  He tends to take an interest in the Big Sky state, so that didn't surprise me at all.

But Pam Spaulding noticed as well, at Pandagon.  I was a bit surprised by that.   I haven't seen a Pandagonian mention politics related to Montana since Ezra Kline left.

Though he didn't give it a post of its own, TBogg caught the subtle racism in Conrad's fear mongering.

One of the well known bloggers I originally encountered on Metafilter many many years ago, Oliver Willis pulls no punches.  He calls it a Republican Bigot Eruption.

But my favorite response, bar none, was from the good Reverend Mykeru.

Sure. I know I'm missing out. But it seems to me more and more is that I'm missing out on irreducible stupidity. For example, this gem from today's The Raw Story:

At a fundraiser on Wednesday featuring First Lady ;Laura Bush, Montana's Republican Senator Conrad Burns said that "faceless" terrorists "drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night."

First thought: Uh...wow. This mental human sinkhole is a Senator. Second thought: Bummer, where do you go with something is irreducibly stupid as this? Answer: Nowhere. It's a dark mental cul-de-sac. Once you descend down that sinkhole of the mind where taxi drivers equal swarthy foreign people and swarthy foreign people equal terrorists, the air is completely cut off and one can't even get a spark going, much less a flame.

Except, maybe, to note that our War on Terror is such a success that being a terrorist isn't even a full time job. We kick ass. Especially when it's a completely unrelated, irrelevant ass. The fact that the terrorists are faceless goes a long way towards explaining why we keep attacking the wrong fucking people.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Blogswarm!

There's a whole lot of us who just aren't buying the bullshit.  *Yet Again*, Conrad Burns finds himself in the midst of corruption, and Montanans are none too happy.

I'm not happy.

Pogie ... none too happy.  Twice even.

Matt is really not amused.

Shane kicks the can and proves his cry of  "UNFAIR!",  all justifiably.

touchstone is irritated.

Update:

I feel remiss in not pointing out that for many folks, the story was broken by Justin Rood at TPM Muckraker.

The Montana Maven chimes in at Kos.

The Dark Lord Markos spreads the word to the hoards.

Ken Camp asks the right question at Western Democrat.

Pogie tracks the often bungling media coverage.

Update 2:

Moorcat weighs in.

Cece has some information (rumor alert!).

Get the point, Conrad.  We aren't fricken amused with the antics of your nice little * men.  They're ripping us off and we don't like it.

Quit
With
the
Crap.

(This post will be updated with other Montana (and otherwise) bloggers who come on board.)

Justice?

The Campaign Finance Director for Conrad Burns has been served with a cease-and-desist order, as well as legal charges concerning shady business dealings under the Montana codes of Securities exchange.  Let's let that sink in for half a second here ...

Campaign Finance Director for Conrad Burns.  Hmmmmm...

No, really, Conrad is cool.  After all, Davison was a volunteer (and when it comes down to matters of fiduciary responsibility, that matters exactly ... why?)  Besides, Davison resigned the position a month ago ... apparently without telling anybody ... or having such a move noticed by anyone at all.  But Jason Klindt said it, so obviously it.must.be.true.  Yeah, I know, I'm laughing my ass off at that as well.  That's just one more lie on the Klindt resume.

But, see, here's what I want to know:  The guy (allegedly) defrauded at least two people for sums totaling over a million dollars.  I've read the complaint and the cease-order, and I suggest you do the same.  So, we have a guy, who at the very least lied his ass right off for control of enormous sums of money ... and yet Montana code calls for no threat of prison time?  What the F, Matilda?  No jail for ripping people off to the tune of 6 or 7 figures?  How is this justice?  Come on, legal dudes and dudettes!  At least give us the satisfaction of a picture of Davison being frog-marched down to county lock-up for a hour or two.  I think that's only fair ...

On the plus side, Montana AG McGrath is shunting questions to the FBI.  That bodes well for justice, because the crimes they investigate (no matter how menial) don't tend to end with a rolled up newspaper slap, and the ever stern "Bad Dog!".

Now, here's the thing.  This guy was, at least until about a month ago, a member of Burns' campaign staff.  Jason Klindt, and ohhh how I revile him for this, can try with all his might to shield Conrad from the blowback.  That shouldn't happen.  How many of Conrad's staffers are being investigated as crooks now?  The bottom line is a choice of view; either Conrad knows he hangs out with an insidiously criminal crowd, or he's too clueless to know that many of the people he surrounds himself with are corrupt.  His choice, of course, but yours as well.  He's the Senator who works for you ... 'member?  So, if your choice is support of Conrad Burns, which do you favor?

A)  Support for a man who favors corruption?  or ...
B)  Support for a man too ignorant to see it all around him?

Either way, Conrad is a poor choice to return to the US Senate.  We can do better, Montana.  And any time you get those shaky quivers that tell you "Oh My God! I'm voting for a 'Demoncrat' ..."  just remember, Conrad's boys got to illegally attend the Super Bowl, and you didn't.  Conrad's boys get to illegal play with other people's money and you don't.  If that ain't enough to piss you off and fill you with desire for change, then I'm afraid that there just isn't any help for you.

Testify, Brother!

Conrad Burns:  always winning friends and influencing people.

Burns Get's ... Stung?

Submitted for your approval: a US Senator, foul of disposition and not well liked.  He tries to do right by the people he sees fit for the gift his benevolence, but has no real clue as to the nature of their passions.  He attempts to distract the people with toys, and they think him frivolous.  He attempts to defend what he believes to be their honor, and causes pain through his dishonorable actions.  But what if ... what if ... he had the chance to do the right thing, for all the wrong reasons?  What if he desired assistance from some of God's tiniest creatures, and they instead stung with fire the core of what remains of this 'Burn't out shell of a politician?  I offer you, the twilight zone of Conrad Burns ...

DadaDUH!   

So, Burns wants to fund Montana companies to train bees to find explosive devices like land mines and IEDs.  If one reads the comments to this Gazette article, one would be left with the idea that Montana no longer supports Burns and his pie-in-sky wacky pork barrel use of our dollars.  You know what?  I'm going to disagree with many of the commenters from the Gazette, and actually posit that this might be a good idea.  No, no no, not re-electing Conrad; that would be a spectacularly BAD idea.  But human kind has found a way to use wildlife to our purpose for as long as we've been known to be ... well, human.

Let's posit, for just a moment, that this research is on to something here.  Wouldn't you be willing to pay 25 million to see that land mines become a harmless relic of the past?  Wouldn't you offer 15 million to ensure that our troops were no longer in danger from roadside bombs?  I dare to think that of course, most of us would. 

But that isn't really the issue here, is it?  The issue is that Conrad Burns is the pork-barrelyest of all pork-barrel politicians (save maybe Stevens and his highways to hell nowhere ...)  The majority of commenters at the Gazette are absolutely correct as regards Burns.  This is just one more lame attempt to prove that he owns us in this state.  But if it works, as the science to some degree suggests, then federal funding of this project is not a bad idea, any more than stem-cell research is.  There's a really simple way around this seeming dichotomy of interests.

The conservative free-marketers have recently trumpeted the fact that stem-cell research is continuing without the government's help. If the bees-that-find-death project is as good as it seems, then it will continue regardless of government involvement.  But government help would speed things along, a concept that most people could probably get behind.  Let's look at the logic of that acceptance.  What is unnecessary is the involvement of one Conrad Burns.  He doesn't need to be painted the hero for the ideas of others, especially when he's been such a failure at championing so many good ideas.  If bees can be made a tool to help mankind, Conrad certainly has no claim just because he forked over my money to accomplish that.  Tester or Baucus could just as easily have fought for those funds, but they haven't the need to appear noble that Conrad does.  People aren't buying his schtick.  If Conrad hadn't announced that he was buying a skating rink for Bozeman, a ball park for Billings, a YMCA for Dillon and other such toys  we might actually trust him not to get stung by his illusion of the savior of the bees.

The good idea goes forward, and Burns gets stung by the very thing he thought would help his career.  That kind of tragic irony is the essence of twilight ... the twilight of Conrad's career.

*Pan out as the bee-stung Burns stares blankly at the unforgiving sky.  He thinks "why?  Why?  Why?"*

The Wheels Come Off

The Burns campaign is desperate.  The Montana Republicans are desperate to defend him.  None of it much matters.  Burns is Burned.  And they are offending the very people they should be appealing to.

Whining that Jon Tester is supported by Markos Moulitsis is just pathetic.  Using Shawn Hannity to perform that character assassination is even worse.

Markos spent 3 years in service to this nation.  Sean Hannity spent *none*.  Markos had no patience for national outrage over some soldiers-of-fortune ending up on the wrong side of a bet that they were well payed to call.  Sean Hannity is outraged ... OUTRAGED, I TELL YOU! ... that soldiers-of-fortune were treated poorly by the people they were being payed to kill/pacify.

Jon Tester has nothing to do with any of the little whiny bitchslap that Sean Hannity attempts to throw his way.  Sean Hannity, whiny little ass that he is,  doesn't tell  Montanans what to believe ... does he?  I don't think so.

Meanwhile, Conrad Burned runs commercials with cute cartoons that try and hide his own corrupt incompetence. The wheels have come off his ride back to the Senate.  His own former constituents are sick of his bullshit.  Perhaps he can replace those wheels with biscuits. Maybe that will get him rolling again.

I seriously doubt it.