Tester chides fellow Senators for not honestly debating the “merits” of the Iraq war.
Notorious Mark T tackles Baucus’ stance on the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Why Republican Representative Michael Lange’s HB 405 is the worst bill of the 2007 legislative session.
Ochenski mulls whether government agencies should be allowed to lobby the legislature.
Conservatives, rejoice! Julie Fanselow has found your ideological savior! Bill Sali for President!
Sara puts in her two cents on requiring HPV vaccinations.
Ed Kemmick’s pessimistic about our ability to wean ourselves from our energy habit in time to forestall global warming.
Do drug ads work? Bush thinks so…which, based on this guy’s track record, must mean that they don’t…
It’s Jonah Goldberg Day! It’s the day we mull the foolish arrogance that got us into the Iraq War…
Pelosi becoming increasingly popular with the American people.
More on the fired federal prosecutors: they’re given no explanation, and they’re overwhelmingly Democratic. Senate Democrats looking into the impropriety.
Colbert on the Senate’s refusal to debate the Iraq War: “Folks. This is the same heroic silence Congress employed back in 2003, when they first authorized the invasion of Iraq…because the best way to support our troops was to send them into war without discussion.”
The 50 most loathsome people in the world.
Satan: real or fiction? If you have to ask…
Proof that Jesus was not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
-
Recent Comments
Stacy Rye on Republicans and 64 Dems Protec… goof houlihan on Republicans and 64 Dems Protec… goof houlihan on Republicans and 64 Dems Protec… problembear on Republicans and 64 Dems Protec… problembear on Republicans and 64 Dems Protec…
February 9, 2007 at 1:51 am
While we’re on the subject of having a “Jonah Goldberg Day” over Goldberg’s foolish $1000 bet over the future of our success in Iraq I propose “Jay Stevens Day,” in which Jay comes clean in admitting his “sources” (or lack thereof) in claiming the Justice Department was delaying the indictment of Conrad Burns until “after the election.”
Is is far enough after the election for this delusion to be finally put to rest?
February 9, 2007 at 11:08 am
Here’s the source. I published the link the day I wrote the post.
I’ve also heard — but can’t find the link right now — that the Justice Department is targeting elected officials first.
I’m still not ruling out an indictment.
February 9, 2007 at 11:18 am
Oh, and here’s a page of links referring to Burns’ being under investigation by the DoJ.
February 11, 2007 at 1:32 am
So the “source” is an anonymous blogger/poster at TPM named “blogswarm” and the link subsequently provided is courtesy Montana Democrats…and you expect to be taken seriously? I mean, how many times are references linking back to the MT GOP E-Brief’s dismissed.
Forgive my skepticism but you developed quite the reputation during the campaign for your whisper, “I know something that you don’t,” campaign against Burns. My guess is that with Burns no longer a sitting Senator, the DoJ has other fish to fry.
The thing about out of state people that move here and either pretend they’re natives or that get preachy to others are that you have an almost universal desire to never let go of a single talking point you make…or the entire house of cards will come crashing down.
February 11, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Well, I agree that the TPM post was rumor and not too credible. Still, with all the evidence mounted up against Burns and Abramoff’s obvious antipathy for our former Senator, and statements from the DoJ about how much time and energy the Abramoff-related investigations were costing, the rumor seemed too good to pass up. So I didn’t.
As for my “reputation” for “knowing something you don’t…,” the majority of my posts on Burns were culled from mainstream media sources that were easy enough to find online. My contribution to the Burns story was simply being interested enough to look them up and summarize them.
If you looked at the links provided by the Mont. Dems you so casually dismissed, you’ll see that all of the stories were from credible reports with multiple sources. That is, easliy two dozen credible mainstream media reports claimed that Burns is/was under investigation by the DoJ.
I’m a little confused about the relevance to out-of-staters has to this discussion. After all, Burns himself is an out-of-stater according to your crude prejudice, and I suspect he wasn’t keen on any of my talking points. In general, I would argue that out-of-staters fall on both sides of the political aisle, and all points in between. It seems plenty of conservative Californians, for exampe, want to move here thinking it’s a conservative homeland — and build their McMansions all along the rivers throughout the state.
February 11, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Is there something inherently wrong with Californians wanting to build their “McMansions all along the river?” Does not the construction boom bring jobs, most of which have health benefits attached to them, and then increased tax revenue in the form of proterty taxes? Sure, it might take many of these wealthy out of staters time to adjust to the way we do things here, especially as it concerns river and stream access among other things, but their relocation is a net positive to Montana from almost any economic indicator available.
February 11, 2007 at 8:31 pm
BTW, remember, I’m just the messenger. If you want to pissed at someone, be pissed at the guy who gave me so much to blog about: Conrad Burns.
February 11, 2007 at 11:43 pm
There remains no doubt that Burns’ tenure as Senator during his last term was an embarassment to us all, on that you can be assured from my POV, but not everything he did was bad. Having said that, there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle for the tenor of the last election, but claiming special knowledge of events in a whisper campaign, and then promoting the idea, was something one would expect to find on the Drudge Report…or other right wing sources, not from someone who expects some legitimacy.