Close but Not Touching Doesn’t Make It OK

by jhwygirl

We all know drinking is practically a hobby here in Montana, although that culture is slowly slinking away as education outreach works its way through generations. One would, in these days and ages, expect that our elected officials have absorbed that educational outreach…or at least set an honorable example.

Erik Iverson, who still does crisis management for Montana’s congressional representative Denny Rehberg – Washington Post’s words, not mine – scrambled to clear quick rampant judgments (based on Denny’s well-honed reputation) that Rehberg was drunk at this weekend’s Flathead Lake boating accident where Kalispell’s state Senator Greg Barkus launched a 22-foot fiberglass speedboat up on the rocks.

Check out the comment thread in this article in Denny’s hometown paper, the Billings Gazette .

Iverson – who was also Rehberg’s former chief of staff and former head of Montana’s GOP – stressed a few things: Rehberg wasn’t driving the boat…and that Rehberg’s blood alcohol level (BAC) was only .05, “well below the legal limit.”

So Denny had only had a drink or two and his judgment was fine?

Not exactly the case, it seems. How impaired is .05 BAC? Read a full description for yourself, but to sum up:

At the .05 BAC level, people begin to exhibit exaggerated behavior, experience loss of small-muscle control — such as being able to focus their eyes quickly — have impaired judgment, lowered alertness and a release of inhibition.

.05 BAC has been pushed by MADD as a more reasonable BAC to determine the legal level of impairment…enough so that it is a concern for the Montana gaming industry.

Rehberg wasn’t driving – Senator Barkus was, and we’ve yet to get his BAC – but clearly Rehberg’s judgment was impaired enough to get in a motorized vehicle with someone who (anyone want to take bets?) will to be found to have alcohol in his system.

This is bad judgment, and when it comes to getting into a motorized vehicle with 4 others – and using the thing to transport yourself across a lake that also has other innocent people transporting themselves in their own motorized and non-motorized boats – wouldn’t you want to think that your lone congressional representative in Congress had enough judgment to know that not only should he not be getting in that boat with someone who’s been drinking – but that the drunk driver shouldn’t be getting behind the wheel of any vehicle and filling that vehicle with passengers?

That poor judgment resulted in some pretty serious injuries to 4 of the 5 people involved. It’s a shame that our Representative Rehberg didn’t have the good old common sense to say “Hey – wait a minute here,” and stop what has turned out to be a pretty tragic thing for one family.

Pretty basic stuff, no? Beyond that, where in the hell is Rehberg’s own self-preservation?

Now – I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out Iverson’s other backhanded defense he threw in with an on-camera interview I caught on Missoula’s NBC KECI station last night (sorry, can’t find any video), which was a description of the travel: The boat trip was for the purpose of delivering Denny to some bay/docks for some gathering he was trying to get to in Bigfork, and that they were “very close.”

Read: They had a safe trip almost all the way there….they almost made it.

So, again – Close but not touching doesn’t lessen the lack of judgment.

  1. goof houlihan

    I don’t really like irony; it’s painful. But here, on this website, the wailing and gnashing and ridiculing about this accident accompanies, in the same week, the honoring of a man who got drunk and killed a woman. It’s an hypocrisy that needs to be pointed out.

    Last week, in Gallatin County, a young woman stepped forward and took 100% responsibility for the death of her friend, caused when she missed a hard curve late at night out in the Valley, because she was driving drunk. She was sentenced to ten years in prison (although most of it will be deferred after she finishes her 90 evaluation period, I think.) This woman was not from the first family of her state, although she was from a first people. She admitted her crime and accepted her punishment.

    Yes, the driver of the boat’s got some explaining to do.

    But measuring Denny Rehberg’s .005 blood alcohol level as some horrid offense against humanity while continuing to extol a man who drunkenly drove off a bridge and left a woman to die is blatant hypocrisy.

    Any topical and relevant alcohol related deaths of innocents you’re posting about this week needs to start with the actual death of a young woman, a “boiler room girl” (we have come far!) and her future contributions to our country, instead of imagining some hypothetical horror based on MADD’s Carrie Nation act and your dislike of the man’s politics.

    • goof – I’m pointing out his lack of judgment here and a defense of Rehberg that his BAC was “only” .05. It’s something that isn’t lost on some.

      There’s no joy or celebrating in this post…just plain facts and editorializing by me that his judgment was bad, based on information offered by Iverson

      Hypocrisy abounds everywhere, and with regards to Kennedy’s Chappaquiddick, the only thing I can say there is that there were numerous investigations (think of them what you will – but they were conducted within the legal confines of the legal jurisdictions) and he threw himself at the mercy of the people of Massachusetts and the results were what they were. By all accounts he publicly repented for what he did and he served his people well.

      It might not be the legal outcome you like (or maybe even the Kopechne’s family, I don’t know) but it was the result of legal scrutiny.

      Haven’t you, in the past, chastised me for complaining about the outcome of legal proceedings?

      Frankly, I see this as an expanse of something posted elsewhere on the conservative side of Montana’s political intertubes, and your comment to said post.

    • JC

      Goof, you guys can have your martyrs. That’s politics. We expect that.

      But all you are doing is deflecting the responsibility that needs to be doled out for this accident, and the injuries that were sustained by the occupants of Barkus’ boat.

      Go ahead and use me and other commenters here as whipping posts, so that you don’t have to address the real issue at hand: What were our state republican leaders thinking and doing running a party boat across Flathead in the dark, and ramming into rock walls?

      Which is more important, Goof? Revisiting the past and its “boiler room girl”? Or dealing with the present and its accidents and consequences?

      I just hear a bunch of hot air and rationalizations, mixed in with some misplaced indignity and misdirection. Just what I would expect from republicans right about now.

  2. Big Swede

    What percentage of Montanans Drink?

    Better yet, what % of Blue collar Dems do on a summer afternoon in a boat on a lake?

    Definite vote getter, I’d worry if Barkus swerved into the rocks with his vision obscured while reading The Watchtower.

  3. ahnon

    as someone pointed out on another comment board, MT Statute pertaining to the operation of a boat has specific language finding that:
    – you let someone else who’s impaired operate a boat, you’re just as culpable
    – operating a boat under ANY influence of a substance (drugs or alcohol) is illegal. where on earth are they getting BAC levels that are acceptable for boating?

    pls review MT statutes 23-2-501 +. it’s all right there.

    • Big Swede

      In fact ahnon 23-2-501 doesn’t go far enough.

      We should require that all boat passengers carry breathalyzers.

    • I went and read that, ahnon – and you are correct. Here’s the whole thing:

      23-2-523. Prohibited operation and mooring — enforcement. (1) A person may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate a motorboat or vessel or manipulate waterskis, a surfboard, or a similar device or other contrivance in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person by:
      (a) engaging in maneuvers that unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb, or property, including but not limited to weaving through congested vessel traffic or jumping the wake of another vessel unreasonably or unnecessarily close to the other vessel or when visibility around the other vessel is obstructed and including swerving at the last possible moment to avoid collision, following directly behind a waterskier, speeding in confined or restricted areas, and buzzing or wetting down others, which constitute reckless operation of a vessel;
      (b) crossing or jumping the wake of another vessel when within 100 yards of the vessel or within 100 yards of a waterskier being towed by the vessel, except when directly entering or leaving a public or private marina, waterski facility, or other watercraft docking or loading area.
      (2) A person may not operate a motorboat, including a sailboat propelled by a motor of any kind, or manipulate waterskis, a surfboard, or a similar device attached to a motorboat while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.
      (3) It is unlawful for the owner of a motorboat or vessel or a person having the motorboat or vessel in charge or in control to authorize or knowingly permit the motorboat or vessel to be operated by a person who by reason of physical or mental disability is incapable of operating the watercraft under the prevailing circumstances.
      (4) A person may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate a motorboat or vessel at a rate of speed greater than will permit the person, in the exercise of reasonable care, to bring the vessel to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.

      And it does appear that there are open-ended parameters to “under the influence” – Title 23 does not define it.

      • ahnon

        thx for posting that – i was too lazy : )

        the Statutes will include a citation to another if further clarification prevails. but in this case, there’s no such citation. would probably be a question of case law. but the language seems, at first reading, to describe zero tolerance.

        in any event, there seem to be a number of statutes under MT criminal law that have been violated – by all parties, not just the operator. Iverson is expending a lot of effort to underscore a point that really isn’t all that critical to the case.

        you know, in most other states, this kind of event and malfeasance usually leads to a swift admission to a rehab facility, at the least, if not a resignation. there’s something about the culture of drinking in MT that can be so abhorrent. and antiquated.

      • Pogo Possum

        1.23-2-523. Prohibited operation and mooring — enforcement. (1) A person may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate a motorboat or vessel or manipulate water skis, a surfboard, or a similar device or other contrivance in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person……..

        JhwyGirl, you may want to get a better legal interpretation of the statute being thrown around.

        I am not an attorney but have owned and rented boats in the past. I believe you will find the key issues involved in applying this statute is “ownership” and or “control”.

        Here is how it has been explained to me by countless people. If you own a boat and go joy riding while intoxicated, you are both the “owner” and the person “in control” so you would be violating the law. The person sitting on the dock who saw you get into the boat or the passengers in the boat, provided they are not owners or have not been given permission to drive the boat, are not liable under this statute.

        If you loan or rent me your boat, you as the owner are responsible to make certain I am not intoxicated and that I know the rules and regulations. I then become the person “in control” of the boat. If I then authorize anyone else to drive the boat then they are also “in control”. If I pick up Pete and offer to drive him across the lake, he is just a passenger and not responsible for my actions unless I give him permission to drive the boat or he takes it over on his own.

        If you interpret this statute to include anyone who fails to stop someone from operating a boat, jet ski, wake board, etc, with “any” amount of alcohol in their system, then you would have to arrest everyone sitting on the patio at Marina Cay who doesn’t call the police if they see someone put down a drink and get on their boat. Or better yet, if the captain of one of the Flathead Lake tour boats takes a drink before getting on the boat, all the passengers could be arrested.

        Also a better explanation of “under the influence” would be helpful to all. Again, as many have explained to me, “under the influence” does not mean having “any” alcohol in your system as ahnon states. There are many criteria for determining under the influence with BAC being one of them. I haven’t had time to read through MCA but the FindLaw web site lists the BAC level for which a boater is considered intoxicated in Montana as 0.08%.

        No one knows many facts about this accident yet but what we do know is that Barkus and his wife are the owners and it appears Senator Barkus was driving. No BAC reports have come back on anyone else on the boat yet, except for Rehberg. Unless he was driving or Barkus had given him control of the boat in some way, his BAC level is irrelevant.

        Why don’t we wait for the FWP to complete the investigation and report the facts before people make any wild accusations? If the facts show Barkus is criminally liable (assuming he was the driver and/or was criminally negligent), then we can have a factual conversation about it.

        • The law says what it says…you or anyone may interpret it however you choose, and it may have historically been applied like it has – but it can be applied as it is read, Pogo.

          Meaning, a prosecutor can apply however they read it, regardless of how it’s traditionally been applied. If a prosecutor thinks he can take the literal reading of the law and applies it that way, there is nothing in the law that’s going to reign down and stop him.

          A defense attorney might try to counter that charge by saying “yes the law says that, but….” but only a judge can decide whether that kind of defense would work.

          You might want to read MCA before citing a third party website for authority over what is considered “under the influence” for boating.

          And who’s to say I’ve not had a conversation with an attorney (or even two) over this? And who’s to say that at attorney (or two) haven’t already weighed in on these pages?

          • Pogo Possum

            If you have consulted a nonpartisan attorney then I would welcome to hear what she/he said. Same goes for anyone here who is an attorney and would like to give a legal opinion.

          • Pogo Possum

            I am interested in the application of the law in this situation and how the courts in Montana normally apply this particular section.

            And you are right, some prosecutor could try to jail everyone who was on Flathead Lake that day who saw the boat drive away. But I doubt that will happen.

          • Choosing to apply the law literally in one situation doesn’t mean that they have to go an apply it to every situation that way.

            It happens. Prosecutors take high-profile cases and apply them to a fuller extent to “send a message.”

            Your defense – basically saying that everyone is drinking and boating up on the Flathead – is a weak attempt at bolstering Montana drinking culture which says that our right to drink reigns supreme over law

          • Pogo Possum

            If you concluded I am trying to defend anyone with an “everyone does it” argument then I need to do a better job of explaining myself.

            My point is the way it has been explained to me in the past, the key element in applying the quoted statute is one of control. Passengers, and bystanders are not necessarily in control – thus my use of an extreme example (arresting everyone on Flathead Lake who witnessed someone get in a boat with a drink in their hand).

            I wasn’t making an endorsement or excuse for intoxication.

          • Pogo Possum

            And by the way, until more information comes out, we don’t know that the driver, or anyone else in the boat, was legally intoxicated.

          • uh…yeah – but are you willing to take that bet on Barkus?

  4. There were no cries from left partisans, none, last year when young John Carey took the life of a passenger in his vehicle while DUI. No one hooted and hollered that ‘we must think of the families’. No one tried to excuse it because Laura Bush thwacked somebody with her car lo those many years ago. No one called for empathy for this tragic event. No one. Carey plead guilty and took responsibility for his actions. All without lame manipulative efforts to dismiss the obvious.

    I can state for the record that I don’t give a salient crap what Denny’s BAL was. It appears to be the case that Barkus was driving. Fine. If there is fault, it is his. Not Ted Kennedy’s sordid past. Not those who don’t have worry lines over the feelings of his passengers and their families and their friends and their friends of friends and their neighbors pets. No blame is shared bt those who honor a dead Senator’s impressive legacy or those who comment about how stupid this whole affair is at a website. Iverson has this called rightly. The blame belongs to Barkus, and no amount of emotional manipulation by the right will change that fact.

    • Anon

      Of course the blame and associated guilt/shame belong solely to Barkus and I am sure he will take personal responsibility for his actions. Who else could there possibly be to place the blame on?

      • Well, that should obvious. According to Goof and others the blame belongs with those who don’t have enough sympathy for poor Representative Rehberg. They think this somehow the fault of Ted Kennedy’s death and the mourning that goes with it. They appear to think this is all the fault of a bunch of commenters at a website, and judge accordingly with words like ‘class’ and ‘hypocrisy’. It’s all bullshit.

        Iverson is playing this right. Blame the guy who was driving, and encourage sympathy for the only one he cares to defend. That’s fine; politically expedient if kind of classless. It’s what should be expected from Iverson and his ilk. All the other wailing and gnashing of teeth is just cover-up. That includes Swede’s ‘everybody does it’ defense, Goof’s rather silly application of the Chappaquiddick defense (well known to anyone who’s seen more than one instance of the dictum IOKIYAAR), and all the other emotional appeals meant to cast shame on anyone who doesn’t toe the Republican party line. In this case, that line is fairly simple: if you can’t blame Rehberg than it’s all good and you are BAD person for saying it’s not. It’s like we find ourselves in a particularly bad episode of Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, one in which he uses the Chewbacca defense. It truly makes no sense, but will aid whatever cover-up might come next. I wonder if Judy has shown up to do laundry yet?

        If Rehburg knew that Barkus had been drinking (another fact we strangely don’t know yet), then he is culpable for a misdemeanor charge, as has been pointed out. That’s no big shakes. As Swede has rightly pointed out many in Montana have done the same. Of course, for most of us it was when we were in our tenns and twenties, the driver wasn’t a state Senator, and one would expect better judgment from a guy who represents a million people to the federal government.

        • goof houlihan

          The red herring that Woof’s dragging across the thread is that I was defending someone. I wasn’t. Read it again. My post was “offensive”, and aimed at those who would revel in the one crash, while dismissing the other, more fatal occurrence.

          I don’t feel the least bit defensive. Both were stupid, one was fatal, but here, only one is recognized as being reprehensible enough to be worth comment. That’s not blaming anyone here for either accident (another red herring), but pointing out the irony of blind obsequious partisanship.

        • This is the red herring you seem to miss, Goof:

          while dismissing the other, more fatal occurrence.

          No one has ‘dismissed’ Chappaquiddick. It just has no bearing here. It was what it was. I expect that’s exactly how this will turn out. The privileged will skate, and this will be consigned to the memory hole, until it can once again be pulled out to defend Republican moral authority and superiority. That’s what you’re defending here, Goof. Sorry, but to me that reeks itself of “blind obsequious partisanship”.

  5. JByrd

    This incident, coming after the Shane Hedges/Paul Sliter case, just gets you wondering what is acceptable conduct in the Montana GOP.
    Of course Shane came out smelling like a rose with a six-figure salary with a Beltway outfit now accused of ripping of high school scholars. Want a laugh? Check out Shane’s online resume:
    Like Reagan said, never speak ill of another Republican.

  6. My thoughts go out to Rep. Rehberg and his family – I went to high school with his son, and he was a class act.

    Quite frankly, I think the posts and comment threads on this topic are disgusting. I was a passenger in a car once where the person got pulled over for speeding and blew a .37 – they gave us passengers a breathalyzer as well to see if they could let us drive, and I blew a .67. I would get into a boat or a car any day of the week with that BAC (Not behind the wheel, mind you…). It’s barely a buzz.

    So the next person who uses the words “Republicans” and “bad judgment” in the same comment again needs to be kicked in the nuts. I’m amazed at the things that pass for reasonable partisan discourse these days. I don’t give a shit if Denny has a drinking problem, or if he got into a boat with a bit of a buzz on. It has no bearing on whether or not he’s a good legislator. NONE. So other than expressions of sympathy and well wishings, you guys need to drop it.


    • petetalbot

      Steve T.,

      I hope you mean a .067 for yourself and a.037 for the driver, otherwise you’re probably writing from beyond the grave, having died from alcohol poisoning shortly before the driver wrapped his car around a tree.

    • Niggling complaint to be sure, but if you blew a .67, it means that your blood was 67% alcohol. Decimals matter. Did you mean .067 (way drunk), or .0067 (possibly impaired, but under legal limit)? It matters more when it comes to the driver. .037 is damned well drunk, and choosing to get in car with him or especially her (lighter body weight) was not the smartest thing ever done.

      I’m amazed at the things that pass for reasonable partisan discourse these days.

      Has it occurred to you, Steve, that that’s why there is such a volatile reaction here? When this was just a silly story of the privileged lives of politicians, some of us thought it was funny. But before any facts were known, demands were placed and judgment laid on the behavior of the people commenting at a website. The rightwing machine is pretty good at that, or haven’t you learned that from your father? (What’s this talk of Iraq? It doesn’t look like they had anything to do with 9/11. … TRAITOR!!!)

      And here you are hoping violence against any who are disgusted with the rightwing tactic of applying culture war values to every event. Thanks, Steve. You’re a big help.

      And yes, good judgment or bad judgment does indeed have a great deal to do with one’s legislative ability. Whether Dennis got on a boat with a buzz doesn’t, as you point out, have anything to do with it. Getting on a boat with a guy who tries to kill you on the rocks … But telling others to shut up because they don’t follow your rules of etiquette doesn’t exactly show good judgment either, does it?

      • Now, I screwed my decimals up too. You are allowed up to .08.

      • Yeah on that .067 thing. You know what I mean.

        A lady I worked with in Missoula got a DUI for blowing a .24. I told her that at that point, I would have been comatose and possibly choking on my own vomit. I can’t believe that people can even get into a car at that point. But I’ve digressed.

        In what world is .067 “way drunk”? I should say I was surprised it was under the legal limit because I knew I wasn’t fit to be behind the wheel. But I was 3 beers in. In no way is that “way drunk.” The lightest of lightweights would not be way drunk at that point.

        This is the main question I would like you all to answer: Suppose you’re right that I shouldn’t have been in the car —does that mean I’m a bad teacher because it shows I have “bad judgment”?

        Let me know. That way I can start taking this personally. :)

        • Nevermind on that, Wulfgar. I misread your comment on “way drunk.” Let’s never get into an argument about something that involves decimals again.

        • Steve, I can only assume that you didn’t do that while you were a teacher. Also, if we have our decimals correct, you weren’t ‘drunk’ and neither was the driver. Where is the poor judgment? It doesn’t appear to be there.

          Dennis Rehberg, on the other hand, is a United States Congressman. State Senator Barkus is a State Senator (sorry for the redundancy.) You, in your anecdote, did not plow into a bunch of rocks. They did. The question of judgment isn’t beside this point; it is integral to it.

  7. Bob Brigham

    Law says same as touching:

    23-2-523. Prohibited operation and mooring — enforcement. (1) A person may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate a motorboat or vessel or manipulate waterskis, a surfboard, or a similar device or other contrivance in a reckless or negligent manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of a person by:
    [b](2) A person may not operate a motorboat, including a sailboat propelled by a motor of any kind, or manipulate waterskis, a surfboard, or a similar device attached to a motorboat while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two.
    (4) A person may not operate or knowingly permit a person to operate a motorboat or vessel at a rate of speed greater than will permit the person, in the exercise of reasonable care, to bring the vessel to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead. However, nothing in this part is intended to prevent the operator of a vessel actually competing in a regatta that is sanctioned by an appropriate governmental unit from attempting to attain high speeds on a marked racing course.
    (5) A person may not make a reckless approach to, departure from, or passage by a dock, ramp, diving board, or float.

    • Anon

      So it appears that Statute says you can’t operate or allow someone else to operate a boat in a reckless or dangerous manner. Agreed? It also says you can’t operate a boat while under the influence of drugs or alcohol with “under the influence” not being well defined.

      Do you think that ANY of the people in the boat KNEW that Barkus was doing just that and if they did, do you think that just maybe one of them might have said “slow down, Greg”?

  8. All-righty, let’s get to some brass tacks here.

    So far, apparently all anyone here wants to do is turn this into a partisan slugfest. All props have to go to our brethren on the right who have a two-fold job: turning this into a partisan slugfest while shaming lefties into agreeing that the left is turning this into a partisan slugfest. Kudos to them for their success (thanks going to those fishies who took that bait, hook-line-and-sinker.) /sarcasm

    True props go to Doug who has been one of the very few to actually stick to the facts. So what are those facts?

    State Senator Barkus drove a boat into rocks on the edge of Flathead Lake and some folks got injured, including Montana’s only Congress critter, Dennis the Goat Herd. (Fact, just because he broke his ankle does not make it incumbent on anyone to think he’s a spiffy human being or decent legislator. Show of hands: Where was the humanitarian outpouring of concern for Hillary’s broken arm among those claiming that we should give a crap about Dennis’ injury? Anybody? Beuller?) One of the people on the boat got a serious head injury, of great concern for all. There are those who think that demands some reverence for this event. I’m certain that I’m not alone in wondering exactly how that is, or why. No one will explain it; they simply demand as if it is prima facie. Sorry, you’ll have to do better than that. No one has anything but concern for Mr, Frost’s condition. The event is altered not one whit because of it. All injured parties will recover well, save the questions regarding Mr. Frost who cannot yet give a statement to authorities. Mr. Rehberg has reported through his mini-me, that he was a nice safe and legal .05 Blood alcohol, even though it was clarified at the same venue that it didn’t matter to the accident. Kind of odd, but I guess we all ought to move on.

    So, that’s what we know.

    What don’t we know.

    Mr. Barkus, driver of the boat, has released no statement that has been reported. Because of that, we have no idea what actually happened. Mechanical failure? Unlikely. That would have been reported right up front with Denny’s BAC. Barkus seems the least injured on the boat, and has been communicative ever since the ‘accident’. No word from him has been reported. Not one.

    Was Barkus drunk? Who knows. Within 24 hours we knew who was driving the boat, and within 36 we knew what Dennis the Goat Herd’s BAC was, but there has been no report at all about the driver of the boat that could have killed him. Don’t take that lightly. Dennis is a public asset, owned and operated by the people of Montana. Every one of us has a right to know what the factors were that almost took that asset away. 3 whole days later, we still don’t know the BAC of the driver of the boat that could have killed our Congressman.

    When this ‘investigation’ began, it was being run by Montana FW&P. There is a newspaper story of them telling two campers that they could not talk to the press or anyone about what they had seen. Isn’t that odd? Only the Secret Service can do that without a court order, and they have to get one within 72 hours. Seriously, and without partisanship, you have to think that’s fricking strange, right?

    This is a possible crime, involving a US Congressman. Now, my law may not be what it could, but my Google-fu is pretty outstanding, and everything I read tells me that the FBI should have jurisdiction here. Has anyone, anyone, read about any enforcement involvement beyond the FWP? I’m not saying that they’re not involved; I’m just saying that I don’t know … and neither do any of you. It just strikes me that one concerned beyond partisan sniping might have asked that question. Woops, I just did.

    Let’s face it. No one here has the moral authority at this point to snipe at others. Not Goof, not Steve T, and certainly not Swede. There’s too damned much we don’t know. So knock off the hypocrisy of claiming hypocrisy, hypocrites. This tale ain’t ended yet.

  9. klemz

    Consonant Girl, does it get hot in your one-room schoolhouse?

  1. 1 State Senator Greg Barkus Drinking at the Time of the Crash « 4&20 blackbirds

    […] We had some discussion here with regards to Title 23 in this thread. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Pages

  • Recent Comments

    Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A…
    Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado
    Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E…
    Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att…
    JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
  • Recent Posts

  • Blog Stats

    • 1,675,713 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,737 other followers

  • August 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: