Stupid Lowbrow Attacks from Rehberg’s Camp

by jhwygirl

I won’t even give these scums a link – but you can google it and find the new campaign Erik Iverson & Co. have out there attacking Sen. Jon Tester on the basis that he “voted to raise the debt limit 5 times.”


Under George W. Bush, who was in office from January 2001 until January 2008, the debt limit was increase 7 times.

Guess who was also in office from January 2001 until present?

Now, what that means is that Rehberg voted to increase the debt limit 7 times, but that was all rainbows and purple unicorns because, well, a Republican was president.

And…in case your wondering…McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor? They were all on board too.

So if the horror is supposed to be in the fact that Tester voted to increase the debt limit 5 times – well, Rehberg ups that by 2 and adds in 5 counts of “I’m a partisan hypocrite willing to tank the “good faith and credit of the United States of America” on the unprincipled stance of tea party ideology.

Ultimately, this is what we are going to see for the next year and a half. The Iverson/Rehberg duo don’t have much else. Stand him next to Sen. Jon Tester and they have absolutely nothing. No record, no substance and no resume of accomplishment over the 11 years Rehberg’s been up there. Unbelievably ineffective.

I look downright forward to seeing Denny and Jon debate. Downright forward to it. David and Goliath…and you all know who Goliath is.


  1. Of course it’s worse than that. The House GOP passed a budget that requires deficit spending until 2030 which, for those that are math challenged, means that they have committed to raising the debt ceiling for another generation.

    It’s all nonsense.

    • While you and I rarely agree, on this subject, we are in total agreement. What amazes me is that these stuffed suits in Washington can’t figure it out.

  2. Rehberg came into office along with Baby Bush. He supported Bush’s “Bonanzas for Billionaires,” tax cuts.

    In 2003, he voted for the Republican “Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act,” that was intended to ruin Social Security, to enrich the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, and to turn our pensions over to Wall Street. It won by a single vote, so Denny cast the deciding vote. This was after convicted felon Tom DeLay threatened members and held the vote open until 3 a.m., hours beyond the normal 15 minutes for voting. Only nine Democrats voted for the bill, but 206 Republicans, besides Denny, voted for it.

    On October 7, 2006, Rehberg said he “favors cutting taxes, including keeping the tax cuts passed earlier in President Bush’s administration. Lower taxes,” Rehberg said, “spur the economy, which helps create jobs.”

    Rehberg said he credits Bush’s tax cuts with keeping the American economy afloat after 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and last year’s razing hurricane season.

    “Thank goodness we had that tax relief,” Rehberg said. “What that does is stimulate the economy.”

    But those disasters including the war in Iraq have cost a lot of federal money, driving the U.S. debt to an estimated $8.5 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury.

    Rehberg said the nation doesn’t need to raise taxes to pay for the war in Iraq.

    “Taxes do not need to be raised,” he said. “We looked at this very closely. You have to have a plan. There isn’t a farmer or a rancher or somebody in business who doesn’t carry a certain level of debt. Where you get in trouble is when your debt is not manageable.”

    “Rehberg said he believed the nation’s current debt is manageable. If things keep going as they are, he said, the half of the debt will be paid by 2009.”

    (Democratic challenger Monica) Lindeen disagreed, saying Bush’s tax cuts went mostly to the wealthy. She said the cuts only further widened the gap between America’s rich and “the shrinking middle class.”

    Lindeen said it is wrong to pay for a war on credit.

    A week later, the debate continued. From the October 17th Gazette:

    On the budget, Lindeen pledged to investigate ways to reverse the $8.5 trillion budget. She attacked claims by Republicans that tax cuts would help reverse the country’s budget woes.

    “I don’t know about you, but I’m having a hard time swallowing that pill right now,” she said. “They are … spending their way into a red sea of debt that our children are never going to get out of.”

    Rehberg credited Bush’s tax cuts with keeping the country stable following a host of historic developments, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. He said Republicans were ahead of the schedule on a five-year plan to balance the budget.

    “We still feel the deficit … is manageable while recognizing at the same time the need to get a control on spending,” Rehberg said.

    So Denny ignored the effect of the Bush tax cuts that, like Reagan’s cuts and his dad’s policies, drove the national debt that had been reduced by Democrats since WW II. His bizarre thesis seems to be that if we had no taxes at all, we would be thriving. He ignored the massive effect of the interest on the rising debt, which is like paying the minimum payment on your credit card each month while the debt skyrockets.

    In fact, you can check any graph that compares the debt by president, by year, by percentage of the Gross National Product and you get the identical conclusion:

    Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years.

    The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That’s no accident.

    The Supply-Sider’s Hoax: Bush-I called it voodoo economics (but he got stuck with it). Their “theory” is that cutting taxes for the super rich will encourage them to work so much harder and make so much more money that they will pay more taxes, even though their tax rate went down. Well the voodoo didn’t work in 20 out of 20 years. And now they want to try it again. And they’ve scared America again about the debt. It’s easier now that they’ve run it through the roof.

  3. Rehberg’s lying Repug congame doesn’t make Tester any less prohibitive, Tester SUCKS from Day One. He won’t get a dime or a vote from me.
    Break the Baucus hold on MT Dem politics – send Tester packing.

    • Pogue Mahone

      Wow! Now THAT’S a great idea!………..if one has their head up their ass!

      • Dem Antidote

        Larry, you’ve heard of the “good-cop bad-cop” game, and even as it is being used on you, you’re not aware of it. Accusing others of having their heads in dark places even as you fall for the oldest political con job around is nothing short of hilarious.

  4. Ingemar Johansson

    Raise or freeze debt ceilings?

    You all voted for this guy, right?

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” -Obama 2006

  5. Pancho, there’s a little problem with your analysis since it completely lets Congress off the hook. You know, the guys who actually hold the national purse strings. Look at the trajectory of the debt from 2007 when Dems took over both Houses of Congress. Secondly, your site doesn’t discriminate between total national debt and debt held by the public – which would show the implications of intra-governmental debt due to SoSec and Medicaid trusts. Third, it lacks any significant analysis of the impact of GDP growth sensitivity on federal revenues.

    That said, I’m not making excuses for anyone here nor am I saying that supply siders (aka Say’s Law) are more correct than neo-Keynesians. But the analysis you offered in your links is pretty selective and shows little more than confirmation bias.

    And I might remind you that the Medicare Part D, which was and is bad policy, wasn’t rejected by Dems because it wasn’t paid for. It was rejected by Dems because it wasn’t generous enough. So I think it’s careful not to rewrite the narrative using voting records. That’s just political talking points.

    In other words, I think that casting partisan blame is sophomoric. Neither party escapes blame in this.

  6. Dem Antidote

    The debt limit debate is the flavor of the month. No one cares about it, and it will be raised. The parties decided it was a good vehicle to use to drive home their attacks on Medicare and Social Security. It’s working, as evidenced by this post. You’re inside the framework now, so you lost the argument. Pack it up then.

    Imagine that we are in such financial straits due to military spending, primarily, but also due to tax cuts aimed at the accumulating class of neo-Marxists, and that our media system has such a hold on our perceptions that we can’t even talk about what’s really going on. That’s our political system at it’s best- diversionary tactics used while both parties pursue the same goals.

  7. Ryan Emmett Morton

    “Now, what that means is that Rehberg voted to increase the debt limit 7 times, but that was all rainbows and purple unicorns because, well, a Republican was president.”

    I love rainbows and purple unicorns… you should see my office.

    Republicans don’t care about what they did before; they just care that they’re right and America is going to hell and planned parenthood is an abortion factory… and so forth. They key will be to get that message to swing voters and Tester better step up to make that happen.

  8. When it comes to Rehberg debating Tester, you should be careful what you wish for.

    I’ve watched Tester debate, and he’s not a strong speaker.

    When he was debating Senator Burns, it looked to me like he was so busy working on what he would say next, that he failed to hear what Senator Burns was saying, and Tester look brilliant in his responses.

    I predict that Tester dodges debates with Rehberg.

  9. Chaz

    I really can’t stand this stupid bickering in the campaigns. All of the negative campaigning and the money involved in the campaigning is the big issue here to me. We need to change the way campaigns are run in MT and we will have a better position to change the politics themselves.

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

    • 1,689,397 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,734 other followers

  • July 2011
    S M T W T F S
  • Categories

%d bloggers like this: