Archive for the ‘John Sinrud’ Category

by Rebecca Schmitz

Imagine being Rep. Roger Koopman for a moment. No, really. Go drink a quadruple shot of espresso, yell at your kids, kick a fawn–whatever it takes to get that angry and aggressive. Imagine yourself wanting to purge your political party of people you feel are “socialists”. Imagine finding like minded individuals to help you achieve this goal. Surely, like you, these people would be so proud of their activities and opinions they would openly reveal themselves to the voters and the media, right? Right?

Not these guys.

Whether or how these groups coordinated their efforts is unclear. Officials from most of the groups did not return telephone messages, ignored e-mails or declined to say much about what they are doing. What is unusual about most of this latest collection of groups…is their formation just before the election and their relative obscurity and secrecy, says state Political Practices Commissioner Dennis Unsworth.

Apparently Koopman’s (and John Sinrud’s–he has ties to some of the groups, and Ed Butcher’s–but we’re all used to Ed and his family being less than forthcoming about their political associates) pals don’t answer the telephone, provide their phone number, let alone provide the correct digits, or even stay on the phone once they’ve said “Hello?”

Speaking of Ed Butcher, since these groups have become his BFFs let’s remember what District Judge Dirk Sandefur said two years ago, when he declared that Butcher’s son’s efforts to influence Montana politics were marked by a “pervasive and general pattern of fraud”:

At least 43 of the signature-gatherers, who vouched for thousands of signatures, listed “false or fictitious” addresses on their sworn affidavits turned in with the signatures, Sandefur noted. That violation alone casts doubt on the petitioners’ credibility, and that oath is critical to guarding the integrity of the initiative process, he said.

Credibility. Integrity. Qualities that start with simply putting the correct e-mail address down on a form. Or just picking up the phone.

by Pete Talbot

Good political insights and some great self promotion over at Daily Kos by Democratic candidate Peter Rosten (HD 57 87 in the Bitterroot). This is one of many Montana legislative campaigns that has great potential and could use our support. Rosten is a film and video producer, which is close to my heart, and he’s done innovative work in Western Montana schools. Here’s his website.

I was remiss in my last ‘favorite links’ not to mention Wulfgar’s! (is that where the apostrophe and exclamation point go?) introspective Obama piece — over at LiTW, of all places. This link is a little late but there’s still some wild commentary going on — presidential retrospectives, recriminations, gender issues — it’s worth a look. Remember, we’re all Democrats here so let us keep our eye on the prize.

Montana congressional candidate John Driscoll is certainly an optimist but then again, he won the Democratic primary without doing any campaigning or raising any money. I sincerely hope he gets his ass in gear and makes a serious run at Rehberg. Driscoll needs to keep Rehberg busy, otherwise Denny will spend his money and time helping other Republican candidates (particularly state legislators) get elected.

So now we know what John Sinrud has been up to since he decided not to run for the legislature: figuring out how to rape the Montana landscape. Along with extractive booster and former Republican Congressman Ron Marlenee, Sinrud has formed the innocuous sounding Western Tradition Partnership. Jim Jenson of the MEIC nicely skewers this organization’s goals.

by jhwygirl

I don’t know if it really is the real John Sinrud posting comments in Rebecca’s recent Republicans vs. Reality, but if it is it only illustrates/affirms the hypocrisy that is prevalent in Montana’s Republican party.

In Rebecca’s post, Mr. Sinrud posted this:

why can’t one build in the wui but be required to have a defendable area around the house/buildings which will reduce the amount of time that fireman will have to defend the structure and put more people on the lines to contain the wild/forest fire. These are just a few items that need to be looked at. People like Sirota and others just want to demonize others that think differently than them.

SB 51 was proposed to address a good bit of what Mr. Sinrud speaks about in that comment, yet Mr. Sinrud voted against it. Here’s its synopsis:

AN ACT REVISING GROWTH POLICY AND SUBDIVISION LAWS; REQUIRING GROWTH POLICIES TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL FOR FIRE AND WILDLAND FIRE; INCLUDING FIRE AND WILDLAND FIRE AMONG THE NATURAL HAZARDS THAT LOCAL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO REASONABLY ADDRESS; REQUIRING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO IDENTIFY AREAS UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT UNLESS CERTAIN MITIGATION MEASURES ARE TAKEN, INCLUDING USE OF CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES PROVIDED IN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATIVE RULES; PROHIBITING A GOVERNING BODY FROM INCLUDING CERTAIN BUILDING REGULATIONS IN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY TO ADOPT RULES THAT IDENTIFY CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO MITIGATE FIRE HAZARDS; REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION TO ADOPT RULES TO ADDRESS DEVELOPMENT IN THE WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE; AMENDING SECTIONS 76-1-601, 76-3-501, 76-3-504, AND 76-13-109, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

SB 51 passed, despite his vote, and was signed into law this past May.

So now local governments are required to have growth policies address wildland urban interface (WUI) issues. They are also required to have subdivision regulations that identify areas unsuitable for development without certain mitigation measures implemented. It will require, by nature of requiring those regulations, to have local governments enforce those mitigative measures. It further requires the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation to adopt rules to address development in the WUI.

Mr. Sinrud also voted against another wui bill – SB 167, which required counties that don’t adopt wui regulations to reimburse the state or any general fund appropriation expenditure made by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation for wildland fire suppression within the county’s geographic area.

That one also passed despite his efforts.

So one bill requires counties to regulate development in the wui by requiring mitigative measures, and the other bill says that if you don’t do it, the state isn’t picking up the tab.

In fact, both SB 51 and SB 167 is practically a role-call list of 23 (and 25 for SB167) Republicans in the House who voted against these common-sense bills.

Keep that in mind when you read this other comment of Mr. Sinrud:

Another point: this is what is wrong with politics why can’t people in all areas sit down and work for a positive change in our world.

by Rebecca Schmitz

The furor over Rep. John Sinrud’s “Why not just let them burn?” comment shows what happens when Republicans get into a head-on collision with reality. They constantly have to walk a fine line. On the one hand, this member of the party of private property rights, less government spending, and self-reliance has a point: if people are going to build homes in the wildland-urban interface, they have to accept the inevitable. Their house might be destroyed by wildfire and, according to Sinrud, it’s up to homeowners to buck up, deal with the loss, and learn from their mistake by building somewhere else in future. It’s not unlike federal assistance for people who continually rebuild their homes in Tornado Alley or the Mississippi River floodplain; at what point do we as a society stop subsidizing bad decision-making skills? On the other hand, there’s reality. People want that assistance, and rightly so. When push comes to shove and a fire is just over the ridge, few Republican homeowners in its path stand up and say “Hey! Our state and national budget can’t support these firefighters! Let it burn!”

There’s a reason why President Bush never vetoed a single budget-busting bill while the Republicans were in power in Congress: he knows we the people want earmarks, pork barrel projects, and, yes, firefighters to arrive at that log home located in a thick grove of lodgepole there at the top of Mill Creek. Alaskan Republican Representative Don Young was able to include the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in the 2005 transportation bill without having a crisis of conscience because his constituents wanted it, despite his party’s philosophical commitment to ending government waste. Did anyone read the Missoulian this morning? There’s an article in the Montana section listing all the projects in this state that will receive federal funds this year, thanks to the money Baucus, Tester, and Rehberg have brought back home to us. Are Missoula Republicans going to stand up and say, “No thanks, we don’t want any cash going to the Missoula Food Bank, the University of Montana, St. Patrick Hospital, Community Medical Center, Missoula Area Youth Hockey Association, and the Missoula International Airport because our budget can’t support these projects!” Of course not. Reality will always trump party philosophy. Representative Sinrud might talk tough now, but he knows “letting it burn” means only one thing: less votes at election time.

by Montana Firefighter

Good to know my work is for naught. (Hat tip to bfunk!)

Thanks Representative Sinrud. Thanks Montana Republicans.

I’m sure the communities of Frenchtown, Arlee, Seeley Lake, Rock Creek, Darby, Billings, Plains, Livingston, etc. would love to have you come visit and present your point of view.

As for me, I’ll be supporting the good Governor Brian Schweitzer, who didn’t cover his ears and sing “la la la la la” when he presented his budget last November 2006.

That is, of course, in contrast to Montana Republicans who chose to play partisan politics with the realities of not only Montana wildfires but Montana firefighters – by trashing the good gov’s budget proposal for wildfire funding and then having the nerve to accuse him of not supporting firefighters because he didn’t support individual taxcuts for firefighters.

Lordy Lord.

by Jay Stevens

We got ourselves a humdinger this legislative session.

Governor Schweitzer called the special session of the Legislature this weekend – starting Thursday — and has declared it will meet for three days, through Saturday.

Here’s what we know from the news reports. Schweitzer and his administration have met with “a dozen Republican legislators,” including House Majority Leader Mike Lange. Apparently the Governor and the rogue Republicans have struck some sort of deal.

My thoughts, and things to look for:

— It appears that John Sinrud, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and Scott Sales, Speaker of the House, were excluded from the deal.

That’s huge, and means that the Governor has to line up more than just a couple of Republicans to his tax and budget plans. Sinrud can table any appropriations bill – such as, say, a budget bill – that passes through his committee. Sales can tweak procedures to sit on bills. He can use “pocket vetos” – simply putting passed bills into a desk drawer or refuse to sign them. Both men have this past legislative session used those procedural tactics to deal with legislation or legislators they don’t like. (Yes, a lot of bills vanished.)

In order to bypass these procedural difficulties, the Governor needs 60 House votes to “blast” bills out of committee. That means he needs at least eleven Republicans to vote with a unified Democratic bloc to get bills past the Sales/Sinrud bottleneck.

— If Schweitzer does have his “dozen” Republican legislators, we’ll see some internecine sparks fly on the House floor. Maybe even more angry speeches from Sales again questioning the morality of his opponents and no doubt some of his one-time allies.

If Schweitzer does have his “dirty dozen,” then we may be witnessing the beginning of an internal struggle for the Republican party. Scott Sales won the House speakership over the more moderate wing of his party by a single vote; is this the first sign of a moderate versus radical struggle in Republican electoral politics, we’ll see intensify in 2008? Are state party leaders and donors pulling the party back to the center?

— Schweitzer’s plans and call for a special session caught the Democratic leadership completely off guard.

That doesn’t bode well for some of his pet projects, notably the “green” energy bill he tried to pawn off on the Legislature this session. A complete mess, possibly illegal as it’s written, only one Democrat voted against it the last time around – Jim Elliot, a Senator who’s facing term limits, and who had nothing to lose politically by opposing the Governor. You can bet more Democrats step up against this dog when the bill threatens to become reality. Does the Governor have enough Republican votes to overturn his own party’s defection on questionable legislation?

— Right now, this is the Governor’s game. By most accounts, his leadership – or lack of it – was a major reason why the 2007 Legislature’s regular session failed so spectacularly. (The other major contributor, of course, was demagoguery from the House leadership.)

 I’m really beginning to hear a lot of negative comments about the Governor’s communication style, and a lot of internal, muffled disgruntlement with policies and politeness stemming out of Helena.

The bottom line is this: if Schweitzer pulls this special session off – and there’s a lot of reasons why this session could crash and burn – it’ll be a major political coup for the Governor. If so, it’ll be seen as a validation for Schweitzer’s diplomacy and policy-making. That’s not a good thing, but I’ll take it if it comes with a budget and the public humiliation of right-wing extremists Sales and Sinrud.

(I know the Good Guv reads the blogs, so let me make a personal appeal: a crash is coming. Poor policy and poor manners will catch up to you. It may not happen now, it may not happen before your re-election; but if you’re thinking bigger and beyond, you need energy policy that’s well written and effective. And you need friends.)

So there’s my views on the special session. Your thoughts?

by Jay Stevens

Everybody’s angry that the Legislature adjourned without a budget. Partisan gridlock is to blame, they say, Democrats, Republicans, ptui! They’re all the same!

Yeah? Read over the transcript from Scott Sales speech after the Legislature adjourned:

…we’ve met a brick at every stage of the way. There was absolutely no compromise with the Democrats. They wanted to spend it all, and then some. We took the historic step of breaking the budget into eight…er…initially six bills became eight…we did it for one reason, and one reason only: we wanted to bring forward a sustainable, accountable budget for the people of Montana, so that we could then offer the tax, uh, tax cuts that they deserve!…and we received not one bit of help from the Democrats. In unison on 49 votes, they fought us tooth and nail and refused to participate in the budgeting process.

The bills went over to the Senate, and they blew the budget up way beyond the subcommittee work…I believe about a hundred seventy-five million, if the — correct me if I’m wrong – about 27 million above the Governor’s budget…they were horribly irresponsible! They spent money that…uh…uh…nobody could even imagine! I think it was obscene and immoral how they bloated that budget up. Without giving any concern to the taxpayers of Montana again!

Um, it’s unfortunate the way this thing turned out. We came in here this morning, and…uh…what the intention and every, uh, uh, effort, to try to come some sort of resolve with the Democrats, and come up with a sustainable, accountable budget and tax relief, and in fact, a couple of our guys – Representative Lange and Representative Glazier – were in the midst of a negotiation with the Senate to provide some sort of tax relief, and they were called out of that meeting, it was adjourned abruptly so they could sine die and run away.

Now yesterday…we have repeatedly made offers to the Governor and to the Senate, ah, what we wanted to get accomplished. Uh, yesterday we got an ultimatum from the Democrats, I don’t know if anybody brought it here, but I’d sure like the press to get it in their hands. Basically it was an ultimatum, you do it our way or the highway. They demanded unilateral surrender from us yesterday, if we wanted to adjourn. Um, we held firm, on the belief that the money belongs to the people, we turned down that offer, and they decided to unilaterally surrender against us.

And somehow we’re to blame. Somehow we’re to blame because we are fighting for the citizens and hardworking people of Montana.

I disagree. I think we’re very unified in this. I hope when we come back in the next session the Governor is willing to work with us. He’s called, I’m sure he’ll call a special session. And when he does I hope he decides to attend that one instead of being gone, like he was so much of this one. And, uh, that’s my challenge to the Governor. If you’re going to call a special session, please attend it. And please come to the bargaining table with House leadership, so we can work out a compromise.

It’s all the Democrats’ fault, they’re immoral and obscene, they refused to compromise, and by golly! The House Republicans preserved their collective manhood by standing firm and forced the opposition to “unilaterally surrender”!

The Democrats offered a tax rebate, and even increased the amount of the rebate after complaints from the Republicans.

The Governor did try to compromise, but was told to “stick it in his *ss.”

While manly Scott Sales “held firm” in the name of saving Montana taxpayers money, he’s also sticking us with $38K a day for the costs of the special session.

Honestly, could you think of a more acerbic, more confrontational speech on exit from a confrontational legislative session, which nearly every Montanan has decried as being too acerbic and confrontational?

No wonder Republican Senator John Cobb had public thoughts about the House leadership:

[House Appropriations Committee chair John] Sinrud continued to cut off comments by [Rep. Eve] Franklin and other Democrats. During a brief recess, Cobb stalked from the room after telling committee member Dave Kasten, R-Brockway, that the Republicans on the committee were “a bunch of idiots.”

“They’re using the rules to abuse people,” said Cobb during the break. “They think they can bully the governor. It’s no different than what goes on in a Third World country.”

If this is the kind of thing Republicans are saying in public, what are they saying behind closed doors?

Let’s hope they’re discussing a change in leadership. Because right now it seems likely as long as Sinrud, Lange, and Sales are in charge, the acrimony will not subside.

by Jay Stevens

There have been a number of posts written about Montana’s House Republicans splitting up the state budget into six…or possibly seven…more, or less…different bills:

With the legislative session approaching the halfway point, House Republicans released details of the six spending bills to replace the single budget bill they jettisoned last week. The Montana Legislature had used a single budget bill to cover all agencies for the past 30 years.

In addition, the process might not be legal. The GOP’s reaction?

“That’s a lot of hooey,’’ said House Majority Leader Michael Lange, R-Billings. “We’re taking back a process that belongs to the people of Montana, and we’re giving it back to the people of Montana.’’

Sweet. The House Republicans don’t even know, or even care, about the legality of their plan, even though Governor Schweitzer has been thinking about it:

Schweitzer believes the separate bills wouldn’t be true appropriations measures, and so wouldn’t include all the restrictions previous legislatures have put on the governor’s office to control his administrative freedom….

“I could move money from one end of an agency to another,” Schweitzer said of the modified budget bills….

By Schweitzer’s reckoning, the multi-bill budget gives him several other advantages. The state Constitution also requires all bills except the main appropriations measures to have specific titles explaining exactly what they would accomplish. A bill can’t simply be titled “Natural Resources Budget” and inside, send money and priorities to dozens of different departments and projects. The more time wasted under that mistake, Schweitzer said, the less time the multi-bill advocates have to craft a legal substitute for his budget.

Looks like someone has a handle on the legality of the Republicans’ budgetary plans, and it ain’t the Republicans.

Colby thinks that the Republicans are submitting the various bills so that the legislature won’t have time to do anything else. Personally, I think his theory gives the House leaders too much credit for their organizational skills. This smells like a clusterf*ck to me, not a insidious plan to upend the Democrats or progressive legislation.

Shane thinks the House leaders may have some arguable points, but is repelled by their secrecy. While it’s true legislators can now vote on the parts of the budget they like, as GOPers claim, it’s also true that it’s impossible to tell if budget allocation is acceptable unless you can see the bottom line. A tax cut or spending expenditure may sound great, for example, until you realize it puts the state in the red.

That’s basically Matt’s point. Matt also thinks changing the way Montana mulls the budget in mid-session portends disaster.

John Sinrud (R-Bozeman) explained the choice for splitting up the budget thusly:

House Appropriations Chairman John Sinrud, R-Bozeman, said splitting the budget into six or seven independent bills makes Montana more like the federal government.

“Just like in Washington, D.C.,” Sinrud said, “we will have the same clarity.”

In that statement, David Sirota finds all the wrongs of the 2007 House Republicans:

This is what happens when a small handful of wild-eyed lunatics like Sinrud become so partisan and so determined to try to make trouble that they are willing to destroy their own state’s budget system: they offer up rationales for their behavior that actually make their opponents’ points. In this case, we have Republican legislators in a libertarian-leaning state justifying their spastic behavior by saying it’s time we emanate the most corrupt and oblique processes of Washington, D.C.

(I suspect Sirota meant “…emulate the most corrupt and oblique processes…” although there’s a certain poetry in corrupt processes “emanating…”)

I suspect Sinrud’s comment was a mistake, he was probably speaking off the cuff, and that, state-wide, Republicans as one cringed when they read Sinrud’s comments in the newspaper. Which makes the comment all the more disturbing, doesn’t it?

In the end, I think Sirota’s right: it appears that the House is in the hands of unskilled ideologues.

So what got me started on Sinrud, you may ask? It wasn’t much. Just a drive-by comment left on a post with published newspaper letters in praise of Jon Tester.

But, you see, the comment was so irritating…

Okay, before I break into a patented rant, I’ll let you read the comment:

Jon Tester has raised taxes by the tune of $60 million per year on small business. The bi-partisan removal trigger on business equipment had been meet in 2002 according to the Department of Revenue (researched in July of 2006). With the passage of SB48 the one Tester voted for, it removed the trigger clause and kept business equipment tax at 3% with the knowledge that no other state around Montana has a business equipment tax. This is the tax policy of Tester just another tax and spend liberal.

Um, huh? Okay, I don’t want to get into the specifics of this particular tax…or non-tax…or tax trigger. That can wait for some other post. What I want to talk about is the bald rhetoric Sinrud used to smear Tester: “just another tax and spend liberal.”

First. This year’s state budget – of which Tester played an integral part – produced a $500 million surplus. Compare that to this year’s federal deficit, which the administration predicted would be $295.8 billion. As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Conrad Burns played an integral part in that budget.

Which lawmaker has a better fiscal record?

Allow David Crisp to ask a very pertinent question to John Sinrud and the Republican party:

What I’m waiting for is some genuine conservative to explain to me how it is fiscally responsible for a senator to support, say, a war that costs a billion or so bucks a day and then not only refuse to levy the taxes to pay for it but actually support tax cuts that dig the hole even deeper. Any takers?

What you will hear is some “voo-doo economics” theories, where money given in tax breaks and subsidies to the wealthiest Americans will trickle down on our heads – the bread crumbs off the banquet table of the filthy rich – and make us all happy.

Meanwhile we – middle- and working-class Americans – shoulder an increasing burden of taxation and federal debt.

No, Sinrud’s rhetoric and budget philosophy is harmful not only to our state’s capacity to govern effectively, it hurts us, everyday Montanans. But it also plays on your fears, the specter of a large and out-of-control government. The government is out of control. It spies on its own citizens, it kidnaps and tortures, it wages quixotic wars for no apparent reason, it skimps on security while doling out lucrative war contracts to good-ol-boy business pals, all the while dismantling through cronyism and neglect federal bodies that are — were — useful. Like FEMA. Like the FCC. Like the FDA.

Spending goes up. The return on our tax dollar goes down.

That’s the Republican budget policy. And that’s why we shouldn’t tolerate a Republican majority in this state’s legislature as long as they tout rhetoric over reality, cronies over constituents, and power over people.

The Montana Senate race is pretty dang exciting, isn’t it? And while the House race isn’t getting much press, it’s an easy target for bloggers, especially when Rehberg actually opens his mouth.

But there are crucial races going on at the state level, races that not only Democrats need to win, but Montana, too. Who can forget the energy deregulation fiasco? As the summer turns to fall and your heating bills start coming in, you can look at the prices and remember that the Montana Republicans scr*wed you over. That’s what they do. With the Democrats’ success in the legislature last session, it’s obvious who’s the better group of lawmakers for passing legislation and building a budget. Remember: $500 million surplus. $500 million surplus. $500 million surplus.

But maybe one of the best ways to spark interested in the state races is to show a few of the state’s movers and shakers in the Montana Republican party. Hopefully a little light shed on these people will cause them to wither away…

Meet John Sinrud.

There was the time that Sinrud led the charge against protecting gays from hate crimes.

Republicans, who accounted for all but five of the opponents, warned the bill would stifle free speech and could even prevent clergy from speaking out against homosexuality in their sermons.

“What we’re doing is, people who may disagree with people could have penalty enhancement,” said Rep. John Sinrud, R-Bozeman. “I don’t think you want to squelch free speech. This is America. We have a right to disagree and we have a right to free speech.”

I’ll let you ponder how Christ would have felt about clergy calling for violence against gays in his name.

He’s against raising teacher salaries, increasing school funding, air quality, seat belt laws, increased access to public lands and streams, scholarship programs, expanding state insurance for Motana children, and using state funds to care for the needy. He’s voted against the Montana ethanol and biodiesel industry, country of origin labels, the Made-in-Montana program, a raise of the minimum wage, and funding for domestic violence victims, tax breaks for small businesses, and was opposed to 2005 House Bill 198, which defined policies against school bullying. He’s no friend of alternative energy, but a big friend of development (which might explain the source of most of his funding).

In other words, he’s opposed to just about every useful state program that exists.

Of course, like many Republicans, who view life not as an experience but as an opportunity to cash in, Sinrud has struggled with ethics when it comes to money. Seems he is the direct of Christian Heritage School, Bozeman-based private school, which coincidentally gave his architecture firm a sweetheart $1.7 million contract. Or maybe it’s a little business between friends.

He made vague threats on-air on Yellowstone Public Radio to fellow blogger, Wulfgar! (“I know where you live.”)

Although appointed to his seat in 2002 to fill a mid-session vacancy, Sinrud claims he was elected in 2000 on his work website.

And if that wasn’t enough to dislike Sinrud, he finds his service in the House of Representatives to be odious. After repeated complaining about having to occasionally work on weekends, Sinrud once walked out of a budget meeting in April 2005. And it was Sinrud’s wife, Kim, who famously compared her family’s situation during legislative session to a soldier’s who had been called to Iraq:

I would like to personally wish a Merry Christmas to all Gallatin Valley residents. I now have a better understanding of what military spouses go through when their loved ones are called up to go somewhere other than home to serve their country.

Last week our governor called a special session … 11 days before Christmas. I understand the need for a special session, but why call it 11 days before Christmas?

Again, I’ll let you ponder.

Whew.

Again, you know what to do. Visit Act Blue’s “Paint Montana Blue” page, where you can donate to several state-level candidates. I assume Matt will be adding to this list in the near future, but in the meantime Van Dyk, Furey, and Kenyon are in important swing districts and could use some help. Let’s not let the John Sinruds steer the ship in 2007.

Update: Oops, I was wrong about the threat to Wulfgar! From “A Chicken is Not Pillage“:

A final note to touchstone:  John didn’t threaten me on Yellowstone Public Radio, and he didn’t say “I know where you live”.  He threatened me, if that’s what that weak sauce was, on KMMS.  The radio show was Citizen’s Voice, which all good Bozeman liberals should be listening to.  What he said was “I know what you look like”.  I don’t take that as a threat because, a)  I laughed at him, and b) now he knows he couldn’t take me down (in more ways than one, right John?).  No, John was just being a bully, and bullies don’t like it when you push back.  John, ignorant as he is, has decided to play in our bailiwick of the Inter-tubes.  It’s time to push back.




  • 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

    • 1,673,200 hits
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 2,736 other followers

  • December 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « Oct    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Categories