Archive for the 'Conservative' Category

I am sorry, but I long ago decided that Andy Hammond is not one to be taken seriously, but after this post, I will always picture him as Butter’s alter ego Professor Chaos!

Let’s look at the idea. Essentially, Andy Butters Professor Chaos is taking a queue from pundit comedian Rush Limbaugh wherein they encourage other Republicans to go to the voting booth and pull the level labeled ‘Hillary’ because they see her as the most beatable in November.

My goal is to continue Operation Chaos in the Montana Democrat Primary. It’s an open primary on June 3 so it will be very easy to just go and vote. It is the last state primary, along with South Dakota, before the National Convention and I am pretty sure Hillary will still be battling so I plan on voting for her. I have also recruited, to date, eight other conservatives to vote for her and plan on recruiting many more.

Like Colby points out, he “sounds like some 14 year old kid starting up a World of Warcraft clan”. While it is funny, in the same sad way that Butter’s is funny when desperation and a search for respect causes him to create the alter ego ‘Professor Chaos’, it is a bit more sinister. Consider this:

In order to do this we need to do whatever we can to ensure we can win. For example, 160,000 Pennsylvania Republicans switched to the Democrat party in order to vote in the Democrat primary. Hillary won by double digits. This was all through the encouragement of Rush and Operation Chaos. The goal is to keep Hillary in the race so her and Obama can keep tearing each other up and exposing each other for the unqualified candidates they are.

There are a few thigs to take from this:

1. Andy Professor Chaos is so vacuous that he can not comprehend why those voters switched from Republican to Democratic. As always, he has a problem with basic facts. Maths are hard Andy Butters, you should leave it to the experts.

Barack Obama won among Democrats who had newly flocked to the party for the day’s showdown

2. Andy Professor Chaos may or may not hate democracy, but it is obvious that he is willing to resort to treachery to make sure that the system is compromised.

I am not sure if Andy Professor Chaos is really as dishonorable as the plan he is putting forward here, he may just be a scared little Butter’s and this is the only way he knows how to cope with the fact that the nation is moving on without him.

Sometimes I wonder if people aren’t just making this stuff up…

You might recall the tale of Marvin Richardson, the Idaho politician-wanna-be who wanted to run as Marvin “pro life” Richardson, but was prohibited from doing so because Idaho law prohibits slogans from ballots. Well, Mr. Richardson is back, or should I call him Mr. Life:

…officials in the Idaho secretary of state’s office say they have no choice because Pro-Life is his full and only name. He says he will run for the highest state office on the ballot every two years for the rest of his life, advocating murder charges for doctors who perform abortions and for women who obtain the procedure.

“I think it’s just and I think it’s proper to have Pro-Life on the ballot,” he told the Idaho Press-Tribune of Nampa. “If I save one baby’s life, it’s worth it.”

It seems Mr. Life was busy in his political down-time; securing a legal name change to fuel his whacked out plans this time around.  I might find this interesting, if it wasn’t so absurd.  In addition, his plans (which, in his own words, are to help the pro-life movement) might end up harming those who would agree with him:

David Ripley, executive director of Idaho Chooses Life, says he knows and respects Pro-Life but fears some voters may think Pro-Life is a position rather than a candidate and mistakenly mark their ballots both for him and for another anti-abortion candidate for the Senate, thus nullifying their choices.

“I’m pretty concerned about it,” Ripley said. “I think that could cause a lot of confusion out there … (Its) more likely to undermine the pro-life movement by having a lot of pro-life votes discounted.”

Now I am just waiting for the accusations that Mr. Life is really a nefarious liberal working to undermine the votes of concerned pro-life citizens; that would really be the perfect end to a crazy story.

In case you have a hard time staying up on which of the presidential hopefuls most closely resembles you when it comes to politics, or if tend to be concerned about a given candidates level of political involvement, the good folks at Beliefnet have the perfect tool for you; the God-o-meter.  This tool uses a top secret algorithm to deliver a 1-10 indication of how religious candidates currently are.  From the meter’s page:

The God-o-Meter (pronounced Gah-DOM-meter) scientifically measures factors such as rate of God-talk, effectiveness—saying God wants a capital gains tax cut doesn’t guarantee a high rating—and other top-secret criteria. Click a candidate’s head to get his or her latest God-o-Meter reading and blog post. And check back often. With so much happening on the campaign trail, God-o-Meter is constantly recalibrating!

Currently Fred Thompson is just a 5; clearly not the true conservative many were hoping for.

Remember the days when President Bush referred to himself as a ‘compassionate conservative’?  Perhaps not; it seems quite a while since the President last acted in a manner either compassionate or conservative.

Well, he had his chance yesterday, to prove that notion wrong, by signing the SCHIP expansion into law.  But the President once against failed to live up to his once-popular moniker; issuing his fourth veto to block the bill.

WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children’s health insurance.

Why is this veto neither compassionate or conservative?  Well, it isn’t compassionate because the President’s actions halted a bipartisan effort to expand health insurance for children, and it isn’t conservative because the expansion wouldn’t have raised federal spending; it was setup to pay for itself.

It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

Yet what was one of the big reasons the President gave for his veto?

The president had promised to veto it, saying the Democratic bill was too costly

Yeah, our President: compassionate and conservative!  Is anyone proud?

So, the much ballyhooed debate between Dave Budge and I on allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices finally took place. In case you missed the drama, here is the original piece where I criticized Denny Rehberg for his votes against allowing Medicare to negotiate for prescription drug prices. As usual, Mr “I am not a Republican” Dave Budge stepped in to defend Denny. He demanded that I answer his questions, which I answered in this post.

The main point I was answering there was Dave’s assertion that allowing Medicare to negotiate for prescription drug prices would ‘eviscerate the development of new drug technologies.’ I gave my argument, but Dave forgot to show up. Finally, Mark T let me know that Dave had post his response at his own site.

I was going to write a clever synopsis of the ensuing back and forth, but you should just read it yourself. It is all really very telling.

On Thursday, now-presidential contender Fred Thompson said the following:

“we still get our basic rights from God, not government.”

It is a very loaded quote, but one that seems to be very simple.  Certainly some of this sites readers will agree and some will disagree.  You probably don’t need to ask what I think.  My question, and it is largely one for those would agree with Thompson, is this:

What ‘basic rights’ do we have, that in a Democracy such as ours, the people (government) could not take away from you?

Give me a good answer to that, and I might rethink Thompson’s statement.

I am sure that the blogs are completley covering the abdication of the Attorney General’s seat by Alberto Gonzales today.  One Win.

The Republicans, I mean the insiders, got together this weekend and decided (72 to 14, yeah 96 people decided for you) that they don’t care about their party members and loyalists don’t matter to them, only the “up to 3,000″ or so party officials votes matter.  Don’t bother to show up at the primary, the decision will be made for you on February 5, 2008, as to who will represent the Republicans in the Presidential Race of 2008.  *Pats on head* You poor ignorant voter.  Just vote for who we have already decided is the best candidate.  You don’t know enough to vote for yourself.  Time to defect?  One Loss.

Why should you Hold Onto Your Hats?  Well, I might be remembered as someone who did some in-depth coverage of the initiatives last election season.  (Toot Toot).  The infamous Trio of Doom (CI-97, CI-98, and I-154 (which Wulfgar covered much better than I did)).

So I sit here today, and I see that the Governor has called a Special Session of the Legislature to appropriate funds from our savings to cover the costs of this fire season.  I have choked on smoke for the past couple of months; not being able to see the Sleeping Giant, or the Valley, and on the terrible days, even Mount Helena; the time has come to address the issue. 

Why does this come to mind?  Well CI-97, Stop Over Spending Montana, had it not been thrown out of the Courts as unconstitutional, would have left all us Montanans swimming in smoke.  We would have had to wait until the next statewide election, to vote in some money to deal with the issue.  Wait, when is the next statewide election?  Oh yeah, choke on that Montanans.

“Rumor has it” (the name of a game created by an old friend) that Howie Rich will be back in action in the election season of 2008.  Whether or not he trusts Trevis Butcher with it again, or can find anyone to support him remains to be seen.  Unfortunately, I know he will be back, trying to shove his ideas down Montanan’s throats again.  You heard it here first.  Hang Onto Your Hats, and remember to watch what is going on.  Better yet, look at things as they might have been had Montanans passed that proposed initiative.  Now do you understand?

Things will be more complicated this time, as I am headed to law school, but I promise to maintain my contacts, and keep fighting the good fight in the name of truth.

So I checked into the legal stuff with caucuses.  I am not happy.

 
“But isn’t it illegal to commit the members support of one party months before the members even vote?

“You are so naive.”

“Seriously?  You have to be kidding me.”

“Cece, the parties are National organizations.  They aren’t held to any laws when putting their support behind a candidate for office.”

“So you are saying that it doesn’t matter what the people whom consider themselves to be a member of a party think.  The primary is irrelevant.  The candidate has already been chosen by the national party.”

“Oh yeah.  Well before anyone votes in a primary”

 
*******

I consider myself to be an Independent, I haven’t always been one, like most people my strategy with voting changes over time.  Currently, I evaluate the issues, what is important to me, then vote for the person I believe will help support and fight for the issues that I think are important.  That being said, in the past, I haven’t been stupid with my vote either.

My votes have matured with age.  I used to vote hard line Democrat, straight down the ticket at age 18 (even before had it been legal).  Then I started looking further into the issues, and the choices to be had, and I threw a few votes to the Republican side of the aisle (GASP!).  I was reluctant when I voted for Clinton the second time (and if you think I am voting Clinton for a third time, you are off your rocker).  I was hardcore for Gore in 2000.  We won, but lost to the Electoral College system.

So here I sit in 2007, already sick to death of the debates.  Sick to death of the pandering to one constituency or another.  Last week on “The Power of 10”, the question was asked, “How many Americans would rather watch a hot dog eating contest rather than a 2008 Presidential Candidate debate?”  For me?  Hands down a hot dog eating contest.  Either a lot of Americans were lying, or they are lying to themselves.

The way it stands, the national parties will make the decision for us, why the heck should we bother ourselves with sorting out our own issues?  Why should we care who we think should be in office?  The Republicans and Democrats will decide it for us.  No muss no fuss, just be sure to show up for the actual election in November 2008.

Who has the most money?  Who made the biggest gaff this week, and how will they placate the masses with a transparent cover story?  Who can duke out who on a national stage?  You don’t know?  Don’t worry, the party you have thought you were affiliated with will decide for you.  If you think the Democratic party isn’t up to the same way of thinking, then you are more naive then I was when I started looking into this whole thing.

 
Maybe it is time to be the disenfranchised voter that the party I usually vote with thinks I am during the primary, and counts on me not to be during the actual election.  An independent hot dog.

Treat my vote like it doesn’t matter, see if I show up on your side.

I just happened to be reading the Independant Record the other day, when this article caught my eye.

Early Caucus gives state a voice by Eric Iverson - Your Turn - 08/03/07

Every four years, Montana voters go through the motions of casting a ballot in the presidential primary election, hoping that our next president hears the concerns of Montana and other western states. Unfortunately, that voice often falls upon deaf ears. In reality, Montana’s primary comes so late in the process that each political party has already selected its presidential nominee long before Montanans have a voice. Typically by that time, several candidates have dropped out of the race, and our vote ends up being a simple affirmation of a pre-determined outcome. If Montanans want a voice in the process, we can’t allow that to continue any longer, and Montana Republicans are trying to do something about it. Under a new proposal, the Montana Republican Party would hold a Presidential Caucus in each county on February 5, 2008. Each county caucus would include folks from around the county who come and cast their ballot for the Republican nominee for President, all in one evening. The votes would be tallied from around the state and a winner of the Republican Presidential Caucus would be announced that very night.

Maybe I am missing something, but who makes up this caucus? Is every Republican voter in the county invited to come cast their vote for whom they think should be their Presidential canidate? Or are a select group of “representatives” in each county invited to cast their vote to represent the wishes of every one in their county? And who decides who the “representatives” from each county are?

Back to the article, and why those are very important questions.

The need for such a change is just plain common sense for most Montanans. Ultimately, we want to elect a President who understands and will address issues we care about, but right now we give them a pass on Montana issues until the general election in November. Currently we are the second-to-last state to hold it’s presidential primary, ahead of only South Dakota. Moving to a caucus in February will give Montana a voice in the presidential nominating process at a time that is relevant in the presidential campaign — when candidates are debating the issues and discussing the various policy positions that will impact our everyday lives. Montana Republicans happen to think that Denton is just as important as Des Moines, Iowa, and that Conrad shouldn’t have to take a backseat to Concord, N.H.

This new approach also gives more Montanans input on the presidential selection process as a whole. Remember, the presidential nominee is selected by delegates at the National Convention. Right now, Montana’s 25 delegates to the Republican National Convention aren’t obligated to vote for the candidate who wins Montana’s primary — they simply vote for the presidential candidate they personally want to support. That’s right, under the current policy only 25 people get to decide which candidate gets the support of all Montana Republicans. The new proposal would require Montana’s 25 delegates to support the winner of Montana’s Republican Presidential Caucus, an honor that could only be won by garnering broad support from 2,262 party officials representing every county across the state. Under the new, reform plan, those who cast a vote on behalf of Montana Republicans at the National Convention would better represent the will of Republicans from throughout the entire state, instead of their own personal preference.

Woah. Wait a minute. So this undefined caucus decides in February of 2008 who the Republican presidential canidate will be. And the people who go to the polls, and vote in the actual primary on June 3, 2008 are wasting their time. The decision has already been reached months before by this “caucus”.

Tell me, when exactly was it that the members of the Montanan Republicans abdicated their right to cast a vote? Now the party and an undefined group of people are going to take that decision away from you? If you aren’t riled up, I just don’t understand it.

Implementing this change opens the nominating process to Republicans from every walk of life, with every county in Montana being allowed to provide its input. I don’t know a single Montanan who doesn’t think we deserve to have a voice in the presidential primary election, and ultimately, that’s what a Republican Presidential Caucus will do for this state: give us a voice.

Montana Republicans are taking the lead to ensure that Montana issues are addressed at the national level — not just with hollow rhetoric late in the campaign, but with honest, thoughtful discussion right from the start, early in the primary process. This is the kind of presidential election Montanans deserve, and Republicans will work to make it a reality.

Erik Iverson is State Chairman of the Montana Republican Party.

Call me ignorant, but I am fairly certian that “opens the nominating process to Republicans from every walk of life, with every county in Montana being allowed to provide its input” is the very definition of a primary.

Don’t get me wrong here. I can understand the impulse to want to have a say in who gets nominated to be a party’s presidential canidate, but removing individual party members right to vote in the nomination process, is completely undemocratic. I even like the idea of binding representatives to the electoral college to cast their votes as Montanas have.

Looks like Sam got the jump on this story. A great convo in the comments over at Wulfgar’s site. And a post from Montana Headlines. That will teach me to wait a couple of days to post.

The important thing here, is that we are talking about it. Heck, I plan on shouting it from the rooftops, and probably checking into the constitutionality of the whole thing with a couple constitutional lawyer friends of mine. I’ll keep you updated with what I find out.

There is certainly no shortage in the number of times I have been called an Idealist; most of those times I have taken the term as a compliment, whether or not it was meant as such. And while I do not agree, there is certainly a perception that Liberalism relies more on visions of what-may-be, whereas Conservativism is perceived as the view of the realist. Just recently, I got quite a lecture about Liberals and the clouds their heads are in. Some excerpts:

• “I didn’t think you’d get the idea because you’re a moonstruck romantic.”
• “You need to be rationale and ruthless, not filled with faith and visions of a perfect world to come.”
• ‘The youthful idealist, infused with romantic notions of what might be, finds it impossible to accept the world in its present form.”

Claims the likes of which are nothing new for me; like I said, it is a common misconception. My point here is that it is quite regular to see Conservatives accuse Liberals of being idealists, while maintaining that they themselves are realists. Which brings me to Fred Thompson. This man has not announced a formal candidacy, hasn’t stated a platform, and has not campaigned on any issue. Despite all of this, he is running virtually neck and neck with the other Republican front runners:

Giuliani’s popularity continues to drop. His support is down to 21 percent, off six points from June and 14 points since March. The former New York mayor is running virtually even with Thompson, who — at a steady 19 percent — has become a threat without even officially entering the race. McCain is off a bit at 15 percent, and Romney remains at eleven.

Personally, I think Thompson continues to poll so well precisely because he has no identifying features. Sure, he has a voting history that we can look to, although it is just old enough, to vaguely reference without having to deal with specifics. He has positioned himself as the blank canvas upon which the core constituency of the right wing can paint their wildest dreams. This is especially true since an unusually high number of social conservatives have refused to support any of the current candidates; they are unhappy with the choices offered them.

So what is a socially conservative voter to do? Well, a realist would educate themselves about the possible choices and make the best of the candidate pool. But that isn’t what we see in any political poll; all of which show Thompson near the front of the pack. No, a vast number of social conservatives are choosing to ‘wish upon a star’ and pull for the non-candidate they know little about. By looking to Thompson and his lack of a platform, they can visualize their uber-candidate, fulfilling every specific litmus test they can muster. Quite the idealists view, don’t you think?  Although, it is sure working well for Thompson, who gets to ride this wave of ideology as his opponents toil away.

Which begs the question: how long can Thompson continue to ‘unofficially’ run?  Will he be able to operate in such an above-the-fray manner long enough for other high-profile Republican candidates to step down?  And will his lack of specific views, while seeming beneficial from a primary-centric viewpoint, drive off crucial  moderate/independent votes?

Of course, I am a Liberal.  I guess I am not supposed to concern myself with such practical questions after all.

<PATRONIZING>
Clearly, Andy Hammond supports the troops. Clearly, you can tell it from this comment where he attacks me for claiming that lowering the flag for fallen soldiers will make people realize that war has consequences:

I think this is a great way to honor the ultimate sacrifice made by a Montanan. That’s all it should be. I don’t like the way it’s going to be used as an anti war political statement as it is here, however.

Clearly, Andy supports the troops more than I. He makes the point that all we care about it politicizing their deaths, while he really cares about honoring. Clearly he is a better man than me.

I’ll tell you what is more, he is clearly a better American than Mark T. He shows this here:

I can’t believe you just “Kerryed” our troops. They are much smarter and intelligent then you give them credit for. They know why they’re there and most of them are proud to be fighting terrorism and brining freedom and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your portrayal of our troops is what I find “disgusting”.

We were schooled and should admit it. We obviously only care about politics while Andy really cares about the troops. Which leaves me wondering, where did we go so wrong? Why does Andy care so much about the troops and Colby, Mark, Jhwygirl and myself care so little. What makes us so vile that we disgust the obviously superior Andy Hammond.

Not convinced? I’ll show you another example of how Andy cares about the troops. Andy had a little post at his place yesterday where he attempts to make the point that congressional Democrats have accomplished nothing in the first 6 months. In the comments I call him intellectually dishonest and point out quiet a few accomplishments that I think are worthwhile. One I really thought was worth considering:

Veterans Health: the largest funding increase in history. Look what happened at Walter Reed under Republican stewardship.

A truly patriotic troops supporting guy like Andy B Hammond must agree with that. Right?

Veterans Health: Socialized healthcare at it’s best. Let’s socialize it some more.

</PATRONIZING>

This typifies what we have seen in real life from supporters of Mr Bush’s war. Ready to claim the patriotic troop support flag to rally support for the war and to shame detractors, but not ready pay for the ’sacrifices’. You see Andy, if you send a person into combat for your cause and the top of their skull gets blown off in the process, you have to take care of them. It is a contract that you made with them. Otherwise, you are a callous, heartless son of a bitch.

Whether or not I support a war, I believe that you have take care of the people that it puts in harms way. Sure, it is their decision to go, but part of the contract that they sign says that part of the benefits package is healthcare. That’s not socialized medicine anymore so than the benefits package I get from my employer, that is a contract.

Now, you say something like this and then attempt to come here and play high and mighty? That is what is really disgusting. So, keep supporting the war and pretending that you give a rat’s ass about the young men and women who serve in that war. The American people are coming to an understanding about what hawks of your ilk are all about.

If you want to know what a real patriot is about, read Colby’s comments or his post on the topic at Rebels Are We!. You? No. Not in the least.

[IMPORTANT NOTE]: Soon after writing this some comments disappeared due to a technical glitch with our spam filter. Each comment was causing an error page. I am sure many of you saw it, and there is a discussion on it here after TMM emailed me about it this morning. In order to correct it, I dropped all the spam-karma tables. While this fixed the problem, it also ‘retro-spanked’ some comments and they were labeled as spam. Some of these belonged to Andy, and he speculated that he had been banned here. While I can see where he thought that, I can assure you that this was not the case. The only banning software that I have in place is a piece I wrote and it targets one person in specific. Additionally, I do not have, and do not want, the authority to ‘ban’ a user myself. This is a collaborative blog and as such the authors and readers have a say.

While I often disagree with Andy, he has always been respectful and lived well within the rules. He offers the kind of debate that Montana Netroots was set up to foster. Andy is always welcome here. As a sign of good intentions, I have finally placed his blog on the blogroll.

Today’s New York Times editorial calls for the United States to “leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize and orderly exit.”

Many are critical of the MSM, and rightfully so - but the tide is turning, and it is turning big time. Time, Newsweek, CNN - all have been reporting stories that bring to light the ongoing failures and weaknesses and fallacies that show that Iraq is a dead-end proposition.

And now, in what is probably the largest world wide-read United States paper, a lengthy editorial succinctly calling for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Note: I separate the war in Iraq from the war in Afghanistan, as does our military. The war in Afghanistan (bin Laden Who?) must go on…

I’ll leave you with this tidbit - the rest is a must-read.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

Barry Goldwater’s book, Conscience of a Conservative, will soon make a new appearance courtesy of Princeton University Press. This time it will have an afterward by Bobby Kennedy Jr. It probably would not hurt if today’s so-called “conservatives” would read it.

I have mixed emotions about Goldwater. As a 14 year old, I supported his run for president, but only because my parents did. Over the years, as I moved from right to left, I held out admiration for his straight talk. True, he wanted to nuke Vietnam, voted against the Civil Rights Act, and thought that civilians were fair game in warfare. But he was no bumper sticker for the right – he supported gays in the military (“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar”), and abortion rights. He thought sincere Christians ought to have kicked Jerry Falwell in the ass.

Anyway, I long for the day when the right wing had fewer screamers, bigots, religious fanatics and crypto-fascists. Here’s some classic Goldwater to dine on. Enjoy!

· However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

· A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. Interview to the Los Angeles Times, 1994

· By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars…Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northem Ireland, or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state? — Speech to Senate, Sept. 15, 1981

Well I am back in action. The LSAT was Monday, and I have sufficiently recovered to be able to put some coherent thoughts together.
There have been many things in the last few months that I have wanted to comment on, and thankfully there are reliable bloggers in Montana who will cover issues I think are important. And it was wonderful knowing that I could just relax and study for my test, and that someone would start a conversation on the issues.
So as I was revving back up this week, I was reading Time magazine, and I ran across Joe Klein’s commentary entitled “Beware the Bloggers’ Bile”. (June 18, 2007 issue, link provided).
Now I will be the first to admit that I get riled up at times, and have on a couple of occasions let my indignation get the better of me. Overall, I would have to say, I maintain a pretty level head. The simple fact remains, if I didn’t find something important to talk about, then I wouldn’t take the time to address it in a blog. I am not in the habit of just tossing out random ideas, in order to watch the shark feed happen. Better yet, I happen to write for a collaborative blog that actually discourages personal attacks, even when I am the one attacking.
Klien writes about “fury begets fury”, and I think he nailed it spot on. All sides of the arguments are susceptable to anger, some just tend to reside in it until their fingers get pruney. My favorite part of the article was this:

Anyone who doesn’t move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed—especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

One of the great things about this blog in particular, is that while occasionally authors will get “savaged”, the prevailing tone is one of open discourse, and sometimes the readers and writers’ change their minds. Last I checked, I don’t think anyone (reader or writer) of us falls into a hardline lockstep position with any party. I like that. I like the fact that there is somewhere in the bloggosphere that I can count on to discuss things I find important, and who could care less what my actual political leaning may, or may not be.So thanks to all the contributors: the readers, the writers and the commentators. It is a wonderful thing to share time with you thinking, discussing, and brainstorming.

We take this break from regularly scheduled LSAT preparation study time to bring you the following breaking news report: (deet deet deet deet dee dee deet)

***********************************

I just couldn’t sit still while studying tonight, and when I got out to my car, I heard “We have Shane from Helena on” *hat tip* and I will let him tell his own story.  On to mine.

Earlier in the day, I had read an article in the Missoulian:

If Schweitzer sets the special session for within seven days of the end of the regular session, which was Friday, its one-time setup costs are $20,000, she said. These one-time setup costs rise to $65,000 if Schweitzer brings legislators back more than seven days after the regular session concludes.

about the costs of starting up the special session.  Seeing as the Governor is the man with the calling to session power, I wondered what he would have to say about the issue.

So I called up YPR, and said that I had seen the article above, and asked him “What are the benefits for starting the special session on Monday, as opposed to the benefits for starting it at a later date?”

As I dove across my kitchen to turn my radio back up to hear his answer, I heard him saying you just have to allow time.  He pointed out that it would be penny wise and pound foolish to bring people back to Helena immediately at the cost of about $38,000 per legislative day, when tempers hadn’t simmered down enough to be able to have civil discussion.  Allow the legislators some time outside of Helena, working together, getting some ideas going, and coming close to a consensus prior to being called back to Helena for the special session.

What a great way to think of it, and very wise in my opinion. 

Don’t forget to contact your legislators, from both sides of the aisle, and remind them that while we don’t always agree, their jobs as legislators is to find the common ground and get a budget passed.

***********************************

*Returns to the Logic Reasoning Bible, sigh*