News Analysis From the debate

Lobbying Questions Fire Up Butte Burns-Tester Senate Debate


By Paul Driscoll, 9-24-06

The latest Jon Tester-Conrad Burns debate in Butte, Montana on Saturday evening drew an increasing share of national media attention but offered up few new insights into either candidate. Still, the national spotlight will show a Reagan-era conservative and a populist progressive widely separated on key issues such as the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and taxation policy.

Burns, the three-term Republican incumbent, failed to address the most pointed question of the debate, predictably whether disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff influenced two of his votes in the U.S. Senate. Burns repeatedly called the charges “baseless allegations and untruths.”

Tester, who showed a fuller range of emotion in the course of the evening, probably found a sound bite moment in response to a Burns charge that he is “soft on terrorism.” Tester, Burns said, “doesn’t understand this enemy” and would weaken the Patriot Act. “Let me be clear,” Tester shot back sharply. “I don’t want to weaken the Patriot Act. I want to repeal it.”

The debate was held in the recently renovated Mother Lode Theater in the old mining town’s historic district. The theater seats about 1,200 and the door count was somewhat north of 700 at 10 minutes before show time. In this city once famous for union and Democratic solidarity, the crowd seemed to favor Tester. But in recent decades conservative local politicians have found a voice here, too, and Burns supporters were clearly evident. Many Tester supporters wore bright yellow T-shirts that read: Fire Burns. Still, partisan noisemaking was minimal with none of the heckling that marked the previous debate held in a high school gymnasium in Hamilton.

Local and regional affiliates of the major television networks were busy filming from the wings. Linda Wertheimer, National Public Radio 's senior national correspondent, was next to me in the media row. A political reporter from the online magazine Salon.com was a couple of seats down. Minor sound problems from the stage marred the initial exchanges, but the debate went over quite smoothly.

The debate was sponsored in part by The Montana Standard, Butte’s local daily newspaper, and questions were offered by a small panel of journalists that included veteran Lee Newspapers State Bureau Chief Chuck Johnson. He prefaced his first question by noting that Burns occupies the seat once held by the legendary Democratic Majority Leader Mike Mansfield. Mansfield, according to Johnson, said in 1972 that he would not “see any lobbyist at any time.”

“You seem a world of difference,” Johnson mused to general laughter from the audience. He then detailed two occasions where Burns evidently changed course following lobbying pressure from Abramoff and his associates. While Burns replied that he “never shortchanged Montanans,” Tester followed up the question during his allotted response. The Abramoff lobby “got everything they wanted,” he said. “Staff after staff left your office” only to return to lobby, Tester said.

“It’s all he has to run on,” Burns said in rebuttal.

“No one forced you to take the money,” Tester replied, referring to the roughly $150,000 that Burns initially accepted from the disgraced lobbyist and his associates. Burns has since donated the money to charities, but wide speculation centers on whether he will be further implicated in the slowly widening scandal, or even indicted on charges of corruption.

For his part, Tester fielded questions from the panel and from Burns that alluded to a weak stand on the war against terror. Tester said the war in Iraq has proven a distraction on the war against terror. “We’ve taken our eye off the ball,” he said. While U.S. troops have done a “marvelous job” in Iraq, Tester said he is interested in promoting “intelligence and special forces” to combat terror.

Tester said one of the first actions against terror by the Bush administration was to “take away freedoms from you” through enactment of the Patriot Act. “It’s ridiculous,” he said and called for repeal of the act.

Tester was almost laconic as he addressed his reputation as a tax-and-spend liberal. He countered that Burns is a “borrow-and-spender,” who doubled the national debt in five years. Tester claimed that the national debt constitutes a “birth tax” because it obligates future generations to pay for today’s excess spending. “I’m for tax equity,” he said.

“No doubt, we’ve got a spending problem,” Burns admitted. He blamed the recession following the attacks of September 11th and the costs of the war on terrorism for much of the spending. The solution is to “grow the economy and stem spending,” he said. “We are on the heels of Hurricane Katrina and the war on terror.”

In one of the more interesting exchanges, a panelist asked Tester about lawsuits filed by certain environmental groups to stop logging of beetle-killed and fire-killed forests. Tester replied unconvincingly that “leadership is the key.”

“They’re his supporters,” Burns countered quickly. “For the cost of a .39-cent stamp” these groups can shut down a proposed timber sale, Burns said. “They shut them down every day. That group endorses him. He will be beholden to them.”

Tester admitted that those groups probably endorse him. “But I don’t owe ‘em a dime,” he added.

As per custom, both sides immediately claimed a win and press releases were issued even as the debate was winding down.

The debate comes as a “key” race tightens and few pundits fail to qualify their predictions: “If Burns doesn’t make any more gaffes…”; “If Tester’s momentum continues…”

The “tale of the tape” may offer some clues.

The Tester campaign likes to tout the candidate’s roots in Montana and, indeed, he is the third-generation on the family farm. Burns is from Missouri and came to Montana as a young man, kind of like one of Montana’s favorite sons, Charlie Russell.

Tester runs a certified organic farm in an area of north-central Montana sometimes called the Golden Triangle. His state senate district is geographically huge and encompasses big chunks of three counties. Many of his constituents are conservatives from agricultural backgrounds, yet they vote him in as an unabashed liberal Democrat. The eastern Montana voting bloc is difficult to discern, but I suspect that many folks begrudgingly see Tester as a smart guy with an eye toward the future of agriculture and a foot firmly planted in good old-fashioned farm values.

For more than a decade in the late 1970s through the mid-80s, Conrad Burns was the first voice that people all over Montana and northern Wyoming heard to start their day. He launched the Northern Ag news network in 1976 and his morning radio reports were interesting, informative, and delivered in a trademark avuncular style. Mention the name “Conrad” almost anywhere in Montana, and people know who you are talking about. Burns’ radio and agriculture background helped him to topple Democrat John Melcher in 1988. Melcher, a former large animal veterinarian, was seen by many as having “gone Washington.” Burns launched his campaign with whatever political traction that being an elected Yellowstone County Commissioner might have offered.

While Tester cuts somewhat into the Burns conservative agriculture base, Burns has the ability to return the favor in the high-tech sector. Burns was touted by supporters during his third term as being the Senate’s main figure in telecommunications and internet matters. It played well in his 1990 close campaign against now-governor Brian Schweitzer. Oddly enough, it hasn’t surfaced much during this campaign and wasn’t even mentioned in Saturday evening’s debate. Political blogs on the internet out of Montana are very active this season and have garnered some national press themselves recently. These blogs are particularly adept at keeping alive issues that in earlier campaigns might have simply blown over. In a bit of political irony, the blogosphere that Burns helped to create has risen to bite the hand of the master.

Tester is 50 and seems, in spite of his girth, robust next to Burns, who is 71. Tester walked the entire Fourth of July Parade route through Butte this summer, tacking down Harrison Avenue shaking hands and kissing babies; Burns remained cloistered in an auto. The post-debate parties Saturday evening found the Burns campaign greeting well-wishers in a downstairs room of the theater, while Tester booked the swank and stylish Finlen Hotel several blocks away.

Burns was a Marine and points out that he qualifies for veterans benefits but doesn’t take them. Tester points to his brother’s long military service. Burns’ higher education includes some training in agriculture; Tester was a music major at the University of Great Falls.

Burns has a bevy of powerful friends to raise funds: Laura Bush; Dick Cheney; Karl Rove. The Seattle band Pearl Jam performed a fund raiser concert for Jon Tester this spring, but Eddy Vedder isn’t sporting a crew cut just yet.

The contest will probably continue to garner broader national coverage. Four more debates are slated before the general election: In Bozeman, Helena, Billings and Great Falls.

Contributing writer Paul Driscoll is an editor and cartoonist working out of southwest Montana.

















Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.

Read more Missoula stories
Advertisement

Comments

What a pathetic display by Burns. Does he really think we are going to buy into his dodge of the question pertaining to Abramoff by simply repeating the buzz word... "baseless"?! There is nothing baseless about anything Tester et al have said on this issue. Fact: Burns received more than any other member of Congress from Abramoff. Fact: Burns pushed for a bill that would give money to one of the few indian tribes in this nation who are actually wealthy ($70k per year to each tribal member). The facts go on and on. The conclusions drawn therefrom may be open to interpretation but facts are facts and none of them look very good for Burns!
what you forgot to mention was how a company called Resodyn, along with the Montana Standard, sponsored the debate. they reserved seats right in the front few rows. a friend of mine, wearing a Tester shirt tried to sit in one of the reserved seats just before the debate started, and a Resodyn representative kicked him out of the seat when he refused to put a Burns sticker on his t-shirt. the Resodyn rep. then searched the crowd for someone wearing a 'Burns Delivers' t-shirt, who then sat in the seat.

the Montana Standard and Resodyn should be ashamed of themselves. is that allowing equal access to a public debate? sounds like just another shady deal involving Montana's junior senator.
Yes, that is truly sickening. PLEASE encourage your friend to write a letter to the editor of the Montana Standard. Makes you wonder why they even bothered to let any of Tester's supporters in! While he is at it... he should write to Resodyn at 130 N. Main Suite 600, Butte, MT 59701 and express his disgust.
Burns is full of SH*T as usual! What "benefits" could he be entitled to? I mean, burns is one marine that NEVER MADE IT TO A WAR ZONE! He's a liar. I heard the debate. Burns implied (lied) that he was entitled to medical benefits, the implication being that he had "suffered" in much that same way the Iraq vets are doing. BULLSH*T! Don't be decieved. Burns never heard a shot fired in anger. And if he was injured in the military, it was from an injury incurred in a druken stupor, NOT in battle! Burns is a lying phony bastard.
I can't figure out how Burns can get away with saying that his association with Abramoff is "baseless lies".

Abramoff himself has said that "everything we ever asked for (from Burns), we got", while Burns has given back all the money (I guess the stuff he hadn't spent yet) that he got from Jack, and has been quoted as saying that Abramoff was a "bad, bad man".

Geez! Why can't the newspapers follow-up with a simple fact check after these debates? It's a disgrace.
I keep reading this blog hoping that some Burns supporter is going to jump into the game here and try to defend a guy that has managed to dig himself such a deep hole. Alas, nobody has the guts to make themselves look like a complete idiot. There was a letter to the editor in today's Missoulian, however, that was quite amusing.
See: http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=2&a2=3&a3=3&a4=3&a8=1&a9=5&a10=4&a5=3&a6=3&a7=3&a14=5&a15=5&a16=4&a19=2&a17=3&a18=1&a20=1&a11=1&a12=3&a13=3&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=48&e=13&t=11

Jon Tester scores as a Liberal Poplulist. He has a Personal Score of 48% and an Economic Score of 13%. Not exactly the scores that represent the thinking of most Montanans.
test message
Conrad Burns rates as a Moderate Conservative. See: http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=5&a2=5&a3=5&a4=2&a8=4&a9=1&a10=1&a5=2&a6=1&a7=2&a14=1&a15=4&a16=2&a19=5&a17=1&a18=3&a20=4&a11=4&a12=1&a13=2&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=35&e=68&t=9

He as a 35% Personal Score and an 86% Economic Score. Being a Moderate Conservative closely matches 82% of Montanans which do not consider themselves Liberal.
Craig:

If you had paid closer attention to this rating system you would have noticed that this attempt at labeling Tester is based strictly on voting records rather than actual opinions. Nearly half of the topics used to classify him as a "Liberal Populist" were not factored in due to there being "no votes on which to base a response". For example, we all know Jon Tester loves guns as much as the rest of most Montanans but yet he has not had the opportunity to vote on this issue. Therefore, this entire issue is not part of this rating. Had it been, like many of the other unused categories, I think we would have seen a "label" more befitting of Montanan's values. This is hardly an accurate system and is definitely not one upon which anyone should base their vote.

Finally, I ask you... does a patently corrupt senator (recently named "most corrupt") represent the values of most Montanans?! I think not. People should base their vote, among other things, on which candidate is the "least corrupt". Tester easily wins on that issue.
Elfman, if you knew more about ontheissues.org you would know that they draw their information from a variety of sources, including votes. See: http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Jon_Tester.htm

71% of Montanans favor coal development. Tester opposes coal development.
Craig - since you seem to like those ratings so much - and since your man seems to love Project VoteSmart, by mentioning it every chance he gets - please explain to me how he can tout his support for veterans when the ratings he got from DAV don't support his statements....and Montana Veteran's don't support him either?
Cathie, I don't like or dislike the ratings. I just take notice of them and relate them to what most Montanans believe themselves to be. Veterans support both candidates, just like they did with Bush and Kerry.
Craig... You need to read more closely. This rating is based solely on the votematch quiz. If you look, you will see that many of his "answers" are listed as "no opinion" and therefore excluded from the graph results. You are not going to win this race for Burns by trying to cast labels. That doesn't work as well as it used to. People are sick of it!! You need to concentrate on facts and issues... not labels. By the way, "Liberal" is not a bad word.
Elfman, please read this EXACT quote from the site:
>>>>>
How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate's stance on each VoteMatch question:
We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate's VoteMatch table.
<<<<<<<<<<<

That is what I have said. If I read it any closer my eyes would be permanently crossed!
Craig:

I will match your quote with another "exact quote" you apparently ignored from the same page... "It is only a theory - please take it with a grain of salt!" For the record, THEY inserted the exclamation point... not me. Here is another quote from the same site under the heading "Jon Tester on gun control"... "No issue stance yet recorded by OnTheIssues.org." You are making a losing argument here.

Do you know who else has been cast as a "liberal populist"? None other than Michael Moore! Do you really think that the politics of Tester and Moore are comparable!?! If so, you go right ahead and vote for Burns. You are beyond hope. The rest of us free thinking individuals will vote Burns out in a few weeks and look forward to a new beginning.
By the way, since we are posting ridiculous websites here I thought I would offer the following link.

http://sr4001.com/2006/09/04/believe-republican/

Ridiculous but hilarious and so true in so many ways! I think #9 is my favorite.
What is ridiculous and hilarious is your spinning and squirming. You wrote: "If you had paid closer attention to this rating system you would have noticed that this attempt at labeling Tester is based strictly on voting records rather than actual opinions." That is patently false as I demonstrated above. Regarding Onthissues.org see: http://ontheissues.org/about.htm If you have a problem with their rating of Jon Tester as a Liberal Populist, take it up with them. By the way, I thought being a Liberal was honorable. You make it sound like a racial epithet.

Regarding you statement that everyone knows that Tester supports gun rights, why doesn't his website show any position on gun rights. See: http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues Something like 90% of Montanans support the Second Amendment and gun rights. I think this qualifies as an issue important to Montanans. He shouldn't have to rely on people like you to prop him up. He should do it himself.
He has done it himself. Here is a quote from Jon Tester... “With things like the Patriot Act, we’d damn well better keep our guns.” That should settle your concerns about his desire to take away your guns.

It is very obvious who is doing the "spinning and squirming". You come into a discussion about Burns' connection to Abramoff and, like him, all you can do is attack his opponent by attempting to label him as something that sounds out of step with Montana. Initially, I looked briefly at the website you posted and found that their "rating system" was problematic and unreliable. Given the quote above from Tester it is very clear that these people do not do their homework. If they had they would have reviewed "...excerpts from speeches..." and found the quote above. I found it in all of 2 seconds on Google. So, my contention that their rating system is based "strictly on voting records" may be contrary to what their website claims but that does not mean that it is patently false! Look at it again, if you are not too "cross-eyed" at this point, and show me where they have used anything but Tester's voting record to label him. Regardless, mind the "grain of salt" and try to judge on the actual issues rather than meaningless labels. I have no intention of taking up this issue with "ontheissues.org". It isn't worth my time as they are not about to make a difference in this election. Then again, this blog probably isn't going to make a difference in the election but, alas, I only have so much time for fun and games.

New polls in this morning... 50%/43% in favor of Tester. Also, Burns now has the "Highest disapproval rating of ALL US Senators"!!! Spin that.
Balderdash! I did not label Jon Tester as a Liberal. Ontheissues.org rated him as a Liberal Populist. I thought Tester was proud of being a Populist and a Liberal. What's wrong with being either one or both?

Why won't Tester put a 2nd Amendment position on his issues site when 90% of Montanans are ardent supporters?
Re: the statement that 70% of Montanans support coal development. In a very recent poll of 600 Montana voters, respondents selected renewable energy production over coal development 2:1. Here's the question:
Q37. Here are two views regarding energy. Please tell me which view you agree with more: [ROTATE STATEMENTS]
Because coal is so abundant in Montana, we should increase coal development for the benefit of the nation by aggressively pursuing clean coal technologies, building more coal fired power plants, and turning coal into diesel fuel.
OR
Our energy policy should put Montana first. We need to develop more renewable energy such as wind and biofuels that will support our economy while protecting Montana’s open space, clean water and quality of life.

28% of respondents supported more coal; 68% chose renewable energy; 4% didn't know or didn't care to answer the question.

The poll was sponsored by Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund. Full poll results are available at:
http://www.mtvotersedfund.org
No, you are right you did not label him. You just pointed out that ontheissues.org labeled him. Don't duck your true intentions here. We all know what you are trying to do. Why not speak to the issue that has been central to all the other writings herein? Are you not at all concerned about Burns' connection to Abramoff? Do the things Jack has said about him bother you?! "We got everything we wanted", etc. Again I ask, are you not the least bit concerned about this?!? As a conservative, do you not find Burns' dodging of the issue tiresome? As a liberal, I certainly found Clinton's antics during the Lewinsky scandal sickening and embarrassing. Of course, that looks like a little scuffle on the playground in retrospect given Bush's actions (For God's sake, stay on the issue here and dont try to turn this into a discussion about Clinton now that I have made a passing reference)

I agree that Tester should put his 2d amendment position on his site. In fact, I went to the site looking for a feedback area where I could suggest exactly that. No luck. Regardless, he has made the statement (and others I am sure) I quoted above. It would be hard to take that any other way than that he supports 2d amendment rights. Would you not agree? You don't really believe that he wants your guns, do you? Honestly?

P.S. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a liberal and/or a populist but Republicans have been very successful at turning "liberal" into a bad word among the flock by yoking moderate liberals with activities like environmental extremism, etc. All you have done is attempt to perpetuate that and scare conservatives into believing Tester is just a dirty liberal (and populist). Geez, look at the damn tv ads out now for Burns claiming Tester is just another "liberal".
Amy, your poll doesn't make your point. The poll does not posit one option at the expense of the other. Here is the Missoulian article I was referring to: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/12/27/news/mtregional/news05.txt

" Seventy-one percent of those polled said they support the idea of mining coal in eastern Montana and construction of an affiliated industrial plant to produce liquid fuels from coal. Only 12 percent were opposed."

Governor Schweitzer is going full tilt on coal based on the desire of most Montanans.
Elfman, you imply that Tester is well on his way to a coronation. It seems odd that he is so prickly when he has it all wrapped up. See: http://politics.wizbangblog.com/2006/09/27/montana-senate-tester-gets-testy-sues.php
and http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/09/27/montana/a06092706_03.txt
Craig:

Coronation? Wrong country. Anyway, yes I believe Tester is well on his way to winning just as you probably believe the same about Burns (despite all polling to the contrary). I did more than make an implication... Tester is going to win. I sure hope so because I have an expensive steak dinner riding on it with one of my conservative friends.

I don't know why you interpret this complaint as a sign of "prickliness" on Tester's part. All accounts of the debate show Burns' supporters were outnumbered 4:1. This complaint was filed because it should have been filed... I don't care if the polls showed 90% in favor of Tester. It is sickening the way Resodyn and Burns tried to front load the theater. They should be held accountable even if they are clearly losing. The more we let our politicians (repubs AND dems) get away with this kind of thing the sooner we let our country go down the tubes.

Not unexpectedly, you have COMPLETELY sidestepped any and all questions pertaining to Abramoff (just like Burns). So, I ask you again... Are you not at all concerned about Burns' connection to Abramoff? Do the things Jack has said about him bother you?! I will also repeat another question to you that you have neglected to answer... You do not honestly believe that Tester, a born and bred Montana farmer, wants to take away your guns, do you?!
Elfman, I've grown to like you. So, I'll answer your questions.

Starting with Tester and gun rights. Like the Russians I believe "trust but verify" works best. When he takes an official position as to what he means by gun rights, I'll trust he has no other motives, or serious limitations. I always got a chuck over Larry the Cable Guy and his analogy. "Blaming guns for killing people is like blaming a pencil for bad spelling."

Regarding Abramoff, yes it bothers me as it represents what is most wrong with special interest legislation, earmarks, and the like. Abramoff is but a symptom of what the whole bunch are hooked on. Specifically regarding Abramoff, as I understand it Burns says he did nothing wrong, there are no criminal or congressional proceedings pending, and he gave the money back. To see Tester keep saying Abramoff 3 times in a row, click his heals and expect the brass ring is just too much for me. After he smeared Morrison in the primary and then campaigned with him said to me he is no different than anyone who would take money from the influence peddlers. Before Tester has any hope of cleaning up Washington he should clean up his own failings first.

I sincerely believe it is a mistake for Tester to make a big deal over the debate after what he did to Morrison. He can't play the wounded virgin and do the same type of underhanded behaviour that he complains about and have it escape attention. Makes him look weak and it reveals his own hipponess. ;)
Yes, Burns says he has done nothing wrong, returned the money, etc. *Yawn* I seem to remember Clinton saying he "did nothing wrong" but, of course, he did. Very simply, Washington seems to corrupt people and Burns has been there a very, very long time (term limits?). It doesn't surprise me at all to hear Tester repeatedly mentioning Abramoff, Abramoff, Abramoff. After all, he is trying to win the election and the Abramoff connection is a huge weakness of Burns. Had Tester been involved with Abramoff (or some other shady character) in any way you can damn well bet Burns would be shouting it from the top of Emigrant Peak. Such is the art of war. Enough years in Washington will probably end up corrupting Tester as well (if he isn't already after 8 years in Helena) but I am looking for a trade-in come November. Remember what I said about electing the "least corrupt"? I am very pleased to hear the Abramoff issue is of concern to you. I hope, however, that you don't just take Burns' word that he "did nothing wrong" with any more deference than that with which you took Clinton's back in the day. Burns' status upgrade from "subject" (or whatever the term is) to "target" (of the investigation) is very likely coming soon I suspect... probably after the election.

I hadn't heard the Cable Guy say that but he is absolutely correct and I have every reason to believe Tester would agree. I honestly can't recall the deal with Tester and Morrison... maybe I was out of town or too busy with work to pay attention (wasn't it an extramarital affair or something?). Regardless, I certainly don't see him as a wounded virgin... only the least objectionable candidate on the ballot. Kind of like the way we used to watch TV before Tivo and DVR... we didn't watch shows, only the "least objectionable" programming that happened to be on when you punch the remote control. Okay, useless analogy but I couldn't help make the reference. I think I saw a comedian make this observation years ago and it made me laugh. I think this is how shows like "Night Rider" with David Hasselhof turned up good ratings.

So, all this will be settled in a little more than a month. I hope between now and then you will at least consider a vote for Tester. It is time for Burns to go home, visit a surgeon and see if they can find a way to finally, once and for all, extract his foot from his mouth. If he does manage to get elected he should strap one of those little "satellite dishes" around his neck (like a dog after a visit to the vet) and see if that will help him overcome his affliction.
This is a test
Elfman, did you see where Senator Burns has been proclaimed a 'hero'? http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73331

>>>>>>>
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Sen. Conrad Burns was honored Tuesday by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) with its annual "Hero of the Taxpayer" award at a ceremony in the U.S. Capitol. The taxpayer advocacy organization presents the awards to members of both houses of Congress who vote with taxpayers on 85 percent or more of the issues tracked by ATR as important to taxpayers.

"These key votes were the most critical for taxpayers in the second session of the 109th Congress," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and prominent D.C.-based activist. "Looking at these votes, taxpayers back home can tell if they have a friend or an enemy in Washington. As far as Conrad Burns is concerned, they have a friend."
<<<<<<<<<
Tester and the Patriot Act.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060927/NEWS01/60927005

I saw James Woolsey being interviewed on the PA and whether it was important. He pointed to the fact of the information 'wall' between the CIA and the FBI which lead to important intelligence disconnects that were at the heart of the 9-11 debacle. He said the PA was essential to preventing erection of a new wall and its likely disastrous consequences. Perhaps Tester should rethink his position and consider the road to repeat calamity that he advocates. This seems far more important than a hissy-fit over debate seating charts.
Craig:
ATR's claiming Burns is a hero is kind of like the National Abortion Rights Action League giving Gloria Steinem an award for being a hero to abortion doctors. ATR is a known partisan group spawned in the eighties under Reagan. Show me where they have ever given an award to a democrat for anything.

I am very sure that Burns is a hero to SOME taxpayers. I shouldn't be quoting the site I have discredited previously herein but ontheissues.org shows Burns as "strongly favoring a decrease on "overall taxation of the wealthy". He got the maximum number of points in this category.
If you don't like ATR try this: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0521103&type=category&category=Budget,SpendingandTaxes

Then by state and representative there is this collection of info: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004235M
I must say I was rather surprised to see Tester call for the Act's outright repeal. However, I am not that concerned about it. A freshman senator is not going to come in and successfully maneuver to kill this Act. The pressure will mount quickly when he arrives in DC. His position on this will undoubtedly change to exchange the word "repeal" for "revise".
From what I know, Project Vote Smart is a good non-partisan organization that is, incidentally, based in Montana (Moose Lake out of Philipsburg). However, I pulled the following quote off the bottom of the page under the heading "How to Interpret these Evaluations": "Keep in mind that ratings done by special interest groups are biased. They do not represent a non-partisan stance." Then, just for fun, I clicked on the first group listed (National Taxpayers Union) and found it rather conspicuous that virtually every single republican got high scores whereas every democrat received very low scores. Just more partisan crap. The same goes for your second link to ATR's rating. You don't really buy this stuff, do you?
Elfman, I think many interest groups represent a point of view, not partisanshship, and look to find candidates that most closely match their goals. The NRA is a case in point. The fact that national D's get low scores on taxes is a result well earned by many of the "tax and spend" types.

Regarding Tester and his "kill the Patriot Act" position, if that sort of thinking is what we have to look forward to, then no thanks. That statement was said for effect, not as a carefully reasoned position. Using a political ploy to put our nation at risk by rebuilding the intelligence wall that greatly contributed to 9-11 is reckless and unbecoming of the requirements of a US senator to serve, protect, and defend our country and its people. This is very basic stuff.
Yes, a "a point of view" highly consistent with one party or another. The partisanship is inherent.

Burns is no stranger to saying things for effect rather than as a result of a carefully reasoned position. If he didn't have this problem he would not find himself having to apologize so regularly for things such as telling a group of firefighters that they are "not doing a goddamned thing" or a woman that she should "stay at home and take care of the children" or that it is a "hell of a challenge" to live in DC with all the "niggers". This is not a guy I want representing me in Washington.

So, Tester said something very stupid that I am sure he regrets. It will be interesting to see if he addresses it in the coming days. If you want to read about a wall that contributed greatly to 9-11 you should read Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies". Bush was a wall in and of himself.
A "wall" as in "brick wall"... you know, like "talking to a brick wall". I think he was so damned concerned about doing everything opposite of the way Clinton did it rather than just doing what was right for the security of our country. Then again, this is not a conversation about Bush but I couldn't resist. I suppose it all ties in, however. You don't really think we are going to see a positive result in Iraq, do you? Conrad (and Bush) can't possibly believe we are going to see democracy take hold in the midst of such anarchy. This is not a "cut and run" philosophy... only a realistic view of what is going on over there. Democracy in Iraq is nice thought but a pipe dream, nonetheless.
Regarding Iraq, see: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/09/lots_of_debate.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The report basically says that Democrats are right to argue that America is not "winning" the war in Iraq as Bush has insisted in recent days, but that Bush is correct in contending that pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq would be judged a win for terrorist cells and insurgents and spark renewed terrorist attacks elsewhere.
<<<<<<<<<<

Tester wants to pull the troops out. The NIE report says that would be a win for the terrorists. Appears to be another gaff, like the Patriot Act, on his part. Reconstructing the intelligence wall and embolding the terrorists is not what this country needs.

To imply that Senator Burns used the N word, like democrat senator Byrd, is simply untrue. The questioner phrased it that way to which Burns replied with the "challenge" remark. The crime rate was out of control in DC, especially around the Mall. In fact the District Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey declared a crime emergency back in July. I believe Burns was looking to the meaning of the question rather than responding to the phrasing.
The war in Iraq IS emboldening the terrorists! We gave the Jihadist movement impetus by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 when we should have been going after the real enemy. We are in a catch-22 in Iraq that I, among countless others with cooler heads than Bush, predicted as the invasion began. To just stay there eternally because pulling out would mean a "win" for terrorists is like putting your head in the sand while someone kicks your ass to hell and back. Yes, their dead may outnumber ours 10:1 or more but keep in mind they WANT to die. For every Jihadist who dies there are 100 more up and coming who can't wait to meet their virgins in heaven. Their children are being indocrinated into this way of thinking. How the hell do you fight this mentality? I don't claim to know what the answer is but, at some point, I think a person has to realize they have lost the battle, change tactics (like the terrorists) and keep the bigger picture in mind. Otherwise, we will just keep sending our men and women over there for an indeterminable number of years to come.

I realize that Burns, technically, did not use the "N" word but I know when I hear someone use that word in my presence I don't respond with a jovial acquiescence - this is the most forgiving way of characterizing his actions on that instance. When someone uses the "N" word, the meaning is crystal clear regardless of the words that surround it. If Burns has difficulty interpreting the meaning behind the word he should spend his time reading a few history and race relations books rather than trying to represent Montana in the U.S. Senate!
Elfman, regarding Iraq your disagreement is with the experts that produced the NIE report as referred to by Capital Hill Blue. It is they who made the claim about embolding the terrorists with a strategy advocated by Jon Tester. Coupling that with his revoking the Patriot Act puts America seriously at risk.

Regarding Burns, projecting how you would have handled that situation is easy from the comfort of your keyboard. The environment of the situation, the context of the moment, and the deciphered point of the questioner are all missing in your analysis. I have never met Senator Burns. People who have tell me he is a very friendly, engaging person. I don't know of a single politician that doesn't regret saying things that they wish they could take back. Look at John Kerry. The DC crime environment being out of control is a fact. Playing politics with race seems to come up when a candidate or his suporters have their pockets turned out on the important issues.
Craig: I disagree with "experts" quite regularly... this is pretty easy given the fact that there are always groups of "experts" who hold opinions opposite one another. As for my disagreement with the experts, sometimes they are right and sometimes I am right. I disagreed with our president's decision to invade Iraq and he presumably is surrounded by "experts". I think it is painfully clear to all that the invasion was a very bad move. There will be no democracy in Iraq and the violence is escalating with no end in sight. Meanwhile, Bin Ladin had his way in Afghanistan with the relatively light presence we had there due to the fact that everyone was in Iraq (and still are)!

I can say, with great surety, that I would have handled the situation very differently than Burns (through a keyboard or a megaphone) as would anyone who has any sensitivity at all to race issues. The DC crime environment is unquestionably out of control and the great majority of the crime being committed may well be committed by black people but to use the "N" word in reference to the crime problem is patently racist. When one hears the "N" word one does not need to bother trying to "decipher" the intent of the speaker. The state of mind is clear and sickening.

Yes, all politicians regret saying something at some point. There are just some politicians who seem to spend all their time having to apologize for being thoughtless, insensitive and out of touch... Burns is one of 'em.

Lastly, I am absolutely sure Burns is friendly and engaging... not much different than what I suspect about Bush. As I used to say in the last election, if i was gonna pick a guy to drink beer and go fishing with I would pick Bush in a second over Kerry but that doesn't mean I think he should be running the country. Same goes for Burns. He has no business in Washington anymore and, God willing, he will be out come November.
Elfman, I think you and I could keep this going for sometime. But I believe it's time to bring this thread to an end as we are probably boring the hell out of others. Beyond our original dust up, I find you a very intelligent and able debater. Let's pick it up again on fresh meat. Take care.
Yes, you are probably the bigger man for bringing this to some resolution. I am widely known for belaboring a debate far beyond any sense of reason. We probably lost our audience a long time ago! See you next time.

Name

Email

Your Comment

Comment policy:

NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal.

Other than using a filter that scans for comment spam, we do not moderate contributions before they are posted and we do not review every thread, so we ask that you help us in keeping the discussions civil and appropriate. Please email info@newwest.net to notify us of comments that may violate these guidelines. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Click here for some tips on how to best interact on NewWest.Net.

Remember my name and email address.

Notify me of follow-up comments.