Missoula News

great analysis, courtney

Good tiding Tester..Big shoes but I do feel you will make Montana creditability sound..A coming Mike Mansfield..humm only time will tell :)

Nice work, Courtney. It would interesting to see how numbers compare to the Schweitzer-Brown race in 04, when voter turnout was significantly higher than in either 2000 or 06: 71 percent and 456,096 ballots cast.

ohwilleke,

You're right -- the rural vs. urban is crude by nature, but I think it's still worth comparing.

I would also be careful not to compare Colorado urban/rural to Montana urban/rural. The demographics are quite different.

You're right in saying Tester did do well in rural areas where the demographic is Native American or the economy is tourism based. But, the compelling numbers I found were gains Tester made in counties like my home county of Teton. Teton is up and coming as far as tourism goes, but the large majority of the county is sill agriculture based. There, Tester still lost, but he lost by 229 votes and amost 6 points less than Schweitzer did in 2000. Of course, his gains in Chouteau County have something to do with it being Tester's home, but if you wanted a rural/agriculture county in Motnana, Chouteau's a pretty county to show. (Both Teton and Chouteau County are central Montana, which is different, however, from eastern Montana.)

On the Eastern side of the state, Burns did indeed maintain his stronghold. He made gains in counties like Judith Basin, Fallon, Treasure, Wibaux. One of his biggest gains was in Garfield County.

But, he also lost votes in other counties out there that he won. In Petroleum County, he lost 71 votes and 17 points. In McCone County (heavily a ranching area), he lost 189 votes and 15 percentage points.

So, I'm not sure I can make any hard statements on those counties, but they do show something interesting.

I have lots of data here, so if anyone has questions, let me know and i can look them up. the numbers are still swirling in my head and on my desk :)

This is a good analysis. My rough comparison to Schweitzer in '04 shows Tester underperforming from that campaign, but you're probably right that he overperformed compared to Schweitzer in '00. Of course, what's notable about the comparison with Schweitzer in '04 is that Schweitzer ran stronger statewide in '04 than Tester did in '06, but Tester ran stronger in Missoula in '06 than Schweitzer did in '04, despite higher turnout two years ago.

Burn's still won Teton County;) Your analysis is very good Courtney, but there is one factor that overides all the numbers....Abramoff. I wish Burns had just hung it up and retired. Almost any untainted conservative would have beat Tester.

This article is an amazing bit of spin. Tester lost in his home county but by a smaller margin than Schweitzer therefore it was a win???? Shouldn't he have been able to sweep his home county?

The way I read it is Tester was unable to win his home county...period. I'm not sure where Schweitzer's home county is and the question would be, did he win his home county in his bid for Governor?

Pete,

Yep, I think you're right -- it is a little of both. My analysis is basically showing that when you look at Schweitzer vs. Tester or the climate in 2000 vs. the climate in 2006, rural voters gave the biggest gains. That's not to say that this year the election was not won by Tester's big wins in places like Missoula. Instead, it's showing that there's another way to slice the numbers.

Steve, I don't think you read the whole story. I never wrote that Tester won his home county, only that he made big gains there and lessened the margin by a big amount. Again, as I've noted several times, this is just way of comparing.

And, as to your question on Schweitzer's home county. You must have missed this paragraph about Flathead (Which is still a Burns county, he won here by 16 percentage points and more than 5,000 votes)

"In Flathead County -- traditionally a Burns county -- Tester still picked up 954 votes and 1.9 percentage points over Schweitzer in 2000. That's big considering Flathead was Schweitzer's home county."

Courtney, I just finished reading your response and I'm confused, did Tester run against Burns or Schweitzer?

Steve,
Tester ran against Burns, not Schweitzer. Again, this is just one way of slicing the vote -- by comparing it to what Schweitzer pulled in 2000 and I think it's an interesting look at the race, which is why I took the time to do the comparison.

As to your question about the Tester's district, you have to remember that districts are not divided along county lines, so Senate District 15 -- Tester's old district, includes parts of Chouteau, Fergus, Garfield, Judith Basin, McCone and Petroleum Counties.

Republican Rep. Jim Peterson won the seat this election by 3,300 votes.

I am curious what you are trying to infer from your analyses? Are you implying a bunch of farmers have switched to eating tofu and taking breaks at 4:20? Most farmers like my father are conservative before republican. Right or wrong, they felt Burns had lost his conservative way. Many rural voters just stayed home like in Teton (more genuinely rural than Hill which is reservation influenced), some voted for Jones (more than enough votes for Burns to win), and a few gave Tester a shot thinking he is a farmer he must be somewhat conservative. We will have to wait and see if Tester deceived them.

Hey Ryan, (I thought that was you, tell Darren hello for me as well ; )

You're right, Tester got 1,252 votes this year in Teton County, according to the Secretary of State's numbers.

What I did was a comparison of margins, which I should have been more clear about. So Burns' margin was 728 votes in 2000 and 503 this year. (I was wrong in my comment above -- the difference is 225, not 229).

And, if it helps, the third party candidate in 2000, Gary Lee, grabbed 62 votes to Jones' 57 votes this year in Teton county.

Also turnout was higher -- about 229 votes higher in 2000, so that's why I also used the comparison of percentage point margins. So in Teton, Burns won by about 22 percent in 2000 and by 16 percent in 2006.

So, that's the number I'm using. I should have been more clear about that and will comb through the story to make sure I make that more clear. (I wish I would have had your Mom for math, that's for sure.)

As so what the analysis shows: I don't think farmers are eating tofu (jeez, can you imagine our Dads eating tofu?). Rather, I think your comments are spot on. My uncle Jim in Brady (old farmer-type Vietnam vet) said he felt like Burns had just been there too long and was hanging out with the wrong people. (Check out my after election column about that here.) And, like you, I always use my Dad as a litmus test. If you put Clyde in a room with Burns (or Schweitzer for that matter) they would have nothing to talk about. If you put my Dad in a room with Jon Tester, they'd talk all day about wheat, the weather, you know, farmer stuff. I think those big margins Tester made smaller in places like Teton County had more to do with that than it had to do with politics. I'm admittedly pollyannic about that, but just as you suggest, I like to think that voters in places like Teton County see more of the person and the policies (i.e. conservative rather than Republican) than they do the Big R's or D's by the name. So, I think he had that appeal, I know he resonated with my Dad -- but you're right, we'll have to see if it works out or not.

Ryan, it's wonderful to have your perspective here and please, tell your folks and your brother hi for me.

Brian P :"It was conjecture of scandal and the perception of being out of touch that did Burns in. In my opinion both of these issues are very much false and were dishonestly exaggerated by the left in our State."

There really were no other issues for you? Abramoff was the just the tip of the iceberg. Too much has been made of the scandal, but in almost the opposite way. If you think that was the only reason the election turned out in Tester's favor, your sorely mistaken.

More than perceptions. Montana is changing, and it was past time for a change at the Senate. Also don't forget Burn's rabid support of the adminisration and it's endless failings. There's a point where you have to make a choice b/t more money and having some scruples. Half of Montana knows where that point is.

-Californiamontanacan

You are right, Burns blew it. That is my point. Burns lost far more than Tester won. I still have no idea Tester’s plan for most issues. Look at his web page (http://www.testerforsenate.com/issues). One generic paragraph for each topic.

Despite the war and all the supposed “failings” of the Bush administration. Tester only got 3872 more votes than Schweitzer (population increase alone would account for this), but Burns lost 12,627 (despite population increase) votes from six years ago. This shows Montana isn’t changing, it is still very conservative and any untainted conservative could have beaten Tester.

Here's my Green Party with Instant Runoff Voting analysis of the election.
GREEN SOLUTIONS by Paul Stephens, CasCoGreens
Democrats lose decisively in Montana: With IRV, Burns is returned to the Senate
Finally, we get another good chance to show the Republicans the value of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). It would have saved them in Montana, while in Virginia, the Independent Progressive candidate nearly cost the Democrats that state. With IRV, Republicans would still control the U.S. Senate. Perhaps because of better "family values", Republicans are more rational than the Democrats in not hating and resenting their political mentors. That could easily change, though.
The Libertarians will easily keep their ballot status in Montana, even though it cost Republicans control of the entire Senate of the United States. Stan Jones, who got more than 10,000 votes, might temporarily be the most hated man in America to Republicans in other states, if not Montana. We Greens will stand shoulder to shoulder with him, hoping to convince the Republican Lame Duck Congress (and next year's Montana Legislature) that it's time for a national change to Instant Runoff Voting.
Meanwhile, I'm sure Montana Democrats will be saying, "See? With IRV, the Republicans would have won! You'll never get me to support IRV!"
http://www.fairvote.org
Could they really be that stupid? You bet they could. There are few, if any, fair-minded strategists in the whole Democratic Party -- and certainly not in Montana. They are what the Objectivists used to call "concrete-bound." The James Carville mentality rules. They have no principles whatsoever. Whatever it takes to win in a particular race is their whole party philosophy, and it will be different in each individual case. But the one tendency which they will never wish to abandon is that they don't need to be fair to their opponents, or apply the same rules to themselves which they apply to others (unless they're part of the same "nuclear family"). We all pay for that lack of ethics on a daily basis.
In this respect, we believe the Republicans are better (although we'd be hard-pressed to prove it in this election!). They would rather lose in a fair election than win in a crooked one -- some of them would, anyway. It's what we used to call "sportsmanship" -- a forgotten concept, today, in sports as well as politics. And that was why they hated the Machine Democrats so intensely: Democrats didn't seem to have that sense of fairness. They reveled in their criminality and strong-arm tactics and connections.
By now, of course, the major parties are neither ethical nor fair. And that's why about half of eligible voters rarely vote at all, or if they do, vote very selectively and independently. Instant Runoff Voting would change all that. Everyone would be free, uncoerced, and enthusiastic about voting for their first choice. The reason that Greens, Libertarians, Constitution Party, or Reform Party candidates rarely win is that the two major parties devote most of their campaign resources to convincing the voters that they are the only two viable choices.
Remember "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush"? More Democrats still believe that than believe in God. With Instant Runoff Voting, a vote for Nader would have been a vote for Bush if, and only if, the voter had specified Bush as her second choice, and few would have done that. Most Gore voters, on the other hand, might well have specified Nader as their second choice, and vice versa. A likely outcome would have been Gore winning by 55% of the first- plus second-choice votes, and Nader getting nearly as many -- he could have even won outright. A peculiarity of IRV is that if the two leading parties are closely balanced, an independent or non-partisan third candidate can easily win -- even if he only gets a small percentage of the first-choice votes.
More importantly, it changes the whole nature of the campaign. Democrats needn't fear candidates to the left of them, because if they're not pandering to the right wing, they'll get most Green or other Left votes as a second choice. Polls have repeatedly shown that only 30% of the electorate is actually in favor of the Bush/Cheney oil/coal, Christian Fundamentalist agenda. The others are voting AGAINST "tax and spend liberals", gun control, flag burners, and gay marriage -- none of which has anything to do with good government or sound foreign policy. Under these circumstances, a fiscally conservative, anti-war, pro-labor, environmentalist candidate like Ralph Nader would be a favorite to win.
For Greens, Nader was a far better candidate than Gore, but most of us would have voted for Gore as a second choice, and a lot more of us would have voted for him first-choice if he had run as an environmentalist and government reform person (his real positions). Instead, he concealed his virtues, and tried to appeal to militarists, racists, and anti-welfare people from the South, where he ended up not carrying a single state. Democrats need to learn to stop pandering. If you don't agree with something, don't do it and don't claim to be in favor of it. Trying to be "all things to all men" results in being nothing to nobody.
Voting is as often a negative as a positive choice. Montanans didn't so much vote for Bush as they voted against Kerry and Gore. And this time, a third of them voted against Burns rather than for Tester. The Republicans would have obviously won with a different candidate like Rehberg or Racicot. I have the Democrats' own word (or expressed fears) for that. This is a lesson which was also lost on Jon Tester and his campaign strategists.
False pretenses
A majority of Montana voters did not vote for Tester, who started his campaign for the Senate as an overwhelming favorite. Because of the campaign he ran, focusing on Burns' "corruption" with anti-Semitic overtones (against Abramoff & associates), anti-government and anti-Washington themes, opposition to amnesty and support for "sealing the borders," etc., liberals and Greens can rightfully feel that he won by running under false pretenses.
Even though Senator-elect Tester may believe some of these things on an implicit level, they are more the product of his media campaign and the Montana Democratic Party than they are his own views. Greens were especially outraged when the Tester campaign brought Gen. Wesley Clark to Montana, and Tester seemed to adopt his views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations, which he had previously opposed. He also joined the local chorus of military retirees and Malmstrom AFB boosters, and their perennial cry to save our nuclear Doomsday Machine (200 Minuteman ICBM's with 375kt nuclear warheads) and increase military spending overall. Tester actually had a TV ad which said "I will fight anyone who wants to close Malmstrom", which was taken to mean that he didn't want to convert it to peaceful, taxpaying, or even legitimate military purposes. Tester lost the support of most of the peace and anti-war voters at this time, and obviously gained not a single veteran's or military contractor's vote. In fact, the anti-war veteran's vote is probably the majority here in Great Falls, and most of them are Democrats. Tester's switcheroo resulted in Conrad Burns receiving most of the military vote in Great Falls -- something which he wouldn't otherwise have done. Burns made a similar mistake: he bucked the polls, and refused to question the Bush policy on Iraq. Had he done so (like some Republicans in other states), he would have easily won.
Besides the "Yellow Dog Democrats" (those who vote for anyone with a [D] after his name), the only vote Tester clearly won was the Independent vote. A majority of those who don't belong to a party, or whose party (like the Greens) was not on the ballot, voted for Tester. However, it was a much narrower victory than it should have been. One news story based on exit polls said that 30% of those who voted for Tester were less troubled by Tester's "liberalism" than Burns' corruption and "Washington ways." They were voting specifically AGAINST Burns, and these would have been Independents, Reform Party and Constitution Party voters who will always vote for an honest Republican. This includes such elements as the Militia and others who believe we have a "Zionist Occupation Government" utterly dominated by "the Israel Lobby."
At the same time, Montana Jews and liberals overwhelmingly supported Tester, and indeed were entirely responsible for his victory, along with the college town of Missoula and the "Mining City" of Butte, where Tester won by better than 2-1 margins. BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE DEMOCRATS ANYWAY! Some might have voted for a Green or Independent Progressive. In this election, it could have been 20%, given Tester's strong turn to the right on military, immigrant, gay rights, drug laws, and other issues where he pandered to people's fears and prejudices, but few would have wanted to risk a Burns victory. Had Paul Richards stayed in the primary race, we would have found out just how many such voters there are, and how many of them otherwise consider themselves Democrats. But Morrison distorted that "test," and the polls were obviously rigged to show that a green-progressive would get no support.
What we need is a Machine Democrat running against a Progressive Green in the primary. In most cases, the Progressive Green would win (as Steve Kelly did in 2002). Tester pretended to be a P-G in the primary (and thus forced Richards to withdraw), but proved to be just as much a Party man in the general election. It's either do that or be cut off entirely from Party support (as Kelly was). Again, it was the Democratic Party's strategy which was at fault, not Tester as a candidate. He was a good candidate made to look like a bad one, and it very nearly cost him the election.
When Kelly ran as an Independent against Pat Williams and a nondescript Republican, he got 10 % of the vote in a general election where Pat got about 60%, as I recall. This, I have argued ever since, is the real "voter's profile" in Montana -- 50-60% traditional Democratic and "pro-good-government", and 10-20% Independent Progressive who would be glad to support a Green or any similar agenda -- even against a solid Democrat like Pat Williams. Only 30% are actually die-hard right-wing Republican "obstructionists", Fundamentalist Christian, anti-environment (largely because they believe the world is about to end), and pro-police state, and most of these are against sending U.S. troops overseas to fight and die in senseless wars. They used to be against assaults on the Bill of Rights (like gun laws and the PATRIOT ACT) and other government intrusion in private life, but that view was distorted by the post-911 propaganda campaign. Again, Conrad Burns miscalculated badly by voting for, and refusing to denounce, the PATRIOT ACT. This was the best evidence that he is not a "real Montanan."
So, aside from the national Republican/Bushite propaganda, Conrad Burns was appealing to a constituency which did not exist. Nearly every die-hard Republican voted for him, because that's what they do, but beyond that brain-dead cadre, Burns had little support. Had the Democrats ran a normal liberal-progressive campaign, they would have easily carried practically every race, and Tester would have won by at least a 2-1 margin. Montana, of course, is a special case, and the only state this time where Republicans actually gained in the state legislature. This, alone, should be a "wake up call" to Montana Democratic strategists, except that they're apparently in a permanent coma.
After his compromised, stupid, and reactive campaign, Tester very nearly lost to a Republican who was almost universally disgraced and despised. In other large cities, Tester lost in Billings and Bozeman, and only carried Great Falls by 172 votes out of 30,000. (Great Falls is a Democratic stronghold, where the legislative delegation is overwhelmingly Democratic, and we often elect Democrats by a similar 2-1 margin in statewide races). Obviously, many Great Falls Democrats voted for Burns -- most likely because he was supported by senior military people here, and Tester proved he didn't understand the issues important to military people -- like political interference in military campaigns, pork-barrel budgets and wasted spending on useless weapon systems, cuts in Veteran's benefits, war profiteering from winless wars, nuclear proliferation, etc.
The Military-Industrial Complex likes wars and expensive weapons systems. ("War is good for business. Invest your son.") The soldiers who actually fight wars do not want to be there -- especially if it is an unjust and genocidal war. Great Falls voters are about 1/3 veterans, active duty and Guard soldiers and retirees, not military contractors and suppliers. The Chamber of Commerce "Base Boosters," of course, are overwhelmingly Republican, along with Baucus-style Democrats, and they support any and all pork-barrel spending, as well as more military spending overall. But Malmstrom has no legitimate military mission besides the Red Horse civil engineers. Otherwise, it is a Doomsday Machine -- a mission favored by Apocalyptic Fundamentalist Republicans, Boeing, and the nuclear lobby who profit from it. But it is not favored by the enlisted men (or even most officers) who "work" there. Obviously, Tester has no understanding of these issues, while Burns knew what to say to any particular audience or constituency.
Had Tester merely shown that he supports the troops (now and later, which Republicans haven't traditionally done) while opposing the military-industrial complex, nuclear proliferation, and oil wars, he would have carried most of the military vote. The appearance of Wesley Clark totally subverted this positive message, as well as being a slap in the face to the considerable Montana peace and justice constituency -- nearly all of whom would otherwise have supported Tester enthusiastically.
Burns voted against the Clinton-Albright attack on Serbia in which Wesley Clark was the Commander in Chief of the NATO forces. This war blatantly violated three out of 5 Articles of the NATO Charter, and effectively marked the end of NATO as a legitimate European institution (85% of Europeans opposed it, and several governments fell which had supported it. Nowadays, NATO is merely a front for American Oil Imperialism, and a chance for former Communist countries to ingratiate themselves with their new American masters). I would conservatively estimate that Clark's appearance in Montana supporting Tester cost him at least 20,000 votes, because that war was vastly unpopular in this heavily Slavic mining and smelter state. And Clark was the Clinton-DLC favorite (as well as Michael Moore's) in the 2004 Democratic primary. He may well be Hillary's VP in the 2008 election -- a recipe for certain failure if ever there was one.
The constant (and false) propaganda in Great Falls that Malmstrom is our "economic base," where the active duty troops count as "jobs", didn't help Tester, either, who expressed agreement with it, while most of these active duty personnel vote in other states. Burns got most of the military vote here because he is a veteran, and is known as a military booster and pork broker. Tester would have been far better off sticking to his promise to bring the troops home as quickly as possible, supporting universal health care, and reducing military spending overall. The military is a socialist system, and the arguments in favor of it can easily be applied to other areas of public policy. Military bases typically have better schools, better health care, and better community support services than their surrounding communities, and this is certainly true in Great Falls.
Universal Health Care
Adopting a military-style system of universal health care would reduce everyone's costs, while improving services for everyone but the very rich (who could still be allowed to upgrade quality from their own resources). The main advantage of universal health care is that it substitutes preventive medicine for heroic cures and marginal life extension, at a savings of 16-1. ("An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." In fact, the ratio is probably more like 100-1). And with cost-based pricing, medical costs would reflect the least expensive strategies, rather than the most costly to consumers, taxpayers, and private insurance companies. So-called "market pricing" practiced by health care corporations and drug companies is now legally permitted, and it is actually based on the cost of the next best alternative. For example, if a drug regimen is a substitute for $50,000 worth of surgery, the drugs are actually priced so that the patient will be billed just slightly less than $50,000, even if the actual cost of the drugs is only $500. Obviously, rigorous price controls for all medical products and services is the order of the day. Will Jon Tester support this? Let's make sure he does.
And lest we think that Tester's "rural populism" was actually popular in most rural counties, Tester lost in most of them by at least a 2-1 margin. In his own Chouteau County, which of course was his stronghold when he ran for the Montana Senate, he lost to Burns by 57 votes, and this doesn't include those who voted Libertarian. Isn't it strange that a third generation homestead farmer and President of the Montana Senate shouldn't be able to carry his own rural constituency against a corrupt, Missouri-born corporate sell-out? It's the best tangible proof of the counter-productiveness of his TV advertising and other Democratic campaign strategies -- especially bringing in Wesley Clark and Max Baucus, who are more hated by honest conservatives than Burns.
I've often said that given a choice between Burns and Baucus, I would vote for Burns. That's still true, and I'm sure it is for most Montanans. The reason that Baucus keeps winning is that he controls the Montana Democratic Machine, and his being a Senator is of great value to the Republicans. Next time, though, they will want to defeat him, if only because control of the Senate may again rest on the outcome of who is elected from Montana. Baucus would be wise to switch parties before the next election. He could do so, now, and thus restore a Republican majority to the Senate. Stranger things have happened. Maybe that would finally convince Montana Democrats that he should have been recalled long ago!
Even though Tester's victory in Montana marks a comeback for Democrats on the national level, they didn't do nearly so well in state and local races. Although the youth and Native American vote were widely recognized as being decisive, the margins are probably less than any earlier election (that is to say, more "youth" are voting Republican than ever before in Montana, along with many other states). In the 2004 election, only 25% of the Indian vote went to Republicans, and that was a big gain over earlier days, when Indians either didn't vote, or voted almost exclusively Democratic. This was largely the result of Senator McCaine's support for the Indian Trust Funds settlement, and local Republicans courting the Indian vote in the wake of Senator Baucus' frequent slights and insults to local Native groups and issues.
Burns did support many ear-marks for various Indian tribes because of his connections with Abramoff. And who's to say that these rip-offs were any worse than what Indians have suffered in the past? This time, Burns got 40% of the Indian vote, with the Little Shell leadership (4500 "landless Indians" based here in Great Falls) actually endorsing Burns and Rehberg. This was because the Republicans reached out to them and their past Chairman, James Parker Shields (who was also a local Republican boss), while the Baucus Democrats have treated all Indian tribes badly, including sponsoring prisons and nuclear waste dumps as "economic development" for reservations.
Republicans (plus 1 Constitution Party representative) will likely control both houses of the Montana Legislature, and most of us consider Gov. Schweitzer a Republican for all practical purposes.
Tester is now promising to represent only "middle class families" (not the rich and super-rich, corporations, minorities, or the poor), and certainly not the victimized, imprisoned, the unemployed, immigrants, etc. Fortunately, he is vaguely anti-corporate, and as an organic farmer, he will probably oppose GMO's and most corporate agribusiness subsidies. And he will presumably support minimum wage increases -- perhaps even "living wage" legislation, and contrary to some of his campaign rhetoric, he's not likely to vote for new "big ticket" weapon systems and foreign wars. It all depends on his "transition team" and other staff, and I don't know who that would be, or anyone on the short list. Hopefully, they'll include some environmentalists and military reform people. He promised me and other opponents of further coal development that he would be the strongest advocate for renewable energy in the entire Senate. This is a promise we expect him to keep.
In summary, it is very important to understand that this was not a victory for "democracy," and in Montana, at least, even the Democratic Party did not win. Instead, it followed the usual losing and self-destructive strategies. The party of Max Baucus and Schweitzer, war and PATRIOT ACTS, coal plants, agribusiness, and corporate welfare, did not deserve to win, and their past victories, for the rest of us, were worse than defeats.
Hopefully, the lame duck Republican Congress and the new Republican-controlled Montana Legislature will have the wisdom to implement Instant Runoff Voting and other conservative and ethical policies. All should agree that it's time to end the race to the bottom, and the destruction of our economy, environment, Constitution, and reputation among the other nations of the world. Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty, so it's up to them to either change their ways or abandon the "two party system of denial and blame" for a new vision and agenda -- preferably the conservative 10 Key Values of the Green Party.
-- Paul Stephens

I meant asking a state senator for a plan. I was also calling Burns a racist bigot, not you. I think the record confirms that.

-Californiamontanacan

Sorry, I don't think calling Burns a recist biggot is a cheap shot.... not near as cheap as the "shots" he's taken at any number of minorities. It's easy to back it up. I really don't see what it has to with honesty, other than the fact you aren't being honest with yourself.

There's also a huge difference b/t being a Washington insider for the past 18 years and being asked if you have a plan, and asking a challenger. Burns has been there voting over and over on Iraq. He had far superior access to the administration, and I presume "intelligence". I'd rather have a supple thinker get involved, get informed, and then formulate a plan..... not bring a plan to a situation they have no idea about..... which pretty much sums up the Bush admins. approach to Iraq thus far.

-Californiamontanacan

I'm not calling conservatives racists, although as a side note, I'd bet my life most racists would call themselves, and vote, "conservative". All thses terms are so loaded though, don't get hung up on it.

The facts on Burns are well documented. I'm not going to play this GOP bs game where you deny occurences that have been documented the world over, and then chalk them up to "a liberal media conspiracy". The facts are there, face up to them.

-Californiamontanacan

You don’t respect your life very much if you would bet it on racist’s beings conservative. Your example of Burn’s “racism” is a typical liberal tactic. You make a bigger deal about words than actions.

The Democrat party defended slavery in the 19th century and segregation for much of the 20th century. The governors who stood in schoolhouse doorways were all Democrats. The segregationist senators who filibustered the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts were all Democrats. The party that elected Klansman Bob Byrd as its leader in the Senate was the Democrat party. It was the democrats who shameless paraded a black woman around in an effort to trump up false charges against Clarence Thomas. It was democrats who illegally obtained the credit report of an African American Republican in an effort to dig up dirt. Bill Clinton’s mentor was William Fulbright a segregationist. On the flip side, Bush has appointed more minorities to higher positions than any other president. The last six years has produced the biggest increases in home and business ownership among African Americans. African American republicans like Ken Blackwell, Michael Steele (who was pelted with oreo cookies by democrats), and Lynn Swan were welcomed with open arms into the party during the last election. And if you want to go way back it was a Republican who freed the slaves.

Being a racist is far more than saying something stupid, it is how you act. But if you want to muddy the waters with just what people say: Brd has used the “N” word in public many times, Howard Dean implied to get blacks in a room the wait staff had to be invited, Steny Hoyer used the term “token” and “slavishly” about an African American republican.

I can go toe to toe with you all day on words, but actions should count for more in an “honest” debate. There are more than enough examples above for you to take a second look at your preconceived notations. Open your "open mind" and see the truth.

new car interest rate