The Bacon Campaign
Burns Boasts More Pork for Kalispell US 93 Bypass
By Kate Downen, 7-19-06
 | |
|
Montana Senator Conrad Burns announced yesterday that an appropriation of another $4 million would be added to Kalispell's US 93 bypass project, making the total appropriation $8.2 million. The bypass has been at the center of mega public debate in recent years as growth on 93's west side--along with drastic population increase in the Flathead Valley--has contributed to traffic and safety issues in and around Kalispell. The addition of new Kalispell high school Glacier High, located north of Kalispell, also became a motivating factor in the appropriations request, which was submitted by County Commissioner Gary Hall last fall and again early this year.
We shan't need be reminded that it's an election year in Montana. Burns and farmer Democrat Jon Tester are in the midst of one of the hottest US senate races around. Burns-- as we've been told again and again throughout the campaign-- is a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee and has quite a history as a bacon-bringer for Montana.
No doubt the Kalispell bypass funding will be another item added to Burns' list of do-gooding in this year's campaign, which has seemed to have cooled, at least temporarily, on ethics issues to one revolving around who's got dollars and who's spending them where. Then again, I don't have TV, and newspapers here can't stop talking about both candidates' nearly-equal fundraising.
It seems Burns is saving the world with his spending. His website's top headline reads "Burns Saves Amtrak. Again." All five of the "Latest News" headlines on the homepage include the word "funding." This, Montana, is what this election is going to be all about. The Burns camp will tell us that Conrad, and only Conrad, can deliver for Montana. Jon Tester's website homepage reads: "Tester Launches Positive Ad Campaign. Big Sandy farmer to make campaign one of values and issues."
So we have it: One man pork, principles the other. Is it that simple?
I can't help believing that any blockhead with a few connections can spend money (Paris Hilton). Senator Burns, you voted to cut funding in Montana to fight meth? You told a working mother to stay at home with her kids if her job was outsourced?
I appreciate your help with the bypass, but to win me over it's going to take a lot more than concrete.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Isn't it a pity that we would have to choose between the loss of millions of $ for Montana or a person that we might like to replace Conrad.
Your "Pork v. Principles" comment is simple, but true.
Brutal.
I guess the bacon tastes the same on both sides.
d.c. deserves as much mud as is slung its way. who was talking about governor schweitzer? i wasn't. and please, don't call me sweetie. that one's reserved for my dad.
thanks for your comments.
kate
sorry, i thought dave posted the last comment (although i stand by the 'sweetie' thing). have a good weekend.
kate
Care to put up the facts or is this just another "smear" by the Tester forces of which you clearly reveal yourself to be.
I posted the following before here at New West. Here it is again:
>>>>>>For those that have not had the experience of working with Jon Tester, other objective factors must be weighed in determining what his character is. So far he has campaigned on being the candidate of character while poking at the ethics and morals of others. Let's peel the onion a little deeper than the soundbites. There is the matter of knowingly violating Montana law with illegal telephonic fund raising. After the morals and ethics hatchet job on Morrision, Tester finds Morrison quite suitable to go campaigning with. That leaves me scratching my head. Then there is the $173000 contribution coming from Schumer's DSCC committee. A neophyte senator would certainly find out there were strings attached to the source of those funds. Now here is numero uno. Last I checked Tester's campaign site and OnTheIssues.org, Tester has no, nada official position on Montana coal development. Over 71% of Montanans want coal development. According to an MSU political science prof only 17% of Montanans consider themselves liberal. Now Tester's campaign soldiers are largely from this 17% and they have a certain profile. This cadre is more than likely to be militant environmental activists. If Tester comes out in support of coal he upsets his troops doing the leg work. If he comes out against coal he is in opposition to 71% of the voters. By not taking a position he is trying to have it both ways until it's safe. Then he will either stab the people or his troops in the back. That to me is a real lack of Montana character to play that game. Coal is not a new issue. To not have a position after a lifetime in Montana should give anyone pause to ask what the heck? <<<<<<<
Kate, where does Tester stand on the Highwood coal plant that will use 20 year technology? Where does Tester stand on Schweitzer's coal development efforts? A lifetime in Montana and Tester has NO position on coal. I find that incredibly dishonest. Just my opinion.
Schweitzer hid on his ranch and popped out to say "Judy Martz" once in a while.
Tester hides on his ranch and pops out to say "Abramhoff" once in a while.
By refusing to respond to vote smart or to come clean on his "surrender first" Iraq policy, Tester hopes to keep the focus on whatever his minions videotape Burns saying or doing, so that he himself does not have to say or do anything.
Some may find that more honorable than securing funds to make a highway safer, but I don't.