tester's win
Gov. Schweitzer’s Tampering Comments Spark Controversy
Schweitzer jokingly described how on election night 2006, when Sen. Jon Tester narrowly beat Conrad Burns, he rigged the release of one county's election results to avoid a recount. Was it a joke?
By Robert Struckman, 9-10-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said in a July fundraising speech that he tampered with the 2006 election, in which fellow Democrat Jon Tester narrowly beat Conrad Burns for the U.S. Senate.
Specifically, Schweitzer jokingly described how he rigged the release of one county’s election results with the goal of avoiding a recount and how he prompted reservation cops to run-off Republican poll watchers to keep them from harassing Indian voters.
“You know the governor,” said Sarah Elliott, Schweitzer’s spokeswoman. “He’s an animated storyteller. He loves to tell stories. He was joking about the Tester election, at a time when we were in the shadow of Florida. He meant absolutely no offense. He got going and told stories in his usual animated way. That’s really all there is to it. There wasn’t any attempt to influence” the election or the results.
“He’s just telling a story. He did not tamper. I wouldn’t let him or anyone else,” said Mary McMahon, head of the elections office for Silver Bow County. “I have to take some humor with it, otherwise it would drive you crazy,” she added. “As for the inference, I resent that.”
A spokesman for Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson, whose office oversees elections, said, “I sincerely hope this is not true.”
As of Wednesday morning, no investigation was underway by either the Montana Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney for the state.
The speech, available online, features the governor’s signature storytelling about his grandmother homesteading on the Montana prairie as a 17-year-old illegal immigrant from Ireland.
Then Schweitzer regaled the Trial Lawyer’s Association with how, two years earlier, he had promised to deliver another Democratic U.S. Senator from Montana.
“I’m back to tell you we got it done,” Schweitzer told them. This is what he said: Out-of-state Republican poll watchers intimidate Native Americans at the polls, or, in his words, “there’s liable to be some sons-of bitches… who are going to show up, stand in front of the polling place” and drive away a portion of the voters. So he prompted reservation policemen to threaten the interlopers with indefinite jail time in the agency jails if they didn’t get off the reservation immediately. It worked, he said. “We didn’t lose one Indian vote.”
Then Schweitzer described watching Tester’s lead narrow on the night of the election, as the numbers came in. He wanted to avoid a recount, he said, as most Montana counties are controlled by Republicans, who would have handed the victory to Burns.
So Schweitzer pressured the Butte-Silver Bow election administrator, in not so many words, to stall the release of her county’s results to maintain Tester’s razor-thin lead. He also called the administrator “as nervous as a pregnant nun” at being phoned by the governor.
Secretary of State Brad Johnson’s office fielded no complaints of this kind of tampering at the time of the election, said spokesman Bowen Greenwood. He did field a complaint on Tuesday this week about the governor’s remarks from Tammy Hall of Bozeman, who asked the Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath and the U.S. Attorney General’s office to investigate the governor’s remarks.
The office of Johnson, a Republican, does not have investigative authority.
A spokeswoman for McGrath, a Democrat, Lynn Solomon said the state attorney general’s office, as dictated by state law, doesn’t conduct investigations because of requests from the public.
McMahon, election administrator in Butte, described how human error on election night in 2006 led to some discrepancies between the electronic vote counter and manual counts. McMahon stopped the count, found the error and fixed it. The entire day lawyers from both major parties watched the collection of ballots, the count and her office’s own recount. She did everything by the books and defends the independence and integrity of her office.
“He had absolutely no influence,” she said.
The governor did call, she said, to get the latest numbers. The two never spoke directly. She passed along a message that she would get results to his office when she had correct numbers, and she did, after she delivered the news to the press, she said.
As for the governor’s nun comment, she said, “I resent that.”
[End of article]Republicans have sure turned into a bunch of whiners the last couple days. Maybe McSame's economic adviser Phil Gramm was right.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 9-10-08What would you expect from governor BS?
This is just like Al Gore inventing the Internet. And you'll notice the trial lawyers weren't scandalized atall, no sir. Just business as usual. Otherwise this story would have created a stir two months ago.
But it didn't. Tells ya something.
I read the article twice and saw nothing about anyone whining.
Just an amusing story.
His spokesperson resented a few remarks, but no whining.
Every reasonable person reading this knows the Governor was telling a yarn. If people want to read about a state executive actually tampering with an election, check out what Republican Gov. Haley Barbour is pulling in Mississippi.
Knowing that former Sen. Trent Lott's seat was in danger of falling to former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D), Barbour first moved the date of the special election replacing Lott so that the GOP candidate could benefit from presidential turnout in a time where Republican turnout would likely be suppressed.
Then, in DIRECT VIOLATION OF STATE STATUTE, Barbour moved the Senate race to the bottom of the ballot. Likely because studies often show that minority, less educated, and lower income (read: liberal) voters tend not to vote down ballot with the frequency that others do. Finally, Barbour also announced today that the ballot will not contain party identification... That's how shitty the GOP brand has gotten.
Um, Lamnidae... Mississippi isn't in the New West, so who cares?
And even if Schweitzer's anecdote is just a yarn, is that supposed to make it less offensive?
As someone who grew up on the rez in Montana, I know that I don't find it particularly endearing to be thought of as either; a. automatically a member of a particular party just because of ethnicity; or b. in need of protection from poll watchers because I'm just some simple-minded native...
Nice try Rugg... Gov. Schweitzer's implication wasn't based upon anything other than the GOP's storied history of suppressing minority vote via caging, scrub lists and other dirty tactics. You're false outrage is embarrassingly transparent.
Oh, and I wasn't aware that comments were regulated to discussion of strict geographical boundaries.
Lamnidae, what exactly is a storied history?
Representatives from the MT Sec'y of State's office were kept out of the recount for HOURS. Why? Where is THAT in the story?
Everyone needs to understand that "Crookedness" is not the sole province of a single political party. It's an aspect of human nature. We've all heard the adage that power corrupts. Everyone living on a reservation knows this firsthand.
Lately I'd have to credit the Dems with substantially more corruption than the Reps, but I think the mainstream news media are the really corrupt ones. They aren't accountable to anyone. They lie with something approaching impunity--and let me impugn their collective character a bit more--they work for the money people who hijacked American conservatism when Jefferson was in office and then proceeded to remake the democrats in their own self-serving, immoral image. Today the Dems are a vast collection of hypocrits who would gladly sell their mothers down the river on Monday, cry about distant atrocities or insignificant matters Tuesday, declare themselves to be the victims of every form of unfairness on Wednesday, claim to represent the authoritative and monolithic opinions of "the experts" in all matters on Thursday, villify their opponents with a barrage of unfounded accusations on Friday, and repeat this pattern ad nauseum. All the while they fleece their ignorant and idealistic base, telling them it's because they love them. No, Big Media (AKA "BM") is the real enemy!
As for BS and his trial lawyers--all crooked. So are Obama, Biden. I tend to think all senators are, probably even McCain, but he is certainly cleaner that the other two. Assuming Obama cancels McCain, then the race comes down to one of VPs. I personally think it's worth voting Republican just to put Sarah in the bullpen at the USNO. This is especially significant with McCain having been through so much in Vietnam and being 72 years old. (I would estimate his life expectancy at 75 ot 80 based on what I know of him.) I think that an Obama/Biden Presidency would devestate America and cede our remaining sovereignty to the U.N and the World Court. A vote for them is a vote for the New World Order, plain and simple. And so is choosing to stay away on election day--if we've learned anything in the last eight years it's that every vote counts.
But even that's really not the heart of the matter. The main reason I have consistently voted Republican for the past 30 years is that, as a doctor, I believe I have a duty to oppose abortion--thus I had to support the only anti-abortion party that has had a chance. At the risk of "cutting for stone," in observance of contemporary medicine's dyscrasia, many doctors seem to have forgotten that we are never to do harm to anyone. Those that do are certainly not MY brothers or sisters! They apparently accepted a fashionable, but hypocritic substitute for the ethical precepts of the Hippocratic Oath. I say, long live the Hippocrats! Anyone who performs an abortion or willfully causes a death should lose his license in the name of Æsculapius! This should accompany the professional disgrace that already haunts abortionists and/or those who assist in voluntary euthanasia. That the medical schools and colleges have abandoned these principles is just another symptom of the creeping materialist and relativist orthodoxy which denies right and wrong in favor of economic and political expediency and silences all it's critics.
Which conveniently brings me back to "crookedness." Whoever we elect must embody values and be willing to make hard choices based on them for the long term. This idea runs patently counter to economic and political expediency or playing to the media and their polls.
A 72 Y.O. former P.O.W. and maverick senator, and the governor of a tiny state (in terms of population) have significantly fewer reasons to follow a set of senationalist, short-term goals than two very liberal senators looking to make names for themselves, shake things up, and reward their nasty friends with a green light on all sorts of corruption, sleaze and depravity. If you hate America then jump on the guv's bandwagon, vote Obama-Biden. Jump and serve up another helping of BS!
On the other hand, if you are a concerned, intelligent citizen and you want to protect our country, defend our values, strengthen our economy over the long haul and give our armed forces a fighting chance, oppose Brian Schweitzer and all his cronies--include Obama. This year, for the first time in 5 elections, I'll be proudly supporting the people I'm voting for rather than choosing the lesser of two evils. I am 100% in favor of McCain-Palin in 2008! Let's show America that Montana still kicks butt in the face of a challenge--instead of whimpering and whining about how things aren't as good as they should be.
Frankly, governor, I've had enough--it's time for you to be moving on!
Lamnidae, you stated, "Every reasonable person reading this knows the Governor was telling a yarn." How does every reasonable person know when he is telling the truth? Why don't you give those with whom you disagree the same latitude?
Ethics 101 includes not even joking about something that would be even borderline unethical or illegal.
Dr. Larry, you took us off-topic with your personal platform about upholding the Hippocratic Oath, "First do no harm..." I honestly don't see how that becomes the basis for your objection to abortion. You are mistakenly equating death from this life as "harmful". Not to even argue that the fetus before quickening is not a viable life. And to bring this discussion back to the political forum: having my freedom of personal life choices dictated to me by any legislative or judicial group is un-American. An elected official is supposed to represent their entire constituency. The Republican call to repeal Roe v. Wade does not represent my will.
Whichever party wins, they'll have a terrible time fixing all the messes that the Bush administration have created. Nevertheless, I think that Obama and the Democratic party have a more realistic plan to handle the crises facing the United States.
Most times is so easy for the truth to be lost in a yarn - isn't it? There are storytellers and there are bs'ers. The best storytellers weave the truth through their stories. The best bs'ers weave the truth through their stories too. The difference is the storyteller is pointing to a "greater good" the truth. The bs'er usually is satisfied with self boasting with the truth. I'm afraid most Americans have broken BS meters installed. Too bad.
Storyteller? BSer? Time will tell.
Vincit Omnia Vertias / Truth Conquers All
In the meantime; hold your nose.
New West didn't break squat. The story was broken at <a >MTPundit</a>.
Comment By flounder, 9-11-08Dr. if you had the choice between pulling a frantic child or a refrigerator containing 1000 embryos out of a burning building, which would you choose?
Comment By Dr. Larry, 9-12-08Dhira, you are playing God when you say I am "mistakenly equating death from this life as 'harmful'. Not to even argue that the fetus before quickening is not a viable life." What you perceive to be your freedom is 98.2% murdeous convenience, rather than legitimate medical need. For the final 1.8% of cases--incest, rape, tubal pregnancies, etc.--the courts and state legisltures could permit exceptions with either laws or warrants--just as they now permit searches.
Here is the oath as I swore it:
“ I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
Dr. L.
Dr. L: Thank you for reminding me how archaic the Hippocratic Oath is! We could argue that the Greek ideas of medicine are inaccurate and inapplicable in light of modern knowledge. But my point was actually that the ending of a life on this planet is not "the end" and is not, in fact, a bad thing! What IS a bad thing, is when one person dictates their personal, restricted beliefs upon another. There is nothing easy or "convenient" about deciding to have an abortion. I would much rather never have to make that choice. But it has to remain MY CHOICE. (Hippocrates notwithstanding.)
Comment By Dr. Larry, 9-12-08Dear Flounder,
You asked, if I had the choice between pulling a frantic child or a refrigerator containing 1000 embryos out of a burning building, which would I choose? What a stunning logician or game theorist you are. Did you invent this particular Cornelian dilemma, or is this a standard pro-choice tactic. I thank you for placing me on the horns of a dilemma! Since I am often there--and for the sake of playing along, I'll bite. I warn you that my answer is mine alone. As most decisions I make, it will be chiefly guided by my personal sense of pragmatism, not abstract theory or philosophy.
I would choose the frantic child for a number of reasons--some better or purer than others. First, things in a refrigerator are surprisingly well protected--particularly cryogenic dewars. There is a good chance that the fire would be contained before the embryos were in danger. Second, as is, unimplanted, such embryos are statistically unlikely to ever be implanted and brought to term--although more than one is--so this is a weaker argument. Third, my chance of surviving to successfully save a refrigerator or a dewar capable of holding 1000 individual specimens is much lower than my chance of saving the child. Fourth, raw emotional compassion would compell me to save a child I can hear and see despite any logical argument in favor of the 1000 unborn children. By my answer do I fail your test and perish in the Strait of Messina to the voids of Charybdis? Oh well, at least I'll be able to sleep at night.
Speaking of dillemmas, here are two nice quotes:
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem."
-Eldridge Cleaver
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -MLK
According to Microsoft Encarta, "just" means fair and impartial, morally correct and/or reasonable.
So, for the sake of argument, let assume both quotes and that definition are true. Then was the Attorney General's response just or unjust? If unjust, how should we respond? If you think they were just, please explain in detail.
Dhira,
Lest I get accused of taking us off topic again, let's be clear about why I seem to be touring about. The topic is character, ethics, beliefs and moral conduct. As such, anything related is relevant.
You are clearly arguing that Greek ideas are inapplicable in light of modern knowledge. I maintain they are extremely relevant and needed in making our best attempt at an objective or impartial self-examination. Frankly, the prognosis isn't good.
I do not understand your thinking when you say, "the ending of a life on this planet is not 'the end' and is not, in fact, a bad thing." I would consider total global extinction to be a very bad thing indeed. I value life, and especially intelligent life.
I am not sure that I agree that it is categorically bad when a group dictates a set of restricted beliefs upon an individual. You frame this to appear that I am forcing you to agree. In fact, I'm siding with 5000 years of medical thinking, biological research and jurisprudence concerning the nature of life. On the other hand, based on your comments one might conclude that you are suffering from “Sudden Jihad Syndrome.” Societies operate under a social contract comprised of implied agreements necessary to maintain social order. Such implications are unclear to a percentage of any population. Perhaps paradoxically, these become increasingly difficult for the members of a population to grasp as their society's ethnic and religious diversity, cultural complexity and "social maturity" increase.
I in no way meant to say that abortion was an easy or convenient choice. My question is, isn't it murder? As such, can murder ever be a valid choice? In a previous post I already "violated" the rights of 1000 embryos by saving a single child instead of them. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that they are owed some rights. If I totally subordinate their rights to the rights of their parents is that healthy, moral or allowable? This leads me to another dilemma. If a mother feels that no one else can take better care of her children than she can, and concludes that she can't care for her children, is it more merciful to turn them over to authorities or to kill them? Mother's kill their children because the child is unwanted, out of mercy, due to the mother's mental illness; as retaliation against a spouse, or as the result of abuse. If the woman is acting in the interest of her mental health or the general welfare of society, why are such children's deaths always considered a homicide?
To adopt your free-spirited stance, why can't each one of us make up our own rules based on what makes us feel good? (On a related note, are the state and U.S. Supreme Courts within their ethical bounds to rule on laws according to such subjective standards, or by employing the thoughts and rulings of people not subject to our Constitution?)
My personal conclusion about human life is not a particularly rare one (particularly among women!) we must value and respect all human life. In my last post I quoted Martin Luther King, Jr. who said that, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This is a quote that I love and live by. Are our unborn children being afforded due process under the law, or does protecting a woman's right to choose trump their rights? Does this come at too great an ethical and social cost? I believe the children have rights and that the cost is too great. You have every right to disagree with me, but I will always believe that no one has the right to end a life (unless the continuance of such a life would itself end another's life--and not merely their liberty or their pursuit of happiness). As such, I also favor life imprisonment rather than the death penalty--a position recently strengthened by the arrival of exonerating genetic testing.
I believe that you and I disagree fundamentally and will never resolve our differences. I feel that all life is valuable. You seem to believe that any given set of beliefs is just as good as any other. I represent the bygone ethics of the past while you represent the hope of this brave new world. I think you are both a victim and a proponent of a politically correct, relativist and materialist orthodoxy which is actively subverting the (wildly successful) underpinnings of western civilization.
Quite ironically, these underpinnings were not immediately apparent when the first whites came to these lands. They were only discovered by the native people through their own scholarship--people who valued life. Even the Blackfeet held such views! They had a strong culture and social contract. In fact, the majority had much less trouble accepting the Father and His son Jesus of the Bible, than they had with the multitude of European hypocrites who committed and still advocate violence against us in His name! As an old vet and a Christian that sort of thing really galls me.
This brings me back to the Governor and Attorney General. Dhira, you and I agree on the importance of rights. These men have used the American Indians, and stolen their rights in order to to advance their selfish political agenda. They disrespect Indian heritage and further defile their freedoms. Now their fellow Democrats (heavily represented on the reservations), willingly sit and idly watch them do it. How dare they! How day any of them let it happen!
In closing, I respect your right to disagree. It's central to our system of government. But I do not believe we can allow bad people to persist unchecked in positions of power. This is crucial. It's not just our right to debate and research, but it's our duty to step in and make a difference.
Dr. L.
I'm not sure what Attorney General you are talking about. The one here does not see a need for investigation. If evidence did come to light that Schweitzer did pull funny stuff, though he is in little position to have done what he claims in his wry joke, it should be investigated.
If you are talking about Mukasey, the big thing he's involved in this week is the corruption and sex and drugs in the Oil and Gas Division. Though he has good evidence that the head of the Department was acquaintance-raping employees he declined to file charges.
"Second, as is, unimplanted, such embryos are statistically unlikely to ever be implanted and brought to term--although more than one is--so this is a weaker argument."
You realize that the definition of the anti-choice crowd is "life begins at conception". And since you and I both know that a conceived embryo is not a sure thing: sometimes they fail to implant in the uterine wall and are washed out in normal processes, don't develop, etc.; any God that feels the same is by definition a baby killer.
Dr. Larry,
I was pondering your question a bit more and came across this wonderful and "just" information:
"Ramras said that issuing a subpoena for a vice-presidential candidate "would be disrespectful." He called it "inappropriate conduct, given the unique political circumstances," and "bad form.""
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/palin_wont_be_subpoenaed_on_tr.php
Now it appear that being "just" falls slightly below being respectful of having good form. Bush and his lawless cronies have damaged this country in ways that will take years to undo.
Blonde in a Boat
There was a blonde driving down the road one day. She glanced to her right and noticed another blonde sitting in a nearby field, rowing a boat with no water in sight.
The blonde angrily pulled her car over and yelled at the rowing blonde, "What do you think you're doing? It's things like this that give us blondes a bad name. If I could swim, I'd come out there and kick your butt!"
Good
The risk of ED is nearly two times greater in men with total cholesterol levels above 240 than in men with total cholesterol levels below 180. generic from india
Bye !!
________________________________
:) <a > lowest price generic</a>