"If we are going to help the Cuban people break free of the shackles of communism, then we must permit a flow of people, commerce and ideas," Rehberg said in October 2003.
For almost a year after that, Rehberg continued to vote as he had previously -- to loosen the embargo.
On July 7, 2004, Rehberg voted for an amendment that would have softened new restrictions on the shipment of gift parcels to Cuba. He also voted with embargo opponents on Sept. 21, 2004, for an amendment that would have made it easier for Cuban-Americans to visit family in the country.
But the next day, his vote abruptly shifted.
On Sept. 22, 2004, Rehberg voted the opposite way and opposed the amendment that would have lifted economic embargoes on Cuba.
Gee, now why would Dennis suddenly make an about-face on policy that would have benefitted Montana's agricultural products and also permitted "a flow of people, commerce, and ideas" that would "break the shackles" of a Communist dictatorship?
Several months later, Rehberg's campaign received $1,000 from a pro-embargo group, the U.S. Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee. Since then, the group has given him $10,500.
Surprise!
Why is it that Montana Republicans like the same old, tired out-of-tune waltz on a beat-up trumpet? Rehberg apologists will talk about "nuances" and changing opinions, but given Rehberg's past with flip-flopping on issues for the sake of political expediency, how hard is it to believe he changed his vote for a little extra "boost" to his electoral chances?
Needless to say, I'm going to dig deeper on this one over the next few days...
Is the Bush administration really considering pre-emptive pardons? Conservative jurists hope so, wanting Bush to head off any impending investigation of illegal government activities during the Bush years by a future administration.
The money quote:
"The president should pre-empt any long-term investigations," said Victoria Toensing, who was a Justice Department counterterrorism official in the Reagan administration. "If we don't protect these people who are proceeding in good faith, no one will ever take chances."
Sounds a lot like the Nuremberg Defense, eh? Yes, I'm aware of Godwin's Law - but we're talking about a government that was involved in illegal spying, illegal detention, torture, and kidnapping, and that reintroduced pre-emptive war to the world. At this point, we're entering a rarified arena and running out of suitable analogies. Is Pinochet a better comparison? South Africa's Apartheid state? Brezhnev?
And who here thinks the pardons will be for the regular joe spooks and other agents in the trenches? Me, neither. We've seen from the Abu Ghraib fallout how the administration rolls: throw the little guy under the bus while dodging any and all accountability.
The point here, the idea of pre-emptive pardons is odious. I don't want the government to "take chances" with my civil liberties. I want them to stay within the law, and I want accountability for those that don't, regardless of rank or station.
Halfway there! And with barely any prodding from me! Nice work, people! (Sorry about that lack of prodding. I've been a bit busy lately. Actually massively busy. More on that later.)
Yes, halfway there, but still half way to go, and an absolute dearth of $5 contributions. You know me, I love those $5 donations. They have a certain charm, don't they? They tell me, yes, I can't pitch in as much as I want, but I believe...so believe already! Five bucks! That's less than what you'll pay to see "The Dark Knight"! I'll tell you what: pitch five bucks at your favorite candidate, and I'll save you the trouble of seeing the flick by telling you the ending, and you'll actually save yourself $3.50 (Note from Singer: Throw in the five bucks, but go watch the movie too; it is awesome.)! Which you can spend on a double cone at the Big Dipper. If you're from Missoula, which I assume you are based on the donations.
Anyhoo...
The seats:
Missoula & Kalispell
SD2 - Brittany MacLean
SD7 - Paul Clark
Bozeman, Great Falls, Helena & Butte
SD9 - Erik Somerfeld
SD10 - Brad Hamlett
Billings & East
SD18 - Shirley Baumgartner
SD21 - Sharon Stewart-Peregoy
SD22 - Lane Larson
SD26 - Lynda Moss
SD27 - Gary Branae
Last week, Ochenski penned a column about his friend, Jackie Corr. He reiterated Corr's beliefs and political interests, his fervid antipathy for big corporations, their machinations against everyday people and the obsequious politicos that serve them. In short, he was kick *ss.
Ochenski recalled a specific event that Corr influenced, thanks to his "indefatigable research" and his flood of emails:
Jackie...is probably the single individual in this state most responsible for heading off the purchase of NorthWestern Energy by the Australian firm of Babcock-Brown (BBI).
Thanks to Jackie, members of the Montana Public Service Commission (PSC) were fully apprised of BBI's vast network of international business deals and the fallout from those deals. While Paul Polzin, the former head of the University of Montana's Bureau of Business and Economic Research, was cheerleading for the takeover, Jackie was busy sending hard data and news articles from around the world to reporters, columnists and those whose votes would ultimately decide the matter. In the end, Polzin turned out to be wrong, while Jackie, the man behind the scenes, turned out to be right when BBI's shares plummeted 27 percent just last month due to short selling and concerns about its debt levels. Not a bad call for a Butte taxi driver, eh?
Man, I had forgotten about that! It was Jackie! H*ll, he flooded my email inbox, too, and it was one of the times I ran with the information he sent me. I did a little research and learned a little about the sleazy business of corporate tax shelters and wrote a post (and someothers) that made both the Notorious Mark T and Dave Budge cringe. (It doesn't get any better than that!)
The point here is that Jackie knew a lot of stuff and tried to point me to good stories. When I chased his emails down, I was more often than not rewarded. But there were too many emails, too much to look up.
Well the emails have stopped. But I still have dozens in my inbox. So here's what I'm going to do. Every now and then, I'll dip into my email and retrieve a Jackie Corr email. I'll do a little research, and report back to you in a post. Hopefully in the end through the work I'll help seed another Jackie Corr or two. Lord knows we need 'em.
The comprehensive report, titled "Low Flows, Hot Trout: Climate Change in the Clark Fork Watershed," compiles more than five decades of scientific research into a 36-page document about the impacts of climate change in the Clark Fork River Basin.
The report contains no original research or new findings, but provides an easy-to-understand summary of climate change's current and potential impacts, as well as anecdotal accounts from a rancher, firefighter, fishing guide and others.
"Decades of data and observations now point to a clear conclusion: The Clark Fork River basin is experiencing a very real shift in climate," according to the report's overview. "During the next 100 years, this shift is expected to accelerate, contributing to physical, ecological, social and economic changes, many of which have already begun."
You can check out the CFC's report (or download the pdf). They're also have a free luncheon presentation of the report in conjunction with the National Wildlife Federation on July 29th at the Holiday Inn Parkside at noon. (Free lunch? Count me in!)
The report has the data specific to Western Montana - the increase in temperature, decrease in snowfall, the ever earlier runoff of the Blackfoot river. All these indices are more than just numbers, they're the measurements of the forces that shape our local ecology. When they change, our ecology changes. Our rivers will warm, killing fish; our vegetation will be drier, causing more hotter, larger fires; growing seasons will change, native flora will be challenged by invasive newcomers, and local agriculture will be impacted. And the CFC has the gory details.
Check it out. Global warming is real, and it's here.
(Matt's got some more news of OTV trouble-makers... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
From the man who brought us all higher utility bills through de-regulation, comes this account of illegal motorized wrecreation and verbal assaults directed at a Forest Service ranger. With political leaders like these, it's no wonder that parts of the Bitterroot Valley are still the Last Best Place for Tearin' It Up. (See also other LiTW diaries for similar stories. - Matthew Koehler
SNIP: "When the ORV ranger went to investigate the incident the group renting out the cabin, with former Stevensville Senator Fred Thomas as the main perpetrator, drove him off with verbal assaults."
(Fire away, good LiTWers... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
In a thread on Democratic Underground Political Insider Suggests Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) May Be Obama's VP a poster said "Schweitzer--openly considered supporting Romney. Stick a fork in that dude" and that was the main reason not to support Schweitzer for Obama's VP. (Of course, this poster neglected to mention that Republican Chuck Hagel is on Obama's VP list. The anti-Schweitzer poster had no objections to Hagel if he got the VP slot. Also, this poster didn't mention Obama using Ronnie Reagan as his role model.)
I remember Schweitzer saying he'd support Romney but could not remember the context he said it in. What are your thoughts about this and should that early verbal support of Romney disqualify Schweitzer from VP consideration?
First of all, go ahead and pat yourselves on the backs, LiTW community: you met the goal of $250 last week for House candidates. And congratulations to the Region West donors: you cleaned the East and Central Regions clocks'. In fact, you more than doubled the combined contributions to our Eastern and Central brethren. And our Butte/Bozeman/Helena readers are the most tepid donors, coming in a distant third...
Anyhoo, it's time for the Senate version of our regional fundraiser. Same amount, same time limit. You have a week to raise $250 for candidates in Montana's battleground Senate races.
For a refresher on the races, check out my battleground Senate posts -- part 1 and part 2.
Again, same challenge. I've split up the Senate races between East, Central, and West Regions. East roughly corresponds to Billings and points east; central to Bozeman, Butte, and Helena; and West to area around Kalispell and Missoula.
The seats:
Missoula & Kalispell
SD2 - Brittany MacLean
SD7 - Paul Clark
Bozeman, Great Falls, Helena & Butte
SD9 - Erik Somerfeld
SD10 - Brad Hamlett
Billings & East
SD18 - Shirley Baumgartner
SD21 - Sharon Stewart-Peregoy
SD22 - Lane Larson
SD26 - Lynda Moss
SD27 - Gary Branae
Now the East Region has the majority of seats here. I know I'm pitting you all against one another for money -- but, you know, don't let your geography limit your donations...
Hey, did you see the NRSC's fundraising page for its candidates this election cycle? Let's look through the list...looking...looking...hey! Where's Bob Kelleher, the candidate of choice for a majority of Montana Republicans? He's nowhere to be found!
Thanks to "Skull/Bones," a Kelleher fan, for the tip. Of the snub S/B writes,
...they show Republican candidates with the equal no shot chance that Kelleher has, but not Bob Kelleher. Further, looking down on the campaign biographies, you notice a few of the candidates marking their territory as "independent" of the party - skip to Gordon Smith of Oregon. Yes their very inclusion on this list matched with Kelleher's exclusion marks them as not so independent, by definition the Republican Party has set up a standard here. Kelleher categorically has stated he completely disregards party platform, and from that basis the Susan Collinses of the world look like they're lock step marionetted strings.
Speaking of Kelleher fans, have you checked out "Eyebrows over Highbrows" yet? A site dedicated to Kelleher's merits! (And is the mysterious "Dooley" the same "Kirk Dooley" so often found prowling our state blogs' comments?)
It's not like Rehberg isn't going to spend money -- heck, he can use taxpayer money to send brochures to all Montanans with his face plastered all over them. Am I just too cynical here? Or do you actually need some name recognition to win a race?
Again, there are good ways to reject big-money campaigning. But what you lack in money you need to make up elsewhere -- like knocking on doors. You can't just sit home and make YouTube videos and hope to get elected without doing any work.
Remember this flap, way back in the dinosaur days of May?
Republican Party Executive Director Jake Eaton, an Army National Guard veteran of the Iraq War, leveled the charge against Hunt on Tuesday, saying Hunt's ad, campaign Web site and press releases violate a February 2008 directive from the U.S. Department of Defense.
The directive says any candidate who mentions his or her military rank or appears in uniform in political material must place a disclaimer on the material, saying neither the Department of Defense nor the branch of the military endorses the candidate.
Take a look at the website for the GOP candidate for SD2 (a battleground race!), Ryan Zinke. I don't see a disclaimer! Hey, Jake! What's your ruling on that?
...crickets...
Honestly, I thought it was a stupid, small thing back in May, and I don't give a rat's *ss if Zinke showers in his uniform now.
Still, wouldn't it be nice if the party hacks were in any way consistent in their outrage? Come on, Jake, if this was so important to you this spring, why lay off now? I'll answer for him: "Because I'm a paid political operator who manufactures outrage for a living, and you should never, ever believe a word I say."
Attention, media: can we have a moratorium on reporting what any paid spokesflack says, regardless of party? It's been a long and dreary election already...let's ignore these folks and enjoy the rest of our summer...
