Tester Shockingly Raises Money. Probably the Right Thing to Do in a Senate Race

I certainly don’t mean to start yet another fight with the 4and20 blackbirds blog over the relative merits of Senator Tester and Representative Rehberg, but it’s hard to overlook the analysis offered today which suggests that Senator Tester is somehow trailing in the Senate race by a few points because he’s taken money from the “wrong constituency.”

It’s not only same tired argument that’s been trotted every few months, but it fundamentally ignores the dynamics of this race and the role of money in contemporary politics. While it would be wonderful if Senator Tester could choose not to take donations from people affiliated with corporations at all, unilaterally disarming against Denny Rehberg and letting him impose his idiotic worldview on the Senate for six years would be far more damaging than taking money from banks, law firms, cable companies, and the League of Conservation Voters—who are by far Tester’s largest contributors.

It’s also simply unfair to suggest that Tester is somehow beholden to big banks, and just willfully blind to suggest that Rehberg wouldn’t be far, far worse. There’s a reason that Rehberg is getting the support of Citizens United—and it’s not his position on the Constitution.

There’s a relatively simply set of reasons that Rehberg is marginally ahead in the polls. Montana is a state that leans Republican—and Rehberg has more incumbent advantage going into the race. In fact, rather than suggesting “that something fundamental is amiss” in the Tester campaign,  the fact the Tester is within 2-3 points, given a 8 point GOP advantage in the state, suggest that his campaign is right where it needs to be to be competitive.

To remain competitive with the massive influx of Super PAC money that Represenative Rehberg will have at his “uncoordinated” disposal, Senator Tester will likely need to outraise Rehberg by 2:1.

From the outset, winning this seat was going to be a challenge for Tester, but eschewing large donations and driving around the state in a VW wagon fueled only by self-righteousness and biodiesel would make it impossible for him to win.

Ideological and financial purity may warm the heart, but they certainly doesn’t win elections. For my money, I think it’s in the interests of Montanans to send a Senator back to Washington who doesn’t believe that corporations are people, who believes in the minimum wage and the rights of workers, and who fights for the middle class.

56 thoughts on “Tester Shockingly Raises Money. Probably the Right Thing to Do in a Senate Race

  1. Tester will need to pick up votes to make up for those he has lost by being unnecessarily antagonistic toward the supporters he depicted as "extremists". maybe it will work, maybe it won't.

  2. It's a given that in a system of private bribes used to hire advertising firms to make content-free TV ads full of emotional symbols, that a candidate is going to have to accept those bribes to be able hire that firm and air those ads. I don't think anyone denies Tester's need to do that.

    What's amazing is the pretzel logic that follows, first, of course, Lesser Evil: if there is no limit to how evil Rehberg can be, then how can merely being less evil be of use to us?

    Then comes, more or less as subtext, that the money does not influence his behavior. These executives, bankers, lawyers, pool their resources and throw money at him, and expect nothing in return. How stupid they are! (Ah, if it were only money that controlled him in DC, our problems would be simpler.)

    Then, of course, low expectations. He "believes in the minimum wage, the rights of workers, and … Fights for the middle class."

    Mere belief in the face of the firepower of corporate cash is not enough. Action! And we've seen that your definition of "fighting" is merely voting for legislation without affecting its outcome. I have known men and women who believe in these things and more and have truly fought hard for them, who have used their time in office to fight the good fight, and Tester is not among them. That's why so much corporate cash is available to him.

    You hold him to low standards, don't hold him accountable when he misbehaves, allow him to do anything he pleases so long as his opponent scares you, and maintain that you are a vigilant citizen. I beg to differ.

    LCV, by the way, is a suspect group in my view, as they tend to favor Democrats (Baucus, for example, and now Tester) who work against Montana's environment and wilderness.

  3. My Flathead Memo review of the polls seems to have triggered this discussion, so allow me to make a few points:

    (1) Rehberg has the longer political resume, but Tester has the advantages that derive from being the incumbent. Those advantages may be slim.

    (2) Rehberg is a much stronger candidate than Burns. By 2006, the 71-year-old Burns was in visible decline, losing his mojo, and bedeviled by allegations he had an unsavory relationship with Jack Abramoff.

    (3) Don citing a June, 2011, PPP poll that reports that 31 percent self-identified as Democrats, 39 percent as Republicans, and 30 percent as independents, concludes that Republicans have an 8-point advantage in the state. I urge caution using those numbers. The 30 percent independents finding is much too high. Most independents are closet partisans (http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/mark-mellman/192503-myth-of-the-independent-voter). After the leaners are smoked out, the percentage of true independents drops to 10-12 percent. We don't know how the PPP poll would have allocated the leaners, and we should be leery of assuming the leaners would have been allocated by a 31:39 ratio.

    (4) With the exception of Montana's seat in the U.S. House, which Democrats have in effect conceded to Rehberg beginning in 2002, Democrats do well in statewide races, holding both seats in the U.S. Senate, the governorship, and MT AG, SecState, Auditor, and Public Instruction.

    The contest remains competitive, but given Tester is the incumbent and the state elects Democrats to most statewide office, I would expect Tester to enjoy a slight lead, or at least parity. Unfortunately, he's trailing by a few points with a very low number of undecideds, and has been eating Rehberg's dust for the last year. That's why I think something fundamental is amiss with his campaign.

    • James,

      I think you are grossly wrong about independants this year. I get the link the you post but CNN, MSNBC, and even FOX news has reported on the move by moderates toward the middle/independants this election cycle. The problem is that the "purists" for both sides have gone to great lenths to remove "RINOS" and "DINOS" from their party. The insulting rhetoric alone has cost them at least a few points of support.

      Tester has a proven record of action which Rheberg (regardless of his more years in congress) does NOT have. This is already resounding with voters from both spectrums. Further, Rheberg has been actively campaigning for months and Tester ran his first ad last week. The lack of movement in the polls is far more telling about Rheberg's support.

      I would not get too concerned about poll numbers at this point.

    • I'm not sure what advantages Tester derives from being an incumbent, though. What are they?

      I also reject the idea that the there is something amiss with the campaign. What campaign? It really hasn't started yet. Since neither man faces a real primary challenge, the only campaigning that has taken place is some outside ads (mostly critical of Tester) and one Tester ad in limited circulation.

      This is going to be a challenging race for Tester, but the biggest problems are just demographic. Despite success in the statewides recently, the Montana electorate leans Republican. That Tester is closer than the D/R gap means it will continue to be competitive.

  4. I am confused as to how contributions from individuals that work for corporations equates to contributions from corporations.

    -RPK

    • It's called "bundling". Groups of executives each contribute the maximum amount, letting the canddiate know that they are acting in concert and expecting a return. Generally these contributions are meant to advance the interests of the corporate employer, and are non-ideological. And generally, the executives know that they must participate for the sake of job security.

      • Except there's no evidence of that happening here, not that evidence ever has anything to do with your commentary.

          • Has anyone ever seen Mark, Matt, J.C. and Lizard in the same room?

            Just curious.

          • I know JC well, am getting to know Mark through the past couple of years, but have never met Lizard and have no idea who he/she even is. Thanks for the question Don.

          • The Brew Crew aren't going to win many games this year giving up 11 runs….

          • Cards are always tough. I'm a Reds fan, being from Billings. I do remember that the Reds swept the Brewers in the opening series last year. Brewers won the division, and the Cards got hot when it mattered. Gallardo wll be here for them this year. But that Cardinals lineup is impressive.

  5. FYI:

    Please join…

    League of Conservation Voters Action Fund and Thomas Barron ~ Sandy Buffett ~ Kimo Campbell ~ Tylynn Gordon ~ Rampa R. Hormel ~ Gene Karpinski ~ Theresa Keaveny ~ Michael Kieschnick ~ Bill Meadows ~ Scott A. Nathan ~ Kathleen Welch (host committee in formation)

    For a reception in support of Hon. Jon Tester (MT)

    Tuesday, June 7, 2011
    5:30 – 6:30 p.m.
    Union Station, Columbus Court, Washington, DC

    Hosts: $1,000 (per person)
    Guests: $100+

    RSVP to Jennifer Milley at LCV AF/202.454.4568 or Jennifer_Milley@lcv.org

    You can make a contribution online at: https://lcv.zissousecure.com/donate/tester (Montanans for Tester)

    Or make checks payable to:
    “Montanans for Tester” Mailing address: LCV Action Fund, 1920 L Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036

    Contributions or gifts to “Montanans for Tester” are not tax deductible. An individual can contribute as much as $5,000 ($2,500 for the primary election, and $2,500 for the general election). Married couples may together give a total of $10,000. Federal Election Campaign Laws prohibit contributions from corporations, labor unions, and foreign nationals who are not admitted for permanent residence. All contributions must be made from personal funds and may not be reimbursed by any other person.

    Paid for by the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund, http://www.lcv.org, and authorized by Montanans for Tester.

      • Issues like Tester's FJRA should have caught their eye but did not because it is behind-the-scenes. Of the 11 votes they used to score people, nine, by my count, we're not even close. So their scorecard tells us nothing substantial.

        It's been my experience that LCV will tilt their scorecards in this manner, picking slam-dunk issues, and this in my mind makes them a Democratic Front Group. I don't take their scorecards seriously.

        • Of course you don't. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest, however, that the LCV is somewhat more important entity when it comes to assessing political candidates than you are.

          • You've dug in, and no matter what I say cover your ears and say Like Jon Like Jon Like Jon. I think that had I been softer with you, showed you his finances and voting record, and at the same time did not presume that you were a bot …. Nah. You're Jon all the way down.

            There's always baseball …

          • Tiresome. Why don't you wander off into psychoanalysis again? Isn't that about where we are in this cycle of posts?

            Or is this the one where you talk about how rich you are? I get confused.

          • You know, as I look back I don’t recall youever making a cogent analysis or defense of the porblems that I and others bring up with Democrats. We are seriosu people, and the failings of Democrats are severe. Your defense is something like “yet, go to psychoanalysis” or “tiresome.”

            We are critics of Jon Tester, we give our reasons. I am generally more critical of Democrats for occupying the position of leader of what we call “the left” in the right wing land, and failing to lead. Others, like Matt, focus on FJRA and other specific issues.

            Wat have you got in the way of substance?

          • It’s just willfully ignoring it, Mark. I (and others) have engaged you on policy questions. Sooner (rather than later) you always wander off into amateur psychoanalysis and/or claims that your opponents are either too stupid or brainwashed to accept your version of truth. I’ve certainly engaged Matt on substance about FJRA and JC about swipe fees. It’s just that we don’t agree.

            You seem incapable of accepting the possibility that someone could independently and intelligently disagree with you. That is what is so tiresome.

            If anything, you’re doing more harm to what you believe.

          • I don’t know how I harm what I believe. If you think that I care that I convince people, get real. There have always only been a few of us who swim upstream. That will not change.

            I believe what I believe. I see Democrats immobile, and worse yet supporting things that they would oppose we’re they advanced by the other party. That’s the interesting part, what you call “amateur psychoanalysis”, as if voters and consumers have not been studied in depth for over s century. Pardon me if I find human behavior interesting. All I can tell you is to read Bernays, Ellul, LeBon, Lippmann, Niebuhr, Chomsky, and then tell me that you don’t fit a pattern, you views manufactured, your opinions given you by authority figures.

            I know that insults you, as you like everyone insist you are your own man with your own opinions, but you are like every other Democrat. So tell me, what am I missing? If you all think alike, is it safe to say that no one is thinking?

          • Don, I don’t know how not to be “tiresome” when you keep throwing the same hash at us time and again. Nothing sinks in, you never answer your critics substantively. You just throw out insults.

      • As I pointed out over a 4/20, I've heard from a number of LCV employees that they don’t support much of what Tester has done regarding his wolf-rider, mandated logging bill, guns in parks, keeping lead in ammo, etc. My impression is that the LCV’s support of Tester is more anti-Rehberg, than pro-Tester, especially considering his wolf and logging riders, etc. Go ahead and consider this a "good sign" all you want Don.

        • Of course you think that, Matt. Forced to choose between your anecdotal observations and the demonstrated commitment of the LCV, I'll trust the latter.

          I missed your commentary today about Rehberg's tour around the state during which he has told serial polluters that there is too much regulation on their industries.

          I'm sure we'll see that soon.

          • Don: LCV employees directly telling me this is not an "anecdotal observation" in this context. Again, you are not privy to the internal discussions taking place within the environmental movement anymore than I'm privy to the internal discussions taking place at your school. Of course, one big difference is that I don't blog about internal discussions taking place at your school and then mock you for not knowing much about teaching.

            The past 5 days I've been dealing with one of the worst coughs/colds/flu's of my life, so I've been lying pretty low trying to heal up. I think I saw a headline about Rehberg's tour with a bad picture in the Missoulian, but I'm not certain. As I pointed out over at 4/20:

            Of course, Rehberg’s environmental record is pitiful, I’d never argue that it isn’t. However, as many of the pro-Tester people point out, Rehberg hasn’t been very effective in the House, so much of his anti-environmental voting record, or bills he’s co-sponsored, really don’t amount to “trashing the environment” on the ground. However, bills like the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act (which Rehberg has co-sponsored) do make good fodder for campaign ads, even if they have no chance on earth of becoming law. And let’s not forgot that bills like this allow special interest groups to fundraise with doom-and-gloom, send us more money so we can stop Rehberg from developing wildlands pleas….while these same groups ignore the roadless areas and Wilderness Study Areas that would be released by Tester’s mandated logging bill.

            There’s a solid case to be made that given the current administration and current make up of Congress, an anti-environmental House member (Rehberg) does a lot less long-term damage to the environment than a conservative Dem in the Senate (Tester) who wants to delist ESA species via a rider, or mandate extra national forest logging through a rider. Of course, that situation might change if Nov 2012 brings about a Triple R on the national level.

          • Name some of them and it's not anecdotal. Tell us who the LCV employees are. Otherwise, it's just you saying it.

            You've repeated that last paragraph on at least a couple of spots today, but do you really believe a Republican-controlled Senate and House aren't an incredible threat to environmental protections, wilderness, and endangered species?

            You're letting your personal animosity get in the way of what is right in front of your face. Republicans will gut the Clean Air Act, will eliminate the ESA or dramatically reduce its reach, and will open up every forest they can to logging. I can't understand how someone could even pretend otherwise.

          • For pity’s frickin’ sake. It doesn’t matter how many LCV employees tell Koehler anything. How many Board members of LCV are on Team Rehberg? What’s that? None? That’s what matters.

          • Don, I’m not going to share people’s names here, likely getting them in hot water with their boss, just to appease you. You can doubt that it happened, and I could care less.

            This is especially true after what happened two weeks ago, when I got a call from a dear friend of mine who called me with this news: After 15 years of incredibly dedicated work for forest and wilderness protection for one of the largest enviro outfits in the US this friend was promptly fired due to, among other things, speaking out and questioning, among other policies, the organization’s support of the Tester mandated logging bill, and other quid-pro quo bills. Doesn’t matter though, as you won’t believe me anyway. Whatever, really. Like I already said, I don’t claim to know what was said during conversations in the teachers lounge at your school, so strange that you claim to know all about the internal discussions of the enviro movement.

            By the way, do you remember, Don, when we had a Republican House, Republican Senate and GW Bush in the White House? That was following the mid-term elections in 2002. Was the GOP successful during those years at gutting the Clean Air Act, eliminating the ESA or opening up every forest they could to logging, as you seem to indicate with happen if Senator Tester isn’t re-elected. If not, why do you suppose that didn’t happen back in 2002? My reading of the 2012 elections is that a Triple R coming out of ‘em is sort of unlikely, and if it does happen, the enviro movement will try and defeat all the crap that comes up, same as any congressional year, honestly. Funny, but I don’t recall too much of your help in these regards.

            Regardless, some of us prefer to call out bad enviro policy no matter if it’s coming from a R or a D. And as long as some around here want to pretend that Tester’s mandated logging bill is so great, others of us will continue to point out it its significant shortfalls, especially as America’s public lands legacy is concerned, which may be one reason Tester has to resort to trying to attach it as a rider to un-related, must pass bills.

            Besides, I have one vote, my wife has one vote, and neither Tester nor Rehberg are getting them, so that’s about a wash, wouldn’t you say? Thanks.

          • It’s more innuendo and smear. It’s the cheapest of rhetorical strategies to invoke anonymous people to smear an opponent or her idea. There’s no way to argue against it, especially when you up the ante with fear of reprisal.

            You know why Tester has attached his bill to riders. It’s certainly not because groups like yours have opposed it; the majority of environmental organizations with significant membership backs Tester’s bill. The person who is blocking it is Dennis Rehberg, and while the bill he’ll try to pass through Congress will probably help you fund raise, it certainly won’t protect wilderness areas.

            In the end, maybe that’s it. Your group will do better under Republican administration and raise more money. I’ve heard some people in the environmental movement tell me that, after all.

  6. I'll briefly enter this discussion to clarify the post I wrote over at 4&20 (that is if Don doesn't censor me). And I'll not be back to engage in defense or counterpoint. People can do that over at 4&20 on my post if they choose.

    1) RPS, I clearly stated in my post that the contributions were from individuals. Open Secrets aggregates donors by industry and company for illustrative and reporting purposes. Don confuses individual donations with corporate donations. I'm not going to divine his intent in doing so.

    2) My post was an attempt to give one answer (out of many possible) to why Tester's poll numbers are not reflecting the popularity shown him via individual contributions. It is clear that he is raising tons of money from east coast interests, and those people don't get polled in Montana. Additionally, Montanans have been known to dim their view of politicians who predominantly raise money from out of state interests. This was one line of attack that Tester had against Burns in 2006. Now it will be used against him. My post just points out that he has an Achilles heel. And those who wish to sweep it under the rug because they believe other aspects of their candidate outweigh his reliance on Wall Street and lobbyists for his funding do so at their own peril.

    3) I do not agree with the following statement of Don's, that it is: "simply unfair to suggest that Tester is somehow beholden to big banks". I have written many posts in the past at 4&20 outlining Tester's votes on Banking Committee amendments like being against the Brown-Kaufman Too Big to Fail provision, or his stance backing major banks against Credit Unions and Community Banks in the credit card swipe bill. Jon has repeatedly voted for Wall Street interests in Committee. Those votes are reflected in the contributions he has raised from bankers and lobbyists.

    4) And finally, when politics comes down to one candidate accessing unrestricted SuperPAC funds necessitates the other to raise money from the very interests that drove our economy into the ground, then politics become meaningless. The people have lost control of the political process to the wealthy, and the outcome from either candidate is going to reflect the interests of those who have funded him the most.

    I did not write "he’s taken money from the “wrong constituency.” I wrote: "He’s representing the wrong constituency" when it comes to issues surrounding Wall Street. Voters can make the inference if they want to, and all my post suggests is that maybe enough have to show that one of his weaknesses–relying on Wall Street and lobbyist funding–weakens his polling.

    To answer more directly James Conner's assertion that something is fundamentally amiss with Tester's campaign, I would assert that Jon's reliance on east coast lobbyist, PR flak, and Wall Street banker funding has seriously weakened him as a candidate in many (not just my) Montanans's opinion. I have had many conversations with Montanans all over the state about how they view Jon as just another good ole boy gone bad in Washington.

    • You've also repeatedly ignored the fact that you're wrong about Tester and big banks. Just because you keep writing it doesn't make it true, no matter how much you believe it.

      Do you really believe that big banks would rather have Jon Tester in the Senate that Dennis Rehberg? Really? Are you that disconnected from reality?

      • "Disagreement doesn’t have to be unpleasant and it doesn’t have to be personal. "

        Is your Commenting Policy just for others? Or does it apply to writers here, too? Accusing me of being disconnected from reality is a rather personal assertion. I'd ask that you kindly refrain from ad hominem per your own policy.

          • Don, I politely (to others as well as yourself) point out the obvious. There are those who feel that disagreement is itself unpleasant and personal. And yes, that is somewhat disconnected from reality.

    • While your side detests Jon's coziness with Wall Street his overwhelming defeat will fall at the feet of Health Care and his allegiance to Obama.

      Much as you would want Montanans don't care 'bout banks, they don't want more wilderness, and judging by Max's reign they don't care where contributions come from.

      They do care 'bout the deficit, out of control spending, and the survival of SS and Medicare.

      Something liberals/progressives continue to ignore.

      • If they care about the deficit and out of control spending, why in the hell would they vote for Dennis Rehberg, who championed the wars and tax cuts that created much of the problem?

      • Very curious behavior for both of you: Swede thinks that Democratic deficits are bad, but Republican ones OK, Don the opposite. Every time we have an election and switch parties you change horses on the merry-go-round. Ditto with wars, tax cuts, Guantanamo, roadless lands, civil liberties – your positions are married to your parties, so you criticize the other party for doing the same thing your party does while in power.

        Classic cognitive dissonance.

        • No, despite your simplistic assessment, that's not what I believe.

          I think that giving enormous tax breaks was a terrible policy decision as was starting a couple of incredibly expensive decade-long wars.

          Governments should spend in deficit when needed to boost their economy. They shouldn't do it just to hand over money to plutocrats.

          Terribly complex, I know.

          • Yet, when your people carry forward with the policy you are still there jabbering about the other party. That’s the whole deal Don – the policies don’t change, but your opinions do depending on who is in office. Bush war bad, Obama wars good, well thought out.Bbush tax cut bad, Obama, well damn! What choice did behave? Bush surveillance bad, Obama no talky bout that stuff, just keep on doing it. Assassinate American … Wait. Even Bush wouldn’t go there. Prosecute whistleblowers like THEY are the problem … ID is predictably Democratic. When we Offer evidence that nothing has changed despite that big 2008 win, you get your panties in a twist.

            Excuse me for going all psychoanalytic on you, but that’s deflective behavior. You got nuthin’, so you go on the offensive.

            And no, I’m not rich. You’re devolving as time goes on.

  7. There's a really good documentary called "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Politics" on YouTube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwbKcVy6JWE

    The IT of P is a political theory developed by UMass prof Thomas Ferguson, and has been around for a long time. His data tries to determine the impact of money in politics, and he finds that there is an extremely high correlation for wealthy people who contribute and legislation they favor, virtually no correlation for middle and working class even if they make modest contributions en masse, and a negative correlation with the poor. That means that virtually all people who voted for Jon Tester (me included) get no return for that vote, the poor get stiffed in spite of their support, while his wealthy contributors are highly rewarded.

    It's not an opinion, but rather a studied theory backed by data and evidence.

  8. It’s hard to see what the fight is about since, according to many, Tester will win handily by beating voters into submission with the onslaught of political ads bought with his massive amount of wall street, lobbyist, and special interest money. No opponent stands a chance against that tsunami.

        • Craig has a good point, Don. No Republican candidate would ever take massive amounts of Wall Street, lobbyist or special interest money to advance a negative TV campaign. Please pay no attention to the million dollar checks written to the Republican frontrunners during the primary, or their skanky TV spots. Or those foul Chamber of Commerce/Karl Rove anti-Tester attack ads. Or the Abramoffs, DeLays, Burns. Or the super PACs made possible by the conservative members of SCOTUS …

          Those Republicans are saints.

          • Pete, my reply is still holding in moderation or has been deleted altogether. Here it is again without the dynamic links:

            “…I Won’t Sell Montana Down The Road By Cutting Deals With K Street Lobbyists . . . .” Jon Tester, Montana Senate Debate, Butte, MT, 9/23/06
            ““Montanans sent me to the Senate partly to help clean up Washington, and I’m doing just that..” Jon Tester
            — Sunlightfoundation

            Pete, just how did Tester become the darling of K Streeters, banks, etc. and rise to the top of senators taking special interest cash?
            –Open Secrets

            Why do Dems hold 13 of the top 15 recipient spots in Open Secrets list of Senators on the take?

          • Special interest cash? What defines that, Craig? You defend the idea of Citizens United and corporate spending, so clearly you don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. You just want to carry water for Rehberg. That’s what you do. No matter how inconsistent or absurd it makes your position, you run around defending Rehberg.

            Tester’s record in favor of working people is clear. He’s written, sponsored, and voted for legislation that is in their interests. That’s why we need to re-elect him.

    • You’re right. I should learn my lesson and never respond critically to the progressive intelligentsia. Instead, we should all marvel at how insightful the same 3 arguments against Senator Tester are, each time they are advanced.

  9. Against your one argument, that he’s Jon Tester, and that’s enough for you. You never do delve into substance as I see it. You simply champion your guy. It’s more like religion than policy.

  10. The sad part about this whole thing is that while Matt, JC, Lizard etc are actively working at hurting Tester’s campaign, if Richy Rehberg wins, the same people will be stapling thier hands to their foreheads and lamenting the Rehberg’s stupidity in the Senate. I find that kind of funny. In a group I used to belong to, we used to give out an award – “The Golden Nail”. Any time one of these overly dramatic people made a stink that award worthy, we would gift them a golden nail to permenantly attack the back of their hand to their forehead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>