I’m not sure that it’s exactly wise politics to both sound like a petulant child and remind the voters how sensibly Governor Schweitzer has overseen the budget. I know I’d certainly rather have a Governor with common sense running the state’s finances that return to the boom and bust mentality of Republican governors. As Schweitzer told the press:

“My experience in Montana, going all the way back to my grandfather’s days, is there’s about three bad years for every good year in Montana,” he said, adding that the state has seen three or four good years. “So it never hurts to have a little extra grain in the bin.

“It’s the same kind of philosophy,” he added. “There will be some tough years in the future, and I don’t know if it’s happening sooner or later.

Sounds like pretty sensible leadership to me. If this is all Roy Brown has in the well, it’s going to be a long three months for him.

In fact, On April 22, 2003,  he seemed to tell Ken Guggenheim of the Associated Press that it was immoral to hold back food from any people to punish their government:

"While we may not like his government, food is not something that ought to be held back from any community in the world," said Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who sees Cuba as a potential market for wheat, barley and dry beans grown in his state.

On September 13, 2003, Representative Rehberg seemed absolutely excited about the idea of trading with Cuba. He told Courtney Lowery how excited he was to sell Montana agriculture to Cuba:

Rehberg said there is also room for Montana organic farmers to sell their products to Cuba. The last time he was in the country, he met with President Fidel Castro, who he said was specifically interested in importing organic products.

In the past year, as sugar markets dropped for Cuba, the country has made a big push to increase its cattle industry.

Cuba this year is hoping to buy 100,000 head of cattle, Rehberg said, and so far, the country has imported a "minuscule" amount of that. That leaves ample room for Montana cattle ranchers to step in.

In my mind, it’s actually a sign of political courage to change one’s mind when the circumstances change. Betraying deeply held principles for the sake of a few campaign dollars? Positively Burnsian.

Representative Rehberg said this in 2003, after visiting Cuba twice:

"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.

Then in September of 2004, the issue became very cloudy for him:

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.

That’s right. His mind changed in one day, and shortly after, the cash began to role in from pro-embargo groups. The most amazing part of the story is that Rehberg tried to claim that visiting Cuba is what changed his mind, even though his votes didn’t change for over a year after his last visit.

It’s not like this is some principled stand against authoritarian governments. As we all know, Rehberg has no problem with trade to Kazahkstan, one of the most repressive regimes in Asia. He has no problem with trade to China, a one-party state that violent represses dissidents and is occupying China. So what principle motivated this change of heart?

It seems like principles aren’t the issue at all with Rehberg, who in the past few years has done more flips than a Chinese diver and more flops than the Italian soccer team.

Dennis Rehberg on the issues? Certainly ask him where he stands. Just make sure to check back tomorrow.

Quote from Zogby:

When was the last time the nation was waiting on the Presidential outcome from Montana? It may this year.

Fox loves him some guns.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with that position, except that Fox’s positions statements are largely meaningless. It’s a list of concerns that exist for the most part in the paranoid fears of extremist gun advocates, federal policies that the Attorney General has no jurisdiction over, and expansions of gun “rights” that are, frankly, unsafe.

More importantly, Fox gun rights to become a wedge issue in this campaign. It’s probably the reason that he keeps bringing the issue up. On his site, he claims:

Unlike my opponent, I am 100% committed to protecting your right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. and Montana Constitutions.

It’s important enough for Fox to underline on the web page, but not important enough to substantiate, and that’s exactly the point of this strategy. In practical terms, impact on state and federal legislation about guns, there is likely little difference between the two candidates. Fox thinks that a few pictures of him holding guns and a few statements defending rights unlikely to be lost makes him an issues-based candidate drawing important distinctions between himself and Steve Bullock.

What it really makes him is someone misleading voters with scare tactics and pandering to the most extreme elements of special interest groups.

Patriotism?

Would a real patriot stand by while Rudy Giuliani’s wife shows such blatant disrespect for the national anthem and our nation’s flag?

Not one American flag pin to be seen in this picture anywhere. Not one.

On a less Malkinish note, I can’t tell who would excite me more as a McCain running mate, Rudy Giuliani or Boby Jindal. I think the exorcist wins.

A Muslim immigrant from Morocco was trying to attain citizenship in France. She wore a burqa. Her wearing of the burqa was not the issue though, officials say. It was her unwillingness to comply with any of the exceptions that the French government was trying to give her. 

The officials asked her to show her face so they could identify her. She told them that her religion did not allow her to do this. The officials offered to have a female officer check her passport and face and that all men would have to leave the room. Faiza M. declined again. The officials might have settled on fingerprints as a means of identification, but it is obvious that a state will need to identify a new citizen. How to issue a passport without a photograph of a face? Faiza M. declared that she was not interested in her political rights and that she would not want to vote. Clearly, it is the right of a citizen not to vote. But her reasoning raised eyebrows. She told the officials that only men should have the right to vote. The court, in the end, was not sure whether it was her own free will to sue the government – or her husband’s. On all occasions Faiza M. showed up with her husband. She declared that she had not been wearing the burqa in Morocco, but has been doing so at the suggestion of her French husband. She said she did not know what the words “laicism” and “democracy” meant.

I mean, I agree that it is her right to practice her religion. But I guess I am just confused because even when the government is trying to comply to her religious standards (like having a female officer check her passport) she declined. Why is that? The French government is trying hard to humor her, but she doesn’t really seem very grateful for all of their efforts. Therefore, I do think that it is right for them to deny her citizenship. She is not above the law - no one is. They tried making it easier for her, but she refused. Any thoughts on this?

Now, having been at college recently, I put too much importance on language, like a good college student. I thought of my own family’s use of the word “holler”. I can definitely trace it back to my grandmother, who likes to say things like “if anything’s wrong, just holler.” Now, my grandmother is not black, but she is from Oklahoma. And I’d be willing to bet that the current hip use of ‘Holler’ (or ‘holla”) stems from usage by black people who also left Oklahoma, only they migrated to Chicago and New York, not Baker Montana (and those white people who did go to Chicago and New York had an easy time mixing with the white people already there, thus dropping ‘holler’, ‘y’all’, and other elements of their vocab identity).

And fifty years later, the urban world rediscovers the word ‘holler’ through its use in black popular culture and decides this is a black word. And they have a debate with 60 comments about it, because they never bothered to look beyond the edges of the suburbs to notice a word that has been in continuous usage for god knows how long.

Short story is: Liberals on the coasts need to get out of their cities every once and a while (or just out of their universities, for a start) if they want to be taken seriously when they make a legitimate point.

Obama: Senator McCain, which is more important, Iraq or Afghanistan?

McCain: They are both important parts of the War on Terror.

Obama: Previously you’ve said the surge has been effective in Iraq. If having those extra troops has been so helpful, why do we have five times as many troops in Iraq, where you insist we are winning, than in Afghanistan, where we are clearly suffering more casualties that before? Would you remedy this situation?

McCain: uhhhh, yeah.

Obama: By pulling out of Iraq over a period of time to free up more troops for the vital mission in Afghanistan? Or by lighting the Signal Fires so that the Riders of Rohan would come and supplement our already thin-spread military?

I wonder if he might understand how his latest foray into stupidity might be offensive:

When the Primary had three actual educators running against a professional Indian, you thought one of the educators might get the nomination for the OPI job?

Surely you know the Democratic Party better than that!

A professional Indian? I know that, in conservative circles, cheap shots about identity politics pass for witty discourse, but maybe a journalist like Mr. Rye claims to be should actually know something. The people who voted for Denise Juneau voted for her because she was the most qualified candidate in an impressive field. The Democrats were fortunate enough to have four qualified candidates running for Superintendent.  That’s certainly four more than the Republicans had to offer.

Dave Rye? Professional ass.