tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post4059670637060078475..comments2023-05-25T03:08:18.166-06:00Comments on Montana Headlines: Bushman for Senate?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-54559730730936742262007-10-26T20:16:00.000-06:002007-10-26T20:16:00.000-06:00P.S. Because of a concerned reader responding by ...P.S. Because of a concerned reader responding by e-mail, we hasten to point out that the "King of the Montana GOP" was an exercise in the ridiculous. <BR/><BR/>Of late, MH has gotten a bit carried away with hyperbole and dry humor that some might take seriously, and we'll try to tone it down in the future and be more sober.Montana Headlineshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16149094528547382638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-45797707805915584562007-10-25T17:16:00.000-06:002007-10-25T17:16:00.000-06:00Moorcat: I didn't mean to sound like I thought yo...Moorcat: I didn't mean to sound like I thought you were a hard-core Baucus supporter. I perceive you as being one of the few people in the blogosphere who is representative of that large segment of the Montana voting population that will vote cross-ticket, depending on the candidate. My comment about Baucus supporters was intended to be more generally directed to the blogo-ether.<BR/><BR/>If you want to see what the fuss was about, do a YouTube search and plug in "max baucus for senate mike taylor gay" -- and watch the infamous ad. The words are talking about one thing, but the purpose to using the video footage itself was pretty obvious. <BR/><BR/>Ed: First of all, while I've never met Taylor and thus want to be circumspect in how strongly I state this, I would think that the GOP could and should have found a much better candidate than Taylor to run against Baucus in 2002.<BR/><BR/>If the <I>only</I> point to that ad was to show that he was a "puka-shell-wearing dandy with a permanent," rather than conveying a gay-hairdresser implication as well -- then the Dems would have used a more representative example of of Taylor's many leisure-suit-wearing infomercials, wouldn't they? <BR/><BR/>From what I understand, this was the only one or one of only a couple where the beauty-tip subject was a man rather than a woman. Give the Dems some credit for knowing how to subtly gay-bait while showing that Taylor was a dandy. You are right that it was more than gay-baiting (or whatever you want to call it,) but it certainly included it -- and at least according to a major Baucus supporter/donor who bragged to me about it at the time, "finishing him off" by making Taylor look gay was the whole point.<BR/><BR/>I would even go so far as to admit that the visual message that <I>you</I> describe would have been a legitimate one. After all, he was portraying himself as a rugged rancher when it was Baucus who was really the rugged man of the land. And he was pretending that he had spent the bulk of his life living in Montana rather than in a far-away big-city, when it was really Baucus who has been living in Montana non-stop all of these years.<BR/><BR/>It was fair game for the Dems to point out in the most effective way possible that this wasn't the case. They couldn't just <I>say</I> that Taylor had spent most of his life in the big city, for reasons that underlie my sarcasm in the previous paragraph.<BR/><BR/>You are probably right that any campaign would have used that footage. Certainly the writers of the Kennedy Chronicles would have.<BR/><BR/>Both attacks are distasteful for exactly the same reason: Rehberg is going to win, just like Baucus was going to win (and it was even surer in the latter case.) Both attacks were aimed at personal humiliation -- the sort of thing that if the blow lands firmly, makes a guy's kids not want to show up at school the next day.<BR/><BR/>And in fairness to Baucus, at the time they ran the ad, Republicans still were in charge of most other things in the state -- in the off-chance that Baucus had lost that race, it would have been devastating to the Dems, just as it would be devastating for the GOP to lose Rehberg's seat today. So some overkill is politically understandable, even if it is distasteful in human terms.<BR/><BR/>The kids at the GOP are just trying to imitate the big boys across town. I personally don't think it is particularly effective, but who am I to talk? -- those guys are the paid professionals and presumably know what they're doing, right? <BR/><BR/>Ziegler's letter to the Gazette on the other hand, made a legitimate point: if there is a precedent that Democrats demanded that Conrad Burns return that portion of his commissioner's salary that he spent campaigning, then why isn't that "rule" followed by Kennedy in his runs for higher office? This has nothing to do with being a "perpetual candidate."<BR/><BR/>The "Kennedy Chronicles" aren't funny, they don't seem to land any meaningful blows (I'm shocked, shocked, that a politician would use an office as a springboard to higher office,) and any good points that might be made seem to be lost in a sea of silly snark -- again, in my amateur opinion.<BR/><BR/>So no, I don't know anyone who likes those e-mails -- but then I've never discussed them with anyone. I personally don't like that sort of thing because I don't think it works when Republicans do it. After all, it reinforces the stereotype that Republicans are mean, whereas Dems can get by with that sort of thing because they are the soft and cuddly party that loves kids.<BR/><BR/>When they make me king of the Montana GOP, I promise to engage in more dignified (or at least wickedly funny) sarcasm in my attack e-mails.Montana Headlineshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16149094528547382638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-49679504760857020492007-10-25T14:57:00.000-06:002007-10-25T14:57:00.000-06:00Montana Headlines: I'm still not sure the hairdres...Montana Headlines: I'm still not sure the hairdresser ads had anything to do with gay-baiting. It was enough to show that Mike Taylor, who had been trying to look and sound like Teddy Roosevelt, had been a puka-shell-wearing dandy with a permanent not too many years earlier. I can't think of any campaign, under any political banner, that wouldn't have made use of that old footage.<BR/><BR/>Then there are the GOP e-mail alerts attacking Bill Kennedy, who's running against Rehberg. Today's e-mail was even more childish and obnoxious than the last one, which I hadn't thought possible. We're all used to dirty tricks, but I don't know if we can stand these juvenile antics. Does <I>anybody</I> in the Montana Republican Party like what these clowns are doing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-75090334679794192552007-10-25T00:24:00.000-06:002007-10-25T00:24:00.000-06:00I am not sure what you are refering to by the "Mik...I am not sure what you are refering to by the "Mike Tyler" reference. I am assuming this is something that happened before I returned to Montana. One of these days you will have to fill me in on the details (facts, please....)<BR/><BR/>Also understand that calling me a Baucus supporter would be stretching things a bit. While Baucus was one of the first Policians I voted for once I was old enough to vote (the first time he ran for office... I guess that dates me.), I have some doubts and issues with Baucus as he is now. I think that at times, he has lost the pulse of Montana and I think he has been in Washington DC too long. I remember a star struck Congressman that would physically remove a lobbiest from his office. The Baucus we have now is not the same person. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I do like Baucus more than Lange. I honestly don't know enough about Bushman to comment.<BR/><BR/>MoorcatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-76361451449822904142007-10-24T17:50:00.000-06:002007-10-24T17:50:00.000-06:00Don't worry. While we might gently poke at Sen. B...Don't worry. While we might gently poke at Sen. Baucus once in a while, no-one around Montana Headlines would dare "take on Baucus" in any real sense of those words. <BR/><BR/>We know what happens to those who try, and we still have kids to raise, mortgages to pay off, and retirements to fund.<BR/><BR/>The idea of <I>actually</I> taking anti-Burns ads and literally buying TV time to play them wasn't <I>exactly</I> serious. Sorry if it sounded like a real proposal.<BR/><BR/>Let's just say that Baucus really <I>did</I> take money from clients of a convicted felon, whether or not anything illegal or unethical was involved -- whereas Mike Taylor really <I>wasn't</I> a gay hairdresser as far as anyone knows.<BR/><BR/>But that didn't stop Montana Dems from gay-baiting their way from what was already a sure-fire win into a landslide, apparently just so they could divert Baucus money into activities that would support other races. <BR/><BR/>Baucus is hardly the one in this race who has particular reason to worry. His supporters can relax.Montana Headlineshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16149094528547382638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-36305454863131483552007-10-24T14:15:00.000-06:002007-10-24T14:15:00.000-06:00If you are going to take on Baucus, you need to st...If you are going to take on Baucus, you need to start by steering away from false information. Baucus did NOT take money from Abramoff. He recieved a small amount of money from an Abramoff associate and returned it once the connection to Abramoff was discovered. In fact, most of Congress at the time (Including Denny Rehberg) took money from Abramoff or one of his associates and not all of them returned that money when the Abramoff connection was discovered. <BR/><BR/>Burns, on the other hand, received more money from Abramoff directly than any other Congress Critter. Burn's staff and Abramoff's staff were interchangeable. Abramoff himself said that they never failed to get anything they wanted from Burns...<BR/><BR/>Baucus has lots of issues you can use to attack him but Abramoff isn't one of them. If you truly want to try to topple Baucus, you are going to have to do it smart. Most people won't buy into blind flailing and attacks and it makes you look truly bad. Fact checking is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>MoorcatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-43579459338124996152007-10-24T09:50:00.000-06:002007-10-24T09:50:00.000-06:00Thanks for the kind comments.Thanks for the kind comments.Montana Headlineshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16149094528547382638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-38828742868438449702007-10-24T09:16:00.000-06:002007-10-24T09:16:00.000-06:00Interesting analysis, and I appreciate your non-re...Interesting analysis, and I appreciate your non-reactionary stance to the LITW piece. What passes for cogent analysis over there leaves a bit to be desired: when in doubt, yell out, "They hate kids! They hate old people! They'll stab your dog with a rusty nail!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05570319370054739936noreply@blogger.com