• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

For Montanan's - Another Truth About Jon Tester

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
GO OUT AND VOTE TOMORROW!!!! :!: :!: :!: :!: :D :D :D :D




Tester's Dilemma: To Hunt or Not to Hunt?
Tester proves he can't be trusted to fight for our 2nd Amendment Rights

Jon Tester has been trying to convince Montanans he's a supporter of outdoor enthusiasts and our 2nd Amendment rights. Just take a look at his latest mailings, radio, and TV advertisements- they all prominently feature Tester posing with guns and tout hunting and outdoors images.

The problem is, according the Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife, Jon Tester hasn't had a hunting license since at least 1990. His ads are a blatant attempt to deceive Montana voters into thinking he's something he's not. How can he fight for Montana outdoorsman when he apparently hasn't had a hunting license for over 15 years?

What's even more worrisome is that Sen. Chuck "I want your guns" Schumer from New York has poured almost $4 million into the Montana Senate Race. How can we trust that Tester won't side with the very man who's trying buy this election for liberal Democrats? We can't.

Outdoor enthusiasts and gun rights supporters have been calling Republican Headquarters all across the state to express their outrage over Tester's latest misleading campaign literature and advertisements. They feel they deserve the truth, and they're right.

"It's time for Jon Tester to come clean with Montanans on his deceptive mailings and advertisements portraying him as an outdoorsman," said Senior Advisor Erik Iverson. "Tester apparently hasn't had a hunting license in over 15 years. Montanans deserve the truth and it's time for him to come clean on where he really stands on this important issue."
[/b]
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
I kind of remember their being a lot of people angry at Baucus over his stand on gun control in that he didn't represent the average Montanan... Am I imagining this or is my memory actually right (I tend to remember bumper stickers about it and stuff, he ran while I was out there, Burns must have run the last year I was there (2000) because I don't remember his campain at all.. Just remember Bill Yellotail running for something and Racicot running for reelection and winning by a lot.....

Question is, if my memory is right, was Baucus' stand on gun control and stuff public knowledge when he was elected or did he become "democrated" when he went to Washington? Can't say I ever liked the guy when I heard him speak but that would be the case with most politicians.. They just make my skin crawl :lol:
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
IL Rancher said:
I kind of remember their being a lot of people angry at Baucus over his stand on gun control in that he didn't represent the average Montanan... Am I imagining this or is my memory actually right (I tend to remember bumper stickers about it and stuff, he ran while I was out there, Burns must have run the last year I was there (2000) because I don't remember his campain at all.. Just remember Bill Yellotail running for something and Racicot running for reelection and winning by a lot.....

Question is, if my memory is right, was Baucus' stand on gun control and stuff public knowledge when he was elected or did he become "democrated" when he went to Washington? Can't say I ever liked the guy when I heard him speak but that would be the case with most politicians.. They just make my skin crawl :lol:


Baucus has been here forever, a stout Democrat, but he and Burns have worked together for the rancher. I don't think Tester will work so well because with Tester being Dem, he and Baucus will run away with Democrats' platform. Conrad Burns, being a Republican, kept a check on it. Jon Tester is trying to get Conrad Burns' seat so Montana will have 2 Dems in the US Senate (instead 1 Dem, 1 Repub.) and we still have Rehberg in the US House. Racicot was a popular governor, he was the Committee Chair for the National Republican Party, but he isn't anymore :cry:

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Not a Baucus supporter- but this is his NRA rating last time he ran...
2002 Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator Baucus a grade of B (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).

One thing I will say about Baucus- whether you call or write to cuss him out or give him advice- he will answer you and give you the reason he feels the way he does- whether it supports your position or not...

Not what I've found about Burns in the last couple years...I've sent him numerous e-mails, letters, even called-- asking for him to explain to me the $150,000+ worth of campaign donations he got from Abramoff, and why he voted the way he did - to add a special earmark to a bill to give the richest tribe in the US ( not even in Montana) $3 million+ after they had been ruled unacceptable under the BIA and Interior Dept guidelines-- and I've yet to get an answer... Same with why he changed his position on allowing the Chinese to build/operate factories on US territory (US Maurianas) and allow a Communist government to operate sweat shops with slave labor, forced abortions- which reduced Homeland Security and and allowed these factories to ship Chinese made projects to the US fraudulently labeled "Product of USA"....


When asked in public he has two answers-- "Theres nothing there, forget about it" or " I can't remember why I supported that".... :roll: Probably at good advice of his attorney- but I can't/won't vote for anyone that can't look you in the eye and answer your questions......

The John Birch Society's True Conservative Index rated Burns at a 45 - based on a scale of 1- 100 with 100 being top-- based on the following criteria:
The Conservative Index rates congressmen based on the traditional definition of conservatives — "adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements."

Baucus was rated at 17 :wink:

I don't know if Tester is the answer- but while Burns refuses to answer questions about his stink in D.C., the ongoing criminal investigation, the $90,000+ in campaign contributions he has spent on a criminal defense attorney (justified by calling it a Liberal conspiracy against him :roll: )- the worst that the Republicans could find against Tester was that when he took over this dads home butcher shop (slaughtering neighbors cattle for them) in the early 1990's he was operating with out having a license which the Inspector supposedly then warned him about, but he continued to operate for awhile before quitting the business.... The insinuation is that he was given special treatment- the comedy is that from the late 1980's to 2002, the Republicans were the party with the Governor and the administration in charge of these inspections and any charges to be filed :lol:

Been a nasty campaign- but win or lose---the Republican Party has lost a lot of credibility with their blind support of Burns when his ethical and moral values are so much in question......They should have done the same as they did with Foley and dropped both like a hot potato....
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
OT, I agree with you.

However, I cannot support Jon Tester.
There is a bigger picture here, and I'm voting for Burns.
Why is it we have to choose between two evils? I'm just afraid
Montana will lose BIG TIME with Tester in office. He can't
even carry his own TOWN.

Also, we have the country to think about and I don't think a
Democratic US Senator is going to be in our best interest.

FWIW
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
Okay... so I remember right and wrong lol.. I remember folks talking about Racicot being considered for the VP spot under Bush.. Thought it was interesting and wonder how different it would be if he had been selected by the Bush Team instead of Cheaney.. Not saying it would have been better or worse but I imagine it would be different as far as the Halliburtan "scandal" went...

I am not a big fan of any state being completely controlled by Dems, especially an Ag/mining state... We had a Senator here, the one that Obama replaced, that chose not to run for Re-election after one term... He was a republican, Fitzgerald, and filled a seat that had been controlled by dems for years, first Alan Simpson who was a conservative Dem and than the lightweight known as Carol Mosely Braun after the Clarence Thomas hearings....Didn't always toe the party line and I liked him for it but he was so disgusted with Washington and the Republican party in Illinois he decided that one term was more than enough for him..

I think Rehberg was running against Baucus when I was out there, this would have been 98 probably, maybe 96, whenever he ran... Why doesn't Racicot run against Baucus? Couldn't win or doesn't want the job? Just curious
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
IL Rancher said:
Okay... so I remember right and wrong lol.. I remember folks talking about Racicot being considered for the VP spot under Bush.. Thought it was interesting and wonder how different it would be if he had been selected by the Bush Team instead of Cheaney.. Not saying it would have been better or worse but I imagine it would be different as far as the Halliburtan "scandal" went...

Marc Racicot was one of the best attorneys I have ever known- I worked several years with him when he was the lead Prosecuter with the AG's office- definitely an honorable man... I campaigned hard for him- both for AG and Governor- altho I did not always agree with his stance or idea on some things...Interesting, when he was trying to decide if he would run for AG, he came and talked with me-- said he had decided to run, but had not made up his mind on which party to run under, since he had never belonged to a party, and had always voted the candidate not the Party (and came from Butte- the Democrat sronghold of the State)...Thought that interesting, when years later he became the Chairman of the Repub Party... :wink: :lol: :lol:

I am not a big fan of any state being completely controlled by Dems, especially an Ag/mining state... We had a Senator here, the one that Obama replaced, that chose not to run for Re-election after one term... He was a republican, Fitzgerald, and filled a seat that had been controlled by dems for years, first Alan Simpson who was a conservative Dem and than the lightweight known as Carol Mosely Braun after the Clarence Thomas hearings....Didn't always toe the party line and I liked him for it but he was so disgusted with Washington and the Republican party in Illinois he decided that one term was more than enough for him..


I think Rehberg was running against Baucus when I was out there, this would have been 98 probably, maybe 96, whenever he ran... Why doesn't Racicot run against Baucus? Couldn't win or doesn't want the job? Just curious
Racicot could probably beat Baucus now- altho some of his straight party stances has lost him support -- he may run next Senate election as I know their will again be a big push to get him to...He could have before, but had decided he owed it to his family to take a job in the private/lobbyist sector where the big bucks were for awhile- since he had spent his whole life in the Government sector as a Prosecuter, AG, Gov.-- where even as an attorney the bucks aren't anywhere comparable...He commands about a 7 figure salary now...At least I thought he was being honest about why he wanted out of public office....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Also, we have the country to think about and I don't think a Democratic US Senator is going to be in our best interest.
:clap: :nod: :clap: :nod: :clap:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Gonna be nasty right up to the very end...But attacking the press-and calling for media censorship is not a good political move-justified or not :shock: Last day of having to read and hear about this- then months of talking heads analyzing what happened... :roll:

The only winners in this election are the PR people and the media- over $12 million spent on just the Montana Senate race campaign... :roll: :( :mad:
-----------------------------------------


Poll shows Tester slightly ahead; Burns pulls paper's credentials
By The Associated Press

HELENA - Democratic Senate challenger Jon Tester appears to hold a slight lead over Republican Sen. Conrad Burns in a new poll of likely voters released Monday. The poll drew an unusually sharp reaction from the Burns campaign.

A Burns spokesman dismissed the USA Today/Gallup poll as inaccurate and initially said the campaign was revoking one newspaper's credentials to attend Burns' election night event in Billings because it wrote about the poll.

Jason Klindt first said Monday that the Great Falls Tribune would not be allowed to attend, before changing his mind later in the day.

"Running a bogus poll on the day before an election to try and suppress Republican voter turnout is irresponsible and in poor taste," Klindt told The Associated Press on Monday. The campaign decided to allow the paper's reporters to attend "so as not to punish the readers,"
Klindt said.

The USA Today/Gallup telephone survey of 734 likely Montana voters was conducted Nov. 1 through Nov. 3 and showed Tester with 50 percent, compared with Burns' 41 percent. The margin of error was 5 percentage points.

Other recent polls have suggested the race is much closer.

A poll by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, conducted last week for Lee Newspapers of Montana, showed both Tester and Burns at 47 percent among likely voters. That survey had an error margin of 4 percentage points.

Matt McKenna, a spokesman for Tester, called the USA Today/Gallup results significant.

"Fifty percent plus one person's vote means you get to be senator," he told the Great Falls Tribune in a story published Monday.

Klindt told the Tribune the numbers "just don't smell right," considering other recent polls.

"This election is going to be decided by turnout, and Republicans are better at it than Democrats," he said.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hey Hanta- You need to put some money on Burns if you are sure he's going to win...Butte bookies are now this morning giving 3 to 1 Odds- in favor of Tester winning...Billings was 2 to 1 yesterday... You could pay off the ranch :) - or lose it :roll: :lol:
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Sorry, OT, I don't gamble. I guess we'll see what happens when the dust settles. I don't think Tester is going to win this one, and I don't think he would be good for Montana. He's too much like Schweitzer. :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm not much of a gambler either-- but now is the time Illinois rancher should be putting a little money on Obama for 2008...Vegas has him listed at 70-1 odds to become President... Their top odds person tho is Hillary at 3-1. :roll: :cry: :evil:
 

IL Rancher

Well-known member
First touch of scandal is starting to touch him... Nothing major but something could come of it... He did some work with Tonk Resko who has been indicted for some sort of curroption case by the same AG who is doing the Hillary Plume investigation... They are going after the Governor of our fine state and it appears more and more like they are going to get him in the next couple of years (Here is where I interject if you are not a curropt Illinois Politician 1)you are not successfull and 2) you ain't trying)...

Anywho, he was involved with Obama in getting some sort of waving of an ordinance for a fence.. If this is the extent of their involvment it will be nothing at all but if something else came of it or the relationship was more significant it could sully Obama's good name... I'm betting he walks away unblemished by it..


Honestly, those are good odds but I think they are not good enough.. I would bet he is much longer shot than that in reality.. 100-1, 200-1..
 

passin thru

Well-known member
I'm not much of a gambler either-- but now is the time Illinois rancher should be putting a little money on Obama for 2008...Vegas has him listed at 70-1 odds to become President... Their top odds person tho is Hillary at 3-1.


Now that's what you call a CRAP shoot
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
So, whaddya say, Econ? Tester won, is he better than what we deserve? I see him as probably showing true colors in a few months. I think Schweitzer and Tester are going after POWER. Since they are both power mongers who knows what good things they are going to do for Montana. :?

For what StockGrowers has done for the BEEF Producers and watching what an *@#S Schweitzer has made of himself attending StockGrower's annual Convention and Mid Year, Schweitzer is not for the BEEF PRODUCER. PERIOD.

I'm sorry, MONTANA, you don't understand what you did to yourself today :cry: You don't know what you did to yourself by electing Schweitzer. :cry:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
HY:
So, whaddya say, Econ? Tester won, is he better than what we deserve?

We'll see. Keep us informed.

HY
I think Schweitzer and Tester are going after POWER. Since they are both power mongers who knows what good things they are going to do for Montana.

Isn't that what got burns in trouble?
 
Top