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

Tester for Montana?

Disagreeable

Well-known member
“North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, fired the first shot.

"The general election now comes down to a choice between Conrad Burns, who has such an outstanding record of accomplishment for his state, and a Democrat puppet of national liberal special interest groups who does not share the mainstream values of Montanans," Dole said of Tester in a statement.”



Let’s see, an actual rancher versus a corrupt career Washington DC politician. It will be interesting to see who wins this one.

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2006/06/08/ap-state-mt/d8i3lbp01.txt
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
My, my, my. Getting a little far from home, aren't you, Disagreeable?


Conrad Burns HAS done some good things for Montana. Was it time for him to step down? I would say that it was.

Do we need a Democrat Governor and a Democrat Senator? NO.

As OT has mentioned, he should have let someone else run on
the Republican ticket. He didn't, so now it will be interesting.

It's always amazing to me that all these politicians say they
are 'ranchers in Montana.' I think that wording has a lot of meanings
these days.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Dis- I'm not sure if Tester is the answer for Montana- but Burns didn't give the state voters much choice....While I agree with Testers position on many issues (pro M-COOL, anti mandated Animal ID, pro prayer and Pledge of Allegiance for schools) and some I flat disagree with (like calling for removal of troops from Iraq)-- I don't really know where he stands on many others....Just that he is the only candidate not tainted with the stink of scandal and misuse of his power......

I do think he stands a very good chance of getting elected now tho...His main problem was lack of campaign funding which will not be an issue now as the National Democrats will throw millions in to match all the out of state and PAC funds Conrad has raised....
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/conrad_burns.asp?cycle=06

Kind of funny- Conrads spokesman talking about how he represents Montanas values :???: Kind of like him saying all Montanans are crooks - or all Montana Republicans are crooks :shock:

The ultimate big loser for Conrad refusing to step down will be the Montana residents.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Disagreeable said:
The ultimate big loser for Conrad refusing to step down will be the Montana residents.....

Do you honestly think Tester can't be a good Senator just because he's a Democrat?

No I don't--So far I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt...I only wish I had a Republican choice running too, as I definitely can not again vote for Conrad ( I've heard several that normally vote Republican say they may have to vote Libertarian)...One of the positive things so far about Tester is that he has been saying what Montanans to the most part want to hear- and has pretty much set that as his platform- ...Which is what I think a Senator should do- represent the feelings of the home state folks and not sell out to the highest bidder or biggest money PAC....That is one reason I feared Morrison- he was already too deeply entrenched in the Democratic political scene....

Problem always comes to be when they get to D.C. they (both Dems and Repubs.) get to bowing to the straight party line too much and forget the home folks wishes....I have never had too many qualms with Baucus either- but I sure gave him hell in a letter last week on his Immigration vote...He definitely did not follow what Montanans want on that.....

On the other side- for Congress now, you will see Rehberg win with a landslide...The gal running against him doesn't stand a chance in my opinion.......
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Don't you think Rehberg has done a fairly good job representing
Montana, OT?

I'm certainly not a Baucus fan...

I think Rehberg has done a good job- wish it was him running for Senate instead of Conrad...At least in the Senate he would have a little more influence- one lone Congressman from the state doesn't have much say in that mass of Congressmen....

I think Baucus is getting worse as he goes along- following the Missoula-Helena thinking too much anymore...For awhile I was impressed by his sticking to his guns and opposing some of the Clinton ideas- actually was taking his own stand and not the National Democratic Parties...He has forgot completely that there is a part of the state east of Billings :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This is an interesting comparison of a Senators flip flops- first he doesn't oppose increased security and oversight on a US territory- than after a large campaign contribution, he votes against it...I wonder how old Conrad will vote this time since he had to give back the payoff money? :???:


-----------------------------------------------
Burns votes no on Northern Marianas immigration limits
By JENNIFER McKEE
Gazette State Bureau

HELENA -- Nonexistent federal controls over immigration on the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands has created fertile ground for "transnational gangs," drug smuggling and potential terrorism, a newly released U.S. Justice Department reports shows.

Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., voted against expanding federal controls over the territory's immigration and labor standards in a controversial 2001 vote that came after Burns received a $5,000 donation from a client of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.


Criticized for switch
Burns had previously not opposed an identical measure the year before. Democrats have criticized Burns for switching his position on the bill after accepting an Abramoff-directed campaign contribution.

Burns initially said the vote happened so long ago he couldn't remember why he voted as he did. Later, Burns said he voted against the bill after reading government reports that showed expanding federal immigration control would hurt the islands' economy, which depends, in part, on noncitizen garment workers. Burns has come under scrutiny for his ties to Abramoff. Burns received nearly $150,000 in Abramoff-related campaign donations, more than any other member of Congress. Burns has since returned the money.

The 34-page, 2002 Justice Department report, recently obtained by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., was posted Wednesday in its entirety on the liberal Web site, www.talkingpointsmemo.com.


Bill offered again
Miller announced Wednesday he is reintroducing a twice-defeated bill to extend federal controls over the territory's labor and immigration rules.

Abramoff is now at the center of a Justice Department influence-peddling investigation involving members of Congress.

The government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association paid Abramoff's firm $2.3 million in 2001 and 2002, lobby records show. Abramoff was hired specifically to defeat efforts to control the islands' immigration and labor rules.

Although completed in 2002, a year after Burns cast his controversial vote, the report was never released. Miller has maintained Abramoff worked to stifle the report's publication.

The document paints a grim picture of the U.S. territory, where noncitizen workers outnumber citizens and up to 60 percent of the "alien work force have tested positive for tuberculosis and blood borne pathogen diseases," including HIV, hepatitis, malaria and syphilis.

Local government is corrupt, the report continues, with politics controlled by "a few well-placed families and wealthy business people." Although the Northern Marianas are technically U.S. soil -- clothes manufactured there can be imported with "Made in the U.S.A." labels -- local government sets its own labor rules, including immigration rules and a minimum wage that's lower than in the United States.

The report lists the lack of federal oversight on the islands as its No. 1 change needed to make the islands and U.S. employees working there safer.

It says the most common criminal activities on the islands are public corruption, the sale of methamphetamine and immigration crimes. The report also says transnational gangs are on the island.

The report further describes the islands and Guam, another U.S. territory in the Pacific, as offering "a target-rich environment for terrorist activity."

The report states that terrorist groups finance their activities through the drug trade and said that both the "individuals and tools of terrorism" could be brought into the Northern Mariana Islands "at will."

The report also said the knowledge of problems on the territories is not new.

"The existence and origins of these problems have been fully documented by federal offices over a long period of time and are a matter of public record," the report says, "as are the failures of local governments to improve the situation."

Jason Klindt, a Burns spokesman, said the senator would "certainly take into account" the report when, and if, another Northern Marianas bill comes before the senator.

He said Burns voted the way he did with the best information available at the time and noted that the report, which was not released to Congress, was not written until a year after Burns' vote.

He said Burns had "done his homework" by reading the federal reports examining how increased federal oversight would affect the territory's economy.

"Votes are always made on the best information that you have at the time," Klindt said. "He cast his vote on what he thought was the best way."

State Senate President Jon Tester, the Democratic nominee facing off against Burns, said he found it "interesting and unfortunate" that Burns is now making a campaign issue out of Mexican immigration when, five years earlier, the senator voted against having any federal oversight at the U.S. border on the Northern Marianas.

"We need to stiffen up our border security," Tester said. "Burns' relationship with Abramoff really stopped that from happening a few years back. Once you get in the Marianas, it's much easier to get in the United States."

Tester earlier would not say how he would have voted on a recent measure to give what critics call "amnesty" to illegal immigrants now living in the United States.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
FH- Heres the letter I got back from Baucus's office today after I wrote him and chewed his rear about his immigration vote- I get the impression he may have been catching hell from several back home and had this form letter ready... I sent an atta boy to Conrad too for his vote, but haven't heard a word back...Maybe he remembers all the nasty ones I sent him reminding him who he is supposed to work for, calling him a crook, and telling him to get his head out his arse :wink: :lol:

----------------------------------------

Dear Richard:



Thank you for getting in touch regarding our nation's immigration policies. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.



Immigration is a complex issue that involves both our national and economic security. Many illegal immigrants come to America to work for businesses that cannot find U.S. workers in sectors of the U.S. economy like agriculture, tourism and landscaping. It is vitally important that we tackle the problem of illegal immigration. At the same time, we must beef up enforcement efforts on the border.



As you may know, on May 26th the Senate passed S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. I voted for this bill because it strengthens our borders by adding border patrol agents, and also requires immigrants to pay taxes and learn English. S. 2611 isn't perfect, and a lot of compromises were made. However, I support legislation that provides border security while not giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Meanwhile, Montana 's vast border with Canada presents a unique challenge for border security. The threat from potential terrorists and drug runners is even more of a concern along Montana 's high line precisely because all eyes are on the southern border.



During this immigration debate, I expressed concern that the Nation's northern border (of which Montana and Canada share 500 miles) was being neglected since most of the debate was focused on the southern border. I was pleased to see that the Senate included my measure to test unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's) in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. This measure requires the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a one year pilot program for using UAV's to patrol the northern border.






In short, finding a way to help direct a manageable flow of legal migrant workers to the sectors of our economy that can't find willing American workers will benefit our small businesses in Montana and elsewhere. Bringing these migrants into a legal, enforceable system will allow border and law enforcement personnel to turn their attention to stopping individuals who wish to do us harm from crossing our borders.



Please rest assured that I take this immigration debate very seriously. Nothing is more important than our nation's security. I will keep your thoughts in mind should future legislation regarding immigration come before me in the United States Senate.



Thanks again for getting in touch, and please don't hesitate to contact me in the future with additional questions or concerns.



With best personal regards, I am


Senator Max Baucus
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
I see Burns didn't show up for the first debate. He was too busy raising money out of state.

http://www.kpax.com/global/story.asp?s=5015450&ClientType=Printable
 
Top