about the conrad burns/abramhoff scandal
everybody who reads bn knows my stance on term limits, i put up a thread on it relating to conrad burns but now here is the burning question: How much $$ will it take to take over burn's seat?
Answer: not a lot
why?
Burns is, lets face it, tarred with contriversy. the guy is being accused by the papers of ethical and legal misconduct, to the point where i see no shot of him winning until the dems speak....
i cant really find the articles but basically here is how it went when this little scandal broke
dem candidate 1 - "I wont accept money from lobbiest and will pass a bill making sure that you cant" (paraphrased and name withheld for his own good)
Dem candidate 2....basically "Me three" (we can skip the me 2)
so after about a month conrad rolls out a commertial basically stating that "he is not guilty" while sounding like a horses ass...until....
cut to comertial of the dems sounding like a horses ass telling us what we already know!
so here it goes...going out on a limb here...burns is going to win the 06 election.
BTW i am seeing parallels of Baucus's '02 election where there was 2 repub candidates that did the same exact thing...doenst work. c'mon lets see some fresh ideas for once!
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
For the sake of the Montana Democratic party I sure hope you're wrong Hells. Although I see the the two Democrat candidates as a little better options than that dink who ran against Baucus in 2002.
For the sake of the Montana Democratic party I sure hope you're wrong Hells. Although I see the the two Democrat candidates as a little better options than that dink who ran against Baucus in 2002.
does not matter
if they would leave well enough alone baucus looses
btw i think we can agree that our opinions on the people who are running against burns/baucus is panited by political belifs but i see nothing that is new comming out of the mouths of anyone running against burns
if they were smart they would leave well enough alone
but they dont
which ='s a burns victory
class 1996
Progressives look at reality through the lens of Liberalism
Both Tester and Morrisson have a good track record.
Tester has a good website with useful information on himself, he's from central/eastern Montana so he's not just some liberal hippy from Missoula, from looking at his site I like the guy, and I share the same thoughts with him on the issues he feels need the most attention.
John Morrison also has a good advantage that he's been elected before in a statewide election. His website lacks the info that Testers has, limited opinons on current issues.
Both Tester and Morrisson have a good track record.
Tester has a good website with useful information on himself, he's from central/eastern Montana so he's not just some liberal hippy from Missoula, from looking at his site I like the guy, and I share the same thoughts with him on the issues he feels need the most attention.
John Morrison also has a good advantage that he's been elected before in a statewide election. His website lacks the info that Testers has, limited opinons on current issues.
Being a small State, I think it is important for Montana to have powerfull Senators. Conrad Burns is on the appropriations committee, which is a HUGE deal. Because of this he has been able to allocate millions of dollars for Montana developments, schools, tribes, and other causes. Only well standing senior members have the privelage of being on this committee. Nothing agains Morrison or Tester, I beleive they are good people who care about Montana, but Burns is the better choice because he has the ability to bring benefits to Montana more than would a rookie senator. BTW I am very dissapointed with the Democrat party trying to overblow the Abramhoff scandal in order to hurd Conrad's credibility. Hopefully Morrison and Tester will put an end to it and run clean campaigns.
The whole idea that a guy needs to be in Congress for awhile to get power sucks.
God I wish term limits were in place for every state. That way they are all rookies and this power thing would go away. There needs to be so much turnover in congress nobody can get entrenched to the public teat like many the politicians we have now. Kennedy, Byrd, Gore, Delay, Baucus, Burns, Boxer, Lott, etc. have all done enough damage.
Both Tester and Morrisson have a good track record.
Tester has a good website with useful information on himself, he's from central/eastern Montana so he's not just some liberal hippy from Missoula, from looking at his site I like the guy, and I share the same thoughts with him on the issues he feels need the most attention.
John Morrison also has a good advantage that he's been elected before in a statewide election. His website lacks the info that Testers has, limited opinons on current issues.
there is night and day differences between these two men. Tester is a Burns-kinda guy who feels like an "average Joe" who wants to head to Washington to clean things up. He is a liberal, but gets along with most people and sometimes plays hardball. But, overall I think he's a rather okay guy (although I hardly ever agree with his politics and I'd never vote for him).
HOWEVER: Morrison is a typical politician.. way too polished and you're just never sure where he stands and what he'll do. I really really don't trust this guy at all. From what I know he isn't liked as well. He's got some real money behind him and Tester will have a difficult time of beating him. Morrison would "shine" in debates.. although not for "substance" reasons, but for "polish" reasons. This guy is way too smooth and I'll be shocked if he gets the majority of Montana voters to vote for him. He'd win in other states, but hopefully not Montana. (BTW: I'd never ever vote for him...)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
class 1996
