2 Helena Handbaskets

Another Democrat candidate for statewide office has developed a terminal case of cowardice. Late last week, Superintendent of Schools Denise Juneau suddenly cancelled a previously agreed upon debate scheduled for last night. Challenger Sandy Welch has posted this letter to her opponent:

August 21, 2012

Superintendent Juneau:

In light of your recent cancellation of our first agreed upon debate, I am writing you this letter to inform you of my unwavering call for debate. In public service, no official is exempt from appearing to debate and defend their record. Not only will I agree to any debate that meets the below criteria, I will also debate no matter how rushed or disorganized a host or venue may seem. Leaders show up, even when situations are disorganized. Education is no topic for political gaming. This demands transparent dialogue, in any setting.

I accept any offer to debate you, and hope you are willing to defend, publicly, your term as Superintendent. The voters of Montana deserve to hear you contrast yourself with my vision for OPI in an objective environment.

I will debate you in any setting that meets the following criteria:

- Each campaign will be equally given tickets to disperse to audience members.
- Media must be present.
- Our scheduling team has adequate time (at least seven days) to rearrange previously set calendar items.

Public officials must be held accountable and responsive to all voters. This is why we have a democratically elected government. As Superintendent, I won’t hide from fulfilling this duty. I look forward to debating you.

Sandy Welch

We understand that Montana Democrats are finding themselves wedged squarely between rocks and hard places. Bullock and Juneau are firmly tied to the far left, anti-development environmental lobby and President Obama’s unpopular and failed policies and programs. Having to defend their votes against the Otter Creek coal lease which flooded state coffers with $85 million dollars is not the kind of position any politician wants to be in. For Juneau especially, it’s hard to advocate for increased revenues for public schools after having turned down that kind of cash. It’s also got to be pretty intimidating to stand in front of an audience who thinks that having job opportunities for the kids who graduate from our public schools is high on the list of priorities when you’ve voted against those jobs.

Juneau has much to defend from her four years at the helm of OPI. She’s gotten a failing grade (65% – what we call a “solid F”) when it comes to meeting accreditation standards. Parents and school boards are equally frustrated with the high school dropout rates and overall academic achievement scores throughout K-12. The increasing demand for charter schools, private schools, and home schooling is a direct result of her tenure.

It’s no wonder that she would rather stay hidden behind her office door or skee-daddle off to the Democratic National Convention rather than face Montana voters. A cursory review of her latest campaign finance report underscores her lack of support from Montanans – 20 out of 23 named donors are from out of state. The people of Montana are looking for leadership and accountability. Denise Juneau however would rather run away than face the people she’s accountable to.

Sandy Welch is the most credible candidate for the office of public instruction that Montanans have had in a long time. She’s got an awesome resume and great experience to bring to the job. She’s knowledgeable, articulate, and really understands the issues surrounding education. She has proposed workable, realistic, practical solutions and common-sense approaches to improving our school system. And she’s enthusiastically taking that message to the receptive voters all over the state. It’s no wonder that Juneau is ducking the debates.

There are precious few days left before the election and the latest polls aren’t going to warm the cockles of any Democrat’s heart. But avoiding the tough questions and pandering to friends-only audiences won’t win elections. Make no mistake – the word is out – Democrats are afraid. Very afraid.

This strain of yellow fever can be a fatal diagnosis for a political career.

In what can only be called a shocking move, Steve Bullock virtually threw in the towel on his bid to become Montana’s next governor. By cancelling his participation in the first of a series of debates against the frontrunner, Republican Rick Hill, Bullock signaled that he had no hope of winning the election with his extremist, liberal, anti-jobs agenda. Bullock has communicated to the people of Montana that his unwavering support for the vastly unpopular ObamaCare and his vote against coal development, which is supported by over 80% of Montana’s voters, are insurmountable negatives in the contest against the pro-growth, responsible platform put forth by Hill and his running mate Jon Sonju.

Montana voters have come to expect the opportunity to take the measure of their statewide political candidates by virtue of head to head comparisons. Following the June 5 primary, both the Hill and Bullock campaign teams advocated taking their campaigns to the people.

Bullock proposed that they have eight debates — one each in the state’s largest cities of Billings, Bozeman, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Kalispell and Missoula, plus one in Eastern Montana to focus on the needs of communities addressing energy development.

“There are strong differences between the way each of us would approach creating jobs in Montana, balancing our state’s budget and supporting our strong system of public education,” Bullock said. “And I believe voters deserve to understand our records of accomplishment, the policies we’re proposing and the values we’ll bring as Montana’s next chief executive.”

Hill said he looks forward to joining them in eight debates and added: “I anticipate that we will commit to even more.”

“It’s important that we give Montanans as many opportunities as possible to understand the difference in our accomplishments, our values, our policy proposals and our leadership opportunities,” Hill said.

The Republican nominee also suggested that each debate be set up as Lincoln-Douglas debates, where the candidates ask each other questions and answer them. That differs from the typical debate or forums in which a moderator or members of a panel ask the questions.

“This will assure an open and honest discussion of the issues, which will enable voters to better understand our differing visions for the future of our great state as well as address specific topics,” Hill said.

At some point during the ten weeks since the primary someone on his campaign staff explained the definition of “debate” to him and Stevie immediately headed for the executive washroom for a change of underwear. All this time, he was under the misguided perception that debate was synonymous with “oral interp” – a high school competitive speech event designed for those who want to become late-night infomercial spokespeople, where the most important skills are pretty hair and neatly knotted ties. Due to his receding hairline this a real challenge for Steve.

After much negotiation – consisting mostly of foot-stomping, whining, and holding his breath until his face turned blue on Steve’s part – the local sponsors and the TV station that had agreed to broadcast the event finally had enough of the temper tantrum and advised Bullock’s campaign that 90 minutes of mind-numbing prepared political pontificating would be even less entertaining than watching paint dry and they wanted no part of it. He had to agree to some kind of question/answer format with extemporaneous responses or they weren’t interested.

Although Bullock has amassed a somewhat larger war chest – largely because he didn’t have a credible opponent in the primary and didn’t have to compete for dollars or spend much during the primary season – his financial resources aren’t sufficient to give the Democrat candidate enough warm fuzzies to overcome the stark raving reality of his hugely unpopular progressive policies, extreme liberal values, comparative lack of experience, and relatively weak speaking prowess. Somewhere along the line Steve realized that his abilities were no match for his bravado and when his stalling tactics and unreasonable demands became too much for debate sponsors, he was left with two options: Put on his big-boy pants and play – or run and hide.

After careful thought and much consideration, it’s now obvious that the Democrats’ local golden boy has evaluated the situation and decided on the only logical course of action. He will be spending more quality time with his lovely family.

Guest post by Loki

The Middle East is a powder keg just waiting for a small spark to ignite and destroy the whole area. Iran continues its development of nuclear weapons while the UN and the USA delude themselves that talking will bring sanity to radical anti-Semitics bent on a religious war.

Lately I have noticed a slight change in the banal rhetoric coming from Washington. They report that Iran is closer to building a nuclear bomb than they realized. Which is not surprising as the Obama administration is quite surprised about every report. They are the most unaware administration in my life time.

I now wonder if this is not part of a great October surprise. Bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran, help Israel and get a popularity bump from the Jewish community and American voters. It also would boost President Obama’s credibility as a world leader who is not afraid to fight. And nobody would be thinking about the terrible shape of the economy.

This would have the added advantage of not allowing for any blowback from any problems that could arise. Gas prices would take a bump, but since Obama is all for $5/gal gas that would be inline with his plans. Iran would not have time to devise any type of a counter attack. And our naval fleet already has three carrier groups in the area to protect shipping lanes. Terrorist counter attacks would take time to plan and carryout. And once the election is over none of that would mater.

So the question is would President Obama who has constantly delayed helping Israel with the Iran problem commit a military action purely to get re-elected. Why yes, yes I believe he would.

Guest Post by Loki

(Bread and Circuses, so you don’t have to run to your Latin dictionaries)

The Roman leaders kept the people entertained while making sure they had bread and circuses. In other words they diverted the attention of the populace of the disastrous state of the nation while making sure the people were fed and entertained. Meanwhile the country went bankrupt and lost its identity. It was so infused with foreigners that there was no desire to fight for the people that had lost its national identity. It was everyone for themselves. And the Roman Empire was broke and spread too thin to protect itself. The people were united in greed alone.

After the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare I wonder if this nation is not in the same position. Keep the people fed with subsidized food and medicine. Promise more trinkets. Keep them entertained with movies, booze and illegal drugs. All the while the nation’s economy is falling in to an abyss and we have jumped onto a jet flight to reach the bottom.

This country is fractionized with labels. If you are American today you are a white racist. Otherwise your nation of origin is listed before your being a citizen of America. You are an Afro-American, Latin-American or Asian-American. We have lost our group identity as each group fights for itself. Just like the Japanese had thought at the start of WWII. They could not imagine a diverse group fighting for a single nation. And today we have met that Japanese notion. It is everyone for themselves. Get what you can. The government owes me and needs to take it from someone else. I don’t care what the other guy pays as long as I’m not taxed. We argue over fairness. We are not a united nation. We are a nation of diversity.

When did the Roman citizens realize their country was lost? It must have been gradual, maybe even decades. I am sure that everyone did not wake up and say the country is lost. It was a slow process. And at some point the nation could have been saved… but it was not. I now wonder if we have also reached that tipping point. Are we close or have we already gone over the tipping point. Recent studies have suggested that we are more fractionized then we were at the Civil War. Our nation is near bankruptcy and yet still our leaders keep trying to divert our attention with trinkets while we fight over the crumbs of bread the government doles out.

Meanwhile Russia laughs at our president and sees him as the amateur statesman. China builds its nation for war. And many smaller nations prepare for joining the nuclear brotherhood of destruction. Europe collapses in socialism while American liberals rush this nation into socialism while abandoning capitalism.

I hope we have not reached the tipping point. I hope we can correct the direction of this country in the next election and that we are not too late. But in the meanwhile I am preparing for the Visigoths.

From Loki

For some reason, there continues to be a discussion about whether or not conservative, free-market principles are a good thing for the economy. Countless thousands of words from some of the greatest minds in the world have explained the premise over and over again, but somehow the liberals just don’t seem to get it. It’s frustrating. But my friend, Chrissy, over at Polination, has cut through the rhetoric with one of her awesome graphics that describes the reality clearly enough for even a caveman liberal to understand:

This graph provides a very clear demonstration of the difference between Republican and Democrat economic policies. Republicans trust the free market. Democrats trust big government.

Despite an economic bubble burst AND a major terror attack on our own soil, Bush proposed and a Republican majority Congress passed tax cuts for everyone. This action was followed immediately by an increase in jobs.

Then Democrats took over the majority in Washington and the housing bubble burst. No major terror attack or worry if we will go to war or not. In fact, by 2008, when the downturn in the economy really got rolling, the war in Iraq was mostly over and, despite what the media and Democrats were blatting, we had won.

So what do Democrats do with their economic downturn? They tax, borrow and spend of course. They instituted not one, but two of their signature fixes … a huge bail-out, followed by an even huger stimulus package. Their putative fixes did not just fail to help; they actually made the problem a whole lot worse.

Isn’t it time we put those Big Government Obama Democrats into the back seat where they belong and return leadership to the people whose free market methods have PROVEN they can produce JOBS?

H/T to Chrissythehyphenated at Polination. Be sure and check out the site – there’s much more like this!

H/T Chrissey the Hyphenated at Polination

We’ve been hearing for months that the Rehberg/Tester race is going to be one of the hardest fought battles this election, but the events at Saturday’s debate at Big Sky illustrate just exactly how bruising and bloody things could get over the next four months.

The wife of GOP Congressman Denny Rehberg found herself the target of a Democratic activist after a U.S. Senate debate in Montana, the Daily Caller reported Tuesday.

A Rehberg campaign staffer who witnessed the confrontation said that “a female Tester supporter in her late thirties attempted to push her way into a group that included the congressman, who was entertaining questions from reporters, and his wife, daughter Katie and staff,” Caroline May wrote at the Daily Caller.

The environmental activist began hitting Mrs. Rehberg with a rolled up Tester sign after exchanging words with her.

The activist and two of her cohorts were thrown off the premises by David O’Connor, managing partner of the Buck T-4.

How’s that for classy?

One would hope that Tester will quickly be getting the word out to his supporters that literally beating up the opposition, including the candidate’s wife and daughter, is generally not a winning campaign tactic and certainly not something Montanans find endearing. Having the national media spotlight shining on the kind of unsavory conduct that’s typically associated with big-city thuggery sure can’t be the image that the Montana democrats want to convey to the electorate.

If this is how liberal activists plan on routinely conducting themselves at campaign events around the state, we are in for a… ummm… “colorful” summer. The colors being black and blue, not the usual red, white, and blue.

And in November Montana voters will color Jon Tester and his fellow democrats out of office.

H/T Loki

Because there aren’t any other words to describe the hot mess we’re in now…

Get your own t-shirt here.

Guest post by Loki

I have long believed the Helena Independent Record has a decidedly liberal bias. Today my curiosity found even more evidence to support my belief.

I was reading the Helena IR Sunday looking at the bestseller book lists. I was looking at the nonfiction hardcover list when I noticed Rachel Maddow’s book ‘Drift’ was listed as number two on the list. But I couldn’t find Bill O’Reilly’s book ‘Killing Lincoln’ or Edward Klein’s book ‘The Amateur’.

So I quickly searched my way to the New York Times bestseller’s list. There I found ‘Killing Lincoln’ at number six and ‘The Amateur” at number one. I had to search way down the list to find Maddow’s book ‘Drift’ at twenty-eighth on the list.

So even in the entrainment and lifestyles section of the Helena IR they have found a way to give a biased view of the world to their captive readers. No wonder there is such a large group of liberals in Helena. The ordinary citizens’ only news sources in Helena are all liberal.

Subtle bias influences people so that they don’t even know they are being influenced. And the Helena IR seems to have learned this lesson well.