MT Senate News - New Anti-Burns Ad / Morrison, Tester fundraising numbers

[swag]

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/01/31/news/state/50-burns.txt

HELENA -- The Montana Democratic Party has fired back at Republican U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns with its own TV ad and accused him of delivering the goods for lobbyist Jack Abramoff, not for Montana.

The party's 30-second spot, which went on the air over the weekend, is in response to Burns' campaign's 60-second ad that was launched last week and is still running.

In his ad, Burns tries to distance himself from Abramoff by saying the Republican former super-lobbyist never influenced him.

Burns received about $150,000 from Abramoff, his associates and his tribal clients, which was more than any other member of Congress. Abramoff earlier this month pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

and from SwingStateProject, fundraising numbers for the leading candidates:

Tester 4Q Fundraising: $89K
Morrison 4Q Fundraising: $407K
Burns 4Q Fundraising: $814K

Tester Cash-on-Hand: $167K
Morrison Cash-on-Hand: $753K
Burns Cash-on-Hand: $3.4M

That's it. I'm loading in with Morrison.

[msongs]

1. total population of Montana is? nt

[swag]

2. In 2000, it was 902,195. Funny, MT has as many senators as NY or CA.

[havocmom]

5. All states have two Senators. NY & CA have lots more Congressmen

than the ONE we have from Montana.

The framers of the Constitution saw wisdom of representation by population AND also by membership in the United States of America. They understood the pitfalls of tyranny by a majority and the Senate was designed to help avoid that problem.

[swag]

6. Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks.

On edit:

Though I remember the motivation of the framers slightly differently.

from Wikipedia:

The structure of Congress was one of the most divisive issues facing the Convention. The Virginia Plan called for a bicameral Congress; the lower chamber would be elected directly by the people, and the upper chamber would be elected by the lower chamber. The Virginia Plan was primarily supported by the larger states, as it called for representation based on population in both Chambers. The smaller states, however, favored the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states. Eventually, a compromise, known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise, was reached; one chamber of Congress (the House of Representatives) would provide proportional representation, whereas the other (the Senate) would provide equal representation. In order to further preserve the authority of the states, it was provided that state legislatures, rather than the people, would elect senators. The Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states (nine out of the 13) in 1788, but its full implementation was set for March 4, 1789. However, the Senate could not begin work until a majority of the members assembled on April 6 of the same year. The Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a more stable, deliberative body than the House of Representatives. James Madison described the Senate's purpose as "A necessary fence against...fickleness and passion". George Washington, in answer to a question by Thomas Jefferson, said "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it (from The House of Representatives)".

[havocmom]

7. Figured as much, but we get lots of political newbies looking for info

here and I've noticed some are not as familiar with their Constitution as others. Often use opportunities to help with some background. ;)

We can't have liberals in as bad a shape re how it is supposed to work as former NSA head, Gen Hayden who tries to limit what the 4th Amendment says :D

[havocmom]

3. re-post of probable quid-pro-quo evidence against Burns

Burns took trip to Marianas for meeting with official there... gee, that official has ties to Abramoff.

He did not oppose a bill granting more US oversight of workers and immigration in 2000. After receiving monies from people who gave to Burns on the advice of Abramoff, Burns voted against an identical bill later. Yes, same Burns from Montana who insists he did nothing wrong. Same guy who tried to give Abramoff connected contributions to a tribal council that has a former Burns aide as their only registered lobbyist. Same Burns left holding the bag when that tribal council voted NOT to accept the money from Burns as it looked questionable from a moral standpoint.

Hey, Conrad, tie some candy around your neck and get a bacon hat-band. Maybe the bears will play with you. Nobody else will.

(Sorry no link anymore. The link to the article in my original post in the Montana Forum no longer works. Also gone: the handy index of all things related Burns questionable behavior. Things that make ya go 'hmmmmm'. The Billings Gazette seems to have scrubbed certain Burns reports it ran when it re=designed its web site.)

Burns, who in 2000 did not oppose an identical Marianas measure, voted against a bill in May 2001 that would have strengthened U.S. oversight of the commonwealth's labor and immigration laws. He has come under scrutiny for changing his position on the bill after receiving the donation, which came from an Abramoff client.

The bill dealt with labor and immigration laws on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory near Guam. Residents of the commonwealth are U.S. citizens, although the island is exempt from many U.S. federal standards, including minimum wage laws.

In the late 1990s, about 58 percent of the islands' population was made up of noncitizen immigrants, many from China, drawn to the islands' garment manufacturing jobs, government reports show. Such noncitizen workers stay in the islands on visas that will not lead to U.S. citizenship. At the time, workers in the factories earned a minimum of $3.05 an hour, below the U.S. minimum wage of $5.15. Clothes made there can be imported to the United States with a "Made in USA" label, and factory owners pay no U.S. tariffs.

...

In 2000, the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent that would have given the U.S. government more oversight of the islands' labor and immigration laws. Burns did not oppose the measure. Because the law passed by unanimous consent, it did not require an active vote by any senator, but any senator could have opposed it. The next year, Burns voted against the bill and requested that the vote be recorded.

Let's see, didn't oppose the bill in 2000. Not only DID opposed identical bill (hey, a guy can change his mind, I guess) but insisted on going on the record as opposing identical bill, after receiving a donation from interests in Marianas.

Help me here, I am so poor with Latin... Isn't that quid pro - something or other?
;)

Burns, you are a slime sucking pig and you are busted.

EDITED TO ADD LINK TO STORY IN ANOTHER PAPER :evilgrin:
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/01/21/news/mtregional/news06.txt

[swag]

4. Ha. Thanks.

Time to send that scumbag back to doing the morning TV wheat report.

[havocmom]

8. Kick

cuz I love drawing attention to the strawberry blond whore running for re-election from MT.

[swag]

9. You put it so sweetly.

MT Senate should be an easy pick-off.

It's important to make sure it happens.

[havocmom]

10. Yeah, I'm a regular friggin poet.

And where Burn's and his condescending, hokey routine is concerned, my muse works overtime.

Hey, he and the GOP have accused DEMS of trying to nail him. Gotta make sure he is honest about at least ONE thing! They sure don't like it when you just point out the facts. :evilgrin: