Saturday, February 04, 2006

Burns down

I still haven't seen the Democratic TV ad attacking Conrad Burns, but I have finally seen his response. I thought it was incredibly lame, in at least three ways:

1. One way to gauge the severity of a scandal is by how strongly the affected candidate reacts. Burns' rather sweeping reaction suggests that people like me who have had trouble grasping the significance of the Abramoff scandal in Montana should be paying more attention. OK, I will.

2. In the ad, Burns suggests that the Democratic ads should be dismissed because they came from people who took money from Abramoff's clients. But if those ads should be dismissed, then so should his. He took more than anybody, and from Abramoff himself.

3. The ad provides no reason that I could detect for suggesting that Burns should be re-elected. His good looks? His grin? His hat? The message that he isn't as crooked as Democrats imply doesn't sound like an election winner to me.

Taken all together, the ad makes me wonder if there's something to the rumor that the GOP is ready to sacrifice Burns on the Abramoff altar. Party bosses may figure it's worth a few thousand bucks of advertising to help pave his way out.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

On the other hand, the Democratic message that they are not as corrupt as Burns is a no-sale. I see a beautiful scandal, a man deeply entrenched in a corrupt political culture, and a Democratic Party too feeble to do anything about it. Brace yourself honey. It's time for Senator Rehberg.

Anonymous said...

The first time I saw it, I thought it sounded pretty lame, too. I'm already thinking to replace him with somebody else this fall; not just because of Abramoff et al, but because his "only two terms" was up a couple of elections ago.

Anonymous said...

The question you should be asking David, is whether-or-not Senator Burns has done a good job for MONTANA. Has he looked out for our best interests? Has he gotten us our fair-share of federal dollars? Does he care about States rights?

The answer is yes. He has been a good Senator, and has earned our support.

David said...

Has he looked out for our best interests? Kind of a vague question. Guess it depends on what we think our interests are.

Has he brought home the bacon? No doubt?

Does he care about states' rights? Good question. He voted for No Child Left Behind, the largest imposition on states' rights of this millennium. I believe he favors reauthorization of the Patriot Act, over the stated opposition of the Legislature.

I haven't heard him speak out against the federal government's attempts to impose its will on states on medical marijuana and right-to-die legislation, but maybe I missed it.

On the other hand, I'm having trouble recalling anything specific he has done to support states' rights. Fill me in.

Anonymous said...

The Burns campaign is seriously misguided by trying to dismiss the Abramoff scandal with an ad hominem approach. But that kind of arrogance is typical of Mark Baker and the Burns top tier. At worst, Conrad knowingly switched votes for cash and prizes. At best, he did it at the behest of his staff who have long enjoyed the high style afforded them by lobbyists. Either way, Burns should be held accountable for the gluttony of his crew. It's been a long time going on and he always chose to look the other way.

If Conrad wants a Republican to serve in the Senate in 2007, he should unselfishly step aside and let Denny finish out the campaign. Rehberg would easily win over Morrison or Tester and the seat would remain in Republican hands.

Rocky Smith said...

I have to conclude that it's time for the Republicans to tell Conrad to go home. If he runs, he'll just be giving the seat to Morrison or Tester. I'm a conservative- yet I won't vote for Conrad. It's time for some new blood in our congressional delegation. Denny might make an okay Senator, but then who takes his house seat? I don't want to hand that one to the Democrats either.

Anonymous said...

I probably shouldn't have used 'States Rights' as an example.

Does he work to pass good Agriculture bills? Yes.

Does he bring in much-needed Federal dollars? Yes.

During the Clinton years, when the administration was trying to void the second amendment, Burns opposed them.

Does he try to bring business to Montana? Yes.

Does he help our kids get opportunities? Yes. The number of kids he's helped with Service Academy appointments over the years is a long one.

Has he worked to keep Malmstrom AFB going? Yes.

I could take the last years of newspaper clippings and probably give you 1000 good reasons to keep Conrad.

We know what Conrad does for us, and he has earned our support.

Anonymous said...

Eric,

I thought real republicans were for less government? Or doesnt that include pork that you brag you aren't paying for...?

Anonymous said...

I have what they call a 'Double Standard' in that if the pork comes to our state it's OK!

Anonymous said...

A thoroughly reprehensible attitude, Eric. It's necessary if it comes here and it's wasteful spending somewhere else? Now multiply that attitude times 435 and you have massive irresponsibility for which people not yet born will be suffering bigtime.

Anonymous said...

I admit it, I'm selfish.

Anonymous said...

I good spate of 30 second ads will mollify all of us. Americans don't exactly go deep on issues.