And polls show that the Dem primary is virtually tied. Hey, and since I'm here, here's a blog I wrote to endorse Jon Tester:
--
For some reason this year, I live in a state where there's a Senate election that really matters. And it's Montana. We have the chance to vote out one of the most corrupt politicians in recent memory, a senile, old, racist named Conrad Burns. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Burns, he's probably most famous for being the
number one recipient of Jack Abramoff donations, and on a number of ocassions appears to have changed his stated vote to favor Abramoff clients after recieving Abramoff money. On top of that, he sponsered a bill that would slaughter wild horses in the American West for use in French cuisine. He's also called Arabs "ragheads," said living in Washington, D.C. "with all those niggers" "was a challenge," told female flight attendants that they should stay home with the kids if their jobs are outsourced, and asked a woman with a nose ring
what tribe she was from.
For those of you not living in Montana, you're also missing the extremely hilarious antics of his TV ads. Imagine a screaming lunatic with beady eyes screaming about how it's really Democrats that took Abramoff's money, and you'll get an idea.
On top of a vulnerable incumbant, the Democrats have two fine candidates (and a number of also-rans) who are facing off in the primary election next Tuesday. They are State Auditor John Morrison and State Senate President Jon Tester. I'll start off by saying I like both of these guys, and I think either one of them would make a fine Senator. They're positions are clear, and they both seem like nice guys. Unlike many primary elections, I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils, but the better of two goods. And the better candidate is Jon Tester.
Polls show both Tester and Morrison in a virtual tie coming into the primary, and
no poll since April has shown Burns leading either Democrat. Additionally, Burns hasn't polled above 50 percent since last September! Many analysis claim that Morrison is the better choice since he polls slightly higher than Tester, but I think polls show that either man can and will win versus Burns.
Why do I reject Morrison? There are a number of reasons from the visceral: he's a lawyer that looks too pretty to be elected in Montana, to the more thought out: he's cheated on his wife with the wife of a client and failed to recuse himself in an
ongoing case involving that client. I generally don't feel that a politician's personal life is any of my business, but in this case, Morrison has killed his chances. How can we go after the most corrupt man in Washigton if our candidate is himself (possibly) corrupt? I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I just can't vote for him.
Why Tester? Again, there's the visceral: he's a kind of chubby farmer with a flat top, to the also visceral: I like what he has to say. To expand on that, I've known about Jon Tester for a couple of years from reading the papers here, for the last four years he's been the Democratic leader in the state Senate. He's generally the go-to-guy for the media, and he has a knack of avoiding sound bites and speaking off the cuff. And unlike our party leader, Dr. Dean, Mr. Tester rarely puts his foot in his mouth. Additionally, after the Republican's huge losses in the state legislature in 2004, he was very positive about the future of the state, while the GOP instead of being introspective, was bitter, and basically said, "you stupid voters, how could you be so stupid, you'll be sorry!!!"
Tester can inspire me in ways that Morrison can't. I like him. You should
check him out. Also, check out his
flat top ad.
To all my friends in Montana, I urge you to vote this Tuesday for Jon Tester and really make a difference.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
