Until something breaks on this story, I promise this is my last post about it….
Seriously: I really want to understand this issue from all perspectives. I was poking around Montana blogs today and ran into this post from a blogging attorney in Great Falls. He is complaining that the Tribune only trashes on Democrats when they can take a shot at Republicans, too. Obviously, the point he is trying to make is that the Tribune (have I mentioned they won a Pulitzer Prize? If not, they will…) is somehow part of this vast liberal media and when they finally have to admit that the Democrats are doing something wrong, they only report it when the Republicans can have their hand slapped, too.
I was a resident of Great Falls for most of my life (and much of that time, I thought I was a Republican, but that’s another story) and I have no memory of thinking that the Tribune was some mouthpiece for the left, even when I bought into the Republican Party mantra that the media was too liberal. The Great Falls blogger begins his criticism with this, as the liberal bias speaks for itself. I don’t see it. Care to explain?
A couple of thoughts…
…If you read the Great Falls blog, he points to this article in the Gazatte as a means of proving that “gee! the Democrats back peddled because their ad is fully of dirty lies!” Read the article. I don’t see that anywhere. The Democrats changed the ad from Burns received money from Abramoff to Burns received money from Abramoff and his associates. If that’s the best the Republicans have against these accusations, I have a feeling this is even bigger than it looks.
…How is this mudslinging, anyways? If dirty money is running through the Burn machine, shouldn’t that stop? If there were illegal (or at least unethical) trips or exchanges of cash, shouldn’t that stop?
…On the odd chance there are Republicans reading this, please, explain to me what the deal is with this silly party report that you keep complaining about. I really want to know. Schweitzer said he’d release a report, something no other governor has had to do. He did. You complained it is not detailed enough. WHO CARES? What do you expect to find in that report? Proof that the Governor is a bad man? Someone you don’t like gave him $20 bucks for shrimp cocktail? I just don’t understand.
…One more question for the Republicans. Explain to me Burns going back on his promise to only run for two terms (I know, it’s back in 1988 and our collectively memories don’t that far back, unless it is to fondly remember Ronald Reagan or bemoan FDR). Didn’t he promise to stay out of Washington after two terms due because he didn’t want to become dirty money man? It’s popular to answer this question with a question, “Didn’t so and so do this bad thing, too?” or “Didn’t Clinton do (insert blah blah blah here)?” But…I really want to know.