Picking away at the spin one argument at a time…

Shares

The Montana Senate election gets more interesting by the day…

I actually stole this from one of the anonymous poster’s over at “What’s Right,” but not that NeoMadison has been around spewing the spin, I think it is worth repeating more formally.

Concerning the Davison issue, I am not sure what the proper amount of coverage is about Davison’s connection to the Burns campaign but at the same time, I think that the attempt by the Burns campaign to distance themselves from Davison is interesting.

In at least three posts or comments, I have seen Davison labeled as a “volunteer,” to suggest that his role in the campaign is quite small.  Sure, I volunteer in campaigns and I get that gig: literature drops, going door-to-door, working events, etc.  Yeah, there are a lot of people that “volunteer” for a campaign and their involvement doesn’t mean that actions should have any connection to the campaign.

That is absolutely, 100% not the case here.  The Burns campaign has actually labeled Davison a “leader” of the campaign.  You can read all about it here.  Those aren’t my words, those are the claims of the vast, left-wing conspiracy, that’s the Burns campaign.

It’s hard to run away from that…

About the author

J N

13 Comments

  • Having spent a few years as upper level campaign staff, I’ll blurt out a little secret here that I really shouldn’t. I don’t know if this is the case on Democrat campaigns, but it is often the case on Republican campaigns. Putting someone on a steering committee, or making them a finance co-chair… well, often its more of a way to butter someone up than it is a genuine insider thing.

    You can believe it or not as you wish.

    I’m not necessarily saying that’s the case with Davison and the Burns campaign. I honestly don’t know; I’m not involved in that campaign. But I myself have put out a fair few press releases announcing so-and-so as a crucial addition to the team, and it didn’t always indicate that someone had a decision making role. So as an outsider, I don’t know what Davison’s role was on the campaign — his true role, that we don’t get to see from the outside. But I do know that I haven’t seen any evidence yet that would prove to me he was an insider.

  • I don’t think that really answers my argument, Neo. Even if Burns were trying butter up Pat, this means that Montana’s junior senator was trying to butter up someone accused if incredible security fraud.

    Doesn’t the right realize that your argument about Tester and Kos gives us this link cold? You folks argue that by simply linking to Kos and having a story or two on the blog about him is enough to put them in bed together. I would argue that by saying that Pat was “leadership” in the campign (not my words, the campaign’s words, mind you), that puts Burns directly in this.

    Spin it however you want (I can’t wait to read Coobs on this issue), but this isn’t good for Burns.

  • I think even the best of the spinners would be hard pressed to find a way this is GOOD news for Conrad. I mean… it’s not good news for anyone. To be honest, all the Republicans I talked to yesterday afternoon were thinking about the story as a tragedy for Pat (there are some rumors about what may have driven him to this, if in fact he did it) and sometimes as an earthquake in the Billings financial community. No one mentioned Conrad — honestly, we just didn’t think of that association first. I didn’t make the Conrad association until I sobered up this morning and read Left in the West (better than caffeine for getting your blood pressure up).

    My personal opinion is that the newspapers have been fairly right about this so far, treating the Burns connection as an item in the story, but not the main point.

    In any case, yeah, if he’s guilty then this will be a bad association to have. But as I wrote at Right Montana, Burns would hardly be the only one deceived.

  • I don’t think it’s about good news or bad news. I think that you folks have been loud and clear about Tester and Kos: you are making the argument about the “company you keep.” I am just applying that logic to Davison and Burns.

    Let me repeat so I am clear:

    The Burns campaign says that Davison is in the “leadership” of his campaign. Davison gave money to Burns and Rehburg.

  • Jason, I think that Neo might be making the case that Burns’ understanding of “leadership” is non existent.

    The argument might be that Burns is too stupid to be trusted with anything important.

    No big surprise here, either.

  • Sorry Jason, I’ve got nothing to say about it yet.

    I only met Pat Davison a few times when he was running for Governor. He was liked by some people I respect, but that’s about all I know about him.

    There have been very serious accusations made against him, and if any of them are true I’ll have no problem turning my back on him.

  • I’m sorry if this is off topic, but I want to ask if you would consider putting a Lindeen Actblue link with your others.

    I know there isn’t a darn thing about it on my site. It’s just that the kids think I spend my time surfing for porn and they would be mighty disappointed to learn the truth.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: