I was going to pass on this letter to the Gazette, but the comments make it even better. What does it say about Burns supporters that they have to believe (and repeat) lies in order to support their candidate?
From the letter:
Burns has done more for Montana than any other senator in the history of the state… He is a hard worker. Look at his position number 33 in seniority in committees…Before you vote, read Burns’ voting record and find out the truth. It will set you free from what is said and not true.
Um…Mansfield, Wheeler, Walsh, Melcher, Metcalf and Baucus come to mind as potentially better Senators for Montana. 33rd in seniority? I’m not sure what is impressive about that, given that Burns has been in the Senate since 1988.
From the comments, “Sarah” Klindt offers this insight:
And I personally love the controversial comments Burns make, they’re usually the same thing most people are thinking. Being a third generation Montanan it sickens me that most of the Tester money is coming from out of Montana. That’s the campaign reform we need, only in-state ties should be able to contribute.
Sarah, you’re not smart. According to Open Secrets.org (it’s a web page–just type it in the same way you type in drudgereport.com and anncoulter.com), only 22% of Conrad’s contributions are from in-state, while 53% of Tester’s are. Sickening, isn’t it?
JS says we should reject Tester because of how he will vote:
Tester will probably mirror Baucus when it comes to voting.
Now I’m just confused. I thought Tester was an out of touch liberal, way out of step with Montana values. If there’s one thing Max Baucus isn’t, it’s liberal.
These comments remind me of the belief (among Faux News viewers) that Iraq attacked us on 9/11–those beliefs don’t come from thin air. What does it say about Senator Burns that his campaign is premised and lies and misinformation? Shouldn’t he have something more to show for 18 years in the Senate?