Jon Tester Montana Politics

Tester’s Latest Ethics Review Available Online

Shares

I happened to notice this evening that the Montana Standard offered some well-deserved praise for Senator Tester’s latest publically-released ethics review. Says the Standard:

There’s no time like the present for other members of Congress to follow Tester’s lead and invite such scrutiny. We’d say this is an excellent idea not only for the remainder of the Montana delegation, but for senators and representatives in other states as well.

Judge Bennett, while making some suggestions for improvement, gives the Senator and his staff high praise:

image

Well, what about it, Representative Rehberg and Senator Baucus?

The entire report (actually an interesting read) is available here.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is a seventeen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.

His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.

In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

11 Comments

  • I would appreciate Senator Tester much more if he actually kept his promises, or was honest.

    This 'feel-good' ethics review is probably intended to distract us from the truly poor job he has done, and his lack of honesty.

    Remember the "Quite frankly, I don't support earmarks, period." quote – and as soon as he was elected Harry Reid told him to vote for thousands of them, and he did.

    Or all the lies and promises he made when he was campaigning?

    Or voting for Obamacare, and not having the guts to face us?

    Sorry Pogie, but a much stronger post could be made about Senator Testers lack of ethics.

  • Come on, Eric. It's just tiresome listening to you say the same unsubstantiated crap all the time.

    Tester's position on earmarks has been quite clear and transparent. Compare his actions with Rehberg, who went around the state taking credit for stimulus programs he voted against.

    Tester certainly does listen to Montanans, and he has been across the state talking to people. Maybe Rehberg does more of it, but that might be because he hasn't done anything meaningful in Washington since he got there. He has plenty of time to "listen."

  • Unsubstantiated?

    Of course they are true – I wouldn't make the statement if they were not.

    Wait until he starts campaigning for re-election – probably next year – we'll compare his sound clips with his voting record.

  • We will- but considering Tester has actually done work during his time in the Senate, I imagine he'll rely more heavily on his record than his sound bites. Rehberg, on the other hand, can't point to accomplishments and so he has to run on statements, which puts him at a greater risk for ending up a hypocrite.

    That said, its true that Tester has brought his share of pork to our state, and you can fault him for that if you'd rather Montana not receive federal funds. But it's not unethical; its the way the game works and as much as I'd like to see it changed, if that's the way to get infrastructure investment I'm all for it.

  • Unlike most liberal bloggers – I was actually there at the debate when Tester proclaimed how much he didn't support earmarks.

    Frankly – he lied. Just one of many.

    Take off the 'D' colored glasses and you'll see it too.

    BTW – he campaigned to the lefties about how he was against the war in the middle east – and he was going to stop it.

    How did he vote on the war funding?

  • Well you're right, Eric, I wasn't there. Thank goodness you've provided us the quote! To be honest, I'd rather he renege on some statements he made campaigning than refuse to help Montana because he was sticking to a naive, publicity-seeking stunt of a 'strategy'- that of simply not asking for money for Montana. I'm not saying he's the best Senator possible, but he has worked to accomplish things, unlike Rehberg, and his earmark follies (a certain border crossing comes to mind) are nothing compared to what we endured under his predecessor.

  • Good Lord, Coobs…come on.

    Tester articulated a consistent and accurate position on Iraq: that the Bush administration had failed. In 2006, they absolutely had. From Tester's campaign web site in 2006:

    Montanans deserve a senator who’ll demand the President present a clear plan to give the Iraqi military control of their own country and bring our troops home. As your senator, Tester will never waver in keeping America safe and strong. Jon will keep the commitment we have made to our soldiers and veterans and will ask the tough questions to ensure that our troops have a clear mission and all the resources they need.

    Sounds pretty sensible to me.

  • One again Pogie – my memory is as long as an elephants – (Get it – LOL?)

    Tester stood on the Capital steps, in Helena, July 2007, and said he wanted to de-authorize the war in Iraq.

    And he meant it too – right up until Harry Reid told him to vote to fund the war.

    HOWEVER – since Tester is not campaigning for re-election at this time, there's no need to enumerate his honesty/ethical problems at this time.

    But rest assured, I shall enumerate them.

  • Harry Reid – and republicans like you – told him to vote to fund the war. Moreover, by the time Tester was in the senate, he was faced with a much different war – it was a war with a timetable (met, more or less) for ending. It would be foolish not to fund the end of the war (and thus force even more chaos than inevitable at the end a when the beginning and middle had been funded fully.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: