Return on Investment

Shares

Many have argu…okay, no, really it was just Mark. But I do believe that he represents many non-voters who don’t vote because they believe that large corporations buy politicians and that therefore there is no difference between different candidates. The specific statement was – why would JP Morgan invest in Tester if they didn’t think they’d be getting something back?

I don’t see why that logic is any less relevant when applied to, say, the League of Conservation Voters, Tester’s actual largest donor? They aren’t stupid. They probably don’t agree with everything Tester does (like, supporting Keystone XL). Nonetheless, they recognize he is a better bet than Denny Rehberg. Or his second largest contributor, Thornton and Naumes, a law firm that makes a living getting suing extractive corporations that hurt people (you know, the sort of corporations that might contribute to Denny Rehberg).

In short? I’m not an expert, nor even particularly well educated, on domestic politics. But the folks making these ‘investment’ decisions probably are. Perhaps there’s a reason to expect that Tester will continue to be the better candidate for both the environment and for the people.

If you appreciate our efforts to hold Montana Republicans accountable and the independent journalism here at The Montana Post, please consider supporting our work with a small pledge.

About the author

The Polish Wolf

5
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Mark TokarskiThePolishWolfladybug Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Mark Tokarski
Guest
Mark Tokarski

You must admit the stakes are incredibly small given slight differences. So I see it shaking out like this: You think that generally Mr. Tester's impulses are good and are willing to make a bet that generally, you'll be better served. I don't see him making decisions. I see him as a man who is under extreme pressure and has capitulated, and now seeks only to hang on to office, as life in DC is far better than what he had before. He'll never be a farmer again. Get real. Rehberg will make the same decisions, and is less challenged… Read more »

ladybug
Guest
ladybug

League of Conservation Voters is a Democratic Party front group and PAC. J.P. Morgan is a money-making machine. One wants to look into the mirror and smile, the other wants less regulation, less taxes, less responsibility, less risk, and they want a man who says "how high" when asked to jump. One launders money and votes for their guys, the other launders money for drug cartels and human-trafficking rings. Is there anybody Tester would not take money from to get reelected? Not likely.

ThePolishWolf
Guest
ThePolishWolf

"You must admit the stakes are incredibly small given slight differences." The league of conservation voters apparently thinks the stakes are actually pretty high – $61,000 high. Murray Energy, Devon Energy, and Cloud Peak Energy all seem to think that the stakes are worth at least 10,000 bucks a piece on Denny winning. Do they know more about politics than you? Yes, and they put their money where their mouths are. "However, when Rehberg holds office, progressives AND Democrats" Both of which he can safely ignore. Tester needs to pay some attention to his base, while moderating his stance to… Read more »

Mark Tokarski
Guest
Mark Tokarski

If he thinks so little of us, why should we vote for him? If he offers us nothing and your only talking point is that you think he's better than the other guy (douche bag versus shit sandwich?), aren't we perfectly justified to ignore him? If he needs our votes to get elected, shouldn't he offer us something in return? Why are progressives, and we alone, expected to toe the party line for no good reason? You did not read LB's comment re LCV – they shilled for Baucus for years, giving him hefty credit for doing essentially nothing.They are… Read more »

ThePolishWolf
Guest
ThePolishWolf

"If he thinks so little of us" He probably thinks relatively little of progressives (following your definition) because – surprise! They are a small percentage of the Montana population. Want to know why that group remains so small? Because many environmentalists, while well educated and technically correct on many issues, use that correctness and education as an excuse not to compromise, and tend to go not to the elected lawmakers but instead to the judicial system for their decisions. This is annoying to the majority of Montanans, and undercuts the possibility of ever getting legislative majorities. "(douche bag versus shit… Read more »

Support Our Work!

Poll

What would be the most appropriate nickname for Matt Rosendale?

Follow Us on Twitter

Subscribe Via E-mail

0 /* ]]> */