Montana Politics

Dirk Adams Makes Some Specious Claims on Twitter

Shares

I haven’t been paying too much attention to Montana politics for the past couple of days on my vacation, but I happened to see a couple of posts from US Senate candidate Dirk Adams that were certainly puzzling, if not downright troubling.

In the first, Adams makes what appears to be an entirely specious claim about Senator John Walsh receiving donations from BP.

Screen Shot 2014-03-26 at 3.12.23 PM

There’s no context for the assertion that Walsh contributors were responsible for the spill, no evidence to support the claim, and no reason to believe Adams at all. Making entire untrue accusations may be the modus operandi of the other “Democratic” Senate candidate challenging Senator Walsh, but I’d like to be able to expect more from Mr Adams, who has enough troublesome donations in his past to call into question the veracity of his claim to be a progressive environmentalist.

In the tweet before that, Adams again bizarrely claimed that he didn’t support the Citizens Screen Shot 2014-03-26 at 3.18.43 PMUnited decision. It’s certainly possible that Adams has changed his mind, but as recently as last fall that he supported the decision, telling the Bozeman Daily Chronicle that, despite the flow of money into Montana, he didn’t oppose the decision. According to the paper:

“He watched the money that poured into the state during last year’s Senate race. Still, he said he doesn’t oppose the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.”

Yikes.

What Mr. Adams is doing is much like what we’re seeing from John Bohlinger: two candidates trying to position themselves as the “progressive alternative” to John Walsh in the Democratic primary. What’s unfortunate is that both seem willing to say almost anything to attack Senator Walsh to obscure their records as supporters of Republican values, candidates, and policy.

If Mr. Adams wants to explain his claim about Senator Walsh’s donations or his reversal on Citizens United, I’m happy to give him space to do so here. A Senate campaign, after all, probably should explain in more than 140 characters why its claims are true.

 

Join a discussion of this (and all of our post) at our Facebook community page.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is an eighteen-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.

16 Comments

Click here to post a comment
    • I expect him to tell the truth, for one thing.

      As for the Democrats “being partial,” I suspect a lot has to do with the fact that he and Bohlinger have records that make them look pretty conservative.

  • I assume Adams is merely dusting off the Tester 2006 playbook, using progressives in the primary. It’s cynicism. Nothing to see, move along. Cloaked Republican Walsh has been annointed. He’ll lose to Daines. You’ll whine about him fir six years.

    • I’m not so sure about that, Buttinski. The ONLY whining round these parts is you!

      But that’s besides the point. Point is that dainsey boy has a history! And it’s time. Time for lil’ stevey boy’s history ECTOMY! It’s time for this lil’ d*psh*t’s history to come out!

      You see, stevey boy daine’s is simply pimply! He’s a pimp for mr. giantfart, of right now technologies. Mr. giantfart is the man, and lil’ stevey is mini-fart to mr. giantfart! And it’s all comin’ out now. I mean, really, a “creation museum”!!! Is THAT really a record that mini-fart stevey boy wants to run on???

      You see, mr. giantfart is one giant LOSER, and if he’s a loser, what does that make creation museum boy mini-fart??? I’d say that makes lil’ d*psh*t daines a GIANT fart loser too!

      I’m thinkin’ it’ll all come out in the wash, or as I like to say the Walsh! If Walsh has any balls at all, he’ll go right AT mr. giantfart and mini-fart! A creation museum is a losing platform, but it’s the ONLY one that mini-fart stevey boy daines has to run on!

      I’m optimistic, optimistic that MOST Montanans aren’t as dumb as mr. giantfart thinks!

      • Here, maybe mini-giantfart daines can use the Deliverance approach and make them Libs squeal like piggies! Hey, it’s worth a try, since mini-fart claims to be the most conservative dude out there! And really, when you think about, WHO is more conservative then them there banjo pickers from Deliverance?! MAKE’EM SQUEAL, mini-fart! I’m sure that them there banjo pickers would LUV mr. giantfart’s creation museum, SPECIALLY if they had some live snake handlin’ demonstrations too! HEY, we needs to get more conservative, jus’ like mini-fart! God wants that!

        http://time.com/36955/iowa-senate-candidate-says-castration-gives-her-conservative-cred/

        And what’s with all these morons here in GF running around with huge Confederidiot flags hanging off the backs of their pickups?! Weird, very weird!

  • Since you prefer the sometimes reliable Bozeman Daily Chronicle as your source, I did a quick search of Dirk Adams’s website. FYI. Here’s what he says on Citizen’s United.

    CITIZENS UNITED: I’LL WORK BEYOND A SOUND BITE

    Posted by Dirk Adams on February 25, 2014
    The consequences of our political system being driven by big money are clear in the destruction of the middle class, the destruction of the environment, and the entrenchment of power brokers that make it seem impossible to turn any of it around. Given this reality, taking a stand against Citizens United is good politics.

    Despite taking “stands”, both parties and candidates from both parties take advantage of the loopholes created by Citizens United. Even the ‘good guys’ don’t feel they can be the first to “disarm.” In fact, the first question I was asked by the Montana Democratic Party when I announced I was running was, “how much money can you raise?”

    I’m not criticizing them for asking the question. It merely points to the fact that it doesn’t matter what your ideas are, your capacity to govern, and willingness to take on tough political battles if you don’t have the dough.

    What I believe in and will work for as Montana’s U.S. Senator is the instantaneous and full disclosure of the actual source of all contributions to political candidates and the “independent expenditures” committees that work to influence the debate.

    I am committed to substance over rhetoric, perhaps to my detriment. But my objective isn’t to talk about taking big money out of politics. It’s to do it.

    The Montana initiative, I-166, was too narrow to stop big money. Money can be organized into forms other than corporations. The approach to try to stop money from stealing elections by focusing the prohibition on the form of the entity as opposed to the expenditure of dollars, in these times, is misinformed. Focusing on “entities” instead of dollars is what allows the shell game to continue.

    The Constitutional amendment that both our current Senators support has the same problem. It focuses on organizational formats, instead of the money itself. While I support it, too, I cannot join in with the fanfare that suggests that this is the answer to money’s stranglehold on our political system.

    Effective language for such an amendment could be: “The Congress may regulate as it deems appropriate the expenditure of money in politics.” Senator Udall of Colorado has proposed just such language. That gives Congress the ability to stop the Kochs and others of their ilk, regardless of whether they store their money in some legal form or just in their own wallets.

    There’s another effective measure we can take. It doesn’t require Republican buy-in or support and it doesn’t require an act of Congress.

    Currently pending before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a proposed regulation that would require all public corporations and entities to report, at least annually, on their political contributions, no matter how small. The Democrats control the SEC. They have a majority of the votes. This regulation, which received hundreds of thousands of letters of support from citizens, has not been passed. It quietly disappeared from the 2014 agenda.

    Why?

    This regulation requires NO Republican support to pass. The Democratic rhetoric against Citizens United appears unsupported by easy and effective action that can be taken right now to address big money’s power over the political process.

    I see the reality of what money has done and is doing to our political system. But I will not stand on a soapbox and crank out sound bites to manipulate voters when there is effective action available now. As a legal question, a Constitutional Amendment to neutralize Citizens United is one thing. The objective of taking our political system out of the control of big money is another.

    As a U.S. Senator, I would push the issue. I would hold a hearing on the topic every month until the SEC got the message. Read more here about the SEC dropping disclosure of corporate political spending from its priority list.

    Taking the political system back from big money is critical to turning this country around in regards to income inequality and the destruction of the planet. Send me to the U.S. Senate on behalf of Montanans and I’ll work beyond the sound bite and make what needs to happen real.

    • I love the soundbite slam, thanks for quoting Adams at length, Steve. of course it’s probably not a winning political strategy, but neither is tepid, party-establishment coronation.

  • I do wonder that your attribution of Adams’ opinion on Citizens United in the Bozeman Chronicle comes indirectly from Montana Streetfighter. The Chronicle statement presumes to say what Adams thinks without quoting him.

  • What no one in the media has yet said. The minute I looked at the picture of the slide, I knew immediately what happened, for I know that country well. The slide in Washington was the result of clear cutting, pure and simple. It’s the exact same reason that the hillside slid into the Blackfoot a number of years ago. Let’s call it what it really is, murder by clearcut! Those trees on that hillside are probably not fifteen years old! And really, deciduous trees in the mix? Clear cut all the way!

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/26/when-clearcuts-kill/

/* ]]> */