Aaron Flint’s Mental Contortions Reach a New Low

I know that he’s little more than a partisan mouthpiece for the Republican Party, but you have to admire the audacity of this post by Aaron Flint, in which he praises Denny Rehberg for opposing the Obama-Republican tax deal and attacks Senators Tester and Baucus for supporting it, despite arguing that the tax cuts are necessary. Flint writes:

However, the votes and statements from both senators above only begs the question: if extending the Bush era tax cuts is good for jobs now, why didn’t they act sooner?  If extending the tax cuts is good now, then when would it ever be good to harm our economy by doing away with the tax cuts? 

To recap Flint’s “argument”:

  • Extending the tax cuts? Good.
  • Senators Baucus and Tester, who support the tax deal? Bad
  • Representative Rehberg, who opposes them? Good.

Think what you will about the deal, but Rehberg’s position, if it won, would lead to an increase in taxes for Montana businesses and workers. To spin this as another in a series of petty and inane attacks on Senator Tester demonstrates the shameless partisan blinders that characterize Flint and his program.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

Subscribe to our posts

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba has been writing about Montana politics since 2005 and teaching high school English since 2000. He's a 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.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • Wait, what? He thinks it makes sense to extend tax cuts other than when they are going to expire?

    Let me see if I can follow the logic: If calling time out is good when you have the ball on the opposing team's 40, with 1:35 on the clock, isn't it just as good to call time during halftime? Or when the other team has the ball, you have a lead, and there's 1:35 on the clock?

  • Don,

    It was Tester and Baucus who made the argument that extending the tax cuts is good for jobs. I was simply asking the question: if they say extending the tax cuts is good for jobs now- when is it good to raise the current tax rates? And why didn't they act sooner. This line of questioning falls in line with liberal critics of Obama accepting the extension as well.

    Nice work- but you made no sense. Take off your partisan blinders and try again.

    I like your playbook though- whenever someone makes a reasonable point- you just attack them or whine about them criticizing the intelligentsia in Washington, DC. Do you get away with teaching your students these tactics? Be honest- you've never even listened to the talk show. And if you do, you don't have the courage to call in.


  • Actually, I have listened to the show. I have a preparation period in the morning and when I've had to run across town during that hour, I've listened. I've listened to you cut off and speak over critics and consistently take the position that Representative Rehberg looks out for Montanans while Senators Baucus and Tester don't, no matter the evidence.

    Yesterday, you excoriated Baucus for taking out of state money without mentioning how much of Rehberg's money comes from out of state, for instance.

    I've also read your blog, which reads like Rehberg's staff writes half of the posts. You can find any number of posts here on my LIBERAL site that is critical of Democrats; can you point me to one post on your site that is critical of a Republican?

    You've certainly pegged me. I am a constant defender of the "intelligentsia" in Washington, but you forgot to throw in your typical buzzwords like "elitist" and "out of touch."

    Let's talk intellectual honesty. I oppose the Obama-GOP deal, as I have articulated before. Do you? Or is your position as malleable as Rehberg's?

  • Nice work Pogie. I wasn't even hosting the show yesterday when The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein was on the program. I was gone for the day and had a guest host. Woopsie daisy. You may want to delete this entire occurence now huh?

    As for cutting off critics? I encourage folks with all viewpoints to came on. We had a great time with Pat Williams, Gov Schweitzer and others. It is to a certain extent the coalition of the willing- and most of your boys aren't willing to take tough questions from callers. Listen to last week's show with Rehberg on the House floor- he certainly got tough questions as well. To his credit- the Govs credit- and others: at least they're willing to take tough questions.

  • Sorry about the mistake regarding yesterday. I only heard those few minutes. My mistake. I do make them. 🙂

    Care to point out one critical post on your blog about a Montana Republican?

    Care you answer if you support the tax cut deal or are you just using it as a cheap shot at Tester and Baucus?

  • I dont believe in parties, I am for what's right. I listen to Voices of MT on a regular basis, he does a great job getting both sides of the aisle to the mic. He has been honest and fair, he might butt in once in a while to make a point, but what tv/radio host doesnt do that from time to time. They only have so much time to get what he/she thinks the audience should hear. Its nice to have someone who isn't afraid to ask Rehberg,Tester,Baucus and Schwietzer the tough questions MT's want to hear. Keep it up Aaron!!

  • I did answer your question. I oppose the tax cuts, for entirely different reasons than Rehberg. I find the argument that doing it now rather than six months ago to be nothing more than a political stunt.

    So, since nothing answers a question better than a non-answer, what can I assume about your silence on my questions? 🙂

  • I haven't been keeping score- but if you're in line with Cowgirl who was asking which outlets covered the CAGW angle…the GOP platform issue…take your pick. If you want to know when I specifically bash one side or the other- most of the time I am simply pointing out information that you don't find in the rest of the mainstream media. By posting the MSNBC video about the Rehberg versus the City of Billings….am I bashing Rehberg or simply giving readers and listeners information? When I post info on Baucus or TesterI think it just shocks you because most of the rest of the media simply ignores those storylines.

    Plus- look at the sign of the times. In 08, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and their storylines carried the momentum….this time around- that momentum is going against Baucus and Tester. So naturally- there will be more critical info about them available. Although- you wouldn't think they would make it so easy.

  • Come on. Just admit it. You're a conservative who pushes conservative story lines and the conservative agenda. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just frustrating that you pretend not to be.

    Even the Rehberg fire story that you mention shows that. Your headline? "MSNBC Goes After Rehberg." Pretty nice work, framing a story about a Congressman suing a Fire Department as an attack from the liberal media.

    Story after story that are either critical of Democrats or framed to be critical of them and not a single one that's critical of Rehberg or any other Montana Republican? To suggest that you just happen to come across more critical information about Democrats is simply intellectually dishonest and insulting to listeners.

  • How do I pretend not to be? I have a talk show which allows me to provide commentary. I'm a radio talk show host- call it conservative or whatever you want. At the end of the day- I think I've been more than fair to all the guests that come on the show- even if I disagree. Sometimes, even too nice to the guests.

    You're just ticked off because you get everything you want from the mainstream media in this state- particularly the print media- and now you're ticked off because someone has the gall to question your viewpoint. Look at the list of Democratic press secretaries- all who used to work at the major media outlets in this state- and now you're going to complain about one guy who offers another viewpoint?

  • Fair enough. I honestly think that, from the few times I have listened to the show, you are pretty amiable to guests that are are being interviewed.

    I'm not ticked off that you have a different viewpoint than I do. I'm frustrated that you don't hold Representative Rehberg and Republican officials to the same standards you apply to Democrats.

    You've got every right to offer a conservative opinion on the news, even if I disagree it. I just don't think you're a reporter or journalist. You're a pundit. I've got no problem with that. I'll just call you out when I think you're wrong, just like you do with the media and blogs. Maybe the disagreement can even be productive once in awhile.

    Finally, I think we'll have to disagree about bias in the mainstream media. I don't think they challenge either side nearly enough.

Send this to a friend