Montana Hunters and Anglers on Rehberg

This is exactly the kind of issue-based criticism of Dennis Rehberg that those who understand his agenda need to keep using.

It’s a great ad–about an important issue.

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.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • The more you know…

    Outdoors group with liberal ties targets Rehberg in TV ads
    By MIKE DENNISON Missoulian State Bureau | October 26, 2011

    Snips: Tawney, a senior manager for the National Wildlife Federation, wouldn’t reveal the cost of the buy, but sources told the Missoulian State Bureau that it’s between $200,000 and $250,000.

    Rehberg’s campaign also said Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is essentially a Democratic front group formed to attack Rehberg and support the campaign of U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who is being challenged by Rehberg in the 2012 election.

    The group registered with the Montana secretary of state’s office on Oct. 6 as a nonprofit group.

    In addition to Tawney, its officers include Democratic state Sen. Kendall Van Dyk of Billings; Barrett Kaiser, a Billings communications consultant and former aide to U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.; and George Cooper, a senior vice president for a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm and former news producer for CNN.

    As a 501(c)(4) “educational” group, Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is not required to reveal its financial donors. Tawney said the donors have asked not to be identified, but that they include individuals and organizations.

    • Matthew, I for one freely admit to being completely baffled as to what point you think you’re making. Since you seem incapable of comment without huge chunks of semi-intelligible text, let me make this multiple-choice easy for you. Are you saying:

      a) That the rest of us don’t know what is easily read in an online newspaper article and would somehow be better informed about the issues by it?

      b) That liberals (from the headline) are or are not Democrats (from the article)? If this then please clarify exactly what your point might be.

      c) That Mike Dennison is carrying water for Dennis Rehberg’s talking points?

      d) That you are carrying water for Dennis Rehberg’s talking points?

      e) That there is something nefarious because nefarious unknown groups are funneling nefarious unknown monies into supporting Tester’s campaign?

      f) This nefarious action somehow paints Tester in bad light even though the majority of Montana outdoor sportsman are in favor of not letting the HSA control any of our access?

      g) This nefarious action is actually bad for Montana sportsmen because we MUST PROTECT OUR BORDERS!!!!

      h) You’ve got a personal beef with Van Dyk or Kaiser?

      i) You don’t like this reporting but are too weak to say so. If this, I agree but I’m not weak. This kind of ‘fair and balanced reporting’ sucks rocks.

      So, the more you know … what in the hell is that even supposed to mean? Please do tell us where you stand, Matthew. Otherwise, I’m just going to have to go with d.

  • “…the National Wildlife Federation, wouldn’t reveal the cost of the buy, but sources told the Missoulian State Bureau that it’s between $200,000 and $250,00….As a 501(c)(4) “educational” group, Montana Hunters and Anglers Action is not required to reveal its financial donors. Tawney said the donors have asked not to be identified, but that they include individuals and organizations.”

    Silly me, here I thought progressives were concerned with money in politics, especially when that money comes from anonymous sources. Perhaps some folks are only concerned if that anonymously-sourced money is used against candidates with a “D” after their name. Does that perhaps seem like a double-standard?

    • I completely agree, Matthew. You’re being silly.

      What you’ve just presented is a classic Straw Man argument, with a piquant bouquet of Concern Trolling. It is true that many if not most progressives are concerned with money involved in political campaigns. That shouldn’t make them stupid about issues. Rehberg is promoting desperately bad policy, attempting to gain political favor through fear mongering. I would suggest that you are supporting him in that effort, also through the use of fear. (Next you’ll be telling us the money came from George Soros.) Money offered anonymously to fight against that bad policy will not come under the same scrutiny as money used to convince people to accept bad policy. That’s not being hypocritical, Matthew. It’s being smart. I hate the NRA, but if they’re funding this effort then more power to them. “Perhaps”, your new favorite word, you’d consider that *not* giving Homeland Security control over lands, public and private, might be the right thing to do.

      I do apologize for suggesting that you are carrying water for Rehberg’s talking points. You obviously aren’t because the Rehberg camp is just that much more stupid than I expected. In what I find to be a remarkably ironic twist, Dennis Rehberg’s email response to this advert paints the opposition much differently than you have, Matthew. Rehberg claims that he’s only attempting to protect our borders from the rabid Canuck drug gangs flooding our streets with bootleg maple syrup, and stopping the flood of illegal Canadian immigrants fleeing socialist health care. But his noble effort is being opposed by “radical environmentalists”. Isn’t that a hoot!

  • You might want to look up where the Dept of Interior wants the US BP to pay fifty million for environmental damage patrolling the borders. Thats what this bill is all about. Pull you head out of your butt.

    • And you might want to learn how to link something on the WWW.

      Your complaint is, frankly, stupid. Whether the money is allocated to Interior or Homeland Excess, it’s all government funding. What you’re complaining about is Interior asking for money already allocated to cover expenses already accrued. I strongly suggest you check the position of your own head before commenting again.

  • I was born and raised in this great state too and I hunt and fish as much if not more than most and have done so all my life. This add is very missleaing instead of putting out false adds you need to read the bill and see what it says not just make up what you want it to say.

  • Ray, I have read the bill. I’ve linked to it right here at this website. I’ve quoted large portions of it right here at this website. If you think the ad is misleading, then you’d best say why, rather than assuming that others are like you, and haven’t read the bill in question.

  • Lots of mis-information being put out by this group. Not surprising, considering their ties.
    They want people top believe more land will be closed off. Just the opposite would happen. I know people involved in border enforcement, and it is their hope to be able to open many of the back country roads. Many were closed without review or comment. The law enforcement officers recognize the advantage of having locals in the back country to receive information on illegal entry, and smuggling.
    Unlike some claim, these guys do not have helicopters at their beck and call. Most back country patrol is horseback, on foot, and snowmobiles.
    This is another example of an environmental group hijacking an innocent sounding name, to spread things that simply are not true. If you want back into YOUR forests, support this bill.

  • So you spent $200,000 on a now tedious commercial, which you are attempting to foist on unsuspecting Montana residents. Herr Goebbels would congratulate you on your effort. George Soros would love to contribute to your organization if he hasn’t already. You are conveniently making things much easier for terrorists to utilize our northern border ,as violence and negative publicity
    redirect the narcotics and firearms trade away from the Southwest. INS is being prevented from enforcing immigration laws by leftist Obama Administration policy to the point of arresting and incarcerating its own agents . So you are to be congratulated on your neat journalistic propaganda misdirection, asserting that Homeland Security could possibly fence out Montana residents, which ,in effect, covers the actual effort to exclude the border patrol from federal lands.

  • Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You obviously know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something informative to read?

Support Our Work!

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.

Subscribe Via E-mail


What Industry Will Republicans Prop Up with Corporate Welfare Next?

Follow us on Twitter

Send this to a friend