Tester calls out Rehberg

Senator Tester’s office just sent out a blast email with “An update on the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.” I’m sure many readers just received the same email. The email kicks off with the following:

Negotiators are discussing the possibility of including the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in one of the last bills Congress will consider this year.

As you may know, the bill was included as part of a Senate proposal going into these final negotiations. But it needs support from the House of Representatives to cross the finish line.

My message to the them: Don’t let politics drag down this important, made-in-Montana jobs plan.

Sen. Tester is clearly calling out Developer Denny and his opposition to FJRA. And he’s backing Rehberg into a corner. Either Rehberg supports FJRA and helps deliver a major legislative victory for Tester or he opposes FJRA and further solidifies his reputation as someone who always puts politics first.

Developer Denny is one slippery politician. It will be interesting to see how he spins this one.

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

M. Storin


Click here to post a comment

Leave a Reply to Alisha Abubakr Cancel reply

Please enter an e-mail address

    • Your concern for the perspective of Montana environmentalists/greens is no doubt quite sincere, Craig, but I think this “issue” has gotten enough play.

      No doubt Paul Richards and his supporters still believe they won the election for Tester in 2006, but the truth is that Senator Tester has to represent the broad interests of the state.

      • Don, when it comes to the FJRA, Tester should man up and answer for his apparent duplicitous conduct as recorded by Paul Richards and others.

          • Rob, just my opinion. Tester can do or not do whatever his handlers advise. As to the FJRA, it appears that it has been eliminated from the omnibus bill as has the pipeline provision. Funny though that Tester spoke against attaching the pipeline provision, eventhough he said it should be expedited, because it would clutter up the bill while at the same time pushing for FJRA’s attachment. Political hypocrisy on full display on both accountants. Calling for pipeline approval now but standing against the very legislation to do that, and working to attach FJRA to the omnibus bill while criticizing attaching the pipeline provision to the same funding measure.

      • … and as to Tester’s obligation “to represent the broad interest of the state,” I hope he is listening to Governor Schweitzer. See: http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/schweitzer_announces_keystone_xls_mfsa_approval/25808/

        …TransCanada, Keystone XL’s owner, has fulfilled its obligations under Montana’s Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA). Within the next several weeks, according to a release from the governor’s office, the state Department of Environmental Quality will issue TransCanada its MFSA permit.

        The release states that the $7 billion proposed project would include more than $1 billion in construction in Montana and help create 1,200 “high-paying construction jobs…”

        “Now that Montana has done its part in ensuring this important project can move forward,” Schweitzer’s release states, “it is essential that the state of Nebraska and its representatives in Washington DC get things moving. Montana, with one of the more rigorous pipeline approval processes in the nation, has acted more quickly than Nebraska or the federal government.”

        If anyone is being called out today, it appears Schweitzer is reaching out to Tester.

        • As fun as it is to argue with shadow, Craig, this is why I just start ignoring your comments after awhile.

          You also probably need to work on your reading skills. Schweitzer said, ““it is essential that the state of Nebraska and its representatives in Washington DC get things moving.”

          I’d say he’s calling out representatives from Nebraska. That’s what “its” means.

          Good Lord.

          • Don, I knew you would seize upon the superficial and purposefully miss the target. Several days ago the Nebraska gov said the alternate route was fine and the project should go forward. Schweitzer’s message was meant for Tester, et al., to fish or cut bait and show their cards on the pipeline and stop demagoguing the issue. The billion dollars to be spent in Montana for construction is real money!!!!

            • You’re right. I certainly am wrong. Schweitzer cleverly called out Jon Tester, who has publicly supported the Keystone project, by attacking government officials from Nebraska.

              It’s reassuring that you’re here to explain things like that for us. I’ll admit I never would have imagined using “its” that way.


              Time to switch issues again?

              • Don, again you appear to purposely misdirect. Tester’s support for the pipeline came with a catch. You know that. Schweitzer’s statement makes clear that the environmental hurdles have been met. Tester’s “yeah but” support no longer holds any sway after Schweitzer’s approval and the Nebraska’s gov call that the project move forward quickly. The pressure now is squarely on Tester to declare once and for all his support and throw his “Yea” behind legislation to do just that.

  • “broad interests of state” is code for the interests of the business community. Right wing Democrats always fall back on that phrase when they are sticking it to us. Baucus has been doing it for decades.

    I’ll translate: “I’m only a progressive when I’m up for election. Other than that, I’m bought.”

  • Tester is just paying the piper.

    Would Denny and the Reps control the House if Jon and his comrades supported the stimulus bill, HC or ultra lib judges?

    His bill was doomed once he put the politics of his party over the wishes of his constituents.

  • The following guest column was written by the USFS Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest. While some people like to give the public the false impression that politicians stepping in to mandate more industrial logging of national forests is the key to economic development, the Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest offers her perspective based on economic reality.



    “Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market. Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property.” – Julie King, Supervisor, Bitterroot National Forest

    • I think it is very important, markets aside, to establish the precedent, the rule of law, that industrial logging companies cannot be kept off public lands. This is likely why Tester is pushing this bill, just as Burns before him. In terms of policy objectives once in office, Tester=Burns=Baucus=Rehberg.

      • Yes, Mark, that is of course the intent of Jon Tester. Just as it was always the intent of Obama to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq and maintain control of our rather expensive military bases there …


        • You don’t pay close attention. The Bush people set the December 2011 deadline. the Obama people tried their damnedest to extend it. But the US essentially “lost” that war, though like Vietnam, critical victories exist inside the defeat. As a result, the US was forced to withdraw troops (many of whom have been sent to the Syrian border). But there is a critical victory not talked about: Iraqis no longer control their oil. The international oil companies do, and that is an imperialist victory, though some US companies have been snubbed (defeat inside victory). iraqis do not like Americans.

          There is a somewhat functioning independent Iraqi government, in spite of the best efforts of the US, and it has inflicted huge costs on the US, and has enough power to force the US to abandon its bases and pull its troops, leaving behind 20,000 or so terrorists and technicians to continue to make trouble. But the US still has troops and missiles in Kuwait, Turkey, Diego Garcia and Bahrain and can strike at a moment’s notice and reoccupy at will.

          It’s a pain to explain these things to you. You remind me of Swede as you are so dense. I am reminded of Ferris Buehler’s words to the principal, that if he shoved a piece of coal up your ass, two weeks later it would come out a diamond. You reconstruct reality to make yourself right about everything, and in a most humorless fashion, like a gray Soviet bureaucrat. You don’t understand politics, it is that simple. You think that what you see is real. Your kind of stupidity is incurable. I should not even answer you but you are low-hanging fruit.

          • Yes, Mark, I know you ‘want to believe’.

            The Bush people did not set the deadline. You are lying. Obama did not try his best to extend it. The military tried but Obama is CIC, and he overruled them. You are lying. Exxon/Mobile does not control Iraqi governance except in your head. You are lying. The US government has turned its bases completely over to the Iraqi people. You are lying.

            Mark, every single prediction you’ve made has been wrong. Like, really WRONG. Iraq has two assets, history and oil. I haven’t a doubt that they will play those for profit. It’s kind of a ‘duh know, derp’ thingy. Your pain is the least of anyone’s concerns.

  • It works fine at times, to wit: “[SOF 12/2008] established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.”

    The Obama people did not want this to happen, and negotiated to keep the, there beyond the deadline.

    Your biggest comprehension problem is this childish notion that the president takes the helm and makes decisions. He may be involved in these matters, but generally presidents become captives of the office and the executive runs itself. The Preisdent is a show piece.

    Anyway your comment above, you just sorta made it up, right Einstein?

    • Now I really am laughing at you, Mark. Just as you’re trying to shame me for not having an iPad while telling me how poorly they work, now you’re arguing that I should have known what would happen because of a document that *you* told everyone under the sun would never be followed. With every comment you make, you are proving me more correct in claiming that you remain so very very wrong. Are you getting the picture yet, Einstein?

      The only thing being “made up”, Mark, is your consistently wrong wailing about the intent of others, just as I indicated.

      • Most of us are trying to figure things out, and land on but a few ‘truths’ that seem self-evident. One that I rely on is that the “President” is not the same as the “Executive,” so that the office might shift from one person to another, but the person holding the office of president is captive of the executive. There are other rules, but I’ll stick with that one.

        That in mind, I was recently able to assert at my website that Obama would not veto the defense authorization bill that codifies the ability of the executive to disappear American citizens. I could do this because I realized that Obama was not the executive branch, and that very little had changed from the time that Bush held the office. Therefore I surmised that veto threats were merely an attempt to calm the herd, and that he would sign the bill.

        But I ain’t no genius. I don’t have a lock on truth and don’t know the future, and have as much trouble as anyone trying to figure out the present. I only know that words don’t matter, and so I ignore campaigns and speeches. It’s all very hard to understand, as we are given very little information. I just try to understand as best I can. That is the job of any citizen.

        What I see with you is a man with a very large ego, and it is that ego that clouds your ability to see and understand. You are so worried about being right that you shut the door on evidence and insult people who point out your deficiencies. I interpret the sum if evidence with you and suggest that you are sociopathic authoritarian personality, but honestly, if you hadn’t done the Monty stunt, I’d just think you were a garden variety jerk.

Latest PostCast

Support Our Work!

Subscribe Via E-mail


Which Democratic Candidate for Governor Do You Support Today?

Send this to a friend