Montana Republicans “Like” Overt, Hostile Racism. Seems Like News to Me.

On occasion, we’ve had the opportunity to note that Representative David Howard from Park City seems to possess some rather retrograde attitudes about race and sexuality. His previous remarks have been insensitive, idiotic, and incredibly offensive, but I believe he crossed a new threshold for bigotry today, sharing on his Facebook wall (along with the Stillwater Republican Central Committee) an absolutely breathtaking racist tirade from radio talk show host Michael Berry.

I doubt you’ll be able to make it through the entire 9:17, but the piece so enjoyed by Representative Howard and the Stillwater Republican Central Committee is the most astonishingly racist tirade I’ve heard in my life.

I feel like I should apologize in advance for this language, but here’s a representative sample of the remarks so heartily endorsed by Howard and the Stillwater Republican Central Committee:

“Blacks lay around in Section 8 housing and screw each other and don’t raise their babies, leave their children in a world of violence, they grow up in gangs and somehow they’re a victim? NO!

The whole audio is available here:


Did Representative Howard or any committee members object to the remarks? Question endorsing such hateful speech? Read for yourself:



I’m not a reporter or anything, but if I were, I think I’d probably cover this. A legislative candidate and official Republican Party organ should probably have to explain to the public why they would endorse hate speech. I certainly hope that someone in the media will hold them accountable.

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

  • HEY, you’re right, Pogie! Maybe jimmy strauss balls (like mouse balls only smaller), will give this HOWARD guy a weekly column too! For we need to get the racist perspective now and then, just to be fair to all. At least that’s what I glean from the GF Spitoon’s latest moves. All sides must be presented, even the ignernt, inbred, Teatard side as evidenced by Col. Klink! Col. Klink is Cretin Krayton with a commission!

    All who enter Montana abandon all sanity!

  • I’m beyond disgusted. What really blows me away is the language used in the Stillwater GOP’s response – the language is incredibly similiar, if not identical to that used by hate groups. The notion that the “white race” is under attack and that it needs to be defended is exactly what hate groups promote.
    I do not exaggerate when I say this is incredibly frightening. The Stillwater GOP and Rep. Howard need to be asked some tough questions by their community/constituents.

      • Craig:

        I think we need to clarify: The parroting hate speech refers to the absurd claim that white people are under attack. Cosby says no such thing.

        Now, as to the original speech, did you read the link you posted, before you posted it? Cosby gave that speech to the NAACP; Berry is calling for disbanding the NAACP. Is that not enough of a difference for you, Craig?

        • PW, that’s superficial. If Romney had delivered Cosby’s speech, you guys would have been apoplectic, not because of the substance, but because of the political opportunity. Prove me wrong if you can.

          • 1. Calling for an organization to be disbanded, and giving a speech to that organization, is not a superficial difference.

            2. Prove me wrong if you can. I obviously can’t do that, because I can’t make Mitt give Cosby’s speech.

            3. You’re right – there is a difference between lambasting a group of people for being lazier than you from an outside position, and encouraging, from within, a group of people to achieve better. That’s also why white people who point out white racism are just doing what is expected of liberals; black people who do the same are rabble-rousing.

            4. Cosby’s speech, however, did cause many people to become apoplectic. The reactions to that speech were incredibly divisive, and many black people felt like he was betraying them.


          • Craig, it really shouldn’t need to be pointed out that Rmoney would never have delivered Cosby’s speech. You might as well hypothesize that we’d find something wrong with Rmoney if he sprouted angelic wings, grew a flaming sword out of his wrist, farted lightning bolts and rode out against Al Qaeda on a giant Tapir. ‘Prove me wrong if you can’ is even more lame than the Facebook trolls who cast the passive aggressive spell “I’ll bet next to nobody will change their status to reflect my annoying agenda!”

  • Those are 2 totally different arguments, Craig, given to 2 totally different audiences. The Stillwater/Rmoney argument is that ‘that other’ is taking what they don’t deserve, and they’re taking it from you. *BOO* Scared yet? Cosby’s argument was telling black people that they deserve everything they’re willing to work for. The former is an argument about race. ‘That’s the way those people are’ to the selfishly inclined. The latter is an argument for integrity. I think about that distinction every time I hear or read somebody bitch about the number of successful black people in sports. Shannon Sharpe didn’t make the HOF because white people weren’t threatened by him. He did it because he worked his ass off and was the fricking best.

    I’m uncertain which is more saddening/maddening, Craig. That you don’t see that distinction, or that you do and ignore it, which is simply an insult to the intelligence of those who read your comment.

  • Rob, you have become quite disappointing in your very partisan defenses. I fault myself for expecting more.

    Romney spoke about “free stuff.” Cosby phrased it, ‘All this child knows is “gimme, gimme, gimme.” ‘

    During Obama’s first term he has done nothing to arrest the attitude that Cosby criticizes as continuing the downward descent.

    • One simple question: how, in anyway, is the language used by the Stillwater GOP of Michael Berry (or Howard’s endorsement of that language) acceptable? I challenge you to answer in a way that some how avoids stereotypes, racism, and generalities.

    • Romney spoke about getting free stuff from the government. Cosby talks about children receiving from their parents. The ills Cosby talks about are not really the sort that can be addressed by the government. Teachers can only go so far to replace parents – bureaucrats are even more limited.

      Also, I’m not saying Romney is racist. Just that he’s out of touch – it’s easy to talk callously about the poor like so many Randian looters when you don’t come into contact with them.

    • You should fault yourself, Craig. Your paying too much attention to your own Straw men.

      Cosby’s argument, delivered to black people, is that they have the ability to overcome years of oppression for themselves and their children if they recognize that it is their own effort that supplies success, and that accepting that they are too poor except for hand-outs is just another kind of oppression. If you’d care to think back a few years, before the TEA Peep wail’a’thon began, you’d recognize Cosby’s argument as conservative in ideal (or at least what conservatives tell themselves their ideals are.) That same point was one of many made 20 years ago in the movie ‘Boyz in the Hood’.

      You brought up Cosby’s argument as an inappropriate defense of what was purely political behavior. “A black man said something kinda like what my guy *who’s running for office and said it to score political points* said, so it can’t be racist’. As I pointed out fairly clearly, they aren’t the same. And you have quite a bit of gall talking about my being a partisan. There was nothing partisan about my argument, and everything partisan about yours. If you are disappointed that I’m not as stupid as you thought me to be, then I’m glad.

      And yet again, *you* make this a partisan issue when you say:

      “During Obama’s first term he has done nothing to arrest the attitude that Cosby criticizes as continuing the downward descent.”

      For that claim you have and offer no support. It is also verifiable false. Obama has talked frequently about the enormous opportunities that black people now have, offering himself as rather impressive evidence, if the put the will into their own achievements and those of their kids. And for that, Dinesh D’Souza has written a book and has a movie coming out about Obama’s rage and how the darkies are pissed and gonna take all our stuff. I’m not certain exactly what you think a President is supposed to do to “arrest the attitude” of which you speak. What is obvious is that you offer only one more partisan jab. And you really didn’t think anyone would notice?

  • It’s funny you think such generalizations about all blacks are horribly racist, but you don’t mind making the same generalizations when you title this “Montana Republicans…” The best you could do here is maybe officially the Stillwater County Republicans, but to categorize all Montana Republicans in the way you do with the title and text of this post is equally as broad and sloppy a generalization as you spend the post condoning.

    Yes, there are wackos in the Republican party, but oddly enough we don’t spend all our time saying every national Democrat has equivalent views to say, Dennis Kucinich or Lyndon Larouche. You should be careful how transparently hypocritical the broad strokes you’re condoning are made when you use the same ad hoc yourself on political adversaries.

    • Come on, Tim – there is a dramatic difference between generalizing an entire race and a political party. To compare the two is a huge stretch if not just simply ridiculous.

    • “Yes, there are wackos in the Republican party, but oddly enough we don’t spend all our time saying every national Democrat has equivalent views to say,”

      Isn’t that a lie. Here’s a few names you might want to research, Tim:

      Saul Alinski.
      George Soros.
      Jane Fonda.
      William Ayers.
      Reverend Wright (that’s truly amusing since the GOoPer faithful just proved that they don’t understand that there might be more than one of those …)
      Yes, Dennis Kucinich.
      Nancy Pelosi.
      Karl Marx.
      Adolph Hitler (Jonah the whale Goldberg wrote a best selling book about that very thing.)

      So, by all means, ‘Tim’, do tell us all how the Republicants don’t do what they clearly do. Just be aware that it’s people like you who make it remarkably easy to generalize about Republicans. You claim a level of nobility when you obviously have none, and then claim that those who point that out are hypocrites?

  • And furthermore, Tim, ever see a GOP news release? From Rehberg or Romney on Tester or Obama: socialist, radical agenda, extremist policies, leftist, liberal … none of which are true.

Send this to a friend