Dirk Adams Responds, Digs a Deeper Hole

Last night, I posted a critique of Democratic Senate candidate Dirk Adams, who has positioned himself as the progressive voice in June primary. As I noted last night, his record and public statements suggest something quite different. Today, his campaign responded, bizarrely and inaccurately.

Adams takes issue with my contention that he told Gallatin County Democrats he would run as the conservative candidate. Adams writes:

The post asserts that in September I claimed to be running as a conservative when meeting with the Gallatin County Democrats. This is not the case. I’ve been apologized to twice by the referenced sources of that article in describing my remarks that evening.

I’m skeptical, because it’s an unverified response, as is so often the case with Adams. If two sources “have apologized” to Adams for mischaracterizing his remarks, surely they would be willing to publicly acknowledge as much. If the sources do, I will retract my claim.

On the minimum wage, Adams responds:

I’ve said that raising the minimum wage is a band-aid to a structural problem that exists in our economic paradigm. I am not opposed to raising the minimum wage. It often serves as a temporary fix to a larger problem. I’ve also said that the best time to raise the minimum wage is when employment numbers are up, and there are fewer workers willing to take unfair, insufficient wages.

That’s just not what he told the Gallatin County Democrats when he met with them. He told them that “he opposes raising of the minimum wage, citing what he considers to be the result – the elimination of jobs by businesses refusing to hire and pay employees at what we maintained would barely be a living wage”

That’s a fundamental contradiction, and Adams is wrong to oppose an increase in the minimum wage. Even if adjusting it would be a “temporary fix,” it’s a temporary fix that could dramatically improve the lived of thousands of Montanans and millions of Americans.

Adams argues that he was only involved with the collapse of one financial institution, writing:

The blog post asserts I was involved in the failure of several financial institutions. Again, flat out wrong. I had the unfortunate experience of being involved with one. It was a community bank, one of a thousand, that didn’t get bailed out when the housing market crashed.

According to Politico, Home Savings of America was closed for “for “poor risk management practices, among other “questionable activities by the management” when Adams was CEO of the company. Adams was also the executive of First Federal Bank of California in charge of home lending—and it failed after Adams left for “ its high-risk growth strategy…with excessive concentration in option adjustable-rate mortgages without implementing adequate controls to manage associated risks.”

Bizarrely, Adams claims that I said another of his banks failed:

I’ll point our here, too, another way in which Intelligent Discontent hasn’t done their homework. The post refers to the “failure” of Golden West Bank which I left in 2000. It was then sold to Wachovia in 2010. Golden West never failed. Wachovia did, ten years after I was gone.

I’m not sure what he’s talking about, as my post makes no reference to Golden West, another bank Adams was involved in. If I missed yet another bank that failed after Adams was involved, surely he can understand my omission.

Even more bizarrely, in his response Adams claims not to have been associated with a mortgage infomercial company, claiming that the video I included about Guaranteed Home Mortgage Company has nothing to do with a company he was involved because the logo is different.

Here’s the evidence he’s just not telling the truth.

  1. Adams was hired as the President of Guaranteed Home Mortgage in 2012.
  2. This is the web site (and logo) for Guaranteed Home Mortgage.
  3. Guaranteed Home Mortgage relied on a strategy of local braches to sell its products and move loans.
  4. In 2010, this was the logo for Guaranteed Home Mortgage Company.  That was the same logo used in the video I posted yesterday. Today, GHM has a slightly different logo. I’ve posted both below for comparison.


In 2012, Adams took a job for a company that pushed mortgages using cheesy infomercials that probably misled consumers. That he’s now claiming those were different companies is either a reflection of terrible business acumen in 2012 or fundamental dishonesty today. It’s astonishing that we would try to claim otherwise.

I understand that Adams is probably quite embarrassed to have been at an indeterminate number of financial institutions in charge of mortgages before, during, and after the mortgage collapse that nearly brought down the world economy, but the facts speak for themselves.

Finally, in his correction Adams admits he has no problem with fracking:

In regards to what the blog post says regarding fracking and coal, it is accurate that I am not opposed to hydro fracking.

Perhaps now he’ll spare us the lectures on his environmental bona fides.

It’s great that a Senate candidate is willing to mix it up with and respond to critics, but Mr. Adams seems like he could use a lot more consistency and even more accuracy as the campaign continues.

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

  • I don’t know anything about Adams, don’t care as he could be just doing the Tester on us, up cloaking as a righty once elected.

    It’s you I am curious about. You’re an authoritarian black/white thinking wild-card, very little going on in terms of ideology, but big on horse races. You hate progressives. That’s the only ideological tint you seem to have, and so would fit in the other party as easy as your own.

    You think it matters when right-wing Democrats get elected, like it makes a difference. You’re an odd duck, you are.

    • Thank goodness. Two great things about this comment.

      1) I’ve really been hungering for another dose of your armchair psychology. I’ve grown so accustomed to it that my day feels a little empty without it.

      2) It’s nice for you to finally admit that you don’t know anything about politics in Montana. You might consider either actually learning something or no longer pontificating about it as if you do. Just suggestions.


      • Deflects as usual. Self-affirms, as usual. Condescending, as usual (deep insecurity, I suppose – arrogance is a mask for that.) Hates progressives, as usual.

        Odd duck. it’s not just you. Most of your party hates what there is of a left in this country, remnants in the wake of the Powell Memo. You guys are content to prattle about elections, not caring how right wing your people are once in office. Why does that matter?

        Democrats are the problem. You’re the problem. You’re snoozing.

        • It’s actually kind of sad to think you retype these every time. You should really invest in a good piece of note taking software where you can store your seven comments to copy and paste as needed.

          • Deflects again. Condescending and arrogant again. The most predictable blogger in Montana doesn’t like repetition.

            I know why Democrats hate progressives, Don. If we are around, people see what right wingers Demorcats are. If we go away, you get to pretend.

              • You go to great lengths to provoke progressives. It’s a power trip for you. The Democrat Party booted us, hates us, and Democrats have money backers and you suck on that teat.

                Most offensive is when you claim your party cares about progressive ideals. Then you twist the knife.

                There are people who care about ideas, and people who care about winning elections. One is shallow, the other not. Don’t have your photo handy.

                • Yeah, the people with ideas sure a make a difference when they sit at home, too noble or pure to vote for candidates who don’t match up with their visions 100%. There’s just no point in having the same discussion, Mark. You’re not going to persuade me with the same mixture of personal attacks, misrepresentation, and idealism/extremism, just like I’m going to persuade you with my approach that admittedly puts pragmatism ahead of idealism.

                  I believe that electing imperfect Democrats is better than the alternative. You don’t. I think we all get that by now.

  • “Home Savings Of America is wholly owned by Home Savings Bancorp, Dirk Adams is the CEO.’ The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) which closed down Home Savings noted that the Bank “had experienced substantial dissipation of assets and earnings due to unsafe or unsound practices.” and ‘The FDIC was unable to find a buyer willing to purchase Home Savings. Typically, the FDIC is able to attract a purchaser for a failed bank with generous guarantees to cover losses on failed banks through the use of loss-share agreements. The FDIC estimated the loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund at $38.8 million. This amount seems to be unusually, almost suspiciously low, compared to previous banking failures and after considering the fact that Home Savings had such poor asset quality that the FDIC could not attract a buyer. ‘ OUCH.

    • Get your point. The guy could be faking it. That would make him Tester 2. Don’t get why you’re not liking him.

      Your Walsh doesn’t even pretend to be liberal or progressive. He’s a military guy, no thoughts of his own, a poorly cloaked Republican, Baucus III.

      Why doesn’t THAT bother you, Mary? It don’t get you Democrats. Why do you follow orders so easily? If Adams is pretending to be a progressive, let’s all pretend with him, ‘cept me. I really am.

  • If your guy, Walsh, can’t even talk the talk, please tell me how he will become a guy that walks the walk.

    Adams is articulate, and I believe passionate, about protecting the environment and promoting single-payer health care. He is not afraid to say what he believes publicly.

    As a pragmatic, environmental activist with libertarian-left tendencies, Walsh offers me no choice when he supports the XL pipline, big coal, big oil, Tester’s logging mandates, and privatized health care. I am not alone in this regard.

    I realize that you may be upset that there even is a primary challenge to Walsh, and likely beside yourself that there are two challengers, both capable, both articulate, and both running to Walsh’s left.

    Your Ralph Reed tactics, however, do nothing to promote the democratic process. I appreciate that it may be all you’ve got, but that hardly justifies the incremental damage it does to institution over time. In the long run, “carpet-bombing” every opponent that comes along with left-leaning ideas isn’t very pragmatic, now is it? To break the downward trend toward mutually assured destruction, may I suggest that you try to think beyond the next election.

    • What tactics? Don is merely pointing out every time the other candidates lie, misrepresent their record, or stand for Republican points of view. Don and I are both to the left of Walsh, by a good distance, but a) we know most Montanans aren’t, and respect that Senators have a responsibility to represent their constituents, and b) the ‘progressives’ have fallen in behind candidates who are demonstrably dishonest.

      And if you think *this* is carpet bombing, you’re not following Bob Brigham, who unlike Don is (was? its unclear) an official Bohlinger team member, on Twitter.

      • Don and you are both to the left of Walsh.

        Ahr ahr. First I’ve heard of it. Democrats are as Democrats do. You’re right wingers, through and through.

        Apologies to Lizard for bad poetry.

      • By the way, I’ve been chucking every time I see “no comments” on your Ukrainian piece. What a load of crap. Then I see comments are closed, meaning you either know you’re going to get either waxed or ignored.

        News reporters here in the US, when they make up shit, attribute it to anonymous administration sources” or “experts.” I take that piece is your lowest effort yet, a sign of resignation. You truly got nothing.

        • Mark –

          If I were making up sources, I wouldn’t close comments, because I’d be capable of defending their viewpoints. For one thing, the comments represent a wide range for views – from across the political and linguistic spectrum. I’m not in a position to defend such diverse opinions, especially as I’m not there, exposed to the situations that formed them. I’m also not going to have an ignorant and incurious American calling my friends fascists when they can’t defend themselves, and I’m certainly not going to ask them to engage with an ill-informed and asinine accountant thousands of miles away when they are busy dealing with a tyrant on their doorstep. Because really, the fascist accusation is the entirety of what you have to offer – that and your vague insistence that nothing is as what it seems. You have no facts that challenge mine, no analysis that presents a more plausible narrative, no solution that delivers better results for anyone except Vladimir Putin.

    • OMG. You are so tone deaf to Montana politics that it’s painful. Adams and Bohlinger don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of besting Daines. Walsh actually stands a chance.

      So, tell me Kelly, do you know any women? Do you care about them? Would you rather have a Democratic Senator or Steve Daines in D.C. You purist have to wake the hell up. It’s painful to see how self-absorbed and delusional you all are.

      PURITY OR DEATH… the mantra of idiots. And don’t ever call yourself a “pragmatic.” That word is reserved for rational human beings.

        • His commitment to women’s healthcare and collective bargaining. Good Butte Democrat. Now, Mr. Tokarski… why do you remind me so much of a college freshman who just read Chomsky for the first time and things he is the best thing since sliced bread?

    • This is absurd.

      You suggest that I’m upset there is a primary challenge. Isn’t the purpose of a primary to explore the candidates’ records? Should I not criticize Adams for his obvious shifts in position and outright lies?

      You refer to my “Ralph Reed” tactics, and yet, you are the one entering a discussion about facts with ad hominem attacks. It seems like a reasonable, fair person like yourself would deal with the arguments I raise. If they’re so flawed and dishonest, expose them.

      Finally, you refer to “carpet-bombing” of Adams. My criticisms of his candidacy have been awfully reasoned, especially when compared with Adams’ own attacks on Senator Walsh.

      I honestly have no idea what you mean when you suggest that criticizing a candidate hurts the “democratic process.” Even a cursory look at your writing shows someone who has often been critical, even bitingly critical of political candidates and officeholders. Is your criticism the same kind of carpet bombing you decry? If not, I’d love to know the distinction.

      I’ve advanced arguments that can be proven or disproven in this and the earlier post. Surely someone so committed to the idealism of democracy would take issue with those facts instead of hurling epithets and refusing to engage in substantive debate.

  • The last candidate I supported that lied to me was Jon Tester in 2006. It won’t happen again.

    Dirk Adams has never lied to me. If it turns out that he becomes my senator, and I was wrong, the way I was wrong about Tester, all I can do is withhold my vote the next time, and the time after that.

    • No Steve, you forgot the last inevitable progressive step when finding out that politicians are politicians – the woeful, very LOUD, self aggrandizing outrage. That, of course, and the finger-pointing and blame towards everyone else who was fooled by some politician who wasn’t the politician who fooled you.

    • If he has ever talked to you and his lips where moving he lied to you. His “hometown” of Wilsall is about 400 people and he can’t even get them to vote for him. Mainly because he has lied, cheated or screwed over most of the town. Oh I don’t see anything about his last few wives, yes I used wives… the current one as of about 6 months ago he was not even married to as he refuses to sign the divorce papers with his current wife.

  • One of the better comments on the Walsh/Adams/Bohlinger blogger maelstrom came from Steve Kelly: “Let’s have a public debate in every major city in Montana before the June primary election. Then, let the people decide for a change.”

    I would very much like that to happen. In the interim, let’s examine the conventional wisdom that got Walsh where he is today.

    When Baucus said he wasn’t going to run for the Senate again, and Schweitzer (finally) said he wasn’t interested, the mad scramble was on. The Tier B Democrats (Lindeen, McCulloch, Juneau) also said no.

    The party, both statewide and nationally, is nervous. The ‘Ds’ need to hold on to this seat and Daines will be tough to beat. So who does the party turn to: a buzz cut, ex-military, moderate lieutenant governor. The demographics look good. Bohlinger might have made the cut but I don’t see the party getting behind a former Republican — ain’t gonna happen.

    And Adams, well, I don’t believe the party had ever heard of the fellow.

    You’ll see I use the word “party” a lot. That’s because, for better or worse, political parties are the instruments that advance candidates. They have the money, the connections, the advisors and the feet on the ground.

    There are a few exceptions. Brian Schweitzer came out of nowhere to almost beat Conrad Burns in 2000. Now maybe Dirk Adams is another Schweitzer, maybe not. The party isn’t going to gamble on Adams and backtrack on commitments to Walsh; it’s going to do everything in its power to get its man elected.

    So there you have it. No endorsements, apologies or excuses from me, just some perspective on how we got here. May the best man win and may the blogger flame wars recede.

    • MT Democrat Party is a right wing outfit that only sound progressive now and then during campaigns. The money leash is loosened a bit at that time.

      Even so, I am surprised at your anointment process for senate, saying Adams is not well known. Isn’t that why you have primaries? Guess not.

      Here in CO there was a progressive running and polling well against Bankster Michael Bennet a few years ago. Obama ignored etiquette and stepped in to make sure his buddy Bennet for the nod.

      Why not just be honest? You hate progressives. Is it so hard to say?

      • Mark, are you referring to me? I’m just laying out what has transpired. But to answer your question, “Isn’t that why you have primaries?”, well, no. That’s why you have debates. That’s why you make the rounds at county fairs, fundraisers, central committees, media outlets, coffee klatches, etc., and you have a campaign strategy to get the word out. If Adams does these things and his message resonates with the voters, then he’s a viable candidate.

        “You hate progressives,” you say about me. Tell that to the folks who call me a socialist, pinko, New Party, radical leftist. I’m sure they’ll be glad to hear from you.

    • The debate idea is terrific, save this: someone has to pay for them. What would be an expensive proposition is made vastly more so by the inclusion of a sitting US Senator. I would suggest that if supporters of Bohlinger or Adams really think such debates would help their candidates that they pony up the money for such a show. But no, almost universally they expect someone else (the Montana Democratic Party) to fund events favoring their candidates ‘voter awareness’. Realizing almost instantly that there is no interest in such self-defeating gestures on the part of the MDP, progressives leap to to the solace that the party is corrupt for not shelling out to help their guys.

      It’s almost like having a conversation with a teenager. They lament that money plays such a huge role in politics, but never accept the reality that money (large or small in amount) does play a role in politics and always will. They don’t want to shell it out but fully expect others to do so on their behalf. It doesn’t what pull-string toy is out there; they all say the pretty things as candidates, but not a one them is getting elected without money, dark or otherwise.

      I’ve suggested before that if progressives want to get progressives candidates elected they are going to have to buy them. Regardless of the caterwaul about betrayal, it was citizen money and support that got Tester elected in 2006. (Remember that his campaign was going nowhere in a hurry until a former student threw a rock concert for him.) Knocking on doors is nice, but a check has a bigger impact. It was citizen money and support that got Elizabeth Warren elected to the Senate. The refrain from progressives is that weak-minded Democrats are supporting Walsh because they are told to. Yeah, well, the WMDs apparently believe enough of what they are told to fork over some scratch. And the progressives? They keep waiting for the magical day when money will disappear from politics and we will all see the obvious superiority of the pretty lies coming from Dirk Adams as opposed to those from the Walsh pull-toy.

      Or … we can be adult about it, look at the pretty lies for what they are as Pogie has done here for Adams, as Cowgirl does concerning Daines and as just about everybody on the right and progressive left do about Walsh. And when the rubber meets the road, we can ante-up or stay out of the game. I don’t really care one way or the other right now. But I do get a kick out of those who watch from the sidelines telling everyone else who they’re playing the game wrong.

      • We Beaverhead Democrats didn’t wait for the state party to fund our Jefferson-Obama dinner on April 11, a dinner where something like a debate will occur between the senate candidates. Other local groups can do the same thing.

    • Pete,

      Your “history” lesson on how we got here is somewhat inaccurate in a number of ways.

      1) When Baucus announced that he wasn’t running again, Yes, the smart money was waiting on whether Schweitzer would enter the race – not because of his support of the progressive platform, but because, had Schweitzer entered the race, the race would have been effectively over (that goes for Daines too….).

      2) Walsh was exploring a Senate run before Bohlinger or Adams. He is hardly a “second teir” candidate either. His name on the ticket for Governor Bullock is one of the reasons Bullock won. Granted, he doesn’t enjoy the popularity that Schweitzer does, but he easily has the support that Monica Lindeen, Juneau or any of the candidates you are calling “second tier”.

      3) You are correct that the party is desperate to hold onto this seat. It is an even guess whether the Democrats will hold onto the Senate come November. 4 & 20 is already calling it for the Republicans. At the time that Walsh entered the race, he seemed the most likely to win against Bohlinger given his support (both financial and party). Is he a perfect choice for Progressives or Liberals? Probably not – but neither was Schweitzer even though Schweitzer was one of the most popular Governors in Montana history.

      I still haven’t picked a candidate for this race, though I will probably darken the circle for Walsh given my other choices.

      More importantly, this revisionist history has nothing to do with Don’s post about Adam’s less than truthful attempt to whitewash his background. Adams was caught with his hand in the cookie jar (just like Morrison and many other Democratic and Republican candidates in the last 20 years). I am glad this came out now rather than after the primary.

      • Sorry, that should have been most likely to win against Daines given his support (both financial and party).

      • What you call “inaccuracies,” Anonymous, I call a reading comprehension disability.

        1) I don’t see where your Point #1 differs from what I said at all. Did I ever say that Schweitzer had a progressive platform or that progressives had any sway over the decision making process?

        2) I called Lindeen, McCulloch and Juneau Tier B candidates (not second tier candidates) because that’s what just about everyone involved in politics calls those elected officials (auditor, sec. of state, super. of pub. ed.). I didn’t call Walsh a Tier B but he’s probably closer to that description than, say, a governor, congressman or senator. Tier B isn’t a term of derision, it’s just a descriptor.

        My comparison of Adams and Schweitzer had nothing to do with their political leanings. It had to do with the fact that they started out as unknown, political outsiders; not part of the Democratic machine.

        And I wasn’t trying to avoid Don’s accusations against Adams. I was trying to put some perspective on the evolution of this race (and maybe diffuse some of the hard feelings — good luck with that!). I wouldn’t call it “revisionist history.”

        • For some reason, my comments got posted as anonymous. I have no idea why.

          Anyway, your take on the history of the race was hardly unbiased or objective and as such, defend it as you will, it is still revisionist. Walsh entering the race was a pretty much a given and it was also pretty much a given that the Democratic apparatus would support him after Schweitzer bowed out. Bohlinger cinched the deal when he attack the Governor over the failure of the legislature to pass the medicare expansion. At this point, there is little chance that either Adams or Bohlinger will gain much organized support from the Democratic party. The primary fight is already over and the only question now is whether Walsh can beat Daines. I am not convinced that he can (in fact, I have been pretty straight forward about my opinion that Walsh can’t beat Daines unless Walsh can force Daines to engage – something that won’t happen as long as the Democrats are eating their own).

          • Moorcat, we’re on the same page here, pretty much. I like the idea of a spirited primary, though: learn about the candidate, view credentials and policy, viability, and then see how things shake out.

            I’m not sure Sen. Walsh’s campaign is being enhanced by his presence in the U.S. Senate. Not much good press coming out of the Senate these days. We’ll see how much money flows into the state on both sides — too much for sure.

            Adams has some momentum in Missoula, and with other progressives, but Walsh has the D-establishment. Dems have to win in Missoula in the primary to advance, usually.

            It’ll be a tougher race in Billings, and Bollinger will get votes there — his home town.

            Unless Walsh gets out there big time, I see a tight race: Walsh winning by a narrow margin over an even narrower Adams/Bohlinger margin with Adams on top.

  • If Dillon isn’t too far for people to travel to, they might want to attend our Jefferson-Obama Dinner on April 11. It’ll be at the Elks Lodge and will begin at around 5:30. Tickets cost $20.

    At the dinner we’ll be able to see and hear Walsh, Adams, and Bohlinger make their cases. Some of us Democrats will ask them pointed questions and not let them get away with vacuous clichés merely. (A few are inevitable.)

    I’m really interested in why Walsh (and other Democratic insiders) support the XL Pipeline. And Adams will be asked about donations to Republicans he made 16-18 years ago.

    John Lewis will be here. I don’t know if his opponent for congress(Driscoll?) will show up.

    Also speaking at the dinner will be Monica Lindeen, talking about the ACA, and Tara Jensen, talking about the petition initiative to expand Medicaid in Montana.

    In the past we’ve had “Jefferson-Jackson” dinners. We’ve ditched Jackson because he was a racist pig proud of his record as an Indian killer. President Obama, warts and all, deserves to be acknowledged as the historical phenomenon he is.

    Music will be provided by “Sunday Best,” a gospel and bluegrass group from Butte featuring lefties Amanda and Kevin Curtis and Jarod “Smokey” Yerkes.

    • Here’s to a successful dinner, Turner. Would love your take on the three Senate candidates after the event. I like how y’all dumped the Jackson name — I could never figure out why he was a headliner for Democratic fundraisers.

      • That “Jackson” stuff must have been pre-Nixon Southern Strategy geographic cordiality among fellow party members.

        I wonder what effect the new money rules will have on Party Power? Or union clout? My bet is it erodes it big time since it allows doners to cut out the middlemen and women.

    • I hope the speeches and Q & A sessions with Walsh, Bohlinger, and Adams will be videotaped and posted to YouTube so that Democrats everywhere in Montana can see and hear what was said.

      Surely neither the dinner’s organizers nor the candidates would object to that.

  • Dirk who???? Circle the wagons, Dems, and lets all do a circle dirk! A circle Dirk Adams! bwahahhahaha! Jeebus, dudes, who the HELLo ever HEARD of mr. circle dirk adams before he decided to do a political circle dirk? Not me. The dude ain’t even from Montana! Whassupwiththat? The dude is an infiltraitor, a carpetbaggin’ circle the wagons circle dirk! A jenuwhine outsider!

    Don’t be fooled by this imposter. He’s bad news. But I really do think it’s damn funny how many whiners over at four and twenty dumb turds he’s fooled! So sorry that circle dirk got his feelers hurt. He really must be a loser to think that he even had a chance! Sad, so sad, that THIS imposter is what passes for a progressive! He best declare as a Pube, for he has a much better chance at defeating mini-giantfart, stevey daines!

    BTW, any newspapers in Montana asked mini-giantfart how old HE believes the earth is yet????? Nope? Well, I’d say that’s about right! Why NOT elect a moron like mini-giantfart who thinks the earth is four thousand years old?! In fact, I’ll even give mini-giantfart his campaign slogan! Here it is!

    Creationism creates JOBS! And JAYSUS luvs jobs! Vote mini-giantart, stevey daines!

    Like it? ME TOO!


    Pubes, whatchagonna do with inbreds like them?!

    • Good job, Butte, for rejecting mr. giantfart. But what the hell happened to Rocky??? Geez, they’ve changed a wee bit since my buddy Arlo Guthrie got arrested down there! We’ve gone from Alice’s Restaurant to Giantfart’s JAYSUS Museum! Sad, so sad, that a dipshit like giantfart and his mini gianfart, stevey daines. are taken seriously. My Butte relatives are rollin’ in their graves at such an atrocity! ‘Course, Billings always was a scab town! But at one time Rocky had some integrity! They sold out loooong ago. Used to actually MEAN something if you graduated from Rocky. Now, all it means is that you believe the earth is four thousand years old!

      I mourn for the loss of a once great institution of higher learning!

  • If there was ever a social site that was greatly misunderstood by web marketers,
    it has to be Twitter. Use a colorful image that catches reader’s attention. This lets you filter out everyone who only mentions accountants, and produces results of people who
    have tagged themselves as an accountant.

Latest PostCast

Support Our Work!

Subscribe Via E-mail


Which Democratic Candidate for Governor Do You Support Today?

Send this to a friend