Why it matters.
In the comments, Wulfgar raises a legitimate point about the whole Schweitzer/Wikipedia thing.
While I hate to admit it publicly (That was a joke!), I agree with Wulfgar that the outrage, OUTRAGE du jour found in modern politics is very off-putting and distracts from the real issues. Because, you see, there are some real issues in all of this.
First, Governor Schweitzer violated the PSA law that he signed. Is this a huge deal? No, but election-year PSA’s ticked off many people on both sides of the aisle, and the legislature passed a law addressing the issue. Schweitzer signed, then violated that law.
Did he admit it? No, he lawyered-up and dissembled.
Then we find out his lawyer was contacting the decision-maker behind the scenes to try to influence the outcome. This is illegal.
Then we find out his lawyer…isn’t. That’s right, the Governor’s chief legal counsel hasn’t bothered to become admitted to practice law in Montana.
Next comes his speech to the trial lawyers. Maybe he was joking, but the subject matter, vote-tampering, certainly isn’t one that normally lends itself to jocularity. Maybe he really did turn some dials. At best, at best, he went out of state to a gathering of people whose interests are completely separate from the people he was elected to represent, and then made fun of us.
Then we find out someone on a state-owned computer is editing out Schweitzer’s Wikipedia page to eliminate references to his trial lawyers speech.
For the most part, the response from the left (and the media) has been strikingly single-minded: Nothing here. No big deal. Minor offense. Just a joke. Move along…
I am doing my best to avoid manufacturing outrage. At what point, though, do we look at this gentleman and decide he’s not in our best interests. I know when I did.
Those are just the misuses of authority and shenanigans you know about. It looks like a pattern of behavior to me.
Am I outraged? Nope, but I am even more confident that my support of Bob Brown was correct as will my vote for Brown/Daines.
Given the attention being paid to Mrs. Palin conducting official business from her personal e-mail account…
Can you imagine the ‘outrage’ if someone had used a State-owned computer to edit her Wikipedia entry?
Hmm. Last time I checked, Schweitzer DIDN’T wear a 2,500 dollar gown to the convention. He DIDN’T pay himself to live in the governor’s mansion. He HASN’T installed a tanning bed at taxpayer expense. He NEVER used govt. funds to pay for his family’s travels. He DIDN’T attempt to fire his ex-bro in law! And as far as I know, he WASN’T vetted by a certifiable witch hunter! Hmm. A gathering storm, anyone? You see, the pattern here, don’t you? This woman is as kooky as a Republican senator has said. He called her a “kooky wacko”. His words, not mine. Now, if you can find ANYONE in the Dem party to refer to Schweitzer as such, I’ll buy your argument.
I saw in the Tribune today that Sarah Elliot the governors spokeswoman confessed to being the one who deleted the Wiki entries that contained a transcript of the election fixing speech. Is this the proof that Wulfgar wanted? While I agree manufactured outrage is tiresome, blind apologists who will so no wrong regardless of the offence are much worse.
A gathering storm? Those examples are already discussed and disproven by anyone with an ability to read something more than opinion and conjecture posted on less than credible psudo-media sites.
Ohmigod, a $2,500 gown? For a national convention? Women wear more expensive shoes to the Oscars.
Reading comprehension, wolfpack, do you have it? Apparently not. The proof I desire is the proof of what Gregg and many others have already assumed to be true: that Schweitzer fixed the 2006 election. On the one hand, we have every right-winger in the state screaming “guilty”! On the other hand, we have the state’s highest ranking attorney stating there is not enough evidence of wrong doing to investigate. But then again, the right wails of partisan bias and collision. If it’s choice between conspiracy theories and the word of the AG, I’m just gonna side with the AG, thank you very much.
If the recorded word of the governor is not enough to even ask if something funny is going on then no amount of proof is going to be enough for you true partisans. Standing behind the democratic AG’s 2 hour investigation as proof that there is no “there” there regarding a democratic governor is funny and makes you the poster child partisan relativism.
Not true, Wulfgar. I don’t assume Governor Schweitzer fixed the election. In fact, I think the lack of someone standing up and saying he was run off a reservation militates in favor of a finding that it didn’t occur.
That doesn’t mean he didn’t try, and even bragging about it as a joke is pretty stupid.
We don’t really know, though, do we? I think that’s your point: we don’t know if he did or didn’t, so let’s don’t assume he did. Fair enough. Let’s don’t assume he didn’t either. The fact is that these are not baseless accusations; he said he did it.
You state that “we have the state’s highest ranking attorney stating there is not enough evidence of wrong doing to investigate.” True enough, but in the face of a public admission of wrongdoing, I would tend to think that an investigation would be warranted. Imagine if you confessed to a crime on YouTube. When this was brought to the attention of the authorities, you and your accomplices denied it.
Oh, well, I guess there’s nothing here to investigate then, huh? Unlike some out here, I am not concluding he did anything beyond really stupid. I do think, though, that what he claims to have done is important enough that it merits some further looking. You disagree. Fair enough.
I think you’re a fair-minded fellow, Wulfgar, so if you truly believe that, if this were a Republican Governor and a Republican AG, you would simply say that there is no evidence of wrongdoing well, then, I believe you.
Gregg, as I’ve already clarified many times, I too wanted to see an investigation. Though disappointed, I understand McGrath’s reluctance in an election year, from both sides of the fence. I also allow for the possibility that often appears dismissed out of hand by the right, which is that there really is nothing substantive to investigate.
Sorry man. I guess I didn’t read or recall your other posts.
Wulfgar said, “I understand McGrath’s reluctance in an election year,”. How do you justify refusing to investigate claims of election fraud from the top administrator in the state, especially in an election year. Are elections only to appear honest on off years? There is no excuse for joking about things like this by government officials in a public forums. It’s akin to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, it can’t be undone by simply following up with “just kidding”.
Gregg- there were claims of poll watchers being interfered with on the reservation in 2006. McGrath refused to investigate them too.