BigHornRam
Well-known member
Lot of irony in this paragraph Ben. I think turnout will be huge in November.
MT Senator race: Public Lands
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
Lot of irony in this paragraph Ben. I think turnout will be huge in November.
I do as well.
And it's great. People should participate in our democratic institutions.
And for Tester, I think it means he wins. If we lose that seat, and replace a man of principle with an opportunist who always puts himself first, then shame on Montana. Rosendale has consistently voted against access & the scientific management of wildlife. He's even gone so far as to try and dictate what kind of wildlife can be on wildlife management areas in his role as Auditor. He's voted to set seasons in statute, he's voted to kill land acquisitions that opened up thousands of acres of landlocked public land and he's tried to kill Habitat Montana since his first session in 2011.
If that's what you want, then vote for Rosendale. If you want a proven leader who has stood up for Montanans time and time again, vote for Tester.
And it's great. People should participate in our democratic institutions.
And for Tester, I think it means he wins. If we lose that seat, and replace a man of principle with an opportunist who always puts himself first, then shame on Montana. Rosendale has consistently voted against access & the scientific management of wildlife. He's even gone so far as to try and dictate what kind of wildlife can be on wildlife management areas in his role as Auditor. He's voted to set seasons in statute, he's voted to kill land acquisitions that opened up thousands of acres of landlocked public land and he's tried to kill Habitat Montana since his first session in 2011.
If that's what you want, then vote for Rosendale. If you want a proven leader who has stood up for Montanans time and time again, vote for Tester.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
With respect to the MT Senator race: Public Lands issue, it should be noted that when State Auditor Matt Rosendale touts the accomplishments of the Land Board regarding public land acquisitions and public land access, he is taking credit for the actions of a board under the leadership and chairmanship of Democratic Governor Steve Bullock. Also his obvious opposition to an important conservation and access easement this past year was seemingly based on ideology and allegiance to resource extraction industries, while ignoring the wishes of private property owners and the extensive research, negotiations, and vetting accomplished prior to the proposal reaching the Land Board.
Secondly, it should be noted that if and when he has the opportunity and responsibility of voting on legislation regarding PLT, it is highly unlikely that he will oppose his party's platform. IMO, the only reason he has recently expressed any opposition to PLT is that he has heard loud and clear from the voters across Montana and is crafting his position(s) simply to garner votes. If in fact he is a limited term candidate, he will care less about voter attitudes and more about party ideology ... and big money going forward.
So .... regardless of any angst you may have about Senator Tester's past or future votes, if you regard the public lands issues as highly as most Montanans ... you will not cast a vote for Auditor Rosendale.
But if I am understanding much of the rationale concerning opposition to Tester, it sounds like the SCOTUS appointment by President Trump is far more important than public land and public land access concerns.
Sad to me at this juncture in the era of jeopardy to public lands.
Secondly, it should be noted that if and when he has the opportunity and responsibility of voting on legislation regarding PLT, it is highly unlikely that he will oppose his party's platform. IMO, the only reason he has recently expressed any opposition to PLT is that he has heard loud and clear from the voters across Montana and is crafting his position(s) simply to garner votes. If in fact he is a limited term candidate, he will care less about voter attitudes and more about party ideology ... and big money going forward.
So .... regardless of any angst you may have about Senator Tester's past or future votes, if you regard the public lands issues as highly as most Montanans ... you will not cast a vote for Auditor Rosendale.
But if I am understanding much of the rationale concerning opposition to Tester, it sounds like the SCOTUS appointment by President Trump is far more important than public land and public land access concerns.
Sad to me at this juncture in the era of jeopardy to public lands.
Well said Straight Arrow.
Similarly, if you care about wild sheep conservation at all, you can't vote for Rosendale, who has twice supported ending Montana's ability to transplant live sheep by voting for SB 341 & SB 83 in 2013.
Similarly, if you care about wild sheep conservation at all, you can't vote for Rosendale, who has twice supported ending Montana's ability to transplant live sheep by voting for SB 341 & SB 83 in 2013.
onpoint
Well-known member
"With respect to the MT Senator race: Public Lands issue, it should be noted that when State Auditor Matt Rosendale touts the accomplishments of the Land Board regarding public land acquisitions and public land access, he is taking credit for the actions of a board...."
Glad you noted that, SA. Exactly what I noticed immediately, amongst the other unadulterated BS Rosendale not-so-eloquently spouts.
Glad you noted that, SA. Exactly what I noticed immediately, amongst the other unadulterated BS Rosendale not-so-eloquently spouts.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
I just saw where the NRA downgraded Tester from an A rating to a D for voting against Kavanaugh. That seems incredibly petty to me. Had he not been appointed to the Supreme Court, the next nominee would have been pro 2nd Amendment as well.
I do think Tester could have hurt his chances for reelection by voting no. I hope I'm wrong.
I do think Tester could have hurt his chances for reelection by voting no. I hope I'm wrong.
It is incredibly petty.
The NRA has endorsed a land-transfer advocate who has voted against NRA interests (banning of sage grouse hunting), has voted to never allow the state to purchase land without first selling the same amount of land, and has a record of supporting the legislative attempts to set seasons in statute.
The NRA is a sham.
onpoint
Well-known member
Today's NRA is a bad joke - played especially on hunters.
Too bad so many fall for their crap. If they stuck to just "protecting our gun rights" period.....................
Tester can wear that NRA rating as a badge of honor, as can Kathleen Williams - who still has her deceased husbands Wire haired Pointing Griffon
- he was a dedicated, active and contributing sportsman. As is she.
Headin' east.....................................................................
Too bad so many fall for their crap. If they stuck to just "protecting our gun rights" period.....................
Tester can wear that NRA rating as a badge of honor, as can Kathleen Williams - who still has her deceased husbands Wire haired Pointing Griffon
- he was a dedicated, active and contributing sportsman. As is she.Headin' east.....................................................................
Kathleen Williams is a Moms Demand Action emdorsed supporter of the banning of semi automatic firearms. Greg Gianforte is a billionaire East Coast transplant that dedicated massive resources to trying to block your access to exercise your right to fish your public waterways.
Elinor Swanson, supports your gun rights and keeping public lands public. She doesn’t have a D or R behind her name though so she must be no good.
Elinor Swanson, supports your gun rights and keeping public lands public. She doesn’t have a D or R behind her name though so she must be no good.
http://www.mtpr.org/post/libertarian-house-candidate-elinor-swanson-talks-public-lands
Jersey G will retain the seat. He's not buggered up to a point to lose the seat, especially now since "Public Lands in Public Hands" environmental groups have divided their "Public Hands" as only hoof/boot hands. Screw the public mentality... those groups gave Big G and Daines fuel they lacked when the general idea was "Public Hands" meant the public.
I'll vote Swanson. She has that "Libertarian" edge that from her, leans towards Stewardship vs typical Libertarian transfer to state platform mentality.
Kathleen Williams, that San Francisco, Berkeley treat... Not for myself.
As for Tester... In all attempt to keep this about public lands, I'll refrain from further...
Jersey G will retain the seat. He's not buggered up to a point to lose the seat, especially now since "Public Lands in Public Hands" environmental groups have divided their "Public Hands" as only hoof/boot hands. Screw the public mentality... those groups gave Big G and Daines fuel they lacked when the general idea was "Public Hands" meant the public.
I'll vote Swanson. She has that "Libertarian" edge that from her, leans towards Stewardship vs typical Libertarian transfer to state platform mentality.
Kathleen Williams, that San Francisco, Berkeley treat... Not for myself.
As for Tester... In all attempt to keep this about public lands, I'll refrain from further...
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Just an FYI, when Montana had a initiative on the ballot (I-143) to ban the hunting of pen raised animals on game farms for a fee, the NRA came out and supported the game farmers attempts to stop that effort. They worked pretty hard against the sportsmen interests of this state. That was the day I ended my support of the NRA.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Everyone is born somewhere. I respect you to vote as you see it, but broaden your sources of info, as this comment reflects a silly trite far right sound bite. Libertarian choice would be better than voting for the party with PLT as a platform plank, but don't skew the reputation and career of Kathleen Williams with such irrational statements about from where she moved or about some contrived relationship with Nancy Pelosi and California liberalism; you are more astute than that.
Following is a perspective relative to the thread title (although about the House race) and in particular, the public lands issue.
Honesty, integrity, and healthy longstanding Montana values are expressed and demonstrated by Kathleen Williams everyday, all day. Successful work on behalf of higher education, a balanced state budget, improved consumer protections, and reduced business equipment tax burden are a few examples of her admirable legislative service. Kathleen is an outdoors woman and a strong supporter of the state’s important outdoor recreation industry. She will stand tall in protecting Montana’s public lands and unique “last best place” landscapes. She is a hunter and gun owner who will continue to advocate for wildlife, hunting, and gun ownership rights. Make Montana proud again! Vote for Kathleen Williams.
Last edited:
This would have been a perfect post from you.
Bully
Sytes, are those radio ads I hear about the Border Patrol supporting Tester something you agree with?
A bit off the public lands issue though to respond, I agree... Montana Unions, both local and federal, have been well represented by Tester.
Just to circle back on this, I've interacted w/ Swanson a little bit and while I don't agree w/her on a variety of issues, she certainly has a much better temperament than Gianforte when it comes to dealing with people w/opposing views. She'd be someone people could work with.
This is the *sheitty aspect... D's are hoping enough votes go to Swanson to break G's hold on the House seat.
While Jersey G is a reasonable mid level schmuck, he is an equivalent to --*pre*-- 2016 bile tasting, nose pinching, vote for the lesser of two evils type candidate.
It really boils down to *Jersey temperboy, Greg Gianforte vs *San Francisco treat, Kathleen Williams.
While Jersey G is a reasonable mid level schmuck, he is an equivalent to --*pre*-- 2016 bile tasting, nose pinching, vote for the lesser of two evils type candidate.
It really boils down to *Jersey temperboy, Greg Gianforte vs *San Francisco treat, Kathleen Williams.
Charles,
In that race, my vote goes to Kathleen. I can't vote for someone who is so intemperate as Gianforte, or who has the voting record he does. Elinor Swanson is a legitimate candidate, regardless of what both parties think of Libertarians. She's sharp & has proven herself to be willing to listen to Montanans. That's something both Kathleen & Elinor have in spades over Gianforte.
In that race, my vote goes to Kathleen. I can't vote for someone who is so intemperate as Gianforte, or who has the voting record he does. Elinor Swanson is a legitimate candidate, regardless of what both parties think of Libertarians. She's sharp & has proven herself to be willing to listen to Montanans. That's something both Kathleen & Elinor have in spades over Gianforte.
scubohuntr
Active member
It's a tough call.
Generally, I place 2A issues pretty high. R candidates generally (though not always) do better there.
Public lands issues mean you really can't vote for a Republican, given their party platform.
Voting in more democrats is dangerous, as the balance in Congress is very, very close.
Tester's mudslinging ad campaign makes it very, very hard to vote for him.
I'll tend to vote for anyone who is not Gianforte in that race, and I'll probably hold my nose and reluctantly vote for Tester. I was much happier about that vote before his ads started.
Generally, I place 2A issues pretty high. R candidates generally (though not always) do better there.
Public lands issues mean you really can't vote for a Republican, given their party platform.
Voting in more democrats is dangerous, as the balance in Congress is very, very close.
Tester's mudslinging ad campaign makes it very, very hard to vote for him.
I'll tend to vote for anyone who is not Gianforte in that race, and I'll probably hold my nose and reluctantly vote for Tester. I was much happier about that vote before his ads started.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It boils down to this: both Rosendale and Gianforte would vote favoring PLT in a heartbeat. PLT is a Republican platform plank. The only reason they are seemingly advocating on behalf of public lands is simply for Montana votes. Both Tester and Williams are a certainty when it comes to protecting public lands.
Among all of the candidates running in Montana, the Second Amendment and "Sanctuary Cities" are really pseudo issues. Admittedly at this political juncture nationally, as well as in Montana, I am a pretty basic single-issue voter. PLT is an extremely big deal. Consider the changes to BLM protective policies, the Monuments brouhaha, and other issues recently. PLT could happen before your Christmas shopping even begins!
