Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bait and switch: The Democrat Version
Posted by: McQ on Friday, November 17, 2006

Knowing that Montana would probably be key to a Democrat victory, Harry Reid tried to allay the fears of the citizens of Montana that dumping Conrad Burns would see them loose their seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations committee.

So Reid stepped up:
The U.S. Senate’s top Democratic leader on Thursday promised Senate candidate Jon Tester a seat on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee “as soon as possible’’ if Tester defeats Republican incumbent Conrad Burns next month.

At a press conference in Billings, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus released a statement from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledging to give Tester a coveted seat on Appropriations Committee, regardless of whether Democrats wrest control of the Senate from Republicans.

“Jon Tester is a man of integrity and a man that I look forward to working closely with in the U.S.Senate,’’ Reid’s statement said. “Jon has proven to be a great leader in Montana, and I know he will bring his values of hard work and honesty to Washington.’’

The announcement was designed to blunt Burns’ key campaign theme — that he “delivers for Montana.’’ Burns has sat on the Appropriations Committee since 1994 and has taken credit for bringing $2.2 billion in federal funds to Montana during his 18-year Senate tenure.

Less clear was exactly when Tester would join the Appropriations Committee if he wins. Even Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, conceded it would be “somewhat unusual’’ for a freshman senator to be appointed to that panel.
But that was then, this is now:
Reid said during the campaign that he would "work hard" to get Tester a seat on Appropriations, but three other sitting senators ended up on the committee instead. Reid abdicated his own seat on the committee so that Democratic Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Ben Nelson of Nebraska could become new members.

Democrats will gain two seats on that committee as a result of gaining the majority in the Senate in the elections last week.

Tester spokesman Matt McKenna said the senator-elect never expected to be put on the Senate Appropriations Committee in January.
But my guess is, given Harry Reid's promise, the citizens of Montana did expect it. At least they now know that in Reid-speak "as soon as possible" doesn't mean "anytime soon".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Well excuse me for being an ordinary citizen who thinks we should all receive equal consideration in the spending of our tax dollars. If I understand the implications of this story correctly, it appears that membership on the Appropriations Committee is known to be an invitation to jump right into the trough, grab as much for your own interests as you can, and tough noogies for everybody else. So committee members are busy rewarding their own states, and ensuring their own incumbency, when they should be administering fair treatment for all states. Citizens (and non-citizens) of all states do pay the taxes that the Appropriations Committee is responsible for spending. We should all be given a fair share, without special rewards being carved out for certain states that are lucky enough to get someone on the committee.

I don’t see anyone objecting to this institutionally sanctioned system of raiding the national larder, one that leads to great inequities for the residents of the various states. This abusive and corruptive practice is apparently the accepted attitude in Washington, which shows how truly out of control the entire system is.

As libertarians and conservatives know all too well, the solution lies in fiscal conservatism that does not put enough money into the hands of government to make this type of grab possible, along with restrained federal spending confined to issues of national importance that doesn’t include the vote-buying largesse implied in this betrayal of a promised committee seat for Tester.
 
Written By: PhoenixPat
URL: http://
I don’t see anyone objecting to this institutionally sanctioned system of raiding the national larder, one that leads to great inequities for the residents of the various states.
I thought about starting the post with a statement saying that Reid had promised Tester a seat at the actual trough, but I really didn’t want to take away too much from the point of the post.
I don’t see anyone objecting to this institutionally sanctioned system of raiding the national larder ...
Let me say that I object completely with this, but that is pretty well known by regular readers here and thus my decision to concentrate on the "welching on a promise" angle. But your point is well taken.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But my guess is, given Harry Reid’s promise, the citizens of Montana did expect it. At least they now know that in Reid-speak "as soon as possible" doesn’t mean "anytime soon".
Just to make sure I’m following the timeline correctly.

Before the election, Reid promised Tester a seat on the committee, containing this caveat,
10/20/06…
Less clear was exactly when Tester would join the Appropriations Committee if he wins. Even Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, conceded it would be “somewhat unusual’’ for a freshman senator to be appointed to that panel.
Then after the election, Reid gave chairs to Senators other than Tester,
Tester spokesman Matt McKenna said the senator-elect never expected to be put on the Senate Appropriations Committee in January.
Am I right so far?

So this promise, with the caveat,
conceded it would be “somewhat unusual’’ for a freshman senator to be appointed to that panel.
Translates in McQ-speak to mean,
But my guess is, given Harry Reid’s promise, the citizens of Montana did expect it. At least they now know that in Reid-speak "as soon as possible" doesn’t mean "anytime soon".
In the article dated October 20, there was a caveat “somewhat unusual”. So it seems to me that the promise has a shelf life as long as Tester remains a “freshman senator”.

Right?

And how long is that? Does one remain a freshman until one is reelected? Or does one pop their cherry upon the next session? Honestly, I don’t know. I did try and research the question, but… you know… sometimes google is your bitch, sometimes it’s the other way round.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
McQ:
Thanks for responding to my comment. I always like it when you notice me! I should have made two points that I overlooked because I assumed everyone reading this site would just understand intuitively.

1. I failed to address the point of the post, which McQ had already done in full and quite well, requiring no additional remarks from me. I just carried the discussion on to another point that I thought relevant and that I haven’t seen any other blogs address yet.

2. My remark "I don’t see anyone objecting to this institutionally sanctioned system" was not directed at McQ or Q&O readers, but at the politicians trying to make points by criticizing the culture of corruption, the mainstream media, and others of their ilk. I meant the phrase "As libertarians and conservatives know all too well" to make clear that I exclude the bloggers/readers of this site from that group that does not find the "trough mentality" objectionable on many levels. As McQ noted in his reply to my comment, "that is pretty well known by regular readers here."

I do have a further comment to add to the point McQ wanted to make in this post:
I agree with McQ’s remark: "But my guess is, given Harry Reid’s promise, the citizens of Montana did expect it." Since "Tester spokesman Matt McKenna said the senator-elect never expected to be put on the Senate Appropriations Committee in January," I have to wonder if Tester himself knew all along that Reid’s offer was false and that Tester and Reid therefore conspired to mislead Montana voters. If not, surely Tester knows that this kind of lie is common in politics and that he shouldn’t feel betrayed at all; he’s just been used and abused for the good of the party and so that’s all right. Any quibbling about freshman status or January falls into the "what the meaning of is is" kind of caviling. But if I were betting, I would go with the knowing conspiracy of both parties to lie to voters
 
Written By: PhoenixPat
URL: http://
Pogue:
At a press conference in Billings, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus released a statement from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledging to give Tester a coveted seat on Appropriations Committee, regardless of whether Democrats wrest control of the Senate from Republicans.
Now tell me son, which part of that don’t you understand?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Since "Tester spokesman Matt McKenna said the senator-elect never expected to be put on the Senate Appropriations Committee in January," I have to wonder if Tester himself knew all along that Reid’s offer was false and that Tester and Reid therefore conspired to mislead Montana voters. If not, surely Tester knows that this kind of lie is common in politics and that he shouldn’t feel betrayed at all; he’s just been used and abused for the good of the party and so that’s all right. Any quibbling about freshman status or January falls into the "what the meaning of is is" kind of caviling. But if I were betting, I would go with the knowing conspiracy of both parties to lie to voters.
And I’d guess you are exactly right. That goes to the title of the post - "bait and switch", with the voters being those who are baited.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
At a press conference in Billings, Democratic Sen. Max Baucus released a statement from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pledging to give Tester a coveted seat on Appropriations Committee, regardless of whether Democrats wrest control of the Senate from Republicans.
Now tell me son, which part of that don’t you understand?
Now tell me, old man, which part of this don’t you understand?
Less clear was exactly when Tester would join the Appropriations Committee if he wins. Even Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, conceded it would be “somewhat unusual’’ for a freshman senator to be appointed to that panel.
The caveat is clear. It was written in black and white in the article. And before the election. So unless you have something else, the best you can do is say it was somewhat and believe it will be proven dishonest. But "bait and switch" is inacurate as of now. Maybe later you can come back with that. But with that clear and obvious caveat, your too early.

Calm yourself, man. The Dems will provide plenty of fodder for you, I’m sure.

Don’t get yourself too excited too early. Save your strength. You’ll need it in ’08 if you wish to put your Republicans back in charge.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
The caveat is clear. It was written in black and white in the article.
Right...but not in the statement issued by Reid and announced by Baccus, huh?

So as far as MT was concerned a political promise had been made. The caveat only became known after the election.

What a surprise, huh?

It’s called bait and switch youngster, and if you’re not familiar with it or how it works I’d have to say I’m not at all surprised. Take this as a lesson.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider