by Dr. Ed Berry
… Or why conservative Montana has two Democrat US Senators and a Democrat Governor.
Ele added comment @8 on PolyMontana article Chuck Baldwin is wrong about Ryan Zinke:
I spoke with Zinke earlier this year about the CSKT water rights compact and how it would affect MT water rights. He had no clue as to what I was talking about.
BTW Those who ARE in the know regarding our water rights are voting Libertarian.
@8 Dear Ele,
Thank you. You just made my case. Unless you have included in your “in the know” group about 245,000 voters to assure the Libertarian will win, you will be wasting your vote. And if you did have 245,000 voters, the national polling agencies would have you on their radar.
Therefore, how can such an enlightened “in the know” group think they are solving their water rights problem by voting for the Libertarian?
If you really want to elect Lewis why don’t you and your group simply vote for him?
These are two “IQ” questions and I don’t think voting for the Libertarian will get a very high score.
This polite exchange of ideas, typical on PolyMontana.com deserves discussion because Ele’s comment represents the way many tea party Libertarian voters think. What’s wrong with this kind of thinking?
By the way, Ele is one of the few who have the courage to read and reply to my posts on PolyMontana.com. For that I give Ele a lot of credit and a big gold star.
Most tea party Libertarian folks can’t stand truth that conflicts with their preconceived ideas or takes them out of their political comfort zone. For that reason, few tea party Libertarian voters forwarded my post “Chuck Baldwin is wrong about Ryan Zinke” to their email lists as they always do with other people’s softball articles. That’s because my article is hardball and they can’t play hardball.
To my knowledge, I am the only conservative writer in Montana who teaches people how to think and how to vote to best achieve their own political goals. Indeed, I may be the only one qualified to teach this because I have walked the walk to learn how to think and solve problems. I was fortunate to attend Caltech where they break every stupid bone in your head teaching you how to think and solve problems. You don’t learn this by being an activist.
Other so-called conservative writers blather doomsday news after doomsday news, and tea party Libertarians lap it up like a cat lapping warm milk because they think more news solves their problems. It doesn’t and it never will.
If you can’t summarize and translate your doomsday news into how to vote for the candidate who will do the greater good, for you and for America, you will never solve your political problems.
Sorry for the digression.
What’s wrong with Ele’s statement?
First, it incorrectly assumes a Libertarian vote will solve a problem. It can’t because a Montana Libertarian candidate will always lack some 200,000 votes necessary to win.
Second, it makes “Water” the ONLY issue to decide how to vote. There are many important issues in addition to water that should be considered in our voting choice.
Third, we all know about the information on the Western Montana Water Rights and Elaine Willman’s presentation on how the CSKT Water Compact is a foot in the door for the feds to take over Montana’s water. There is no special “in the know” group that has an exclusive on critical information about water.
Fourth, it “zings” Zinke on the basis of his answers to questions about the CSKT water contract “earlier this year” with no attempt to update its information to October 2014. I dare anyone to run for statewide public office and to be an expert on all issues of interest to all voters.
Fifth, it ignores the fact that Ryan Zinke is the only candidate who has pledged to defend Montana’s right to own and control its water.
The only way you can predict how Lewis will vote is to look at how Democrats stand on key issues. Unlike Republicans, Democrats always vote as a block on key issues, and Lewis will join them.
Either Ryan Zinke or John Lewis will be our next representative in US Congress and with the election only a few weeks away, this is the ONLY solution we should be thinking about.
Tea party Libertarians like to think of themselves as enlightened “freedom fighters.” But if you vote for a Democrat or Libertarian you are NEITHER enlightened NOR a “freedom fighter.”
The only US Congress candidate who is a “freedom fighter” is Ryan Zinke. If the Libertarian were a “freedom fighter” he would have run as a Republican … like Ron Paul did.
Why run as a big government Republican Ed. With your case President Lincoln wouldn't have been elected since he was a Whig and not a Republican. Republicans were a third party just like the Libertarians. It sounds like you'd vote for any socialist that had an (R) behind the candidates name. Zinke thinks we can fix Common Core, Obamacare and is just another crony capitalist being brought out by the special interest.
Roger, don't confuse Dr Ed with facts. Dr Ed, I really thought that you had a major following. Guess not, if I'm the only one to respond to your posts. By the way I hope you're not as up to date as Zinke regarding the CSKT issue or as to who the "ones in the know" are. Are you even familiar with their new Web site?
BTW, I forced myself to watch that Kabuki senate debate tonight. Amanda sounded like a Robo candidate. All monotone, fake painted face and cemented smile, no real emotion. Daines…forget it. Both followed a script and said nothing more or less than was already scripted. Had Roger been there it would have had more substance. Even if the two ignored him.
If anything, my voice will be heard Nov 4. I'm fed up with the anointed parties business as usual . I'm voting Libertarian and if enough people say the same thing, the Libertarians WILL win and so will the rest of US!
BTW the last time someone tried to teach me how to think (what to think), I was in the third grade attendance of a public indoctrination center.
@1, Dear Roger, Lewis is the big government candidate, Zinke is the small government candidate, and the Libertarian is the no government candidate.
As I noted in my previous reply to Ele, if the Libertarian had any serious amount of supporters, he would show up on the polling data. But the polls can't even find enough people to get a reading above zero. If you understand the meaning of statistical data, you will understand that there are simply not enough voters out there who will waste their vote on the Libertarian.
Lincoln did not get elected because of a few voters like you were willing to waste their vote. If the Libertarian today had any support the polls would show it. If the Libertarian had near 30% in the polls, I would encourage you to go for vote for him because then you would not waste your vote. But the Libertarian today is not Abraham Lincoln, and that is the difference.
Money raised is another indicator of voter support. By this measure the Libertarian has no support.
I made my political positions very clear in my post "Tell the Dems to choose me!", which shows I am at least as far right conservative as you are. Our difference is not political. Our difference is in how we choose to vote to achieve our political goals.
You vote in a manner that shoots yourself in the foot and sets freedom back for your and America. This is not even moral. I vote in a manner that achieves the greatest good possible, not only for me but for America, given the choices available. My method is rational. Your method is irrational.
@2, Dear Ele, to give you an idea of PolyMontana readers, thousands read my emails, well less then 1 in 100 readers post a comment, more than 20 send me private emails for every posted comment. Some people just don't want publicity, which I understand.
My post "Chuck Baldwin is wrong about Ryan Zinke" got about one million readers counting those on NewsWithViews. Only two readers sent me private emails that supported Chuck while a few hundred readers sent private emails that supported my position and congratulated me on my article. If Chuck Baldwin had real support for his position, hundreds of his friends would have posted comments in his favor. Did not happen.
As I wrote above, I play hardball in my comments, in a logical way and not in a screaming way. Most people are too timid to handle this. They prefer to play babyball.
You are one of the brave ones.
Note carefully. I do not tell you what to think. I only tell you how to think. I have never had a class where the teacher tried to tell me what to think. This is how I function and how I teach. No one learns if the teacher pats Johnny on the head and tells him, "That's OK, Johnny. If you think 2 + 2 = 7 then you must be right." Yet, that is the type of messages many in the tea parties want to hear and they get pretty upset with me when I tell them the truth. Sometimes truth hurts.
My instructions on how to vote is as valid for Democrat radicals as it is for Republican radicals. The Democrat radicals learned their lesson the hard way when they lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush because they voted for Ralph Nader. After that, they finally followed the advice of Saul Alinsky and helped mainstream Democrats elect Obama.
The Republican radicals, of which you are one, have not yet gotten the memo telling them that voting third party does not work to achieve your own goals.
The Democrat radicals are smarter than the Republican radicals. And they will keep winning major elections until Republican radicals get the memo.
No, your voice will not be heard on November 4. It will go down in the dust bin as one little number added to the quickly forgotten and useless votes for the Libertarian.
I am not telling you to not vote for the Libertarian if that is your wish. I am telling you that you not be noted or remembered, but you will be among the small number of radicals who wasted their votes when they had a chance to help America.
@2 Dear Ele, here is a typical private email sent to me about this post:
"I couldn't agree more with you Ed! This idiot running as a libertarian against Zinke and Lewis is doing exactly what happened to Reberg in the election that netted us one of the most liberal politicians Montana has seen in office, Tester.
"I hoped we had wised up in the ensuing years but your posts are showing me that there is a lot of classical insanity out there. Keep the information coming. Maybe some of it will stick with those of us Montanans who still have a brain."
Thank you for continually injecting sound argument theory and logic into this process, regardless of which side one may choose. IMHO the political process would improve dramatically if we would teach and encourage people to utilize logic, critical thinking skills and teach people about how to look for and discern the different types of arguments while not giving into emotional pleas.
Additionally, I am a bit surprised no one is mentioning applying what recently transpired in Virginia to this election – removal of an incumbent via the primary (Eric Cantor). Yes, vote Zinke in as he appears more conservative than the others and then successfully hold Zinke's feet to the fire carefully tracking his voting record and put the heat on him in the next primary if people are unsatisfied with him. The real power is in the primary, again, as Virginia recently demonstrated.
Ed why just parrot Zinke's talking points. We'll have more government from Lewis and Zinke and less government from the Libertarian. We know this because Republicans controlled Congress and the presidency from 2000 to 2007 and spending increased, the debt increased and we lost privacy rights. In the 2013 legislature controlled by Republicans spending increased over 13%. A majority of liberty minded folks in Libertarians wouldn't increased spending. This country is going down hill yet you would support those who would continue to push us downhill. We need to grow this economy, but congress would still continue to spend even more more and increase the debt even more. The trouble with Rehberg was he said he was concerned about spending until it came time to vote, then he voted forma bunch of big government programs and voted to increase the debt several times. Rehberg didn't even read the bills he voted on. Remember those Gulf Streams he supported, that Nancy Pelosi wanted. When it came out that he supported and voted for those airplanes Rehberg had to backtrack. Rehberg just got too comfortable in Washington and that was his downfall. Besides tester and Rehberg always increased spending and all those pork projects in common. Citizens For Government Waste in their top ten list always saw Montana get closer to the top because of this pork spending by Rehberg, Tester, Baucus and Burns. Conrad got too comfortable in Washington as well, promising he'd support term limits then backing out. Of course a lot of Burns statements got him in trouble. Voters were either stuck with voting for the Libertarian or None Of The Above. Will Zinke be another candidate in the fine tradition of Rehberg and Burns, where's he's controlled by the special interest and not the citizens of Montana?