1. Rehberg may have talked about reducing the national debt but voted to increase it several times. Is this what you are supporting? Rehberg did get endorsements from Romney, McCain, Ron and Rand Paul and Jan Brewer but in an election that was a referendum on Obama Rehberg could only increase his vote totals from 2010 by about 355 votes. Even though Rehberg was endorsed by Mit Romney, including TV and radio ads but 49947 Romney voters didn't vote for Rehberg. So why blame Libertarians for Rehberg faults of supporting more spending and more government. We have enough moderates in Congress anyway.

  2. Ed:
    "By their fruits you shall know them." Rehberg was in office for years. Voted for Republican Medicare Part D (prescription drug benefits–which was heavily lobbied for by the pharmaceutical industry). This new entitlement placed A TRILLION DOLLARS OF LIABILITY on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers. Voted for the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, etc. Never introduced any bills to cut spending. Had Rehberg won the Senate seat his votes would've been quite similar. Daines is the same way. His site says "More Jobs, Less Government," but Daines recently voted for the pork-filled Farm Bill, etc. Daines has NEVER voted to cut spending in 2 years, as far as I know.

  3. @1 David, Did you forget that Ron Paul and Sheriff Mack also endorsed Denny Rehberg? Ron Paul and Sheriff Mack have something Libertarian voters do not have: wisdom.

    @2 Freedom Lover, you error in logic by criticizing Rehberg in isolation from Tester. The only thing that mattered in the final election was the comparison between Rehberg and Tester. In your terms, Rehberg was the "lesser of two evils." If you are a wise Freedom Lover you would have voted for Rehberg.

    You can debate the "lesser of two evils" argument with Tim Baldwin on his post http://polymontana.com/lesser-evil-principle-guid

  4. So Ed with all those big name endorsements for Rehberg, who have wisdom and Rehberg still couldn't get those extra 49,000 Romney votes. Voters knew Rehberg's record and still couldn't vote for him despite those endorsements. Rehberg wanted to change things in the Senate, but after 12 years in the House what had he done. Not much. You mention Sandy Welch, but she run against a good liberty candidate in Jerry O'Neil in the 2010 primary, that I think cost her some votes. And if all those Romney voters would have supported Skees, Fellows, and Welch we would have those people elected right now as well.

  5. @4 David, let's assume some 90 percent of Montana Libertarian voters also supported Ron Paul and some large percent think highly of Sheriff Mack. (PS: I supported Ron Paul in the primary election and I think highly of Sheriff Mack.)

    Why did these Ron Paul supporters, and possible Sheriff Mack supporters, not follow Ron Paul's and Sheriff Mack's recommendation to vote for Rehberg?

    The issue is not about Rehberg getting votes. The issue is about Libertarian voters who did not make a wise choice and ended up moving the freedom ball closer to the slavery goal post.

    The conclusion is we must always support the "lesser of two evils" (among candidates who can win) in the final election if we want to move the ball towards the freedom goal post.

    You are right in your last sentence. All conservatives should have supported Hill, Skees, Fellows, and Welch in the final election and we all are paying the price because they did not do so.

  6. Just in from the Gun Owners of America:

    Rand Paul's Pro-gun Amendment to Repeal Gun Bans in Post Offices Initially Failed but a relentless Paul achieves minor improvements. In a surprise ambush, Democrats on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously voted to defeat a Rand Paul amendment to allow guns in post offices.

    But Senator Paul was relentless in trying to get his language adopted. And as a result, a minor (anemic) improvement was later added as a sop to his persistence.

    So, here’s what happened on Thursday: The committee initially defeated the Paul language that would have completely repealed the gun ban in Post Offices.

    Among those who voted anti-gun (by continuing the postal gun ban) were three endangered Democrats running for reelection in pro-gun states:
    * Mark Pryor (D-AR)
    * Mark Begich (D-AK)
    * Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

    In addition, two other notable Democrats voted anti-gun. These Democrats had just won reelection by pretending to be pro-gun, but they joined with the anti-gun chorus anyway. They were:
    * Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
    * Jon Tester (D-MT)

    Senator Paul’s guns-in-Post-Offices amendment was defeated (9-6) on a party line vote.

    To his credit, Senator Paul didn’t want to settle for a mere study and kept pushing to get his amendment passed. This later resulted in anemic language that allows some concealed carry — but only in postal parking lots and only for some gun owners.

    That language passed unanimously and is now included in S. 1486.

    That several Democrats on the committee were wary of allowing guns inside the actual post office buildings shows just how out-of-step they are with the American people — and the law-enforcement community.

    In a nationwide poll of police officers by http://PoliceOne.com last year, over 90 percent surveyed “support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians,” and 80 percent of officers believed that legally-armed citizens would have “reduced the number of casualties in recent mass shootings.”

    Senator Paul should be commended for his relentless push to get a concealed carry amendment passed — even if the language that finally passed was anemic in nature.

    The five Democrats who swung the vote to kill the initial pro-gun language (to allow guns in Post Office buildings) were Senators Pryor, Begich, Landrieu, Heitkamp and Tester.

    How many more unarmed people will have to die in post offices because these five Democrats lied to their constituents when they said they supported the Second Amendment?

    Ed's comment:

    Some people claim there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Here's a big difference that proves them wrong.

    Those who voted against Rehberg in the last election help re-elect anti-gun Senator Testor and we are now stuck with him for a full 6 years.

    "Thanks", Libertarian voters! And a special "thanks" to Stewart Rhodes of Oath Keepers for encouraging your followers to help elect Tester. How does helping the anti-second-amendment establishment keep your oath?

  7. I agree that Tester lied regarding support for gun rights. But Rehberg did the same thing, year after year. Rehberg never introduced a single bill to cut federal gun control laws. Today if an American purchases a handgun out of his home state (during a vacation or whatever) and takes it back home, he is subject to 10 years in federal prison. There are American farmers and ranchers who have gone to federal prison just for possessing guns on their ranch 20 years after being convicted of a felony. One guy in Pennsylvania took his aging legally-blind father hunting on their family farm and was prosecuted by the feds. Rehberg and the other Republicans in Congress have done NOTHING to eliminate such stupid gun control laws. Rehberg had many years to write and introduce such a bill; he never did.

  8. Ed, you keep bringing up Ron Paul's and Sheriff Mack's supposed endorsements of Rehberg in 2012. Although I respect Paul and Mack, I don't blindly follow their endorsements–especially regarding Montana politics, of which they may be unknowledgeable. I do my own research of the candidate. Rehberg was no Ron Paul; he voted to place a trillion dollars of liability on the taxpayers (and probably more), and voted to spy on, terrorize and humiliate the American people time and again. At least Tester never voted for the Patriot Act.

  9. @7, Freedom Lover, now that you are comparing Rehberg with Tester, I agree with your logic. My position is we should not judge a candidate in isolation but by comparison to his/her competition.

    If you wish to make a case that Tester was a "lesser evil" than Rehberg, I will support your effort to do so.

    @8, you have made your point well.

  10. @10 Dear TeaParty 2007, real tea party folks, like the originals, choose a course of action to achieve their objectives. If you don't back and promote the best candidates for your goals then you are irrelevant to the tea party mission.

    If you can't figure out that Tester, not Rehberg, would promote Obamacare and gun control, or that Bullock, not Hill, would veto over 70 conservative bills, then you are not helping us achieve our goals.

    I repeat my opening paragraphs:

    It is past time for Libertarian voters to realize the damage they have done to our freedom and to change their voting strategy.

    As we all know, the tea party extremists who voted Libertarian rather than Republican in 2012, helped send Democrat Obamacare supporter Jon Tester to the US Senate for 6 more years.

    These same “tea party” folks also helped elect Democrat Steve Bullock as Governor of the great State of Montana.

    “By their works we shall know them.” And the works of these Libertarian voters helped government-control-freak liberals and irrational environmentalists gain control of Montana’s economy, freedom, and education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.