Big Sky Cairn

Back before Big Sky Cairn was even a twinkle in my eye, when the “Dextrasphere” was still new and growing, conservative blogs in Montana faced a bout of dishonesty amongst their own. A blog called Montana Pundit was correctly accused of plagiarism by Shane Mason. They way conservatives bloggers responded when it became clear that they were being lied to by Hagen was one of the reasons I eventually decided to throw myself in with their lot. The infant Dextrasphere responded by removing the site from their Dextra feed and disavowing the author - even though he was “one of their own.” Integrity, for them, rose above partisan loyalty. The Dextra policed its own and Montana Pundit is now an internet ghost town.

I want to pose a question for the left-leaning blogs in Montana: What role do you believe that integrity plays in blogging and what measures are you willing to take to preserve it? Are you willing to castigate one of your own for lying?

The subject I’m about to breech has already been discussed by Missoulapolis, Rabid Sanity and Electric City Weblog but I’m interested in what, if any, response this situation invokes from the left-leaning blogs. How dearly do you hold the integrity of your associations?

Jay Stevens at Left in the West is perpetuating a lie. A lie that Congressman Denny Rehberg does not support the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In fairness, he’s not the first to tell this lie. Abortive Democrat Bill Kennedy started it, and seventh-string backup Democrat and lawyer Jim Hunt has perpetuated it. But Jay has developed a bit of a compulsion - he can’t seem to type the word “Rehberg” without repeating his lie. You can see it, for example, here, here, here and most recently, here.

The problem, obviously, is that this isn’t even close to accurate, as Erik Iverson recently explained to an outmatched Jim Hunt.

Rehberg initially opposed increased health care for children, and only supported it after he saw polls showing Montanans supported it, Hunt said.

But Rehberg’s office disagrees.

From the beginning, Rehberg said he preferred the Senate version of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program bill rather than the House version, said Erik Iverson, Rehberg’s chief of staff.

“Jim Hunt claims to be on the hunt for change, but the only thing he seems to be changing is the facts,” Iverson said. “I’m not calling him a liar, but I am calling him a lawyer.”

Here’s the truth. SCHIP was originally created by a Republican Congress. Rehberg is on record supporting SCHIP before he voted against Pelosi’s version of the re-authorization. He then voted for the compromise bill and went so far as to vote to override the President’s veto. Fortunately, all of this is documented.

• SCHIP was created in 1997. Bill Clinton was President and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.
• Denny is on the record supporting the Republican-created SCHIP program on August 1, 2007, the day he cast the first vote (relevant because it shows that he didn’t change his mind).

Montanans have heard a lot in the news in the past several months about the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. Since the program was started in 1997, it has done wonders for kids who don’t qualify for Medicaid but can’t afford private health insurance both in Montana and across the United States. In fact, as of last month, 14,304 Montana kids are enrolled in CHIP and have benefited from the coverage it provides. This program is working and it should be reauthorized so it can continue to work for the kids that need it most.

• Rehberg voted against the House version of the SCHIP Re-authorization Bill but voted for final passage of the bill after the Senate removed the parts he is on the record as opposing. Diverging from the Republican Party, he was one of only 45 Republicans in the House to vote for this bill.
• Diverging from President Bush, Rehberg voted to override the President’s promised veto of this bill. Democrat political maneuvering (they ran attack ads in the district of a Republican who voted for the bill the first time around) actually cost them a Republican vote making Rehberg one of 44 Republicans in the House to vote for the override.
• The first vote that Denny opposed was a Heisman Vote - House Democrats knew that their version had no chance in the Senate, let alone the White House. That version would never have become law, regardless of how Rehberg voted on it. It was a vote motivated solely for political reasons.
• Rehberg outlined his concerns with Pelosi’s version of the bill in an Op-Ed, explaining his preference for the Senate version of the legislation. As quoted above, the first paragraph in this editorial, he unequivocally expressed support for SCHIP as a policy.
• Pelosi’s version of the bill was not SCHIP, which is not to say it didn’t include SCHIP among its expansionist provisions. In addition to extending the program and increasing its funding at a level that the President agreed to accept, it did much, much more.
• Pelosi’s bill would have extended “SCHIP” to illegal immigrants.
• Pelosi’s bill would have extended “SCHIP” to adults.
• Pelosi’s bill would have extended “SCHIP” to the wealthy.
• In other words, opposing Pelosi’s bill was not opposing SCHIP. Denny would have - and did - support a straight up re-authorization of SCHIP. He even supported significantly increased funding. His vote was was opposing Hillarycare under that dangerously false “for the kids” mantra.

So where does this leave us? Jay is habitually and falsely accusing Congressman Rehberg of opposing SCHIP when 1) he stated he supported it, 2) he voted for it, and 3) he voted to override the President’s veto.

When a conservative blog was dishonest, conservative bloggers took a stand because as bloggers integrity is all we have. Will anyone on the left have the guts to take a stand? Will anyone have the integrity to tell Jay to stop undermining the Montana blogospehre by filling it with his lies?

I hope so.

Nope!

I believe this is the old, standard practice of “if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” Does that practice work? Ask former Senator Burns. So I’m betting that the left won’t castigate Jay!

I don’t expect Wulfgar or similar partisans to chime in, nor do I expect Jay to see his actions for what they are based on this post. But in recent weeks, I have discovered that there are bloggers on the left who care about quality of discourse. Those are the bloggers that I’m appealing to because as I said, Jay’s not going to see it himself and he’s certainly not going to bend to the Dextrasphere. It needs to come from his allies - even if by back-channel.

Okay, I am curious. Who are the reputable Left bloggers right now? None come to mind at the moment.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough by who stands up to Jay.

The problem with trying to nail this down in concrete terms is that for Jay, or anyone else for that matter, to state that a given Representative didn’t support something is a matter of opinion. The word support here is key, in my opinion. One can look at the facts, which you laid out so well, about Rehberg’s actions on this issue and derive many opinions. Jay will believe what he wants to, but I think his statements have been opinions; like so many others we are used to hearing.

I tend to think that Rehberg follows political winds rather well; almost as well as Baucus does. This isn’t admirable, but then again it isn’t surprising in the political profession.

Now, I agree that a clarification about the actual SCHIP part is in order. It appears that Rehberg would have supported a reauthorization of SCHIP and that he did not support an expansion of it. However, given that the Rehberg voted against the version of SCHIP that was presented to him, it also seems fair to say that he opposed the future of the program, as it seemed destined to change under Democratic control.

Fair enough?

(Steve, Colby is an example)

Actually, Rehberg did vote for expansion of SCHIP. He also supported re-authorization of SCHIP. These are verifiable facts - I linked to the op-eds and roll call votes above.

The problem I have with Jay’s continued misrepresentation of this is that it is demonstrably false. It’s not a matter of opinion for which there is room for the flexibility you want to afford Jay.

Jay continually claims that Rehberg doesn’t support SCHIP re-authorization. This claim is contradicted by official statements and multiple votes.

You’re right about Colby. Anyone else?

My point is that you compared Jay (who honestly, I don’t read much anymore since I don’t like the LiTW format) to the MtPundit guys; plagarism is pretty cut and dry- either you did it or you didn’t. Claiming that Rehberg doesn’t support SCHIPS since he doesn’t support the version being voted on is far less objective. Yeah, Rehberg can show his votes and claim that he liked on version and not the other; but in the end he voted against the version put down in front of him. If he really liked the program in that bill, why didn’t he vote for the bill to reauthorize the program? Politicians compromise to see what they want passed all the time.

Is it possible that Rehberg is morally honest here? Sure, but it is also possible that he conviniently played games with the votes to look like he was behind something once polls showed how popular it was. I will never know, and I am not going to get riled up about people who do have a belief one way or the other. Jay thinks he was playing games; you think he was being honest, I don’t think there is evidence to tip it either way.

In the end, these are all opinions backed up by an examination of what occurred. Opinions, no matter how odd, are not violations of integrity. Had Jay falsified facts, misquoted people (which is different from only partially quoting them) or refused to admit that Rehberg voted as he did, then I would completely agree that his posts lack integrity. As it stands however, I just think there is a person who strongly believes that the facts lead to a different conclusion, and I can respect how you both wound up where you did on this issue.

At the end of the day, we can never know why Rehberg voted how or when he did. If you believe he is honorable by his track records you will probably believe him, and if his track record has shaken your faith in his honesty then you won’t…

[…] already covered Iverson v. Hunt, Round 1 where Iverson set the record straight on Children’s Health Insurance. Hunt is outmatched […]

Colby, you’re working pretty hard to excuse Jay here. We know that Denny voted for the final House version of SCHIP - the one that was sent to the President (and subsequently vetoed). We know that he expressed his support for this bill in the very beginning (he didn’t change his mind because of public opinion). At no point did Rehberg not support SCHIP.

It’s a bit like saying I don’t like climbing to the M in Missoula because I take the trail straight up instead of the switchbacks.

Jay is materially mis-representing Denny’s position on the issue by saying that he opposes SCHIP when both statements and actions show support. I stress this - and prove it above. This is not a subjective question of opinion. It is a willful lie about the reality of Rehberg’s position on SCHIP.

Are you really naive enough to tell me that politicians aren’t constantly voting ‘for’ legislation that they know will get vetoed to give the impression of “support”?

That is what I mean about it being non-objective. Bill First used to vote against legislation he liked all the time (when he sensed it was going to fail when voted on) because of chamber rules that allowed anyone voting nay to call for a re-vote. Voting against your conscience is a regular practice used to facilitate a variety of political trickery; that Rehberg may have done so here is not a new idea, nor is it an idea that belongs solely to Jay.

In addition, I am not defending Jay, but merely the claim that his post(s) were in any way like the MTPundit debacle. There is a difference; a very strong difference, between the two. I can respect the fact that you think Rehberg is squeaky clean in all of this, but just because Rehberg voted for the final version of SCHIP doesn’t meant that he truly ’supported’ it.

If your contention is that Denny opposes SCHIP (and Jay is right) but voted for it because he knew that it wouldn’t pass you need to provide some evidence. It’s not true by virtue of the fact that you - or anyone else - says so.

The hard evidence provided above builds an absolutely solid case that Denny supports SCHIP (a Republican-created program remember) both rhetorically and in votes.

The bill that he voted against was not the same as the bill he voted for - he didn’t “change his vote” and voting against it was not a vote of non-support for SCHIP. He chose - based on philosophical reasons - the better between two competing bills that had the same name.

If your contention is that Denny opposes SCHIP (and Jay is right) but voted for it because he knew that it wouldn’t pass you need to provide some evidence. It’s not true by virtue of the fact that you - or anyone else - says so.

My contention is that such a tactic (one that I believe Jay alleges) could appear to follow the kind of evidence you have cited while being in itself unprovable. You know that if that is what Rehberg did, there would be no way to prove it. Thus my assertion is that people are free to believe whatever they want about this.

I still maintain that believing that he did such a thing, and saying so, isn’t underhanded or deceitful. Jay didn’t say he had proof that Rehberg had a nefarious plan; he just said he thinks Rehberg is full of shit, more or less.

If you believe that your ‘evidence’ proves Rehberg liked SCHIP, would you then contend that all of the bills that Bill Frist voted against (per my post above) were legislation that he opposed? All of the time?

Jay isn’t alleging any tactic. He’s claiming that Denny opposes SCHIP which is disproven by irrefutable fact. Denny said he supported the program and backed that statement up with action.

Frist changing his vote happened once in the 109th Congress on the Asbestos FAIR act. It was a purely parliamentary maneuver reserved usually for Senate Leadership, and was reflected as such for the record. That’s patently different from saying you support something, voting in support of it but secretly opposing it.

Seriously, what do you want from Rehberg? You say you like a policy. He agrees. He votes for it. Twice. And then the left attacks him for not supporting it?

If we’re going to ignore the reality of Rehberg’s record, why bother discussing it at all? If reality is going to have absolutely no bearing on evidence, isn’t this whole thing a tremendous waste of time?

If Jay says over and over that something happened, and all the evidence disagrees and there is no evidence to support what he said, how is he not lying?

Or more accurately, what standard would you accept for someone lying?

Again, you cannot lie about opinions. If I say that I think that President Bush really likes My Little Ponies, there isn’t anything that can disprove, or prove that. Bush can say he does or does not like them, but his words don’t have to reflect the truth.

So, in my humble opinion, the issue of truthfulness (on the part of Jay) is moot here, as he is expressing opinion.

I do agree however, that one something unprovable, as this is, that Jay’s constant badgering of it is annoying. To me, it says that this he is extremely worried that Rehberg is unbeatable and so he has to resort to what little attack he has. Annoying? Sure. A waste of time? Completely. Lying? Not to me, since it is just an opinion.

I will add that I respect your take on Rehberg; I am not trying to convince you that Rehberg’s actions were crooked, I am just stating how I think it is okay for someone else to think so. I hope you can see that my comments here aren’t petty bickering, but an attempt to refocus the debate on the issue of opinions and whether or not the mantle of truthful can be placed upon them.

Jay is not saying “I think that Denny Rehberg doesn’t support SCHIP” he’s saying “Denny Rehberg says he doesn’t support SCHIP.” He’s not stating an opinion, his miss-stating a fact that can and has been proven false.

Colby, I respect and agree with your point. Opinions are, of course, subjective - meaning that as long as you are accurately representing your opinions you can’t be accused of lying (being wrong or stupid, yes, but not lying). If Jay were saying “I think SCHIP is good” that would be an opinion. But in the face of Denny’s record, he’s factually wrong to suggest that Denny doesn’t support SCHIP. You don’t get to write that off as a matter of opinion that doesn’t deserve scrutiny.

By the standard you are arguing in this particular case there would be no such thing as a lie because any false statement could be written off as opinion and therefore unassailable by contradictory fact. Bill Clinton didn’t lie about having a relationship with an intern - he just had a different opinion about what happened?

(I think this conversation has been interesting, and I appreciate your civility in forwarding your opinions)

Here is the line, if it helps crystallize the debate: If Jay said that Denny didn’t vote for SCHIPS, it would clearly be lying because we prove that he indeed did; saying that he doesn support the measure is much less provable, for all the reasons I placed above.

It can be proved, with evidence, whether or not Clinton had sex with a woman; that is a concrete act. You could not prove whether or not Clinton had feelings for her, since that is an abstract. Despite what he might say on the matter, you would never know if it were true.

Simply put, I think you are perhaps (or maybe I am) making assumptions about Jay’s meaning when he says support. In the way I imagine it being used, it means to morally champion the substance of something. If by support we mean ‘vote for’, then yes, Jay is a complete liar. Although, that meaning (him being the author) is up to him, in this instance.

To your original point about Libs calling Jay out; I would do it in a heartbeat if I actually thought he were contradicting fact. I hope my comments have demonstrated how an alternate view of the situation would lead someone like myself to not view Jay’s actions as you do, without being hypocritical.

I understand your point, and I think we have to agree to disagree. Look forward to an exchange on a future topic!

[…] you are wondering where my content is at today, try looking over at a lengthy conversation going on between myself and Wiley Cody of Big Sky Cairn. I have found this conversation very […]

Well, it seems as though Matt Singer has ridden to the defense of Jay (otherwise known as the indefensible). Check out his ridiculous attempt: http://www.leftinthewest.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=E32A1B4CF23755C1C595CA3F68E023E2?diaryId=1678

[…] If only someone would do that research comparing the bills! Oh, wait. Silly me, I forgot. I did it. […]

Not to parse things… but

The infant Dextrasphere responded by removing the site from their Dextra feed and disavowing the author

I am pretty sure that the Dextra feed didn’t exist at that point. Additionally, mtpolitics is one of the longest running blogs in Montana, not exactly an ‘infant’ movement.

Oh, and one more point…

The Dextra policed its own and Montana Pundit is now an internet ghost town.

The Dextra did not police it at all, I did. I pushed it and pushed it until they reluctantly removed it. You might find that your frequent commenter, Steve Eschenbacher, candidate For H.D. 96, actually argued on their behalf in the comments of MTPundit for quiet some time.

That sounds like integrity to you? Really?