Seems like Roy Brown and Denny Rehberg hit a sore point with Governor’s Schweitzer’s supporters here on the blogosphere.
Here is a tip to our little fact challenged friend at Lamnidae, Governor Schweitzer asked Representative Rehberg to cosponsor a bill that the Governor later came out in opposition against. Trying to deflect from that basic fact is nothing more than obfuscation. The Governor changes his tune depending who he is talking to, it is nothing new really. The only difference is that this time Representative Rehberg called him out on his hypocrisy.
If you want a lie, here is one; “(Rehberg) voted against…higher pay for soldiers, and better health care for our veterans…” Both are demonstrably false (Notice the part about the 3.9% raise). But hey keep trying, maybe one of these days Lamindae will not post outright fabrications like they did with Erik Iverson’s salary and have continued to do since.
Posted in Blogging, Brian Schweitzer, Denny Rehberg | | Write a Letter to the Editor
Rehberg votes against GI Bill upgrades: http://www.iava.org/component/option,com_/Itemid,105/option,content/task,view/id,2741/
If Denny’s pulling so much for our veterans, how is it that he received a C rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and has never received higher than a 50% rating from the Disabled American Veterans in any of the last three sessions?
I readily admitted that I flubbed my adding on Iverson’s salary, but you’re still arguing on semantics there. $160k versus $175k worth of taxpayer funded partisanship doesn’t change the argument. Oddly enough, you pay attention to the details when it suits your argument, and then throw them out in the case of Gov. Schweitzer’s testimony on the Clean Water Restoration Act. While he clearly does support parts of the legislation, he made very strong arguments for certain safeguards to prevent the exact circumstances you wingnuts are bunching your panties with.
Schweitzer’s letter to Rehberg asked him to cosponsor the entire bill not just parts of it. In other words, he was eagerly willing to accept the (really) bad parts for the good parts. I guess that’s the difference. Schweitzer will support bad legislation if it has good parts, while Rehberg, apparently, will not support good legislation if it has poison pills.
Personally, I prefer Rehberg’s approach. Bad policies have a tendency to stick around once they are passed.
Lamnidae, do you ever fact check before you write? Just curious. In 2006 DAV gave him above a 50% rating, look it up I found it on the googles easy enough. Seriously, at this point you are coming across as ignorantly partisan at best.
As to the Clean Water Act, the Governor asked Rehberg to lend his name as a supporter regardless of any problems with the bill. That is a big request. Now, lo and behold the Governor realizes that local governments are opposed, so he changes his tune. His testimony is relatively meaningless. His only official action on the matter has been to ask our Congressman to cosponsor the bill, a bill which now the Governor has come in opposition to.
It is not ignoring details, it is pointing out the difference between statements and official action. And if you want to bring up the GI Bill, Rehberg did cosponsor it, but House Democrats tied it to a bill calling for immediate withdrawal of troops and a cutting off of funding for our soldiers overseas. 5 Democrats who cosponsored the GI Bill voted the same way as Rehberg.
