by William Skink
This week I’ll be sending in my mail-in ballot for Montana’s Democratic primary. When I darken the bubble for Bernie I’ll be doing so to spite Jon Tester, our folksy farmer who himself beat the establishment odds a decade ago, as Ochenski reminds us in his column today:
Perhaps Tester has forgotten his own underdog primary run for the Senate against John Morrison. In that race, Morrison was the anointed candidate, hand-picked by the D.C. insiders and backed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee prior to the primary vote.
The parallels to the Sanders-Clinton primary are undeniable. Morrison, much like Hillary Clinton, was groomed for the position by long familiarity in political circles. His grandfather was governor of Nebraska, his father a Montana Supreme Court justice, his mother a successful trial lawyer. Having won a statewide race for state auditor, personal wealth and strong connections to the Washington Democrat insiders Morrison was the obvious choice.
Tester, on the other hand, was just a Big Sandy farmer who had risen to become president of the Montana Senate with virtually no statewide name recognition. He was most certainly not the pick of the Demo Party pundits. His personal wealth, like Bernie Sanders, was not significant, and the idea that he would actually run in a primary against Morrison was simply repugnant to the party insiders. After all, the fix was in, so what did the upstart Tester think he was doing?
And much like Sanders, Tester trailed in the media and polls throughout the primary campaign right up until the final weeks when an unfortunate turn of events tripped up Morrison’s campaign with allegations of infidelity and impropriety involving the wife of a man being investigated by Morrison’s office at the time.
I find it disgusting that Jon Tester made the comment he did about this race already being over because it’s not true. Once an outsider, Tester now represents the wishes of the establishment to crown Clinton, but like Morrison, Clinton has the distinct possibility of facing an unfortunate turn of events.
That unfortunate turn has everything to do with Clinton’s reckless handling of her electronic communications. The latest twist? Russia claims to have 20,000 of Hillary’s deleted emails and now officials in the Kremlin are debating whether to release them or not:
Hillary Clinton sits at the center of a raging firestorm concerning her arrangement of a private email account and server set up in her home — from which top secret information may have been deleted. But despite Bernie Sanders’ apparent annoyance with the “damn emails,” the scandal just exponentially intensified, when Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed on Monday that Russia has possession of around 20,000 of Clinton’s emails — leaving open the possibility her deletions might not have been permanent after all.
“There’s a debate going on in the Kremlin between the Foreign Ministry and the Intelligence Services about whether they should release the 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that they have hacked into,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in an interview for The Kelly File.
How sweet would it be for Putin to derail Hillary’s bid to obtain the White House for her and her sexual predator husband. Remember, two years ago Hillary compared Putin’s intervention in Crimea to the actions of Adolf Hitler, a statement she was forced to walk back.
After years of western propaganda demonizing Russia, how will Hillary supporters absorb the fact that Clinton’s likely criminal mishandling of emails has resulted in Russia obtaining the emails Clinton tried to destroy? Will American’s conditioned hatred of Russia rise above the cult-like devotion to Hillary or will she be prematurely absolved by her followers?
And if Russia doesn’t release the emails, but sits on them instead, how can anyone make the argument that it would be a good idea to elect a candidate exposed to potential blackmail from a foreign power.
If the Department of Justice refuses to do its job, and if the FBI doesn’t leak the findings of its investigation before the primary is over (as some politicians have hinted could happen), then I hope Russia takes the initiative to disclose the emails Hillary appears to have broken the law to hide from the public.
JC
You guys are missing the real story.
Zinke is burning thru his campaign money.
and he may sexually crave Putin’s manhood, according to Don Pogreba.
In 2005, Tester ran (Chief Presiding Officer) the Montana Senate, and is no “outsider” IMO. I’m not so sure John Morrison was the “insider” after considering how the Democrats treated his father Frank Morrison , who ran unsuccessfully in 1988 and 1992 for Governor. The 1988 Primary race was particularly sketchy. Former Governor (1972-1980) Tom Judge entered the race, Greeley split the “liberal” vote, ultimately denying Morrison. Judge lost to Stan Stephens in November. Schwinden beat Judge (seeking a third term) in the 1980 Primary. Frank Morrison’s dad, also Frank, was Governor (1961-1967) of Nebraska. Like his dad, John Morrison was just another out-of-stater and way too “liberal” for Montana (Schwinden) Democrat (farm belt) insiders is my best guess. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/29/us/8-candidates-vie-in-montana-race.html
“Gut shoot them at the Borders” that’s an expression I remember, back when a sudden wave of super wealthy people started buying large tracts of beautiful Montana Real Estate. Some readers may recall some homemade road signs in Western Montana: “Gut shoot ’em at the Borders” Those signs did not come from political activists!!
Well, after awhile came a political response. Tax them at the Borders. A good tax.
Simple to collect, because based on credit card purchases of huge amount$.
Relatively simple to integrate into the Law, for such a tax might be relatively free of entanglements of Tax sructures tied to taxing of Real Estate and Income and Investments.
Frank Morrison made that pitch upstairs at the Union Club in Missoula, during his campaign for Governor of Montana.
Frank was very open minded about evaluating the plusses and minuses of the Norther Tier Pipeline proposition, and what to do to resist it.
Sounds like Bolshevism to me.
https://givemeliberty01.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/tumblr_o76ym8y2rk1rxxacmo1_1280.jpg
Not sure what to make of this, other than it is entertaining…
http://theamericanmirror.com/sally-miller-hillary-and-her-coke-habit/
I was wondering myself if the rules still don’t apply to the Clintons, right up until the day that Joe Biden told the world he wasn’t running. I believe it was on that day that the Obama regime decided not to go after Hillary like they would a normal bureaucrat that broke the law.
I’m still shaking my head with wonder that the Dems are stuck with Hillary as a candidate – as if in a country of 350 million people they couldn’t find a better candidate.
Tester is right about little, but he’s right about this one. The ‘fix’ was in for Hillary before Bernie started campaigning.
Maybe it’s time to fix them by ensuring Hillary does not win. I won’t be voting for her.
Biden said he would not run. He did not say he didn’t want to be president. Not that it matters all that much, but I’m still betting on a Biden/Warren ticket when all the dust settles.
I’m not sure how that could happen, unless Obama decides to KO Clinton by having her indicted or charged. The Clintons and Obamas have never really liked each other, but that would be something to see.
Why should we have to wait on Obama for our criminal justice system to work and indict Hillary and her husband for the crimes of espionage and treason they committed against the United States with their Clinton Foundation?
My take is that undoubtedly the Obama administration is putting extreme pressure on the FBI head James Comey. Comey is a republican, and undoubtedly under huge pressure from republicans to indict Clinton. Comey, of course, states that he is keeping close to the investigation to prevent politics from entering the equation (impossible). And FBI personnel who are privy to information say that if Clinton isn’t indicted, they’re going to walk from the FBI.
So, either Comey is going to have to slow walk this, and explain to his fellow republicans why he isn’t going to indict, and watch the FBI start to Implode and republicans use the incomplete investigation against Clinton (effectively), or he indicts, and changes the whole complexion of the election.
In any case, I think the FBI investigation, no matter how it resolves should be sufficient to tank Clinton’s presidential bid. At least in an election when corruption and stupidity weren’t acceptable ingredients. If Clinton somehow becomes president, it will signify that there is absolutely nothing democratic left in American politics.
A very valid idea JC –
One more thought though – the Clintons are masters at delay – and this whole thing might be like the Bergdahl trial – scheduled to begin in February…. when Obama is gone and the election is over.