Month: May 2017

by William Skink

Had Montana Democrats not fucked up another congressional campaign, this state could have sent an exhilarating jolt to the resistance against Trump. I still don’t think Amanda Curtis would have won had she been selected, but her camp appeared to be where the energy and passion wanted to go.

The Facebook chatter amongst my FB “friends” does not bode well for Quist. There is no enthusiasm or excitement, just teeth-gritting acknowledgment that at least Quist is not a wealthy, creationist, Trump-loving monster like Gianforte.

The latest story about the barn/apartments is particularly bad for Quist. While plenty of ballots have already been marked and mailed, the fact Quist’s deception was exposed probably won’t inspire the fence-sitters to make the effort.

This whole campaign has been about who can claim authenticity as a Montanan, at least that was the main thrust of the Democratic strategy to elect Quist. Look at his Cowboy hat and relatable medical debt–he’s just like us!

But little discrepancies, like forgetting to disclose around $50,000 in income, started undermining the folksy caricature the partisan minions had cultivated for Quist. Then this barn story emerges, and Quist is caught in another awkward situation where his claims don’t seem to jive with reality:

Montana’s Democratic U.S. House candidate, Rob Quist has ties to a rental property not listed on state tax rolls, public records show.

Quist acknowledged the apartments Tuesday in an interview with The Gazette, but denied renting out the units. Advertising records and leasing contracts suggest otherwise.

“My son’s living there, so that’s not a rental property. It’s just something that’s kind of family-owned,” Quist said.

Quist is lying when he says the barn is not rental property. It is a rental property, says the Billings Gazette:

The Gazette identified four people who have rented from Quist in recent years. None wanted to be drawn into the politics of Montana’s U.S. House race by commenting on their relationship with the Quists, although two former renters provided leases active in 2015 and 2016 which put the monthly rent, paid to Bonni Quist, at $695 for one unit and $950 for another.

It’s hard to understand how Quist’s myriad financial problems weren’t vetted before his selection. Now Montana Democrats are facing, once again, a campaign imploding before their stupid partisan eyes.

When Quist loses, Democrats can blame the media, and they can point out the lack of national support for their candidate. Maybe there will even be some cosmetic reshuffling of the political hierarchy.

What won’t happen is an honest, critical analysis by party leaders regarding how they keep fucking these campaigns up so badly, election cycle after election cycle.

by William Skink

The firing of James Comey will be good for non-stop news coverage for the next couple of news cycles. Does anyone actually believe the reason Comey was fired was because of how he handled Hillary’s email scandal?

Democrats who blame Comey for Hillary’s loss won’t be celebrating this surprising move because the stated rationale is so obviously not the real rationale. Instead, the Russophobia is going to be ramped up even more.

So, what will come of this move? Will an independent prosecutor take over the investigation into Russian ties to Trump associates? Will the news cycle have any room for, say, the “serious situation” at the Washington nuclear facility in Hanford?

I guess we’ll just have to stay tuned to our distraction devices for the latest update. Maybe that’s the point of this political charade.

by William Skink

There will be much celebrating over the election results in France. Macron’s victory sends a strong message to the rest of Europe that the European Union is not dead, yet. If Macron had lost, the stage was set to once again blame Russia for meddling in the democratic processes of its western opponents.

Closer to home, Montanans who still believe in Democracy have a chance to send a message to Trump and the billionaire oligarchs Russia allegedly enthroned by voting for cowboy poet Quist in Montana’s special election.

Rob Quist is running as a Democrat, and Democrats are supposed to be invested in running fair, transparent elections. It’s only those evil Republicans engaged in systemic voter suppression, right?

Not so, say angry Bernie Bros. All those emails that came to light thanks to a leak (not Russian hacking) exposed the rigging of the primary against Bernie, and now the people who gave Bernie money with the expectation the process to elect the Democratic presidential candidate was a fair and impartial process want the DNC to pay, in court.

What emerged this week in a court room in Florida provides the clearest insight into how little the Democratic establishment gives a shit about Democracy. While trying to maintain the primaries weren’t weighted in Hillary’s favor, the DNC defense is trying to assert it could pick a candidate in a cigar-filled backroom if it wanted to. I wonder what Democracy-loving Democrat supporters will think of this demoralizing admission?

Here is the ugly truth that will probably be willfully ignored by the party faithful:

“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner. But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white. And they can’t deny that.” He added, “Not only is it in the charter, but it was stated over and over again in the media by the Democratic National Committee’s employees, including Congresswoman Wassermann Schultz, that they were, in fact, acting in compliance with the charter. And they said it again and again, and we’ve cited several instances of that in the case.”

Later in the hearing, attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way.” By pushing the argument throughout the proceedings of this class action lawsuit, the Democratic National Committee is telling voters in a court of law that they see no enforceable obligation in having to run a fair and impartial primary election.

The DNC attorneys even go so far as to argue that the words “impartial” and “evenhanded”—used in the DNC Charter—can’t be interpreted by a court of law. Beck retorted, “I’m shocked to hear that we can’t define what it means to be evenhanded and impartial. If that were the case, we couldn’t have courts. I mean, that’s what courts do every day, is decide disputes in an evenhanded and impartial manner.”

If this is what establishment Democrats think about democracy, why should I vote for any candidate with a “D” by their name? The party refuses to change, which means these weaselly partisans will continue perpetuating the failure that produced Trump and keeps the red tide rolling across state legislatures.

Rob Quist needs my vote, and he’s not going to get it. If the party refuses to change, then breaking this political duopoly is the only way for the system to rectify the rot that has taken hold.

by William Skink

Like herpes, Hillary Clinton keeps flaring up to remind Americans that she would be president right now if not for the FBI’s last minute move to reopen the investigation of her rampant misconduct regarding classified information, and Russia:

Hillary Clinton emerged from political hibernation Tuesday by declaring herself “part of the resistance” to Donald Trump’s presidency — and spreading blame for why it is not her sitting in the Oval Office.

Making a rare public appearance, Clinton attributed her surprise loss in the 2016 election to interference by Russian hackers and the actions of FBI Director James B. Comey in the campaign’s homestretch.

“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president,” Clinton told moderator Christiane Amanpour, the CNN anchor, at a Women for Women International event in New York.

And, like herpes, there is no known cure to rid the body politic of the Clintons.

Instead of wallowing in the blame game 6 months later, Hillary should look on the bright: she isn’t in prison, where she belongs.

by William Skink

One of the unfortunate lessons that has been learned by Democrats in this last election cycle is that a Russia smear campaign can be effective. Just ask Trump, who had to jettison some alt-right baggage and lob a few missiles to get a pause from the non-stop anti-Russia hysteria emanating from partisans and pundits.

One might think the smears are not effective, considering Hillary Clinton lost the election. People who think that way don’t understand that the information war doesn’t stop when the election is over.

So what’s up with Rob Quist and his supporters suddenly whipping out the Russia card?

I don’t know, but the post that finally did it for me is from combat veteran and (spook?) propagandist Joshua Manning, subtly titled Gianoforte Need to Pick a Side….Russia or Montana?

First, to put his terrified audience at ease, Manning let’s us know there aren’t evil Russians lurking in every crevice of every wealthy man’s stock portfolio. After that little caveat comes the smear, which is the meat of the propaganda:

Not all Russian business has ill intentions and there is not evil behind every corner. However, most of the businesses Gianforte has chosen to stick with are involved with Russian President Vladimir’s Putin’s creeping annexation of nearby countries, brutal internal repression, and tied to many of the people named and highly suspected in the election interference of 2016. Keep in mind the date of this disclosure to the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives: March 17, 2017. Gianforte is signaling he continues to invest in these companies and said as much on debate stage this past weekend. It is important to remember Gianforte only answered that he invested in these stocks based on their performance when pressed by Quist and not anyone managing the debate.

What fabulous propaganda. Putin’s “creeping annexation” omits the western-backed coup in Ukraine. Putin’s “brutal internal repression” keeps the focus on Russia, ignoring brutal regimes, like Saudi Arabia, who help fuel the jihadi proxy wars across the ME. And what Russian smear-job would be complete without referencing how Russia is “highly suspected in the election interference of 2016”?

With those narratives established, Manning does touch on some important factors at play, specifically energy resources. But it’s cut from the same propaganda cloth:

Much has initially been made of the companies Gianforte funds for violating US sanctions. Russia faced sanctions for illegitimate military operations in Ukraine that led to it claiming Crimea as a Russian territory. The companies designated are oil and gas giants like Gazprom, Rosneft, Surgutneftegas, and Transneft along with major state-sponsored banks like Sberbank (Gianforte’s largest holding).

Beyond breaking international norms, Russia’s moves toward Ukraine bring a much larger concern. Ukraine, a former Soviet republic with a long memory of repression, serves as the conduit for natural gas into Europe. In the early 2000s this caused yearly problems because Ukraine refused to pay the hefty sums charged by companies like Gazprom, which the gas provider used to drain the Ukrainian budget. Russia in turn accused the Ukrainians of turning off pipelines and keeping gas for itself. Keep in mind this is during the height of harsh eastern European winters. Putin also eyed the problematic Ukraine because it also dared to make moves toward NATO for protection and to join the larger European-Atlantic community.

However, if Putin and his allies in the oil and gas industry can turn Ukraine toward Russian interests then they control the flows of natural gas into Europe. If upset with how Germany, France, or even NATO acts, then Russia can simply turn off the gas or charge a premium for its service. Gaining greater access into Ukraine also puts Russian intelligence and political forces on Europe’s doorstep. This would allow for gains into eastern and southeastern Europe. Russia also has interest in funding “alt-right” movements in the U.K., Germany, and France as they undercut the vote and promote neo-Nazi policies. Putin and his cronies finance all of this through their lucrative oil and gas interests and money laundering through state-owned or foreign banks. The very same companies and people in Gianforte’s portfolio mean to undercut U.S. interests in our main ally: Europe.

There is so much wrong and deceitful here. So much NOT being said. While Manning laments international norms, he willfully suppresses the clear consequences of the neoliberalism he not-so-covertly supports. Manning and his ilk believe markets are to be dominated by western interests, and any threat to that domination gets attacked.

Sometimes the attacks are financial, through sanctions and market manipulation. Sometimes the attacks are a-symetrical, like selling weapons to allies who then hand them to jihadists in places like Syria. Sometimes the attacks aren’t attacks at all, but blowback, like millions of displaced refugees fueling culture clashes in Europe, creating fertile ground for more boogeymen in the guise of the “alt-right” to sprout up.

Here is the conclusion of Manning propaganda piece:

Internally, the executives and families of these connected businesses form an important wing of the Russian government. Putin can trust them to stay in line, kickback their profits to those in the government, and help him expand the enterprise. These oligarchs count their money as Putin’s intelligence and police services kill opposition figures, viciously curb protests, and imprison anyone who dares question the system. Most of Russia’s top billionaires who support this head the companies in Gianforte’s portfolio. Gianforte, a billionaire himself, must have some sort of kindred connection to them.

Let us take Gianforte at his word during the Congressional debate—he is okay with these investments because they are making him money. Notice that he offered no apology or any explanation that maybe some of the companies are in the wrong. He, like his mentor Donald Trump, doubled down on his funding of oppression and authoritarianism. He wants to take those values to Congress and represent Montana. Think about that.

There is nothing in these two paragraphs that can’t be applied to this country, including intelligence services killing opposition. Or maybe you think journalists like Gary Webb really shot himself in the head, and Michael Hastings just accidentally sped his Mercedes into a tree, exploding into a ball of flames.

But Joshua Manning doesn’t want you thinking about any of that, no, no, no. Instead, contemplate the “kindred connection” Gianforte must have with Russian oligarchs. Then connect that to Donald Trump. And please, don’t for a second ask yourself how much oppression and authoritarianism America has been propping up since WWII, because those are the kind of dangerous thoughts that undermine the effectiveness of propaganda.

And who really wants that?