by William Skink
Democrat apologists like Don Pogreba want us to think a politician like Jon Tester, up for reelection, has “come around on Dreamers“. That vote against Dreamers in 2010? That was just political calculation:
At the time, I speculated that it was a misguided political calculation that Republicans could successfully exploit a vote to protect these kids as there’s almost nothing Republicans like more than demonizing immigrants, especially if they are people of color.
Well, Tester won re-election against Dennis Rehberg despite the vote and criticism from the online left. And more importantly, he’s come around on supporting the DREAMers, issuing a statement arguing that Congress must act to protect them.
Immigration is an issue that has been politicized in Montana recently thanks to do-gooders in Missoula who think a community with an affordable housing crisis and low-wage job opportunities in the service sector is a good place to relocate refugees fleeing the chaos of American foreign policy. This will provide Tester cover for flipping his position on supporting Dreamers.
Non-collaborating environmentalists do not enjoy the same support, however, so don’t expect Tester to “come around” on his depiction of non-collaborators as extremists and his lies about litigation of logging sales. The calculation here is that enough of the environmental movement has been absorbed by the corporate path of collaboration, so chasing the support of the people who helped Tester first get elected is no longer necessary.
The “online left” that Pogreba thinks he represents has not stood up to Tester’s lies about logging and demonizing of non-collaboraters as extremists. Even now, when criticism is brought up, any smear that distracts from valid criticism is allowed.
A comment from “mtcreels” is a perfect example. Despite a commenting policy that asks commenters to stick to the topic of the post, and the claim that anonymous comments are policed more stringently, this conspiracy smear is still standing:
mtcreels: @JC: given the despicable September 11 truther garbage on your blog, you’re not in any position to be giving sanctimonious lectures about integrity.
This tactic continues to be useful to the useful idiots who think Tester is anything other than a corrupt politician with a broken moral compass that only points to maintaining power through electoral victory. If we are just crazy conspiracy theorists than anything else we say can just be dismissed.
Another tactic that will be trotted out is the lesser-evil argument. This is already happening, as evidenced by this comment from Pogreba:
I’m sure Matt Rosendale or Troy Downing will be good for environmental group fundraising, but they sure as hell won’t be good for the planet and the policies they’d help support would make the Tester Logging Bill look like the greatest piece of environmental legislation in human history.
The lesser-evil argument was also used to justify voting for Hillary.
How did that work out?
Democrat apologists seem to think doing the same thing will produce different results this time.
And we are the crazy ones?