Discussion: Sen. John Walsh Drops Out Of Senate Race

I’m confused. Why does this article not mention “reelection”? He’s a senator dropping his reelection bid, right? Or is he running for a different office?

1 Like

He was appointed to the seat by the governor after Baccus resigned. So this would be his first election to the seat.

2 Likes

“You deserve someone who will always fight for Montana, and I will.”

… until I’m out of office, and I won’t fight to keep fighting for Montana…

1 Like

Would you like some cheese with that?

4 Likes

Oh, please. This guy never had a chance. The plagiarism charge just made it official.

3 Likes

Because he was never “elected.” He was appointed.

1 Like

I have nothing but contempt for Schweitzer. He’s a massive asshole and wrong on more issues than not. Still, he’s the only Democrat who could get elected in Montana. Asses in seats is really all I care about.

10 Likes

Ah right, thanks. That could probably have been mentioned in the article to explain the unusual language (even if everyone else already knew that. News writing is redundant.)

Right on the money as always. I just cringe at the thought of Schweitzer and Manchin in the Senate at the same time. Tester, by contrast,is a decent guy and does right by his constituency. Nothing to grudge him on. Just shows it can be done, ya know.

But then again, having a GOP run congress might work very well for Democratic hopes in 2016. BO has the pen so Congress can’t do too much damage and we can wait these fuckers out for two years easily enough, I think.

2 Likes

What a sleaze: I am withdrawing, not because of my lying and cheating, but because my lying and cheating have become “a distraction.” Sounds like Nixon, who resigned because Watergate was “a distraction” and prevented him from being effective with Congress. None of these clowns can admit the truth. I am sorry for the party and Montana, but this is what happens when these three-corner-bank-shot, Machiavellian plans are set in motion with these Senatorial appointments.

Is “concern troll” your new moniker for those whom you disagree with on this playground? It was used on me yesterday to my surprise. I don’t support republicans. And there have been times when I have been disappointed with some democrats and their inability to go after republicans when needed. I’m thinking specifically about why Harry Reid only partly revised the filibuster rule. Mr Walsh is apparently in trouble for having plagairized a goodly portion of his masters thesis. To me that’s not quality characteristic for a US Senator…whatever their party. I would prefer to vote for a democrat but if that democrat demonstrates flaws worthy of rejection then do we elect him anyway?

1 Like

:blush:

THAT’S the comment I have been looking for. Well said Meri. It seems that some here on this thread would support a guy who plagairizes as long as he’s got a “D” behind his name. I want to vote for democrats and that is in large part because I see them as by far the more reasonable crowd and those of better character. But to me being dishonest in scholarship as this guy apparently is shows a flaw unworthy of a senator

This is what happens when you put someone in the big leagues because the suit, in this case a military uniform, just because they look good in it.

Some consultant, somewhere, thought, “I have a plan so cunning that you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel! We’ll find a general who looks the part, and we can fend off charges of being to timid in foreign policy.”

There are a couple of problems with this:

  1. Honestly, the American public, particularly in interior states, does not give a flying f%$# in a rolling doughnut about foreign policy.
  2. You put someone through a grueling campaign who lacks the ability to deal with any problems that arize.
  3. They won’t know how to campaign.

While John Walsh is part of a problem, the fetishizing of veterans, particularly by the Democratic Party political consultant class, is the bigger problem.

Could they get Denise Juneau to run? First Native
American elected to statewide office – and re-elected.

It wasn’t a thesis paper, but a research paper that was only 14 pages long. What nobody says is that if he plagiarized than why didn’t the Army catch it at the time. I believe that the Army War College would have said that it was not intentional. Walsh and democrats should have hung tough. Rand Paul plagiarized and he is still planning to run for POTUS and the media say nothing. There is no liberal bias in the media. Walsh got a bad treatment from the press.

2 Likes

I equate stealing someone else’s words and using them as your own original words on the same par as lying. Neither (lying or plagairism) should be tolerated in lawmakers. Now I realize that lying is a natural part of politics but that doesn’t mean I hafta like it…or tolerate it.

1 Like

Truth! I wish I could like this 1000 times. I don’t give a damn what kind of Democrat wins, I just want a Democrat to win. If we hold the Senate, it’s highly possible we could win a supermajority in 2016 and win back the House (please don’t give me a bunch of malarkey about gerrymandering. http://pleasecutthecrap.com/cutting-the-crap-thegerrymandering-red-herring/) . After that, they could go ahead and nuke the filibuster on legislation and we could begin seeing some real progress.

4 Likes

Joe Walsh?

Just think, if you had walked away from the “democrats” (and thereby walking into the only other party), you’d be walking into the only party to cause a global economic melt down twice in 75 years, with a president who had lied the nation into an unnecesary war that cost the nation $3 trillion and thousands of lives and paved the way for the destablication of the Middle East, and who was a dry drunk with a 40 year career as a wet one, and who was awol while draft dodging the Vietnam war.

Yeah, I can see why you walked away from the Dems. Everyone wants to associate with a party that reflects themselves on some level. .

2 Likes