It was also handy for the Bush Administration to keep Uzbekistan quiet about some of our more egregious policies during the so-called War on Terror, too.

Do you really think you have much credibility when you argue that Senator Tester is "extremely authoritarian"?

It's not about pride about being better than Mr. Rehberg. It's about the real people who will lose essential services.

You need to confront your privilege if you can live in a world with reduced access to higher education, reduced eligibility for free and reduced lunch, a decreased minimum wage, and the whole host of other policies a Republican Senate will try to impose. The people I know who are barely getting by can't afford to have those things happen.

As for me, I'm happy to support someone who will protect those economic rights, along with a woman's right to choose, sane foreign policy, and protection of our civil liberties.

I think that might be one of the differences. I don't really care about motives. I lack the ability some to have to discern motives and agendas behind every action.

I look at results--and as I have said roughly 2,438 times, the results from Senator Tester, imperfect though they may be, are better than the alternative. I'm not suggesting that he is the "lesser of two evils," either. I believe that he does important work for people and values I care about.

Great, but how do you propose Senator Tester makes this happen?

I guarantee if he came out with a proposal calling for exactly what you want, you'd denounce it as theater.

I guarantee no one is attempting to insult your intelligence.

Given your obvious belief that you would do a much better job of resisting the influence of corporate cash, how would you address it differently than Senator Tester has?

Given the current state of the law, this seems like a reasonable attempt to limit third party spending from the wealthy. Instead of yet another in a series of seemingly endless criticisms of Senator Tester, why not enlighten us all about what plan he should have suggested? I'm waiting eagerly to hear how you would address the issue of third party campaign spending.

Tester will surely be a better Senator for protecting women's rights. He will surely be a better Senator for protecting the environment. He will surely be a better Senator for protecting labor rights. He will surely be a better Senator for protecting the safety net. He will surely be a better Senator for protecting access to education.

There's no question about any of those things. That you cannot or will not see it doesn't change the facts. Perhaps you can afford the impacts of six years of Republican rule, but people who depend on access to healthcare, education, equal protection under the law, and so much more cannot.

Your simplistic, smug assessments of the Senator don't change any of that.

I have. He's actually accomplished a great deal of good for Montana. Care to enlighten us about what Representative Rehberg has accomplished in ten years?

I deleted a few comments here.

Please try to stay on topic. You can question the premise of a post, argue its merits, or contend that it’s false. A post, however, is not a platform from which you can write anything. Have something interesting to say that’s not related to the post/topic? Get your own blog. They’re free.

I'm crazy enough to think that breast cancer screenings are pretty important. I'm also crazy enough to think that access to information about contraception is critical to health, too. So is information about and treatment of STIs.

You probably listen to a little too much Fox News if you don't understand the vital role Planned Parenthood plays.

But hey, why listen to me? How about the fact that teen pregnancy AND abortion rates are at a 40-year low in the United States? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2098484/T...

Way to go, Planned Parenthood