# Dorgan not running



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Byron Dorgan has announced he will not run for the Senate.Basically it is now Hoevens if he wants it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Good riddance!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I wonder why he decided not to run?


----------



## undericeking (Dec 31, 2008)

I could be way off but I think he's trying to stay ahead of the game and "get out" on his own terms. It will make for a better after party when whoever names a new courthouse after him, in other words, legacy protection...


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> I wonder why he decided not to run?


Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bailout votes, stimulas votes, HC votes and the fact that for the first time he is polling twenty point behind a challenger who has not even said he would run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He sold out and now will be out of a job for a brief time!!!!!!


----------



## Tator (Dec 10, 2005)

Ron Gilmore said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why he decided not to run?
> ...


that says it all


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Now that Dorgan is out I hope Hoeven waits and knocks out Conrad. We need to dump all three of these people who have back stabbed North Dakota and all American people. The only problem is I expect he will vote for all kinds of radical left things now. He has nothing to loose. Someone with nothing to loose is dangerous.
Of course the other problem is if Hoeven says he isn't running Dorgan will all of a sudden decide he didn't have that many things that important that he really had to do.


----------



## Tator (Dec 10, 2005)

Agree, up until the day he's out, he's a wildcard in Washington, maybe another bill can get shoved down our throats with a 60-40 advantage while they still got it


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

KEN W said:


> Byron Dorgan has announced he will not run for the Senate.Basically it is now Hoevens if he wants it.


Woulda been Hoevens anyway!!!!!! :wink:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Of course the other problem is if Hoeven says he isn't running Dorgan will all of a sudden decide he didn't have that many things that important that he really had to do.


You have no idea how right you probably are.

And than what? Duane Sand tries again?


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

I can fully understand why at age 67 its time to end it. He woulda been 73 at the end of the term. Kudos to knowing when to say when.

Plainsman, I really dont see how he totally destroyed North Dakota during his term.The NDSU campus is better for him and his work, the coal industry is definately better and fighting the idiot Bush on eliminating farm programs speaks for itself. Although one thing he slipped up on was fighting for funding for that Northern Plains Wildlife Research Center, the biggest waste of taxpayer money yet.

All I can say is now that Ed Schultz is entering , it will be an interesting race


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think he ended it because he knew he would loose.

I didn't say he destroyed North Dakota, I said he backstabbed us. We don't want socialized medicine, but he voted for it. More loyal to Obama than North Dakota I guess.

Who is the Northern Plains Wildlife Research Center?

I think Dorgan purchased his past security in the senate with ag welfare programs. However, that's the liberal plan, make everyone government dependent.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I think he ended it because he knew he would loose.
> /quote]
> 
> I'm not convinced that he would have lost, close race for sure though. I think Dorgan could have picked apart Hoeven in a campaign. Hoeven has always been a pretty face along for the ride, a ride that was funded and piloted by our DC delegation. The only issue Hoeven could beat Dorgan on is guns. That is important, no doubt but that would only secure Hoeven some single issue voters.
> ...


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Yes plainsman , as you refer to it as farm welfare, dont forget to include the "highway welfare" or the grants that Jamestown (city of) got as welfare. I think you have frogotten the squeal eminating from your mouth when the price of grains spiked and you had to fork out more cash for food a couple years back. The name of the farm bill has food security written right in it. And referring to it as farm welfare is blatinlly ignorant as over 70+ percent is targeted to YOUR kids or grandkids in the school lunch program and your unwed daughter for food stamps. 
My mistake on the research center, I thought you were employed there. You were employed by a government agency in the past , though right?? If so you are hypocritical at best , pointing fingers at the "liberal plan" when you are part of your own problem, cashing taxpayer money to support yourself.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

F350, take personal attacks to a private message. I believe thats the rules.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your diatribe is good for a laugh since you know little to nothing about me.

In actuality here is how I feel about agriculture. I don't mind paying more for food, but in reality I would rather pay support prices. If I pay more for food often everyone but the farmer gets more money. If I pay support prices I know the farmer gets it. I often knock support prices because I become frustrated with those who think I was put on this earth to serve them. That includes some landowners. 


> The name of the farm bill has food security written right in it.


What a joke. It isn't that much different than other political correct terms. If a person is short and someone calls them vertically challenged they don't grow an inch. You can call ag handouts food security, but they still remain handouts.
I remember Reagans payment in kind. Unlike those who work for the government farmers were paid not to plant (work). I don't begrudge most of them those payments, only the guys like you.


> And referring to it as farm welfare is blatinlly ignorant as over 70+ percent is targeted to YOUR kids or grandkids in the school lunch program and your unwed daughter for food stamps.


Some of the school lunch programs are simply to eat up the farm surplus. Have you ever seen how much they throw away? I have always wondered how much that program was for the children, and how much was for ag income. I would guess a little of both, but for sure there are those who only care about the dollars. 
F350 yes I have grandchildren, but I don't have a daughter. I guess you don't know much about me. However, the insinuation tells me your a very unkind man. If it were true it would be one thing, but since it's not it's simply trashmouth character assassination. Since many on here don't really know me you were in hopes that would stick. That tells me things about you that make me sad.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

TK33 said:


> Republicans could always nominate Ed Schultz, he was a republican a few years ago.


Ain't that the truth!
I remember when he was a Rush Limbaugh wannabe.
He'd probably accept though..... thinking of that "neon sign for hire" moniker given to him, years back, in a letter to the Forum.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think old Ed would go with the highest bidder. Who ever could make him richer or more famous. He is loyal to himself.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Plainsman , or should I say Bruce, if people want to look at wasteful government spending , then your essay on the eating habits of the skunk is a prime waste of government money. Or of the loosely coiled valve snail..... etc etc


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

F350 many things look like a waste when you know nothing about them. Often people site research for many agencies as a waste, then you look deeper into them and understand how they affect an entire nation. The skunk research which was not mine was a Fish and Wildlife project. It provided base information on predation and better waterfowl management. Your ignorance is showing.
The coiled snail was a publication that took about an hour. When you find something new in the persuite of your real project you still take a few minutes to report it to the scientific world. It's not meant to be important to the lay person. Most of the work at research centers wheather agricultural or wildlife, or any other subject area are intended for other scientists who work directly with the resource, not joe blow who can not even understand what he is reading. Since you have no background information to explain any of my work you have no basis to understand it. Stick with something you have knowledge of.

You say my science. Since you are obviously completely ignorant about me I can only assume your on here to protect your socialistic handouts. You see even though I was a federal worker I was conservative. My principles came before my job. Unlike many these days who think they work for the round eyed fuzzy animals I always understood I worked for the American taxpayer. When I worked for the Fish and Wildlife service I understood that I worked for the American taxpayers, and more specifically the American hunters and gun owners who put their money where there mouth was through an 11% excise tax on firearms. The birdwatchers and campers went out of their skull when a senator proposed the same tax for bird watching and camping equipment. I guess that shows who really is concerned with our resources.

I have been on this site long enough for many to know my attitudes. Your sad shot at my character will not fly here. Take your personal attack somewhere else. I busted my chops with many 16 hour days without compensation of money or time. I am not complaining, I was honored to serve the American tax payer.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Hmmmmm... now you were wrong Bruce Hanson...


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

Your diatribe is good for a laugh since you know little to nothing about me.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

How did we end up debating Plainsman work or lack there of? oke:

Only joking Plainsman.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

F350 I'm sure I know the reason for your hate posts on here. For your information I am not a sponsor of the High Fence initiative this year. I'm sure that's the reason for your personal attack.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman, I for one certainly see the merit in the type of research you were working on. It's not always easy to see the benefit to the American tax payer by looking at the title of a paper. It's interesting what you note about the bird-watchers not wanting to put their money where their mouth is.

On a similar note, Sarah Palin should take your advice when she scoffed at "fly research" in Paris:
http://www.livescience.com/health/081104-bad-fruit-flies.html

Sorry for continuing with the theme that is so tangential to the main topic; Dorgan not running.


----------



## F350 (Feb 29, 2008)

For your information I am not a sponsor of the High Fence initiative this year. I'm sure that's the reason for your personal attack. (2) Your diatribe is good for a laugh since you know little to nothing about me.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

F350 if you want to talk about a waste of money, why didn't you mention the research done to see what type of mulch is less likely to burn? Guess what after a million dollars was spent they decided that rock mulch won't burn and chopped wood does burn. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

seabass said:


> Plainsman, I for one certainly see the merit in the type of research you were working on. It's not always easy to see the benefit to the American tax payer by looking at the title of a paper. It's interesting what you note about the bird-watchers not wanting to put their money where their mouth is.
> 
> On a similar note, Sarah Palin should take your advice when she scoffed at "fly research" in Paris:
> http://www.livescience.com/health/081104-bad-fruit-flies.html
> ...


Thank you for the kind words seabass. 
You and I have ways to find out if things are a waste of money or not. Some are, some are not. Palin would do well to keep her mouth shut if she doesn't know. I am left pondering this: (1) is she that ill informed or dumb, or (2) is she pandering to those who jump to conclusions with no evidence or knowledge of a subject. My reaction to number one is I would rather have an idiot that loves America and agrees with me than a genius who hates America and disagrees with me. My reaction to number two is even less complementary. I would vote for them if the other side offers up something even worse. Perhaps you can find some consolation in my attitude also.  
My first attitude works like this seabass, I could win more debates with you if you could drop a couple of points on your IQ. However, I do not wish for that. :beer:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Getting back on track and off the Plainsman bashing.......looks like Heidi's interested in the spot now.



> BISMARCK - The brother of former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp says she is interested in running for North Dakota's open U.S. Senate seat.
> 
> Heitkamp's interest sets up a possible rematch with Republican Gov. John Hoeven. Hoeven is expected to get into the race to succeed Sen. Byron Dorgan.
> 
> ...


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I hope that Joel doesn't run, I love his show and I couldn't bare to hear more air time for Mike McFeely.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

spentwings said:


> TK33 said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans could always nominate Ed Schultz, he was a republican a few years ago.
> ...


 i wish i woulda kicked ed's a$$ in the sports bar in fargo years ago he's a big smart-a$$. and a wussy when push comes to shove


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

F350 said:


> Hmmmmm... now you were wrong Bruce Hanson...


If someone is going to name people's names here, be a man yourself and don't hide behind a screen name.

So cowardly to see grown men play that game.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I was thinking that Dorgan's decision has probably upset the plans and timetable the Heitkamp's might have had for the Governorship and national office.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I noticed yesterday that the Drudge report had a list of bribes for the health care bill. I wish I had copied it since it's gone today. At least I can't find it. 
That left me asking myself why Dorgan would vote for the health care bill when 65% of North Dakota was against it. More than 50% strongly opposed it. That was on FOX news today. What I think is Obama promised him something. I wonder what new Czar opening will be created, or cabinet post will open up? Look for Dorgan to get his payoff.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Look for Dorgan to get his payoff.

Exactly, you are on target. Watch 2011.


----------



## JBB (Feb 9, 2005)

WTF!! Thought this was a dicussion about Sneator Dorgan retiring. He has done a lot of good for ND over the years and as you get older your priorities change. He is probably getting tired of beating his head against the wall and saw what Hoven did this spring and said F*** It, its time to get out. Dorgan did a good job and Hoven has the support of ND. Look at his ratings and he has not even said if he will run.
But done with that, the personal attacks are part of the reason I do not come to this site as much anymore. I thought it used to be a place where outdoors people helped each other out, like friends do.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Did a lot for North Dakota? He did a lot to America. 
Dorgan could not hide his real self when he voted against 65% of North Dakotan's to give Obama his health care package. I would bet a lot that he will get a payoff. He was bought, we just don't know how cheap it was to buy him yet. 
If you look at some of the senators voting records over the past ten years you need to do this. Compare the times they vote for our second amendment rights to the bill and if it passed or not. What I have noticed is some of these guys vote to uphold the constitution when the democrats have more than enough votes to pass a restrictive bill. Then when the chips are down and a bill looks like it could loose many of these same pseudo pro second amendment congress people vote for the bills. It takes a few years to smoke this type of backstabber out. That and they will do some little thing for hunters back home while at the same time voting against their constitutional rights in Washington. Pay close attention.
Dorgan is a public figure and as a politician he opens himself up for attack. That's as it should be. What is against the rules is attacking someone on here that you debate. 
In defense of Dorgan I can't imagine him using the language you suggested.

This is why Dorgan isn't running: viewtopic.php?f=69&t=78905


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

In reality the system is such that they are all bought, Republicans and Democrats alike. And whether we like it or not, everyone who gets elected to Congress eventually learns the ground rules and plays accordingly or they are not there long. Deal making and back room bargaining are part of the process that results in every member of congress being able to bring home the bacon.

Did Dorgan bring home the bacon? Absolutely! Will the next U.S. Senator from North Dakota be expected to do likewise? Absolutely! Ideology goes out the window pretty quickly when the money stops rolling in to the state. Dorgan delivered the goods to North Dakota, was (is) a powerful member of the senate, and I believe he would have been re-elected. And although many disagree with his vote on health care I think he more than met the expectations of North Dakotans with regard to money for agriculture, research, energy and a host of other programs designed to benefit the state.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Again, Aythya you like so many others miss the point! Dorgan actions are now going to cause the taking of a lot more money from the people of this state as well as causing the rationing of health care in the future. The simple fact is that we as a nation are broke! When in the near future we reach that point where China and other will no longer finance the debt we are racking up Granny who is 80 will not get that hip or heart bypass.

The people of ND did not miss this, regardless of what the spin doctors are claiming otherwise. Then there is his own words regarding Fed dollars going to abortion. ND while tolerant of it, do not want it funded in any manner with tax dollars. The bill he voted for back doors Fed dollars to those who want to buy abortion coverage undoing a law that has been the standard for this nation since before Roe vs Wade!!!! Dorgan tried right after Christmas to dance around this, but only Kool Aid drinkers are buying it.

He even with his healthy war chest could not buy enough TV,radio and print ads to overcome the LIAR!!! LIAR campaign he was going to face, because it was going to be his own words that they used against him!!!!!!

Remember John Kerry saying I voted, for it before I voted against it and how it played out? The same backlash was going to come raining down on him and he knew it!!!!!! He knew he was going to lose regardless of what happens with the economy or anything else, HC and his absolute and total ignoring of the people of ND, where badly underestimated by him!!!!!


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

I didn't miss any points at all. Dorgan did what every other member of congress before and after has done and will continue to do. Cut deals in order to get money for their own states in any way they can. And I don't care who the next senator is, he or she will do exactly the same and if not, won't be in office too long. If you can't get big federal money for your state it really doesn't matter what your stance is on any issue, you won't get re-elected. Ideological principles fall by the wayside if the choice is stand on your principles or get big money for the folks back home. And you get big bucks and the seniority that helps you get the big bucks by making deals.

But, we will never know if he would have been beaten as he has chosen not to run. For those that want to believe he retired because he was afraid of losing, feel free to believe what you want. I don't buy it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But, we will never know if he would have been beaten as he has chosen not to run. For those that want to believe he retired because he was afraid of losing, feel free to believe what you want. I don't buy it.


Come up for some air once in a while. Chuging kool-aid in such a capacity could choke you.



> Dorgan did what every other member of congress before and after has done and will continue to do. Cut deals


You are perhaps right, but isn't it sad. Even more sad that we accept such poor behavior. Money is God for some people. I would like North Dakota to be treated fairly, but I don't want to shaft others for my benefit. I would not want to take food from the mouth of a ranchers child in Texas to build a road in North Dakota. I love North Dakota, but America comes first, and God comes before America.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

I don't buy that Dorgan wavered to far from his politico ideology just to bring money into the state.
I truly believe Pee, Dee and Cee, viewed their fellow North Dakotans as unsophisticated,, naive,,, hicks.
Every election cycle for years, they reminded us of the slab of bacon they had given us to eat as they spun their ideology to conform to our principles.
They're pathetic. uke:


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Plainsman,

Come up for air? Chugging Kool-aid??? Not sure what that comment was intended to do but it adds nothing to a civil debate.

I agree that is is sad. We don't seem to have a national ethic on most issues that puts the country first and has Congress looking for ways to ensure that legislation is in the best interests of the majority. Where are the statesmen and stateswoman who can find compromise and move us forward? But I still maintain that the way the system works ( or doesn't ) is that we elect people to office to get us the best deal for our state. And the best deal seems to mean as much federal money as possible.

Spentwings,

And with regard to Pomeroy, Conrad and Dorgan reminding us of how much bacon they brought home at every election, you are absolutely correct. That is what every member of congress does and will continue to do because that is what the citizens want from them. It won't matter who replaces Dorgan because when he or she is up for re-election we will hear two overriding points, I brought home this amount of money for the state and I fought for North Dakota.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

I agree Aythya...pork is always going to be part of politics...besides,,,,, although smelly, not all pork is bad.
What infuriates me is when these guys pretend to represent and defend the values of the majority of North Dakotans


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Again, Aythya you like so many others miss the point! Dorgan actions are now going to cause the taking of a lot more money from the people of this state as well as causing the rationing of health care in the future. The simple fact is that we as a nation are broke! When in the near future we reach that point where China and other will no longer finance the debt we are racking up Granny who is 80 will not get that hip or heart bypass.
> 
> The people of ND did not miss this, regardless of what the spin doctors are claiming otherwise. Then there is his own words regarding Fed dollars going to abortion. ND while tolerant of it, do not want it funded in any manner with tax dollars. The bill he voted for back doors Fed dollars to those who want to buy abortion coverage undoing a law that has been the standard for this nation since before Roe vs Wade!!!! Dorgan tried right after Christmas to dance around this, but only Kool Aid drinkers are buying it.
> 
> ...


Ron, easy on the exclamation points. We're trying to keep this civil.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

spentwings said:


> I agree Aythya...pork is always going to be part of politics...besides,,,,, although smelly, not all pork is bad.
> What infuriates me is when these guys pretend to represent and defend the values of the majority of North Dakotans


I think that Dorgan did represent ND values and interests most of the time. One has to expect the reps to fall in line with their party once in a while.

If a republican gets in there they will have to do the same, especially in the first few years. Of course there are plenty of people on here who think the right can do no wrong, even though all these messes that we are in now are the cause of both parties 

I hope that all this unnecessary spending or pork gets cut down soon, like Ron said; the federal government is simply too big and too wasteful. Until this changes it is good for ND to have people in DC that get our tax dollars put back here.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

With as pizzed off as people are right now with congress (and the Democrat majority making up congress) this would be a perfect time for Ed Shafer to take out Pomeroy too!!

Just think, we could be rid of TWO putzes in one foul swoop!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I agree that is is sad.


This is one of those days where I get to have a pleasant surprise. Some of your comments made me think you were blind partisan, hence the kool-aid comment. I'm pleased that I missed my mark. Sometimes one has to be happy that they have been wrong. Thanks.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

barebackjack said:


> With as pizzed off as people are right now with congress (and the Democrat majority making up congress) this would be a perfect time for Ed Shafer to take out Pomeroy too!!
> 
> Just think, we could be rid of TWO putzes in one foul swoop!


This _would_ be a step in the right direction. I though that it was funny that Earl pointed out that he almost always disagreed with Bush policies and now finds himself disagreeing with Obama's policies. He smells trouble too. Saw Schafer hauling sandbags during the flood, that was kind of funny. He probably would beat Earl in a landslide.

It will be interesting to see who goes against Hoeven and how much each national committee spends in the little state of North Dakota.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The rats are scrambling, the Dem's instead of chasing retiring GOP seats are now faced with tough races in places they never figured to have to fight. Earl may have his million plus in the bank, but a $300,000.00 dollar LIAR LIAR campaign with his own words is maybe enough!!!!!!! But again Earl may be lucky in that Dorgan will be able to funnel his money to him and he can convince enough people he has seen the light!!!

In regards to who will run against Hoven now that he has officially announced, again, who has the name recognition to run that did not support Dorgan voting for the HC,and bailouts???? Both Heitkamps have so much air time drooling over the Three Stooges and are wearing neck braces because Dorgan turned a corner to fast and it hurt their neck because of where they had their head!!!!!

Heidi lost to Hoven who at the time had very little name recognition. Joel has little or no chance of beating Hoven. So that leaves who????

Eddy bowed out, Bouche? One of the Schneider's?

Oh! Seabass, I sorry the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! offend you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is after all a political topic, and one I am very well versed in regarding the Three Stooges!! i remember well Conrad and Pooperboy running and telling everyone about the great Open Lands Program they where going to get through Congress! That to buy the vote of the Sportsman but never pushed it along. I remember well all three talking about Conservation efforts and why CRP was so important, but helped craft the rules making it impossible for people who wanted to keep land enrolled from being eligible or so costly that the land came out. I remember well all three complaining about the rail rates, but they all voted for the change that allowed BN to charge the rates they where. Force elevators to use trucks because of the unit trains and also the back door loop hole they approved of that caused miles upon miles of rail lines to be abandoned in this state!

Then there is the fact that they supported the AWB! I can go on and on!!!!!!!!! Yes as TK points out they have returned pork, but at what cost?

I really wish that CS-PAN would be required viewing for all voters. They could listen to these clowns and then watch them vote!!!!! Dorgan for example caved on the Prescription drug importation amendment!!!!! Why didn't he and Conrad blackmail Reid to get it through! It had Rep support!

I tried is not cutting it anymore! So get use to the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! regarding these boobs! I have no respect for them at all. They have been lying but the voters of ND until the HC where not listening, but they are now and much more closely than ever before!

Cap and Tax? Saw a very interesting ad tonight that claimed that all the jobs in DL,VC, and Whap are equal to jobs created by coal generated electricity.Good paying jobs none the less. How does Cap and Tax help ND?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I love all this negativity towards our 3 Democratic MODERATE senators and rep.And how a Republican.....any Republican will be a lot better.Well guess what guys....Hoeven is also a MODERATE.He sided with our 3 Wash. guys on just about everything beneficial to our state.Basically the only difference between them is their party affiliation.He used to be a Democrat and basically switched parties in order to get elected.His views are still the same as the "big 3."

So I won't lose any sleep if Hoeven wins.My only disappoinment is that he won't be in Bismarck anymore.I would expect Hoeven to slide a little more right now to distance himself from Dorgan's views.Conservatives in ND haven't always been happy with Hoeven.And to see and hear all this negativity about Dorgan is a real laugher. :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ken, I guess I would agree with you that Hoven is more moderate than conservative, but he is far more conservative than the Stooges are! Thus a win for taxpayers!!!!!!!!!! He is unlikely to vote for any weapons laws, he is unlikely to vote for gay marriage, he is unlikely to vote for tax increases without spending cuts first.

Will he push for flood projects, and farm programs, most likely. It is all about putting things in perspective as to what a conservative is vs a moderate liberal. He may have been a moderate liberal, but not in the last four years. Nor has Pooperboy!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

The real issue with Hoeven is will he continue to be a corporate stooge like he has in the past.

Didn't he think that Fargo should have been evacuated during the flood?

Who did he side with on the WSI fiasco?

He has sided with big government and corporations every time. He will only do the same in DC. The short answer is he is just the same as the rest.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What do we have to do to get:
A person that supports the second amendment?
A person that doesn't worship business?
A person that doesn't hate business?
A person that doesn't raise taxes?
A person that doesn't buy votes with my tax dollars?
A person that doesn't align themselves with every pervert group out there for votes?
A person that is environmentally concerned?
A person who isn't a fake environmentalist, just to hurt business?
A person who isn't a fake environmentalist just to help business?
etc, etc, etc,

I know, I know, fantasy land.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman.....you forgot

A person who doesn't cater to special Interests,no matter who it affects?

But then with the supreme court now ruling that special interests can make unlimited contributions.....this won't happen any time soon.A severe loss for the common man.Bringing home the bacon is more entrenched than ever.Look at the vote on the commission to cut expenses in the Senate.Senators from both the right and left voted it down.....7 votes short.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman.....you forgot
> 
> A person who doesn't cater to special Interests,no matter who it affects?
> 
> But then with the supreme court now ruling that special interests can make unlimited contributions.....this won't happen any time soon.A severe loss for the common man.Bringing home the bacon is more entrenched than ever.Look at the vote on the commission to cut expenses in the Senate.Senators from both the right and left voted it down.....7 votes short.


Ken thats simply not correct.

They correctly ruled that an Unconstitutional law that putz McCain pushed thru was infact unconstitutional and this a good thing for all of us. If we allow these clowns in congress to say who can and cannot freely criticize them we are sunk as a country and I'm talking about criticizing all of them not just the left but the right also.

They are just trying to keep their power once they have it and if they cannot be publicly criticised we will never get the country back on track.

And just in case anyone has heard otherwise foreigners still cannot partake in this area of elections and this ruling did not affect that. The pendulum swings back and forth and both sides should be able to atleast attempt to keep the other side honest.

McCain tried to prevent that ...one of the many reasons I cannot stand the sight of him.


----------



## mallard (Mar 27, 2002)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Not sure how many people saw this article in the Wall Street Journal, a very good read&#8230;

WASHINGTON-Kent Conrad vaulted from North Dakota tax commissioner to the U.S. Senate in 1986 on the strength of a startling pledge: He would quit and go home if the federal deficit wasn't "brought under control" during his first six-year term.
The deficit that year hit a record $221 billion. Six years later it topped $290 billion. This year, it's expected to hit $1.6 trillion.
Mr. Conrad, now the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, did resign in 1992, but he stayed on after the state's other senator died. Since then, he has become one of the Senate's most vociferous deficit hawks, warning that the nation faces insolvency if it doesn't boost revenues and trim obligations.

Like many in Congress, he is conflicted. He boasts a 23-year record of looking after North Dakota voters with ample farm subsidies, aid for drought-hit ranchers, defense spending and scores of pet projects. He has done little to help rein in Medicare and Social Security expenses-the U.S.'s biggest budget busters.
Congress is wrestling, yet again, with a widening gap between how much the government earns and spends. Only two-thirds of President Barack Obama's $3.8 trillion 2011 budget request, which goes this week before Mr. Conrad's committee, is paid for by taxes. The rest will go on the national credit card.

Mr. Conrad's career shows how hard it is to trim spending, even for those committed to beating down the deficit. Lawmakers from both parties routinely scramble to protect or increase funding for home-state projects. Not since 1965 has Congress approved a budget smaller than the prior year's.

Together with Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Mr. Conrad pushed for more than a year to create a bipartisan commission to tackle the deficit-an acknowledgment that Congress, left to its own devices, isn't up to the job. The commission proposal was defeated in the Senate last week as reluctant Democrats rejected calls for trimming Social Security, and Republicans opposed potential tax hikes. Mr. Obama has said he will form a commission by presidential order.
The problem, Mr. Conrad says, is that "everyone in Washington wants to be for every tax cut and every spending increase."
Know thyself, say the senator's colleagues. "Conrad says one thing, and then votes hundreds of times the other way-to spend money," says Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the Senate's strictest spending hawks and among only six senators who sought no funding for home-state projects through the "earmark" process last year. 
David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office who now runs a private campaign to tame the debt, puts it differently: "Kent fights over what the size of the pie should be while also fighting to get as large a slice of that pie as he can for his state."

Sitting in his Senate office with his bichon frisé Dakota curled in his lap, Mr. Conrad acknowledges his "obligation to represent the people who sent me here. But I try to do it within the context of an overall plan that is fiscally responsible."
Most economists agree that the country's public-debt burden-now at $7.75 trillion and growing-poses a threat to economic security. Interest payments devour nearly one-tenth of federal revenues and are projected to more than triple over the next 10 years. Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid consumes an additional 57%. The administration projects that those entitlement programs, as they are known, plus interest on the debt, will absorb 80% of all federal revenues by 2020.
Mr. Conrad has long pushed to curb deficit spending. As a freshman senator, he had a hand in a bruising 1990 budget deal that raised taxes and restrained spending. In 1993 and 1997, he backed legislation that trimmed Medicare and required Congress to pay for all spending hikes or tax cuts.

Those steps helped pave the way for surpluses beginning in 1998. With increased taxes, a booming economy and strict spending restraints, Congress racked up surpluses until 2001, the longest such stretch since the 1920s.
"Those balanced budgets got us to stop borrowing from the Social Security trust fund," Mr. Conrad says. "That was our high-water mark, if you will."

While advocating fiscal responsibility at the national level, the senator has ministered adroitly to one of the most government-dependent states in the country: a vast swath of parched prairie that is home to needy military air bases, Indian reservations, an aging population of 639,000 and thousands of farmers who, over the last decade, have collectively gobbled up an average of $715 million a year in crop subsidies and disaster payments.
"His heart is in the right place," says Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office who now advises Republican campaigns. "But when your party, your colleagues, and even your constituents are all pressuring you to give in to the dark side, it's tough to make real progress."
Mr. Conrad won a tight race in 1986 with promises to look after the state's embattled farmers. Fears that year that President Ronald Reagan would squeeze Social Security helped Democrats regain control of the Senate. Within weeks of taking office, Mr. Conrad stood up against a push to trim farm subsidies. "Farmers in my state are in deep trouble," he told a reporter at the time. "That's why I'm here."

He has been a defender of the state's grain farmers ever since. He voted last April against a proposal to cap federal payments to the nation's farmers at $250,000 per farmer per year, a measure that Mr. Conrad criticized as disastrous but that supporters said would have saved $1 billion a year.

He also helped draft a five-year, $300 billion farm bill in 2008 that boosted overall farm subsidies. The bill created a $3.8 billion emergency "trust fund" for farmers who lose crops or livestock to natural disasters, which was Mr. Conrad's idea. Since 2008, North Dakota ranchers have received $23 million under the fund, second only to Texas.
Mr. Conrad has been just as energetic about protecting defense programs in his state, including the B-52 bombers based at Minot Air Force Base in central North Dakota. The Pentagon in 2006 said it wanted to slash the bomber fleet from 94 to 56. Mr. Conrad and fellow Democratic North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan moved to prevent that, arguing that the B-52s were cheaper than alternative bombers and played a vital role in overseas operations.

The two senators managed to boost funding for North Dakota's bombers by $70 million. Last year, Mr. Conrad won another $172 million to assure that the Air Force maintained the overall number of active bombers at 76.
Mr. Conrad also has used legislative earmarks-provisions inserted into bills by lawmakers to fund local projects-to deliver federal money to North Dakota businesses, cities and schools. He secured $3 million last year to build a new terminal at the Grand Forks airport, and $13 million more for a fire station at a nearby air base. Dickinson State University got $600,000 to build a Theodore Roosevelt Center, while a Navy research project got $1.2 million to develop a "chafing protection system." 
All told, the state's congressional delegation, led by Mr. Conrad, secured $137 million last year for projects in North Dakota-roughly $213 per inhabitant, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. Only Alaska and Mississippi got more per capita.

North Dakota received nearly $1.70 a year in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes in 2005-the sixth-highest ratio among the 50 states, according to the most recent analysis by Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan tax-research group.
Mr. Conrad says he recognizes the apparent contradiction between his hawkishness on the deficit and his determination to bring as much money as possible to his state. But his efforts for his state, he says, are tiny relative to the overall budget, and shouldn't undermine the bigger quest to tame deficit spending.

"Yes, the small things are important to my state," he says. "But I also recognize that the big things are what matter from a national perspective. What really matters is that we have an overall plan that is balanced."
Mr. Conrad's ascendancy to head of the Senate Budget Committee in 2001 corresponded with what he considers the bleakest period in recent fiscal history: the years that followed President George W. Bush's tax cuts of that year. Mr. Conrad became one of President Bush's loudest critics on the budget front, lashing into the administration for its tax cuts and its huge deficit spending.

By 2003, the surpluses were gone and the country's indebtedness began to soar, with China, Japan and big oil exporters like Saudi Arabia soaking up more and more U.S. Treasury notes.
During some of those years, Mr. Conrad drafted budgets that exceeded in size those proposed by Mr. Bush. He also helped to usher huge farm and transportation bills through the Senate.
In 2003, Mr. Conrad joined most Democratic senators to support Mr. Bush's plan to provide Medicare prescription-drug coverage to seniors, at a cost of around $40 billion a year. The plan required Congress to scrap the spending controls Mr. Conrad once championed. Republicans won the votes of Mr. Conrad and other rural senators by agreeing to expand the program by pumping $25 billion more into rural hospitals and doctors over 10 years.

Messrs. Conrad and Dorgan inserted a similar clause in the recent Senate health-care bill to increase Medicare reimbursement rates for any state in which half the counties had fewer than six people per square mile. Mr. Conrad told his constituents that the so-called "frontier counties" amendment would "boost payments to our state by more than $65 million a year."
Mr. Conrad helped negotiate the 2005 highway bill, which critics blasted as a bipartisan exercise in spending excess. The $286 billion bill contained 6,371 earmarks. Even before Mr. Bush signed it, Mr. Conrad told constituents that the bill would deliver $1.5 billion to North Dakota communities. "That equates to North Dakota receiving $2 for every $1 in gas tax collected in the state," Mr. Conrad said in a news release.

Such attentiveness has kept Mr. Conrad popular in an otherwise conservative state, where both the legislature and the governor's office are in Republican hands. "The joke here is that we elect conservatives to state office because we don't want them to spend our money, and liberals to national office because we want them to spend other people's money," says Rob Port, a conservative commentator in North Dakota. Mr. Gregg, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, has repeatedly poked fun at his Democratic colleague on the Senate floor, accusing him in a 2008 speech of "aggravating the debt threat" by "spending so much money we do not have." Off the floor, Mr. Gregg describes Mr. Conrad as a victim of the Senate itself. 
"You have to separate the operational need for a chairman to produce a budget from the fact that Conrad fully recognizes that some of the budgets he put together have complicated what we have to deal with" on the debt front, Mr. Gregg says. "You just have to do what you have to do."

Mr. Conrad responds: "I have never put together a budget I didn't believe was moving in the right direction."
One theme Mr. Conrad returns to repeatedly is the need to rewrite the country's tax code to expand the revenue base. He has spoken favorably of a national value-added tax. He has pushed to beef up tax collection, target individual tax shelters and go after companies that stash money abroad-steps he estimates could raise as much $325 billion a year. He estimates that individuals and companies in the U.S. pay only 76% of the taxes they owe. Some Republicans contend this line is a cover for simply raising taxes.

In an interview, Mr. Conrad declined to detail what he intends to propose to the presidential commission. Getting specific at the start, he says, "would immediately get all the interest groups activated, and they would kill it in the crib."


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

I still think there is more to come with Cap and trade and environmental regs that Dorgan is openly against and would be put in a huge "box" by the liberal leadership running his party...

Anytype of moderate in the WH or not one party control of congress and he keeps his seat easy.

Might as well sell his vote at this point...


----------

