Burns' comments

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:03 pm

I just have a quick question about one thing in this article. Did Burns really use the "n" word in the quote about living in D.C.? I had heard the quote before, but it always just used the term "blacks" instead. Is what is being reported here accurate (which means the previous times I had read it they had edited it to make it less offensive)? I sincerely hope that this story has it wrong.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articl ... 2karin.txt

bozbobcat · Post by **bozbobcat** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:23 pm

I don't think he used the "n" word, but it's no secret that Conrad Burns says some things that shouldn't be said. Anyway, most of us don't read much into what Karin Ronnow has to say. She's usually kind of boring.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:19 pm

I'm not really familiar with her writing, so I can't judge on her past writing, but that one line really caught my attention -- I had never heard it said (in print) that he had used a term like that in public. To my knowledge, that's the first time somebody has printed that sort of allegation. I could be wrong, though. It could be old news.

Most of the things Burns has said in the past, although on the dumb side, don't really bother me that much as a person (although as a native Montanan, I do wish my reps on a national level would be more polished and avoid such dumb mistakes). Most were taken out of context or made larger than they needed to be because people wanted to be upset by them. If he ever did drop the "n" word, though, that definitely crosses over a very bright line that should never be crossed. That's why I was shocked to read it quoted like that.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:00 am

I haven't seen the 'n word' quote before, but I have seen the "ragheads" quote on quite a few different occasions, and I don't believe Burns has ever even tried to deny making it. Frankly, that one is no better.

Whatever anyone thinks of Burns' politics, no one can deny that the man is a bigot.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:12 am

I'm pretty sure he didn't drop the n word, I think it was more of a "those people" comment.

Conrad's just an old cowboy who sometimes says stuff you shouldn't say even when you're thinking it. Being someone who leans toward the democrat platform, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing someone replace Conrad in DC.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:46 pm

Re/Max Griz wrote:Conrad's just an old cowboy who sometimes says stuff you shouldn't say even when you're thinking it.

Different people have different levels of tolerance for things like this, but I've gotten to the point where I don't have a whole lot of patience for it anymore. When a person makes a racist or bigoted statement, they reveal (at best) that they do not consider racial or other prejudice to be a matter of particular concern, and (at worst) that they themselves are racist and bigoted. When an elected official makes such comments publicly, it is all the more disturbing, because at least in theory, public officials know that every public statement they make will be picked up and scrutinized by the media, and if someone like Burns routinely makes comments like this when the microphones are on, one can only wonder what he is like when they are off.

I'm sure Burns and his supporters would respond to all of this by accusing me of being too concerned with "political correctness," but that just isn't an answer to me. The term "politically correct" is a nice way of making people who won't tolerate bigotry sound like they are just being overly sensitive, but that does not change the fact that a lot of Burns' past comments paint a picture of a person who holds some fairly disturbing personal views.

RyeCat · Post by **RyeCat** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:28 am

Burns may project the image of "old cowboy", but I seem to recall that southern cracker might be more "politically correct." He's a Missouri auctioneer and his hay seed persona is an embarrassment. However, it's hard for the rank and file Republicans of our state to vote for a Dem, even if they are a better candidate. But, the tide is turning, Schweitzer is proof of that. We'll see what happens when Burns runs for term four.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:17 am

RyeCat wrote:...However, it's hard for the rank and file Republicans of our state to vote for a Dem, even if they are a better candidate...

How then do you explain the fact that Max Baucus has been a U.S. Senator for about 3/4 of my lifetime?

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:41 am

El_Gato wrote:
RyeCat wrote:...However, it's hard for the rank and file Republicans of our state to vote for a Dem, even if they are a better candidate...
How then do you explain the fact that Max Baucus has been a U.S. Senator for about 3/4 of my lifetime?

C'mon Gato, Baucus has only been around for about 20 years or so -- that's only about 1/3 of your life, isn't it?

All kidding aside, Baucus wins elections because (1) he's a fairly moderate Democrat; and (2) he won his first term back when the balance of power in the state was a bit more even between the Dems and the Republicans, and since then he has always enjoyed the advantages of running as an incumbent.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:07 am

This link explains it the way I remember it being reported oringinally

http://www.maynardije.org/columns/dickp ... 20_prince/

"Back in 1994, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns dropped by a local newspaper, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and told an editor an anecdote about one of his constituents, a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington, D.C.

"The senator said the rancher asked him, 'Conrad, how can you live back there with all those n-word * ?'

"Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was 'a hell of a challenge.'

"The anecdote was published and Senator Burns apologized. When he was asked why he hadn't expressed to the rancher any disapproval of the use of the word n-word *, Senator Burns said, 'I don't know. I never give it much thought.'"

* edited by grizbeer

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:47 am

Grizlaw wrote:
El_Gato wrote:
RyeCat wrote:...However, it's hard for the rank and file Republicans of our state to vote for a Dem, even if they are a better candidate...
How then do you explain the fact that Max Baucus has been a U.S. Senator for about 3/4 of my lifetime?
C'mon Gato, Baucus has only been around for about 20 years or so -- that's only about 1/3 of your life, isn't it?

All kidding aside, Baucus wins elections because (1) he's a fairly moderate Democrat; and (2) he won his first term back when the balance of power in the state was a bit more even between the Dems and the Republicans, and since then he has always enjoyed the advantages of running as an incumbent.

gl

baucus is only a moderate dem when it comes to elections

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:20 am

Hell's Bells wrote:baucus is only a moderate dem when it comes to elections

Hmm..I don't follow Baucus as closely as the folks who still live in Montana probably do, but whenever he gets any national attention, it seems like it's usually because he's siding with or compromising with Republicans in the Senate. Without him, most of Bush's major tax bills would not have passed the Senate, and I seem to recall that he has supported many of Bush's other domestic proposals as well (although as I said, I don't follow him as closely as some).

He's not Zell Miller (who I would call a conservative, not a moderate, but it's semantics), but Baucus is certainly more moderate than many/most of the Democrats in the Senate.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 11:24 am

Grizlaw wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:baucus is only a moderate dem when it comes to elections
Hmm..I don't follow Baucus as closely as the folks who still live in Montana probably do, but whenever he gets any national attention, it seems like it's usually because he's siding with or compromising with Republicans in the Senate. Without him, most of Bush's major tax bills would not have passed the Senate, and I seem to recall that he has supported many of Bush's other domestic proposals as well (although as I said, I don't follow him as closely as some).

He's not Zell Miller (who I would call a conservative, not a moderate, but it's semantics), but Baucus is certainly more moderate than many/most of the Democrats in the Senate.

zell miller = god in a Dem's clothing! lol

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:22 pm

grizbeer wrote:This link explains it the way I remember it being reported oringinally

http://www.maynardije.org/columns/dickp ... 20_prince/

"Back in 1994, while campaigning for a second term, Mr. Burns dropped by a local newspaper, The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and told an editor an anecdote about one of his constituents, a rancher who wanted to know what life was like in Washington, D.C.

"The senator said the rancher asked him, 'Conrad, how can you live back there with all those n-word * ?'

"Senator Burns said he told the rancher it was 'a hell of a challenge.'

"The anecdote was published and Senator Burns apologized. When he was asked why he hadn't expressed to the rancher any disapproval of the use of the word n-word *, Senator Burns said, 'I don't know. I never give it much thought.'"
* edited by grizbeer

Thanks for the research, grizbeer. That makes this all make sense to me in terms of how the quote in the article came about (erroneous quote, apparently), and how it went down the first time. It was still a jackass moment for Burns in a big way, but at least the "n" word was quoted directly from his lips. Otherwise, I can't imagine he could still be in office in this day and age.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:59 am

And although it might have just faded away, Tammy pours some fuel on the fire, and executes an excellent bit of hypocrisy along the way (I wouldn't publicly smear Baucus, and let me publicly smear Baucus as an example of a story I wouldn't tell if I were to smear Baucus).

It's good for a laugh ... and now duck as the backlash she sparks fills the Chronicle opinion page for weeks.

http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articl ... 3tammy.txt