Another North Dakota Newspaper Toadies To Heidi Heitkamp

bismarcktribune1

“Berg believes that the American economy would be unleashed by reducing the size and reach of the federal government, which would increase the number of jobs and solve most of the nation’s problems,” wrote the Bismarck Tribune’s editorial board in endorsing Republican Rick Berg for the US Senate over liberal Democrat Heidi Heitkamp.

“The Tribune has consistently supported candidates who espouse smaller federal government, less federal regulation and reducing the federal deficit and national debt. In keeping with those criteria, we endorse Rick Berg for the U.S. Senate.”

That is a logical calculation. Heitkamp wants bigger government and Berg wants smaller government, thus Berg gets the endorsement based on the criteria the Tribune set forth.

Of course, we know now that Berg lost the election and Heitkamp won, and today the Tribune is busy praising Heitkamp’s “priorities” and how “right” they are for North Dakota.

My problem is not that the Tribune would endorse Heitkamp. My problem is that the Tribune, much like the Fargo Forum, isn’t being consistent in their application of principles. Had the Tribune, after endorsing Heitkamp in the Senate race, turned around and began praising Berg before he was even sworn into the Senate the point would stand.

They are being decidedly unprincipled in their editorializing.

If they truly believed their endorsement of Berg over Heitkamp based on the former’s preference for smaller government and the latter’s preference for bigger, more energetic government then they should now be expressing skepticism of Heitkamp’s priorities. Not endorsing them, sight unseen, as right for North Dakota.

One almost gets the idea that the decisions these newspaper editorial boards take on candidates really have nothing to do with ideology or principles or issues but rather who they think might win. And who actually did win.

I’ve long argued that North Dakota’s media has not so much an ideological bias (though that’s present too) but rather a bias for whoever happens to be in power at the moment. Put simply, the state’s editors and journalists tend to be toadies to whoever happens to be in office. Especially the federal offices.

That may be a good business model, threatening neither their advertising nor their access to political figures, but in terms of serving the public it stinks.

I don’t ask that these newspapers endorse my conservative views on the candidates and the issues. I only for a modicum of consistency.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Paul Overby

    You mean that you think they suck up?! Nah, they’d never do that would they?!

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Oh no, never!

  • Rick Olson

    The newspapers in this state are experts in the suck up. Since they all sit around and let the stories come to them, they naturally will print every word that comes out of a politician’s yap. Virtually word for word. No fact checking required.

  • Guest

    “After Issue of Partisan Bias Raised, Rob Port Conspicuously Silent”

    After attacking Heidi Heitkamp for not voicing her support for a letter written by John Hoeven, Rob Port justified the blog post by writing “Heitkamp is certainly free to voice her support for the letter. So far, Silence.” Port, however, ignored a point raised that such was equally true of Republican Kevin Cramer and refused to respond further.

    Is Port not denying he is nothing more than a partisan hack?

    So far, silence.

    • Dave

      You’re good at this blog stuff! LOL!

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        Heh. Azulu is the latest in a long line of trolls here on SAB.

        Nothing new under the sun.

        • Guest

          Typical Republican Response. Someone argues with logic and reason and the best Republicans can do is name call since they have no other argument to defend their position.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Funny to hear you whine about name-calling after calling me a douche.

            And I think I’ve defended my positions quite extensively, even if you don’t find them convincing.

          • Guest

            Yes, I name call, but it’s included with actual substantive argument; an extra flourish to hit them while they’re down. Your posts, however, lack that important distinction.

            If you think having not provided one legitimate reason to differentiate Heitkamp and Cramer on this issue is a extensive defense of your meritless argument, well then you’re blind to the fact you’re a partisan hack as well.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            So, it’s ok when you call people names, but not ok when other people use name calling.

            Gotcha, champ.

            When did I call you names, by the way? I guess I did call you a troll, but that’s a pretty mild perjorative, especially in the context of your behavior here.

          • Guest

            “Heh. Azulu is the latest in a long line of trolls here on SAB.Nothing new under the sun.”

            Sorry, where’s you’re substantive argument in that post? I don’t see any. Yeah I called you a partisan hack, but you haven’t given any credible evidence to differentiate Heitkamp and Cramer on this issue, and until you do, the label fits.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            So now you’re going to pretend as though that comment is the only thing I’ve written on this subject?

            C’mon. I know you want to distract from the main argument because you’re losing the debate, but that’s a little bit ridiculous.

          • Guest

            I agree, it is ridiculous you think I lost the debate. Your comment was in response to Dave. The only substantive elements of the discussion between the two of you was name calling on your part..

            All you’ve managed to do is criticize me for thinking it is partisan to demand the same level of accountability for both sides of the isle.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            You cherry-picked one comment that I posted after you called me a douche to distract from the overall argument.

            Here’s the issue at hand; Heitkamp campaigne don standing up to Barack Obama and Harry Reid on the Keystone pipeline. So far she’s not doing it.

            Your response has been…Kevin Cramer! Which really has no bearing on whether or not Heidi Heitkamp is living up to her campaign promises.

          • Guest

            Again, you do not appear to understand my objection. I have absolutely no doubt that Kevin Cramer supports the Pipeline and I have no reservations about Heitkamp’s support as neither have given any indication otherwise.

            What I strenuously object to is your unequal treatment of the two. Cramer also campaigned against the administration and opposition to it’s stalling. So far he’s not doing it, in your own words.

            You haven’t provided one legitimate reason to differentiate Heitkamp and Cramer on this issue other than you are a partisan hack who simply can’t accept Heitkamp at her word like you can for Cramer.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Again, you do not appear to understand my objection. I have absolutely no doubt that Kevin Cramer supports the Pipeline and I have no reservations about Heitkamp’s support as neither have given any indication otherwise.

            But, you see, that’s not actually true. Heitkamp benefited from millions in spending from Harry Reid’s PAC, and she’s also promised her vote to keep Reid as Majority Leader. Heitkamp is also an Obama supporter.

            Both of those leaders have roadblocked efforts to clear the regulatory path for the Keystone pipeline.

            Those are some pretty major “indications” that Heitkamp’s campaign promises may have just been words which do not apply to Cramer. It would be nice if she’d prove me wrong. So far she hasn’t, and I’m criticizing that.

            That seems perfectly fair to me.

          • Guest

            First, none of these were reasons you provided initially for your attack against Heidi Heitkamp. It was that she was free to write a letter and hasn’t. Why is your narrative changing Rob? You’re so furious the administration changing it’s initial explanation for Libya, should I start also now making posts about your incompetence for shifting your narrative? By your logic, the potential incompetence is staggering here.

            You’ve abandoned that line of reasoning as you have to, and degenerated into completely disingenuous argument that there is not bipartisan support for the agreement. Again, you can name two Democrats who opposed the Pipeline. I named Democrats who supported it. You’ve also repeatedly ignored the fact that even the API acknowledge there is bipartisan support for the pipeline. If all it takes is one person in the party’s opposition to the pipeline to place an onus on every other party member to reaffirm their support for the Pipeline, why isn’t the same true for Cramer since some Republican’s also opposed it.

            Donations to Heidi’s campaign are completely irrelevant unless you also believe Kevin Cramer agrees with 100% of everything his donors believe and have supported in the past. In fact, it should it not be even easier for Kevin Cramer to voice his support for the pipeline? Hoeven could, and has, after all. If you’re so upset Heidi didn’t join in, why are you upset Cramer didn’t lend his voice in support? It’s actually more damning than Heidi not reaffirming her support immediately since it’s such an great opportunity and he has no reason not to, right? It would be easy for Kramer to do that, but so far he hasn’t, and you’re not criticizing that. Seems perfectly like a partisan hack to me.

            You’ve failed to provide one legitimate reason for attacking Heitkamp that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer and constructively admitted you are nothign more than a partisan hack. Thank you.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Actually, I haven’t changed anything. I’ve never claimed there wasn’t bi-partisan support for building the pipeline, only that Democrats are the chief obstructionists at the federal level.

            And i’m still waiting for Heitkamp to take any action, at all, in support of building the pipeline and protecting oil development nationally. She’s done nothing.

            I’ve been entirely consistent. You are trying to hair-split and cherry-pick your way around the thrust of my argument, to the point where you’re now just repeating yourself over and over again.

            Heitkamp promised to stand up to Obama and her party on issues like Keystone. What has she done?

            You can’t answer that question, and i think it’s driving you a little crazy.

          • Guest

            The end result may be the same, but the way you got there has changed. It went from freedom to write a letter to having to take a stand against the Harry Reid. You’re still waiting for Cramer to take action too. He’s done nothing. Cramer promised to stand up to Obama and Democrats on the issue. What has he done? I have no doubt you legitimately believe Heidi should be criticized for not reaffirming her belief, but if you do, such criticism must be equally leveled at Kevin Cramer unless you are a complete partisan hack.

            You can’t differentiate the two situations and I think it’s driving you a little crazy. You’ve completely failed to provide one legitimate reason for attacking Heitkamp that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer and constructively admitted you are nothing more than a partisan hack. Thank you.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            And here is where Rob pulls his disappearing act. He’ll stay around long enough to insult you, defend his lack of substantive argument in the process of insulting you, then runs away when you deal with issues and call him out on his hypocrisy.

            Rob proves your point by running away when he’s confronted with fact and a challenge that requires anything more than being a propagandist. After all, he’s got a paycheck to earn, and that doesn’t include actually debating principles and improving government, it includes lying about his political rivals and politically attacking anyone with D in their political affiliation.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I’ve not run away at all.

            Sometimes I do abandon threads when I dont’ think they’re worth my time any more.

            There are hundreds, sometimes thousands, of comments posted here every day. I can’t respond to all of them, Hannitized, and I especially try not to waste my time with people like you.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You tried in the past, but it always resulted in your argument being thoroughly destroyed. You have learned it’s much easier to make snide personal insult and move along. It helps you retain the denial that you use for survival, or capitalize on to sell to others.

          • LenYol

            As typical of the piece of sh*t that you are and you’ve always been, once again you attempt to insult the host who gives you the freedom to demonstrate your low class stupidity.

          • Guest

            Wow, look at all the Republicans who can do little but froth at the mouth since they cannot offer any substantive points to justify their virtriol.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “they cannot offer any substantive points to justify their virtriol (sic)”

            Speaking of running like a scalded dog, Azul, you still haven’t provided so much as a shred of evidence that I put forth any kind of conspiracy theory about Petraeus’ resignation over at the Saturday Linkaround. You ever going to come back and own up to your lies and /or idiocy there? Are you going to present any evidence at all that what you uttered wasn’t simply the undiluted mind drool of a deluded and mentally troubled individual? We’ll wait.

          • Guest

            I’m sorry, were did you address anything about what we are addressing here? Seems like you just resigned into further name calling since you have nothing to counter the argument Rob is nothing more than partisan hack. If you really want to go into that tangent, please provide one shred of evidence I ever accused you of holding such meritless beliefs. If I recall, I only asked if you had any support for the right wing’s speculation there was a connection to the affair or support your tin-foil hate theories that the defense of my position was somehow flawed and the administration was trying to cover up what occured. You can’t because, as you said in that thread, “[you] are just too friggin’ incompetent to [“do” I presume, since you omitted a word] it” in that thread.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “were (sic) did you address anything to what we are addressing here?”

            You, azul the fool, stated that “Republicans… cannot offer any substantive points”. That was here. That was your comment that I was addressing. It was a bunch of horse hockey, so no one blames you for wanting to distance yourself from such bullcrap. That’s what you were addressing here before your ADD kicked in. It had been a little over an hour and a half before you bleated you last point, so it’s understandable that it was beyond your attention span.

            I was just pointing out your own recent history of empty rhetoric and a failure to address any specific or substantive points. In other words, I was noting your hypocrisy.

            I know it really sucks being you, azul, and having people hold you accountable for all the idiocy you spew. Just stop projecting your own character flaws onto everyone who disagrees with you, whom apparently, you cannot beat in a battle of wits.

            Like a lame man’s legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in
            the mouth of Azul.

          • Guest

            Are you upset about my analysis of the comment I was responding to? Where did I miss the substantive argument in “As typical of the piece of sh*t that you are and you’ve always been?” If I was so wrong in a negative assessment, please provide the insight I so sorely lack from Lenyoi’s comment in your view. You seem to be under some delusion that I directly accused you of sharing in the same grand conspiracies your conservative brethren partake, although I did ask if there was any proof for such theories. You might have realized as much if you could be set aside your insult plagiarism momentarily. I can understand why you would be so offended to be associated with such ignorant lot, however.

            Having no substantive argument or evidence to offer once more, Proof once again resorted targeted editing and allusions to Proverbs to conceal such circumstance and his commensurate foolishness.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “Having no substantive argument or evidence to offer once again,”

            Accusing me of your tactics fools no one azul/fool. I am only upset at your drive by libels without any attempt to back up anything you say with anything remotely factual.

            Azul’s lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.

          • Guest

            Having seen that his attacks against Azulu were meritless, Proof once again resorts to plagiarizing Proverbs before slinking off, tail firmly clenched between his legs.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Speaking in the third person like an escapee from a mental ward, azuloser demonstrates he hasn’t a clue what the word “plagiarizing” means.

            Still no facts to back up your bogus conspiracy accusations, azuloser? Didn’t think so. Your delusions of adequacy are duly noted. Your scalded dog imitation is spot on, though!

          • Guest

            What conspiracy theory did I provide no support for, because I believe it was the other way around, or did you find some source to confirm tin-foil hat cover-up conspiracies proving Petraeus did not indicate the White House had been asked to hold off on an announcement linking the attack to terrorists? Pray tell because your insult plagiarism severely obfuscates your accusations.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Since you are a lame ass who probably can’t find his own with both hands, the thread is here: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/saturday-linkaround-open-thread-8/ You accuse me of having a “tin foil hat” and not providing any evidence for some conspiracy about Petraeus’ resignation that I did not put forward. You are probably confused because my comments were in English.

            And substituting a common word used for “fool” is not “plagiarism”.

            You keep using that word. I do not think it
            means, what you think it means.

          • Guest

            Yes, that is a serious accusation, and if you had the reading skills you accuse me of lacking, I addressed that not four posts ago. Since you do not, suffice to say you provide no evidence I said you held such beliefs, although I did ask if you had any evidence to support the theories which your cohorts maintain. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/wsj-the-obama-administration-wanted-petraeus-out-over-benghazi/

            Realizing he had chosen his name ironically, in the same way an obese man might be nicknamed ‘Tiny’, Azulu gradually comes to appreciate the caricature of incompetence that is ‘Proof’.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            azuloser accused me of not providing evidence for a theory I did not espouse. And accused me of wearing a tin foil hat for a conspiracy that none but he had named. Azuloser rivals Hanni for having more projection than a multiplex!

            When challenged to point out what I had written that would cause him to jump to such an erroneous conclusion, he demonstrated that he was indeed truly challenged. (The short bus variety)

            “I did ask if you had any (sic) to support the theories which your (sic) affirm.”

            You can stop any time, azuloser. We recognize that you are indeed semi literate. I put forth no theories at all about Petraeus’ resignation. Therefore asking me to provide evidence of something I didn’t assert is at best “meritless”, at worst, insane (or both).

            Have you ever considered getting professional psychiatric help, azuloser? A couple hours on a Thorazine drip and you’ll feel like a whole new fool!

          • Guest

            First, a hearty congratulations on making a connection that the phoneme ‘lu’ is shared in ‘loser’ to make the brilliant literary leap to azuloser. I will object to your protestations of not guilty to plagiarism, as you simply took quotes from the Bible or other works and simply inserted some variation of my name.

            You haven’t provided one shred of evidence I accused you of holding such beliefs other than inquiring if your right wing cohort’s beliefs had any merit. You must have some persecution complex to think I accused you of putting forth such theories, although if you think such theories are so outrageously objectionable and meritless, why didn’t you say to others expressing that view ? http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/wsj-the-obama-administration-wanted-petraeus-out-over-benghazi/

            Since “Proof’ could offer no proof for his accusations, Azulu’s appreciation of the caricature of incompetence that is ‘Proof’ grew steadily.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            If you can’t back up your facts, loser, just say so. You may now return to your irrelevance.

          • Guest

            You accused me of saying you claimed there was a conspiracy concerning Paetreaus. Here is my quote ” You know what would impress me? If you could provide one shred of evidence that Patraeus’s resignation had anything to do with something other than the affair. I mean I do understand where they’re coming from though. I mean I do understand where they’re coming from though. Political figures resigning after a sex scandal is unheard of. Except for David Wuu. And Anthony Weiner. And Chris Lee. And Eric Massa. And John Ensign. And Randall Tobias. And Mark Foley. And Robert Livingston. And Robert Packwood. And Buz Lukens. And a lot of others.”

            Where in there does it say that you specifically esposue such beliefs? The “they’re” in the second sentence implies it is others who hold such beliefs.

            Since he could not counter Azulu’s argument or offer any new creative insults after the valid accusations of plagiarism, ‘Proof’ decided to once again claim Azulu had no proof (other than direct quotes, mind you) and attempt to abruptly end the conversation that had turned against him.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Keep talking abut yourself in the third person, moron. It disabuses anyone of the notion you are sane.

            I note that I ask you to point to what I said that caused you to bleat about Petraeus’ resignation, and all you could quote was yourself.

            Your delusions of adequacy are once again, duly noted. Now, toddle off and stop clogging my inbox.

          • Guest

            You accused me of saying something untrue about you, and since the actual text of the quote shows I made no such mischarcterization I can see how you would be upset.

            Seeing that ‘Proof’ became increasingly infuriated every time the third person was used, Azulu decided to tempt luck once more.

          • two_amber_lamps

            The ND Mental Hospital for the Clinically Insane and Trolls Who Don’t Read So Good might have an extra bed… or maybe Phil Gay aka Mike aka Lime Krushednutz might make room in his personal suite?

            Sauce for the multiple-personality disorder is sauce for Comrade Delusional (azuloser).

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            It does seem rather needy, doesn’t it?

          • Guest

            Azulu disagrees [insert plagiarized insult with Proof’s name here]

          • Guest

            As I was the only one who could provide evidence that Proof’s allegations were entirely without merit, a court will likely find your denial of such determinative in your commitment hearing.

          • America

            The court will find you mentally incompetent to stand trial.

          • Guest

            What a surprise, yet another post from you containing no evidence to support your arguments so you resort to name insults again. I accept your constructive admission that you had no facts or argument to prove me wrong.

          • America

            Your delusional comments are evidence to support the claim of your mental illness. Now, talk about azulu in the third person to confirm, again, your mental illness.

          • Guest

            Wow, what’s that like 4 posts now where the best you come up with is simply calling me delusional with no argument or evidence otherwise? What’s sadder is you couldn’t think of your own insults and simply mimic amber lights.

            Talking in the third narrative is saved for special occasions like annoying Proof.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            For one who claims it’s not needy, it sure seems to crave everyone’s attention a lot, doesn’t it? And often.

          • Guest

            Proof was apparently oblivious to the fact that he, so desperate for attention and need of retribution, had ventured into another thread to air out his meritless grievances against Azulu. Fortunately he, being no longer able to misappropriate his insults from greater minds and his creativity non-existent, had long decided to stop responding.

          • LenYol

            Uh oh!!! Babbling in the third person again…your mental illness is showing, again. Braaahahahahaha!!!

          • LenYol

            “Where did I miss the substantive argument in “As typical of the piece of sh*t that you are and you’ve always been?”

            There is no argument needed. You, like hannitized, are nothing but sh*t pieces floating through life, making believe you’re more than just sh*t. You’re not.

          • Guest

            You’re just reinforcing my point that you have nothing to offer but name calling. Thank you for your constructive admission that you have so little insight to offer.

          • LenYol

            Keep commenting, it just continues to confirm your mental illness.
            BTW, I hope I’m helping you by giving you all the attention that you crave and need. If not, too bad.

          • Guest

            Keep commenting, it just continues to confirm you have no insight to offer.

          • LenYol

            Who ever said I was a republican, you ignorant troll? I’m the mommy and daddy of hannitized, true blue dem communists.

          • Guest

            Your poor reasoning and argumentation skills (reflected in your most recent post as well!) are highly suggestive you belong there.

          • LenYol

            As usual, your typical comment is nothing but incoherent babble.
            Do you wear a bib while you type?

          • Guest

            I’m sorry, where in your comment that I was a “a typical of the piece of sh*t” did you provide any substantive argument? As usual, you prend like I’ve offered nothing, when that’s actually true of you.

            I’m actually happy that you appear to think calling someone a Republican is offensive though.

          • LenYol

            You should be sorry, you’re wasting air.

            “I’m actually happy that you appear to think calling someone a Republican is offensive though.”

            Unfortunately for you, things are not as they appear. Can’t you get anything right?

          • Guest

            Then why were you so upset about be called a Republican? If you can throw around the pejorative “piece of sh*t” I am certainly free to throw around the equally derogatory “Republican”

          • LenYol

            You just can’t get anything right. I have no reason to be upset about anything you say. At least you being labeled as a piece of sh*t is accurate.

          • Guest

            And I was right that you have zero insight to provide so you resort to name calling, which is an effect, actual evidence that you are a true piece of sh*t.

          • LenYol

            Yet more name calling without and substantive argument. Thank you for your constructive admission you have no insight to offer.

          • Guest

            I offered evidence to back up my argument that Rob was using a double standard. What have you argued? Name calling. Thank you for your constructive admission you have no insight to offer.

          • LenYol

            Other than you being a piece of sh*t, I haven’t argued anything. If you need to create an issue between yourself and Rob to get the attention that you crave and need, be my guest.
            Thank you for your constructive admission you have no insight to offer.

          • Guest

            Thus, you now admit you only name call here without and substantive argument. Thank you for your ACTUAL admission you have no insight to offer.

          • Guest

            Thus, you admit you only name call here without any substantive argument. Thank you for your ACTUAL admission you have no insight to offer.

          • Guest

            If you can throw around the pejorative “piece of sh*t” I am certainly free to throw around the equally derogatory “Republican”

          • LenYol

            If not for republicans, who would you mooch off of?

          • Guest

            Yet more name calling without and substantive argument. Thank you for your constructive admission you have no insight to offer.

          • LenYol

            You’re a dem/lib…of course you’re a mooch. You’re all you can be.

          • Guest

            Where did I say I was a dem/lib? Outrageous you make a guess at political party! I should throw a fit and start acting all retarded now, right?

            Yet more name calling without and substantive argument, though. Thank you for your constructive admission you have no insight to offer.

          • LenYol

            You don’t have to say you’re a dem/lib/communist. Your babbling, drooling comments, and hate for America and republicans says it all.
            You must be all wired up from all this attention you’re getting. I hope you don’t go over the edge and go out and hurt someone. Try to limit it to yourself if you get the urge to kill.

          • Guest

            Just like your name calling with no substantive facts or argument means you were likely a Republican. Thank you for your constructive admission you have no insight to offer. Please do listen to any semblance of reason you do have and kill yourself. The world would be an undeniably better place.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Hanni: I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had to point out you running like a scalded dog from yet another argument you were losing. Your delusions of adequacy in thinking you’ve ever “destroyed” anyone’s argument and your projection are both duly noted.

          • dakotacyr

            Azulu’s behavior on your blog? Really, you are calling out his/her behavior on your blog?? You have got to be kidding!

        • dakotacyr

          Why is Azulu a troll, because he or she doesn’t agree with you? Or because he or she actually puts up factual arguments? Just wondering.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Well, it might be because Azulu calls me a douche.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So you have an issue with accuracy in reporting?

        • HG

          Ah, I see no formal introduction is needed.
          But what the hell, Rob, this is Az, Hannitized’s other personality.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Um, no. I am not the only one who recognizes Rob’s dishonestly, hypocrisy and outright lies. Besmirching my name with your stupidity is a characteristic that belongs solely to you, Geoff.

          • TimmyG

            You, the renowned tax cheat, calling anyone dishonest just proves your own hypocrisy and dishonesty.
            You’re just a piece of sh*t. That’s all you’ve ever been, that’s all you’ll ever be.

          • Guest

            Exactly, recognizing Rob’s dishonesty is an honor that belongs to all who hold any semblance of reasoning skills.

          • America

            You, like hannitized are nothing but moochers. I’m sure the both of you go to a party, eat the food, enjoy the music and people, then leave and complain about all of it. You do the same here to Rob. You use his site, with total freedom, get all the attention that you crave and need, then complain about the host and the forum he gives you. You’re both nothing but piles of sh*t, being all your capable of being.

          • Guest

            What a surprise, yet another conservative who can offer no support for their argument. I guess if you don’t have facts or reason on your side, all you can do is just pound the table and name call.

          • guest

            Your own comments are proof of what you do and what you are.

          • Guest

            Exactly. I, for example, have provided objective, reasonable arguments and am an objective, reasonable person. Just as Heidi’s comments offer proof of that she supports the person. Thank you for your truism.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yep. When they run out of logical argument, they either turn to denial or name calling. If none of that helps them put away the stupidity they feel for being exposed, they try to go after you on a personal level; stalking, contacting your employer, etc. etc.

          • LenYol

            Brahahahaha….yawn. You pathetic STD carrying tax cheat. Was that personal enough for you, willie?

    • Thresherman

      Better get used to defending Heidi. Now that the portly little lying candidate is the junior Senator from ND, having run on a platform of political independence from the Democratic party and Obama, you can honestly expect any deviation from that phoney baloney campaign rhetoric to be fair game for us on the other side of the aisle. Or are you now going to claim that the portly junior Senator should be getting a pass due to her sex as supporters of UN Ambassador Rice are claiming she should when she is being called to account for lying to the country about Benghazi?

      • Guest

        Typical Republican response. Ignore a damaging point and throw a fit about something else. In what way does Rob’s partisan douchery have any relevance to Susan Rice?

        If Heidi does something I don’t think is in the best interest of North Dakota or the country, you bet I’ll be more than willing to criticize someone in my party, unlike some bloggers.

    • RCND

      Cramer doesn’t have anything to prove regarding the subject of Hoeven’s letter. Heidi does

      • Guest

        Why does Heidi have more to prove than Cramer? Saying it doesn’t make it true.

        They both have been unwavering in their support, ran ads about it in the campaign, and haven’t given any indication they are wavering. Heidi has even voiced her support in interviews since the election. It can’t be soley because Heidi’s a Democrat, as Kent Conrad also supports the pipeline and joined Hoeven’s letter (which Rob failed to mention in his post).

        Please provide one legitimate reason that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer.

        I also responded to your argument in the Dennys thread.

        • RCND

          The biggest part is because she IS a Democrat who ran on a platform of standing up to their party on their messed up stance on oil development. This was her opportunity to put up, and instead she shut up. She is the one who went out of her way to say she was different than the average dem on this, and her silence was deafening. The onus was on her to prove herself. She did not. Not a good first impression as the fresh face going out to the Senate to tell old Uncle Harry where the bear … well, you know the rest

          • Guest

            So basically it’s because she’s a Democrat and Democrats are bad. In other words, partisan hackery. Gotcha. Numerous Democrats supported the pipeline and Republicans in Nebraska opposed the pipeline, which is partly why it got axed. Support and opposition does not neatly fall on party lines on this issue.

            Moreover, Rob’s argument was that Heidi was free to write a letter and didn’t. The same is absolutely true of Kevin Cramer, but he is not attacked for it. It would be just as great of an opportunity for him to add support to Hoeven’s letter, but his silence is not criticized.

            You’re simply wrong that the onus is on her. This was a letter from currently sitting US Senators and she is not one. Why should she have to reiterate her support every time the pipeline comes up in the news satisfy conservatives that she hasn’t waverd? You’re acting like she was specifically asked if she supported the pipeline and didn’t respond. There’s no evidence she was even aware of the letter before Rob attacked her for not supporting it.

            I recently read about an innocent puppy being killed by a gun nut. Why haven’t you spoken out about your opposition to innocent puppy slaughtering? Your silence was deafening. The onus was on you to prove yourself. You did not.

            So again, please provide one legitimate reason that doesn’t make patently untrue generalizations about Democrats that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer.

          • RCND

            You are never at a loss for words, Ill say that.

            Yes, she is from the wrong party when it comes to the oil industry. She should take a cue from the Dems you reference, but she did not. I won’t give those republicans who opposed the pipeline a pass, but their position is not indicative of the party as a whole. She on the other hand has much to prove when it comes to demonstrating she really is going to watch out for ND, because she hung the wrong initials on the end of her name when it comes to energy development. missed that chance. You may not think it is fair, but it is her situation.

          • Guest

            Again, your basic argument is she needs to respond because Democrats are bad. Where in their platform did they oppose the keystone pipeline? Why are the actions of some Republicans not indicative of the party as whole but the action of some Democrats are indicative of their party as a whole? Even the biggest proponent of the Pipeline, the American Petroleum Institute, has noted “The project had the support of bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate.” http://www.api.org/news-and-media/news/newsitems/2012/nov-2012/keystone-xl-pipeline-is-early-opportunity-for-more-jobs.aspx

            You also failed to take a stand against puppy slaughtering in your response even when afforded a chance to respond (unlike Heidi in the case of this letter). Why haven’t you spoken out about your opposition to innocent puppy slaughtering? Your silence was deafening. The onus was on you to prove yourself. You did not.

            Kevin Cramer also missed the chance to lend his voice to Hoeven’s letter, didn’t he? If it was such an opportune moment to reaffirm support, wouldn’t another reaffirmation by him also have helped?

            Again, please provide one legitimate reason that doesn’t make patently untrue generalizations about Democrats that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Again, your basic argument is she needs to respond because Democrats are bad.

            No, tough guy, she needs to respond because she campaigned on responding.

            She made the promises. Why can’t she live up to them?

          • Guest

            She campaigned that she would respond with a reaffirmation of her support every time the issue came up in the news? I don’t think so. She campaigned that she would support the pipeline, just like Kevin Cramer did.

            Please provide one legitimate reason that doesn’t make patently untrue generalizations about Democrats that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer.

            Kevin Cramer made promises. Why can’t he live up to them?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Kevin Cramer’s party isn’t the one blocking the pipeline.

            And we’re not talking about Kevin Cramer. We’re talking about Heidi Heitkamp and her promise to stand up to her party and the President on this specific issue.

          • Guest

            Some Republicans in Nebraska helped block the Pipeline Rob. Why are there actions not representative of the party but the actions of some Democrats are?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I shouldn’t need to explain to you the difference between a position taken by a few local politicians and a position taken by the President of the United States, the head of the Democrat party, and the Senate Majority Leader.

            Just admit it. Heitkamp hasn’t followed through on her promise so far. And if you want to say it’s too early to expect her to do so that might be fair, but otherwise you’re grasping at straws here.

            But you are providing a great deal of amusement this morning!

          • Guest

            I shouldn’t have to explain to you why not responding to letter isn’t a credible reason to attack someone. If it is, than Cramer hasn’t followed through on his promise either!

            It is amusing to watch vainly to try and distinguish the two to hide the fact you are partisan hack, yes. Thanks much :D

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            That’s funny. I’m a “partisan hack” because you don’t like that I’m critical of Democrats.

            Who knew that expecting Heidi Heitkamp to live up to her campaign promises would be so controversial?

          • Guest

            I don’t like the fact that you’re treating Democrats and Republicans unequally, that’s the definition of partisan hack. Nice try though, accusing the accuser.

            You haven’t provided one reason that doesn’t make patently untrue generalization about Democrats that is not also true of Kevin Cramer, I’ll be satisfied. But you’ve completely failed at that Rob.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I am treating them equally. Cramer and Hoeven have a lengthy policy track record on this issue. Heitkamp does not.

            What’s more, Heitkamp is in a position that Hoeven and Cramer are not. She is a member of the President’s party, and a supporter of his. I don’t think i should have to explain to you the significance of that (it’s why Hoeven is touting the bi-partisan nature of his effort).

            I’m not treating them differently. I’m expecting Heitkamp, who promised to stand up to her party and the President on this issue, to live up to that promise.

            So far she hasn’t. These are facts, whether you like them or not.

          • Guest

            Cramer and Heitkamp have exactly the same record on the issue: unwavering support. If the effort is bipartisan, great, than that’s all more reason for Kevin Cramer to have voiced his support, isn’t it? Not being a Democrat wasn’t so significant so as to stop Hoeven from taking the time to voice his support, why can’t Cramer?

            You haven’t provided one legitimate reason to differentiate Heitkamp and Cramer on this issue other than you are a partisan hack who simply can’t accept Heitkamp at her word like you can for Cramer.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I have provided a host of reasons why Cramer and Heitkamp are in different situations.

            You’re just choosing to ignore them.

          • Guest

            Cramer and Heitkamp have exactly the same record on the issue: unwavering support. If the effort is bipartisan, great, than that’s all more reason for Kevin Cramer to have voiced his support, isn’t it? Not being a Democrat wasn’t so significant so as to stop Hoeven from taking the time to voice his support, why can’t Cramer?

            You haven’t provided one legitimate reason to differentiate Heitkamp and Cramer on this issue other than you are a partisan hack who simply can’t accept Heitkamp at her word like you can for Cramer.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            That’s not true. Cramer and Heitkamp don’t have the same record.

            Cramer, as Public Service Commissioner, has an actual policy track record. Heitkamp has just campaign promises.

            Also, Cramer didn’t benefit from millions of dollars in spending from Harry Reid and his PAC nor has Cramer pledged his support to Reid or President Obama.

            Heitkamp is in a much different position than Cramer.

          • Guest

            Having an official government record supporting the Pipeline didn’t stop Hoeven from once again lending his support Rob. You’re now trying to attempt to hold the fact Heitkamp hasn’t held elective office since the Pipeline issue arose into some sort of responsibility that she has to reaffirm the support for every position at every chance she gets for issues she doesn’t have an official record to rely on. You can’t argue that Heitkamp hasn’t been unwavering in her support and now simply argue that since Heitkamp hasn’t held an elective office to voice her support that she must now reaffirm her support at every chance she gets. Why does having held an elective office to voice support matter, Rob? Doesn’t a person being in an elective office have just as if not more reason to once again voice their support? Holding an elective office didn’t stop Hoeven from once again leading the charge here, right? Why can’t Cramer join in?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            So basically it’s because she’s a Democrat and Democrats are bad.

            Well yeah it’s because she’s a Demcorat, but not because “Democrats are bad” but because Democrats, as a party, are hostile to fossil fuel energy development.

            She campaigned on standing up to her party and President Obama on these issues. Why do you have such a problem with expecting her to live up to her campaign promises?

          • Guest

            Sorry to reiterate here, but where in their platform did they oppose the keystone pipeline? Why are the actions of some Republicans not indicative of the party as whole but the action of some Democrats are indicative of their party as a whole? Even the biggest proponent of the Pipeline, the American Petroleum Institute, has noted “The project had the support of bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate.”

            Why does Heidi have to respond just because you have an inaccurate view of Democrats on the issue? If I have an inaccurate view of Republicans on some issue, does that in some way place an onus on them to respond?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Sorry to reiterate here, but where in their platform did they oppose the keystone pipeline?

            If Democrats aren’t the problem, then why did Heitkamp say she would stand up to her party and the President on the issue?

            You’re not just disagreeing with me on that point. You’re disagreeing with Heitkamp too.

          • Guest

            There are a few Democrats who opposed the Pipeline, I don’t deny that. Heidi said she doesn’t agree with them. That doesn’t mean it’s solely Democrats opposing the pipeline or that every Democrat opposes the pipeline, Rob. Even the biggest proponent of the Pipeline, the American Petroleum Institute, has noted “The project had the support of bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate.”

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            It’s President Obama, the man Heitkamp voted for, who is holding up the Keystone Pipeline development. It’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who Heitkamp has also pledged her vote for (and who spent millions getting Heitkamp elected) who has blocked legislation that would have forced approval of the Keystone pipeline.

            Heitkamp has said she’d have the courage to stand up to these people who are a) also members of her party and b) are people who she has supported directly.

            It’s not unreasonable to expect that Heitkamp, specifically, make a display of that now that she’s been elected. Not unreasonable…unless you’re a hyper-partisan like you.

          • Guest

            You also failed to comment on the issue of puppy slaughtering I brought up initially. It’s my sincere belief that Republicans are gun nuts that will kill any living animal if given a chance. Therefore, every time a story comes up about a someone killing a puppy, even if they’ve given no indication they support puppy slaughtering, they should have to respond with a statement or opinion voicing their opposition to the senseless slaughter of puppies or it will appear that they are wavering in their anti-puppy slaughtering stance. So why haven’t you taken the opportunity to reaffirm your opposistion to puppy slaughtering, Rob? So far silence.

            I know it’s stupid to have to constantly affirm something we have no reason to believe isn’t true, but admitting as such means your attack was stupid to begin with.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I didn’t comment because I don’t see a lot benefit in responding to straw men.

            If you want to invent some position for Republicans, and then attack them on the basis of that position you invented for them, go right ahead. But I’m not going to join you.

            I like to save my time for debating grown-up issues.

          • Guest

            You’re the one inventing strawmen position for Democrats actually by extrapolating what some Democrats said into what all Democrats say. Thank you for admitting that that this reasoning is stupid, I agree.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Why does Heidi have more to prove than Cramer?

          Because she voted for Barack Obama, by her own admission? Because she’s a vote to keep Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has said that oil and coal “makes us sick,” in charge of the Senate?

          Did you pay attention at all during the campaign?

          • Guest

            Where in their platform did they oppose the keystone pipeline? Why are the actions of some Republicans not indicative of the party as whole but the action of some Democrats are indicative of their party as a whole? Even the biggest proponent of the Pipeline, the American Petroleum Institute, has noted “The project had the support of bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate.”

            Please provide one legitimate reason that doesn’t make patently untrue generalizations about Democrats that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer.

            Also keep in mind you are now changing your story. It went from “she’s free to write a letter” to “she voted for Barack Obama.” Your narrative is shifting and it’s clear there was no motive behind your attack other than being a partisan hack.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            My “narrative” isn’t shifting at all.

            Heidi Heitkamp promised to stand up to the President and her party on these issues.

            I’m hoping she’ll follow through. So far, despite having opportunities, she hasn’t.

          • Guest

            What was your original story for attacking Heitkamp? She was free to write a letter and hasn’t. What is your story now? Heidi has to stand up to the President every time the Pipeline comes up in the news based on nothing more than untrue generalizations about both Republcians and Democrats on the issue of the Pipeline. Sounds like you’re close to admitting you are nothing more than partisan hack.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Heitkamp said she would stand up to the President and her party on this issue.

            Well, the issue is back in the headlines now. There is a possibility that there could be a high-profile meeting with Obama and this group of Senators (which includes Democrats) on the Keystone pipeline.

            Now, given that Heitkamp made the Keystone pipeline a really big part of her campaign platform, I’d have expected her to encourage President Obama to take the meeting? Or to otherwise speak out in favor of this issue being addressed sooner rather than later?

            But, again, you apparently think an expectation that Heitkamp live up to her campaign promises is unreasonable and “partisan.”

            And yes, I’d like to say that again, you think encouraging Heitkamp to join a bi-partisan effort to support the Keystone pipeline as she promised on the campaign trail is “partisan.”

            Ha.

          • Guest

            Again, you are basically saying she campaigned for it and that’s equally true of Kevin Cramer. If this is such an opportune moment to express bipartisan support of the pipeline, Kevin Cramer’s silence is equally damning. Kevin Cramer can certainly do all the things you encourage Heitkamp to do.

            Again, I don’t think encouraging Heitkamp to join a bi-partisan effort to support the pipeline is partisan. I think crticizing her but not Republicans in exactly the same situation is partisan. You can’t win so you’re trying to twist my argument. It’s rather amusing.

            You’ve failed to provide one legitimate reason for attack Heitkamp that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer and constructively admitted you are nothign more than a partisan hack. Thank you.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            What Kevin Cramer has or has not done is irrelevant in the context of whether or not Heidi Heitkamp, specifically, has lived up to her campaign promises.

            I realize that you want to distract from Heitkamp’s inaction by invoking Cramer, but I’m not buying it. Cramer’s behavior – and, again, he has a lengthy and verifiable policy track record on this issue – has absolutely nothing to do with the decisions Heitkamp is making.

          • Guest

            What Kevin Cramer has done is relevant to the issue of whether you are treating the two differently though, Rob. You’ve failed to provide one legitimate reason for attacking Heitkamp that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer and constructively admitted you are nothing more than a partisan hack. Thank you.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Repeating Kevin Cramer’s name doesn’t make Heitkamp’s divergence from her campaign promises any less of a problem.

            And I have provided a laundry list of reasons why the situations are different, not the least of which is the fact that Heitkamp is a supporter of both Obama and Reid who have roadblocked Keystone while Cramer is not.

            Heitkamp, because of her partisan and political affiliations, has far more to prove than Cramer on this issue, especially given Cramer’s policy track record on the issue.

          • dakotacyr

            How has she diverged from her position on the Keystone pipeline?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            That’s not the question the ask.

            The question to ask is, what has she done to live up to her campaign promises to support the Keystone pipeline?

          • Guest

            What has Heidi Heitkamp done to live up to her campaign promises that isn’t equally true of Kevin Cramer?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            As i keep pointing out to you, Heitkamp has pledged support to Harry Reid and supported Obama for president. Both men are the primary obstacles to clearing the regulatory path for the Keystone pipeline.

            Cramer doesn’t have these issues (as you yourself pointed out in another comment).

            I expect Heitkamp to prove she really will stand up to Reid, who spent millions to get her elected, and President Obama. She promised.

          • Guest

            And Cramer didn’t run on opposing the Obama on that issue? When did I miss that? Being in the political minority didn’t stop Hoeven from taking charge, why aren’t you attacking Cramer for once again lending a voice of support like you are for Heitkamp?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Cramer didn’t run on opposing Obama while simultaneously supporting Obama for President, no.

            But Cramer is a distraction.

            Heitkamp, so far, isn’t living up to her own campaign promises. That is what is at issue.

          • Guest

            So you admit that there is no effective distinction between Cramer and Heitkamp on this issue, but still contend that only Heitkamp isn’t living up to her promises. You keep bringing up that Heitkamp is the one not living up to her campaign promises and I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that. But since, as you admit, there is no effective difference between Heitkamp and Cramer on this issue, the only plausible explanation for why one deserves condemnation for inaction while the other gets a pass is that the person leveling the attack is nothing more than a partisan hack.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            So you admit that there is no effective distinction between Cramer and Heitkamp on this issue

            No, I think I’ve made the distinction pretty clear, over and over again.

          • Guest

            What are you referring to then? That Heitkamp ran saying she would oppose Obama and any Democrats opposing the pipeline? Didn’t you say the same was true of Cramer?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Yeah, but Harry Reid (the #1 obstacle to oil development and the keystone pipeline in the Senate) didn’t spend millions electing Kevin Cramer.

          • Guest

            Weren’t you just arguing that there isn’t a connection between political donations and the potential actions taken by the donee? Why is there suddenly a strong presumption of that when it involves Heitkamp? Besides, Majority Committee PAC was one of Cramer’s biggest donor’s and they gave money to the Nebraska Republicans opposing the pipeline. Am I saying Cramer consequently doesn’t support the pipeline? No, I’m saying it’s stupid to presume the donee agrees with 100% of positions and actions taken by the donor, unless you want to make the same presumption about Cramer. Is it really so surprising to you some Republicans are upset about it? The government is taking people’s land through eminnent domain and using it to build the pipeline that will only be used to sell oil internatinoally, after all.

            What’s your next distinction? Their record? In what way as Public Service Commissioner did Kevin Cramer take a position on the merits of a pipeline that doesn’t even go through North Dakota, and considering the commission’s jurisdiction is to “establish and enforce of rates or charges” of a pipeline? Seems to me that Kevin Cramer’s only affirmations of support for construction of the pipeline arose from the campaign as well.

          • Guest

            I thought so.

            You’ve completely abandoned your original logic that she was free to write a letter but has not, abandoned the alternate theory that she campaigned that she would stand up to Obama on the issue since Cramer obviously did as well, abandoned the argument of policy record since Cramer lacks one as well, and are now relying on the issue of solely donations to justify your distinction between Heitkamp and Cramer on the issue. Where in your original article did you justify your attack by referring to donors Rob? Does Kevin Cramer also need to speak out every time an issue comes out to distinguish himself from anything his donors could have possibly said or supported in the past? Why does pro-oil candidates donating to pro-oil candidates raise no issue or undue influence while a pro-democrat PAC donating to a democrat candidate does raises such a serious issue of undue influence it requires a candidate to speak out against her donor’s positions every time a conflicting issue between them comes up in the news to show there is no undue influence? Sorry for lending this blog any semblance of journalistic integrity, but why couldn’t you reach out to Heidi’s office and ask if she supports the letter, rather than a run an ominous headline that suggests Heidi was afforded an opportunity to respond but did not? If this was such a great opportunity to voice bi-partisan support for the pipeline, wouldn’t it have been equally great for Kevin Cramer to do so as well?

            Since you’ve completely abandoned your original argument and failed to provide one legitimate reason to differentiate Heitkamp and Cramer on their response to this letter, I accept your constructive admission of being nothing more than a partisan hack.

          • Guest

            Repeating Kevin Cramer’s name show’s that you’re holding two people in the same situation to two different standards. You haven’t provided any reasons besides the fact that some Democrats opposed the Pipeline. Some Democrats have been very vocal in their support, such as our local Senators on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats have opposed it, but so have some Republicans. You’ve repeatedly ignored proof that this is a bipartisan issue, most notably from the lead proponent of the pipeline- the API and want to live in a world where all Democrats are secretly against the pipeline and ignore Republicans opposition. In other words, you are a partisan hack.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I don’t think Kevin Cramer has anything to prove with regard to his position on the Keystone pipeline or energy production in North Dakota in general.

      And this was a Senate effort. It may surprise you, but Cramer was elected to the US House.

      I think we can expect Cramer to be very outspoken, as he was as a member of the PSC, for building the Keystone pipeline and promoting fossil fuel energy development. It’s Heitkamp, a supporter of President Obama’s and a member of his party, who has something to prove.

  • borborygmi

    Shocker: Rob Continues with his Anti Heidi Whine. Will seek depression therapy.

Top