Missoulian wrote:

Steve Daines’s official biography describes him as “a fifth-generation Montanan,” which implies his family’s unbroken residency in the state for a century or more. While several of Daines’s ancestors may have lived in Montana at one point in their lives, there was by no means a continuous presence in the state. Daines was born in California. His parents were born out of state, as were three of his four grandparents. Not what one would expect from someone who claims to be a fifth-generation Montanan.

A historian wrote that he was puzzled by the pride Montanans took in having lived in the state for several generations, until he realized they were proud that their families had managed to survive here. Apparently Daines’ ancestors survived by spending a lot of time out of state.

He has repeatedly told the story of his great-great-grandmother, who moved to Montana as a widow with seven children. This paints a touching figure of a pioneer woman who braved the wilds of Montana with small children clutching her skirts. In reality, Mrs. Dyrud was 65 when she was widowed in 1911, and all of her children were adults at the time. When some of her children decided to join the homestead boom to Montana in the 1910-1920 period, they brought their aging mother along. Not quite the image Daines would have us believe, particularly since his great-grandmother and his grandfather eventually returned to Minnesota.

This wouldn’t matter if Daines had not chosen to make his family history the centerpiece of his campaign. By claiming to be a fifth-generation Montanan, he expects us to believe that his family were among the real Montana pioneers, who toughed it out and raised their families here despite numerous hardships. The facts suggest otherwise. Steve Daines is a phony.

http://missoulian.com/new...79168.html

[Edited by Larry Antram (10/25/2014 10:48:39 PM)]

Democrats with their panties in a bunch over liars and lineage purity is more than just amusing.

Love him or hate him, Daines will be your Senator for the next 6 years.

He probably will be. The thought of someone of such limited capacity serving where Mansfield once served is sad.

We have actually been pretty lucky.Mansfield,Baucus,Burns and a couple of others.Ended up being pretty powerful men in DC.

[This message has been edited by Jett (10/26/2014)]

[This message has been edited by Jett (10/26/2014)]

We have seen a preview of what Mr. Daines will and will not do and with his attachment to the atr.org -Grover Norquist, ALEC and the KOCH brothers, his representation of Montana is very limited. His Pink haired lady is wrong. We have Medicare and nothing has changed..nor, threatened. His ads which have arrived in the mailbox regarding Amanda Curtis are a pack of lies....even his Republican affiliation. He has aligned himself with the Tea Party...even pictures of him at their functions.

Read J. Hugo Aronson's and Tim Babcock's State of the State messages and you will not recognize Daines as a Republican. Whether you agreed with them or not, they depicted the Real Republican.

Check out Kansas and Wisconsin who have done a number on their teachers, unions, other wage earners, etc., making sure that they were not getting paid too much and, now their states are having huge problems.

Oddjob..you may be right...I just hope people are learned enough to vote for Montana this time..and, that would be voting for Amanda Curtis. Viktor Frankl writes in his book, "Man's Search for Meaning" , "There are two races of men in this world, but only two. The "Race" of the decent man and the "Race" of the indecent man". Both are found everywhere...no group is a pure race. Let's align with the decent man?

The Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves for Daines election. After the Walsh fiasco, the party bosses all went into full self-preservation mode and offered up Curtis to "take one for the team". She will lose in a significant drubbing.

I watched the debate and the analysis, which I found quite interesting, after seeing some of the comments posted here. As expected all the pointed questions went to Daines, who answered accordingly, with his own numbers. The liberal panel gave up the platform to Daines, who obligingly created his version of "facts and figures". Curtis' rebuttals were mostly the usual variety of spoon-fed talking points which are always lacking substance and everyone but the totally uninformed, recognize as half truths at best..

Daines won the the debate hands down with the ACA discussion. That became blatantly obvious when the best the "fact checkers" and analysts could come up with was, there is no way to prove his numbers right or wrong. For Curtis to win, she needed to catch him in a lie and she couldn't do it. All Daines really needed to do in the debate was portray Curtis as a probable Obama drone, which he did.

I didn't see where Daines was, as the pundits put it, "sweating". The exchange about the government shutdown was a mostly a draw in spite of Curtis delivering her best (and only) shot of the night. Daines was most vulnerable on that point, but the Curtis platitudes about "working both sides of the aisle" was no closer. Daines scored enough points with his argument that Obama wouldn't negotiate with the Republicans to avoid a knock-out punch. After that, Curtis offered little else but snarky comments about Daines being an "extremist" and tired bromides about being "for the middle class".

What I found particularly amusing was the exchange on the Curtis NRA "F" rating. In spite of her voting record, Curtis tried to make a ridiculous claim that she is a "strong" supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Predictably, after Daines brought up her NRA "F" rating for the second time, she attacked the NRA! Daines set that one up perfectly.

Politics 101 teaches us that attacking the NRA doesn't work in your favor in Montana or any other State. It's on the "Don't" list right below "cutting Social Security". Curtis couldn't overcome the urge to follow her ideology.. What didn't surprise me was that the "expert" panel of analysts totally dodged the Curtis major fail on a significant point of the debate.

I'm not a fan of the modern NRA. They have, like many Republicans, gone so extreme, they no longer represent sanity. My husband has his old NRA shooting medals and we are long time gun owners but the NRA of today does not represent us.

When the NRA goes back to emphasizing the safe use of guns rather than screaming in terror at the thought of someone somewhere not being allowed to shoot weapons whenever and wherever they want, I'll join again. Until then, like the new Republicans, all I can do is shake my head and wonder where it all went wrong.

At least Amanda has an ideology to follow. Daines follows what the big money tells him to chase.