A royal screwing

Years ago, in the early 90’s and while still single, I briefly dated a former Baucus staffer. (It didn’t work out – we were never that close, and when she said “Stop following me or I’ll call the cops!”, I sensed that it was time to move on.) Even as a ex-staffer, she was extremely devoted to Max. (That’s part of why we didn’t harmonize.)

Anyway, we were at the Labor Temple one day because Max was going to make an appearance, and in walked the star for professional mingling. Eventually he came over to his former staffer and was most annoyingly and insincerely ingratiating and paternal. I remember thinking “These people were once an item.”

I’ve always thought of Max since that time as man who uses his power of office as a means of vaginal penetration. So I’ve not been surprised at former staffers who accuse him of misdeeds, or of the wife who left in utter unvanquished anger. A man such as Max can create great resentment because he’s kind of a dick and has great power.

And now we learn that he appointed a former girlfriend to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. (They will only admit he mixed with this staffer after his divorce. That could be strategic retreat.)

Keep in mind that most of us get screwed by Max as part of the normal course of business, and that no lucrative appointments await us.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in Baucus. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to A royal screwing

  1. ladybug says:

    Like 17th and 18th Century French and Spanish royalty, Baucus lacks certain desirable genetic traits – a weak line – but nevertheless feels compelled to procreate, or at least go through the motions to display power and status. Wasn’t the U.S. Constitution designed in part to take care of this problem? Maybe it’s time for Senate term limits.


  2. Black Flag says:

    Senate Limits demands are humorous.

    Ladybug, I presume you defend democracy.

    The ‘right’ of the people to chose their ‘representatives’ (won’t go in to how ridiculous that is … so moving on…).

    Now, you want to overrule people’s rights to chose their representatives by creating a law against it. You don’t like who they chose, so you don’t want them to chose any more.

    My sense of humor is tickled when I see Statists throw punches at themselves by their own confusion.


    • You’ve got to get out more, BF! You’re presuming a whole lot here, like we think this and that. For myself, I am opposed to term limits. The impetus for TL’scame during a time when Democrats were dominant, and the ‘R’s were tired of it. We lost some very good men and women in Helena because of it, and now y’all get rookie legislators just about the time they have learned to ropes.

      And then there’s the job-hopping. Brad Molner decided to run for PSC because her was term limited, and PSC was the nly high office that wasn’t subject to the law.


      • Black Flag says:

        You’ve got to get out more, BF! You’re presuming a whole lot here, like we think this and that.

        You know I’m a recent guest. Don’t start using that against me, Mark!

        Term limits are a contradiction to democratic republican theory.

        However, the whole process is immoral to begin with – I just chuckle when I watch the Statists implode.



  3. rightsaidfred says:

    I liked the billboards from a couple of campaigns ago: Protect Freedom — Ban Baucus

    I figure any kind of pseudo slur against Max is useful. “Max: Montana’s Caligula”

    He ran a $10 million campaign essentially unopposed. There’s some leadership we need.

    I’m trying to think of a line from a Jeremy Pournelle novel where in a corrupt future the protagonist laments that “the people won’t aspire to any action unless you hold their face in it, and then they rise up and demand blood, but how many are mad just because they weren’t offered a price?”


  4. ladybug says:


    As I recell presidential term limits were added as an amendment to stop FDR. I thought I said “maybe” (term limits). It’s never been my personal preference, but one way to make sure the 97% rate of incumbent reelection is eliminated. If by ballot initiative the people choose term limits, so be it. Maybe that’s not consistent with your idyllic theory, but it is a possibility.

    Mark’s right, some good legislators in Montana now lurk in the governor’s office, and have relocated in other government capacities. Others are now lobbyists. There are no “Statists” here, except Baucus, and my bet is he’s not going anywhere.


  5. ladybug says:

    ps. BF, just how “democratic” is the U.S. Senate anyway. Montana’s 800,000 get two, California’s tens-of-millions get two. Hard to defend the whole scheme if you ask me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s