Yesterday, Montana’s junior Senator, Jon Tester, voted NO to place a one year moratorium on earmarks. Just one year. Senior Senator Max Baucus voted NO also.

Tester’s vote against the moratorium on earmarks is quite a different view than he had back in 2006 when he was running for the U.S. Senate, and that is a fact.

We all know that some politicians make promises or statements to get into office, and then they make more just to stay in office. They sometimes promise the world to get votes. After they are elected, they change their tune. Some might say that once they drink the D.C. Kool-Aid or meet with lobbyists or attend free dinners, they change their views on the issues.

Back on March 10, 2008, a story was written about Tester’s audit and some other concerns the Montana GOP had about campaign promises. There were responses from Tester spokesman, Aaron Murphy. The one that stood out to me was the part about earmarks:

After saying in the campaign he didn’t “support earmarks, period,” Tester “boasted” in the Los Angeles Times that he had submitted $1 billion worth of appropriations earmarks.

Murphy replied that Tester never said he was against earmarks, but opposed the lack of transparency and accountability under the previous Senate process.

That reply is not true. Not even partly true. During an October 9, 2006, PBS debate in Bozeman, Tester said, “I don’t support earmarks, period.” A few seconds later, he added, “I’m not for earmarks.”

You can view the video HERE. The comments are between 9:20 and 9:50.

So it appears that what we have here is a classic flip flop. It’s OK to make a “No” vote on the moratorium, although it would be nice to see some independence from our Senators. But, it’s not OK to tell us “Tester never said he was against earmarks…” A better response would have been, “Senator Tester has changed his mind. He now understands just how important earmarks are to Montana.”

But, that would not be “the spin” we’ve come to expect from this particular office holder since he’s been in office.