The Bobcat Nation

This is a pretty interesting interview -- very brutally honest (he suggests that -- gasp! -- the average voter isn't very well informed on the candidates) and pretty funny in parts.

As a teaser, he has a pretty funny line about what would happen if Al-Queda attacked Montana.

If you just watch the entire ad that comes up before the article, I think you can read the article without a subscription.

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/04/ ... index.html

Bay Area Cat wrote:This is a pretty interesting interview -- very brutally honest (he suggests that -- gasp! -- the average voter isn't very well informed on the candidates) and pretty funny in parts.

As a teaser, he has a pretty funny line about what would happen if Al-Queda attacked Montana.

If you just watch the entire ad that comes up before the article, I think you can read the article without a subscription.

http://www.salon.com/news/lotp/2005/04/ ... index.html

the real question is do we trust salon.com? i know its a montana guy in the article but do they have an adjenda? seems to me that they put out way to many hit pieces on the president then i would care to admit to.

edit............

if brian schweitzer is the savior of the demicratic party then i am now announcing govenor martz's candidicy for the presidancy...man she will wash away all the republicans problems like a mom would wash away a blood dirty stain. hehehehehehehe BAC do you think that anyone in another state will take montana seriously? do they even know where montana is? man that article was funny

Here's a question for you BAC: Do you really, really miss this straightforward approach or are you getting comfortable saying what you think your targeted audience wants to hear? I never could go that direction and enjoyed making fun of those in my circle of colleagues that would change their viewpoints based upon which philosophy they were with

I'm not sure I understand the first part of your post. What do you mean, can we trust salon? It's an interview. It's his own words. I would assume it's pretty trust-worthy.

As for opinion pieces in any media, we should be skeptical of all of them and not take anything as the truth on faith. This should apply equally to Salon.com or Fox News. Unfortunately, most people only apply their skepticism to one side or the other, and therefore end up with really lopsided views on things.

Cat Grad wrote:Here's a question for you BAC: Do you really, really miss this straightforward approach or are you getting comfortable saying what you think your targeted audience wants to hear? I never could go that direction and enjoyed making fun of those in my circle of colleagues that would change their viewpoints based upon which philosophy they were with

I actually enjoy playing devil's advocate in virtually any group I am in, especially if that group is speaking from the way-too-typical partisan school of thinking where they don't even know what they are talking about.

As far as politicians go, I do prefer a guy who can stand up and talk without having to edit his thoughts to stay in line with what the handlers tell him he should say. It sounds like Schweitzer is one of those guys. I don't agree with all of his positions, but he gives an entertaining interview.

Plus, you've got to respect a man who thinks his office is fully decorated with a rifle and a statue of a BOBCAT!

...and FTG is visibly etched on the base of the statue and the back has written "...let's kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight..."

Cat Grad wrote:...and FTG is visibly etched on the base of the statue and the back has written "...let's kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight..."

Didn't stop him from exploiting the Griz playoff run with all of his appearances in Washington Grizzly stadium.

You saw what he said about religion! Wait till you get to Billings and have the opportunity to better appreciate all things Blue and Gold in Bozo

Pretty good stuff, but I think he was laying the cowboy thing on a little thick. I have to say that I have disliked Schweitzer since he ran for Senate because to me he always came off as phony and arrogant. I'm not saying he his, just saying that's my perception of him.

To me he fits the prefect mold of the small business owner who made his own fortune by being bold, aggressive, cocky, and a little lucky. i have known of few of these people in my life, and they are almost always the same - 100% confidence that they are infallible, that bureaucrats and politicians are idiots and should get out of their way, and rules don't apply to them. They all seem to end up with legal or tax problems because they don't think they should have to live by the same rules as all the simple people - they do stupid things like not reporting personal use of the SUV you are charging to your business, or charging travel for your family to the business without declaring it on your income. Dumb, but it is more of a power issue than a financial one.

These are probably the traits that made them successful in the first place, because in many ways in a small business you have to be almost single minded, arrogant, and not accept failure. I'm not saying Schweitzer does this stuff, but to me he has the same traits. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in politics for him.[/quote]

I agree with grizbeer in many ways. Schweitzer, while entertaining and a breathe of fresh air, seems to be milking the cowboy (blue jeans and jacket) role and does come off phony. The book is still out on him, but I'm pleasantly surprised with what he's done so far. I'm also a little tired of the Republicans expressing their pouting by threatening to block the budget and every other Dem-led bill that comes through. They're doing nothing for themselves in the eyes of the moderates with this behavior.