Schweitzer

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:25 pm

Why does Schweitzer remind me of Ray Zalinsky on Tommy Boy? Everytime he is interviewed it looks like an advertisement for used cars. My opinion of him has done a 180 since he took over the office. Now he just seems fake to me.

What's everyone's opinion of this guy?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:53 am

Populist. Somewhat charismatic. As smart as Judy Martz. Some of his policies are analogous to Matrix movies...really cool special effects, but stunts defy the laws of gravity.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:57 am

I'm actually pretty surprised. He reminds me of Zell Miller from Georgia. Doesn't give a rats ass what anybody thinks of his policies, he does what he thinks is right--time will tell whether they were right.

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:08 am

some of the idiots in helena are starting to sound and act like the idiots in washinton. time to get off the politcal ideologies and get some work done. Republicans=tax cuts,big spending, large government,large deficits

what the heck?

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:09 am

democrats=i don't know what to do

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:17 am

Cat Grad wrote:I'm actually pretty surprised. He reminds me of Zell Miller from Georgia. Doesn't give a rats ass what anybody thinks of his policies, he does what he thinks is right--time will tell whether they were right.

Don't know why, but Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show came to mind?

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:31 am

Just my 2 cents worth;

Schweitzer is in the Governor's office SIMPLY BECAUSE JUDY MARTZ AND HER ADMINISTRATION WERE THE WORST & MOST EMBARASSING IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

That being said, Scweitzer is an arrogant prick. He has NO patience for or interest in any ideas other than his own. Unfortunately, Brian doesn't realize and/or won't accept that he was elected for the reason stated above. He thinks we really DO want ethanol MANDATED into the market, that prescription drug prices are the biggest crisis we face, and that a 4 lane Highway 2 will solve the economic problems of the Northern part of the state...

My only personal anecdote involves a friend of mine who has worked for Baucus and Pat Williams in DC, as well as a number of other Montana Democrats. This friend went to work for Schweitzer's campaign last year and quit after only one month because he told me that BS (LOL) was the biggest a$$hole he'd ever met; arrogant, treated those around him like crap, and "his mind is so closed-off, you'd need the jaws of life to get anything in there...".

Ian · Post by **Ian** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:26 am

El_Gato wrote:Just my 2 cents worth;

Schweitzer is in the Governor's office SIMPLY BECAUSE JUDY MARTZ AND HER ADMINISTRATION WERE THE WORST & MOST EMBARASSING IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

That being said, Scweitzer is an arrogant prick. He has NO patience for or interest in any ideas other than his own. Unfortunately, Brian doesn't realize and/or won't accept that he was elected for the reason stated above. He thinks we really DO want ethanol MANDATED into the market, that prescription drug prices are the biggest crisis we face, and that a 4 lane Highway 2 will solve the economic problems of the Northern part of the state...

My only personal anecdote involves a friend of mine who has worked for Baucus and Pat Williams in DC, as well as a number of other Montana Democrats. This friend went to work for Schweitzer's campaign last year and quit after only one month because he told me that BS (LOL) was the biggest a$$hole he'd ever met; arrogant, treated those around him like crap, and "his mind is so closed-off, you'd need the jaws of life to get anything in there...".

that's pretty interesting. i totally agree on the reason for election, by the way, but also think the 3 ideas (ethanol, drugs, 4-lane) are good ideas, some selfishly, some as good policy. i haven't kept up on the overall political tone in MT since moving away a few years ago. what are the buzz issues these days?

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:58 am

El Gato I would pretty much agree with everything you said, except I would change it to Martz is perceived as the worts governor ever. She may be stupid and definitely spoke poorly, but the state was actually pretty well ran during her term, especially when compared to other states. To say she is the worst governor in the history of the country is just democrat propaganda and liberal hate.

Compare Martz over the last 4 years to say, Gray Davis of California, who was recalled for his incompetence, or Gary Locke of Washington who turned a billion $ surplus into a billion $ deficit and lost Boeing HQ to Chicago.

As far as Schweitzer, this is the impression I had of him from the beginning when he ran for Senator. However, I think he is a smart guy, and smart people are able to change and adjust to be successful. For the sake of all of us I hope the Gov can learn to work with others so the state can continue to improve.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:59 am

We are becoming a state that has good politics in Washington DC, but terrible politics within the state…

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:07 am

I think the issues are still the same as they were when I moved away after graduation in the late 70s. The curriculum of our state institutions don't seem to match the work force and we're forced to head out of state, the individuals that have a decent cash cow spend a great deal of money ensuring they don't have any competition, tremendous imbalance in the personal property and income taxes, fairly high hidden sales taxes (we call them fees instead), small amounts of private land in the most desirable counties driving the price of real estate into the California or Washington, D.C. price range, regional bickering as to who deserves what public works project so as a consequence it appears we've got people with the mind set that "If I can't have it, nobody else gets it either," a small group of environmental concerns in the face of an equally small group of rather unconcerned raw materials, i.e., logging and mining interests but neither group will admit they're both concerned about a loss of income that drives their agenda, all of our Secesh deserter ancestors who first settled out here have passed on their distrust is too kind a word--use hate--of the federal government, instate fighting over where the federal money we get should be spent so we actually wind up having to return millions each year because we can't agree on a thing, people who have their little cabin in the woods don't want anybody else on their private lake, the wolf versus the ungulant lovers, stream access law being challenged by them there damn out-of-state landowners, Madison County not fully agreeing with the stream access law, union versus nonunion, lawyers that made the discovery they get court costs awarded for any lawsuit they file against the federal government so they are in essense filing frivilous lawsuits under the guise of environmental OR "Smart" growth, lawyers stealing the asbestos awards from the victims of these very painful diseases or the tobacco settlement money, and a groundswell fundamental movement against institutions that produce the parasites who prey upon the working class and agricultural members of the state...Yep, I can read the archives of pretty much any newspaper in the state and can't really see any difference in the headlines from the 60s until now.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:20 am

El Gato -
On that ethanol point, why wouldn't you want to run more ethanol/biodeisel? It would decrease our dependency on foreign oil, increase the octane level of the gas (up in the 100's), meaning better fuel efficiency and more power from the engine. It is also a renewable energy source, and could be refined here in Montana, by grains grown here. The only reason it is so expensive is that the oil companies have a corner, no wait, stranglehold on petrolium production, and ethanol is one of those little "inconveniences" that they would prefer to rub out. It really is economically feasable, just not with the current politics surrounding petrolium production.

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:10 am

grizzh8r wrote:El Gato -
On that ethanol point, why wouldn't you want to run more ethanol/biodeisel?

H8tr, I don't know if this is true, but I asked the guys at Lithia about whether or not I should use an ethanol based gasoline. They told me not to because it will definitely shorten the life of my engine. Like I say, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then that would be a pretty good reason.

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:18 am

being the governor of montana is the easiest job in the state. all you have to do is have a balanced budget with a surplus of 20 million. This has been the status quo starting with roscoit(sp) thru martz. No vision about the future of montana, no challenge, just a balanced budget. what's schweitzer vision? haven't a clue. we have idiots bickering in the hall way getting close to a throw down, yawn!

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:09 am

h8tr,

This one is in my wheelhouse; I've been in/around the petroleum industry since 1972.

First of all, you are correct about the higher octane & that ethanol blended fuel does burn slightly cleaner than straight gasoline.

But the bottom line here is TOTAL EFFICIENCY; meaning how much ENERGY are we using to create & use a gallon of any given fuel. Ethanol blended fuel requires more TOTAL energy usage than does straight petroleum-based fuel. Meat is also correct; ethanol blended fuels will shorten the life of a gasoline engine. Simply put, if there was a more efficient way to move people & goods, we'd already have it, Big Oil or not.

I wish everyone would stop with the 'consipiracy theories' when it comes to fuel alternatives. The Oil Companies are all global now & if there WAS a more efficient way to move people & goods, they're powerful enough that they would simply "corner the market" on whatever the alternative happened to be.

Like it or not, petroleum-based fuels are THE MOST EFFICIENT form we have available today. That will not always be the case; as countries like China & India modernize, the pressure on our diminishing reserves will continue to drive prices upward which will ultimately lead to the invention and adoption of other forms of energy.

If the government has to MANDATE something, trust me: it costs you more and is not as efficient as what the market is currently providing.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:13 am

Come on! ElGato you can not possibly be advocating a market driven economy in Montana, especially given the business climate in around where you live

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:42 am

Here is a good question for all of you: What is the US & Montana Government going to do when people start buying hybrid cars and stop buying so much gas. Where are they going to make up that lost tax revenue? One of the last times I spoke with Denny Rehberg he was saying that the Government is concerned with the likelihood of a sharp decrease in gas sales, and thus there would be a sharp decrease in taxes collected from these sales. Where is the Government going to make up these lost dollars?

Cat-theotherwhitemeat · Post by **Cat-theotherwhitemeat** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:51 am

mquast53000 wrote:Where is the Government going to make up these lost dollars?

Automobiles will still need air to run. They could tax that.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:50 am

grizzh8r wrote:El Gato -
On that ethanol point, why wouldn't you want to run more ethanol/biodeisel? It would decrease our dependency on foreign oil, increase the octane level of the gas (up in the 100's), meaning better fuel efficiency and more power from the engine.

Ethanol does not give you more power. IT SUCKS! kills performance and engine longevity and increases maintenence. I still use 110 octane LEADED with NO CATS!!!! Give me power! Damn the environment!!!!!!

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:00 pm

I'm going to invent a car that runs on candy, who wants in?