« McSame and the Unitary Executive | ChrisNBama's Blog | The NYT's examines whether McCain is actually McSame »
Brian Schweitzer for VP!
Brian who?
That would have been my response if you had asked me yesterday.
Right now on CSPAN the Governor from Montana is holding court talking about everything from foreign policy to energy policy, and boy oh boy is this guy good!
For all the talk of the usual V.P. suspects, this guy should be on Obama's shortlist. He can talk about complicated issues in a folksy, Huckabeean way that I think is positively powerful!
You want that illusive Appalachian Working White (TM) vote, put Governor Schweitzer on the ticket. I've said it once, but I'll say it again: God this guys good!
That would have been my response if you had asked me yesterday.
Right now on CSPAN the Governor from Montana is holding court talking about everything from foreign policy to energy policy, and boy oh boy is this guy good!
For all the talk of the usual V.P. suspects, this guy should be on Obama's shortlist. He can talk about complicated issues in a folksy, Huckabeean way that I think is positively powerful!
You want that illusive Appalachian Working White (TM) vote, put Governor Schweitzer on the ticket. I've said it once, but I'll say it again: God this guys good!
Advertisement
I like Schweitzer a lot, especially after viewing his
I doubt he would appeal to Appalachian Working White; despite his folksy ways he's one of the elite. He has an M.S. in soil science and he speaks fluent Arabic after spending several years in the Middle east. I do think he would solidify the Mountain West.
Al Gore is my first choice for VP. Schweitzer and Webb are tied for second. Schweitzer is excellent on energy and Webb on the condition of workers. Both are useful for the economic part of the campaign. Schweitzer has less baggage, Webb helps on the military.
June 12, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Especially after viewing his interview with Charlie Rose: http://youtube.com/watch?v=B0i9o-ThOPM
June 12, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. I don't view this as Schweitzer supporting our continued presence in the M.E. as much as stating a reality, that frankly I think is true. We need to change how we obtain energy to establish the sort of long-term security our country seeks.
June 12, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Jim Webb a lot too, but he has some past comments about women in the military that were, well, not very open-minded to say the least...
June 12, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you happen to know if they'll play that on the internet?
June 12, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is certainly great in front of a crowd or in 1-1 interviews. But after 4 years working on irrigation projects in Libya and Egypt, Schweitzer speaks fluent Arabic. In the low information voters world, Obama + Arabic speaking VP = Muslims.
But that's really the only knock. What about Joe Biden?
June 12, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just so sad, but you're probably right. We really need more people in government and the military that speak Arabic. It's a sore need and should be a good resume point.
June 13, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brad Henry of Oklahoma or Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming!
June 12, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Warner of VA
June 12, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lose a valuable senate seat? No thanks.
June 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're gonna gain plenty of seats in the senate. If he can help win VA plus govern like he did there, I'd take him. Plus there is no rule that says he cannot leave his name on the ballot in VA. I believe Lieberman did it when he ran for VP with Gore. I could be wrong about that.
June 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schweitzer's been up there as one of my favorites for a while now, actually. Glad to see there's more support out there!
June 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a resident of Schweitzer's state, I think he is wrong for vp.
Here's why:
1) He compounds Senator Obama's "weaknesses":
*Schweitzer is EXTREMELY inexperienced. He's closing out his first term of public office EVER.
*Schweitzer can easily be characterized as an "empty suit" (or bolo tie): Long on words, short on political accomplishments. In Schweitzer's case, this would be hard to disprove, despite his library of viral video. He often spends more time playing political rock-star than he does governing.
*Both Schweitzer and Senator Obama seem to have a "Clean Coal" fetish.
2)Schweitzer is NOT very progressive:
*Against any form of gun control
*Strong supporter of the Death Penalty
*Strong supporter of harsher drug laws (This is somewhat understandable, as Montana has been ravaged by Meth in the last decade.)
I personally feel like there's quite a few more arguments against the guy, but I'll let you research him a bit more.
To be fair, he's easily the best governor Montana's had in my adult life. But compared to Marc Racicot (of RNC infamy) and Judy Martz (dumber than Bush and ten times as gullible) the bar is REALLY low. The fact that he's not actively working to make Montana a completely de-regulated, mining-ruled theocracy is an amazing improvement (though he seems to be willing to make some really questionable concessions to keep the Coal Barons on his side.)
June 12, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Montana Senator Jon Tester would make a far better VP than Schweitzer, but he's too valuable to take out of the senate right now.
I think Tester is like Feingold with a flat-top. He chews up GOP talking points and spits the bones back at them with a growl. He doesn't mince words on the Patriot Act or Climate Change.
He fought the nuttiest of wingnuts from the minority for many years here, and he doesn't suffer fools.
June 12, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the pivotal moments in my organizing development was at a training when after the umpteenth time someone tried to talk about health care or tax policy in terms defined by the right - to make it sound appealing to the right. I asked why we always wasted so much energy seeking the support and approval of people who will never be on our side. Why can't we just say what we believe and why we believe it? Honestly articulate a progressive alternative to the right's framework of the issues.
The stupidest person in Oregon politics said, well, then we will just be preaching to the choir. and then, some wise person who had been sitting quietly said, "well, since half the choir isn't voting and is opting out, I think it's high time we started preaching to the choir. Once you get the damn choir organized, then think about converts."
I think of that all the time when idiotic proposals are made all in the desire to tempt and bribe people who won't ever be Democrats anyway. You know, if they aren't going to vote for Obama on his own, they won't vote Obama -Schweitzer or Obama - Tester. Let's stop hunting for these "manly man" candidates. They reinforce the notion that OBama is not manly enough - just manly enough to beat a woman. They reinforce the notion that some Democrats have some serious insecurities about their own manliness. However, the national ticket is not time for your therapy session.
Select someone that adds to the ticket, that you would be proud of as president.
June 12, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be proud of Jon Tester as President.
Personally, I'd be more proud of President Tester than I would of President Obama, but that's because there's no politician out there who's values are closer to my own.
June 12, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the best choices in VP have been those who were chosen for the help they would provide in actually governing, as opposed to the help they would provide in winning the election. I know, I know -- you can't govern if you don't win. But there are many things, in addition to naming a vice president, that you can do to win ... However, there is only one person who will be filling that vital role for 4 whole years if you succeed and only one chance to pick that person.
A good choice won't save you just as a bad choice won't kill you. In 1968, right after the convention, the Democrats ran the most convincing, utterly simple ad I've ever seen. A double-page spread in the NY Times: On one page were the words "Humphrey's First Decision" and a big picture of Ed Muskie --- and on the opposite page "Nixon's First Decision" and a big picture of Spiro Agnew. Damn! The election SHOULD have been over as of that moment!
The VP selection that I think shifted a substantial number of votes and certainly raised enthusiasm for a candidate's campaign was Bill Clinton's selection of Al Gore. It went against all logic (neighboring states, similar age, etc.) but it just *struck* everyone, at least everyone I talked to, as a genius move. There was a feeling that he picked someone who could really govern, who would govern with the same goals, etc. and, to shore up an area of weakness, someone who knew well that strange world, Washington, that he would be going to for the first time.
I guess what I'm saying is that 'the conventional wisdom' of VP selection should perhaps be ignored (Humphrey and Muskie were both senators; Clinton and Gore from neighboring states, etc.) -------- I think a lot of voters want to feel that the candidate CARED about them in making the choice, that he (or she) got the *best* person, not just the best-help-in-the-election person. They picked a person who would be, for them, an effective and close partner during those years of governing if they hope to have; someone who shares their (and therefore the majority of the primary voters') goals and values; someone who would clearly be a competent and strong successor if that were ever required.
I don't know if that leads to or away from Schweitzer, but ........... well, I hope Obama selects a statesman or stateswoman, not an Agnew.
June 12, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Elizabeth2, I agree that governing is more important than helping in the election. My three -- Gore, Schweitzer, and Webb -- are all extremely bright people who speak their minds and who have experience outside government to back up their opinions. They will all serve an Obama presidency well, in that I think Obama would want independent but loyal people working for him.
Each of them can work on a major problem in an Obama presidency: Gore on global warning, Schweitzer on energy, and Webb on fixing the military and a counter to generals/admirals and their agendas.
Regarding energy, it's pretty clear that if we can safely sequester the carbon dioxide that escapes from coal, if we can produce biofuels from much more productive sources (not corn), and if we start building nuclear plants, then we can also employ the so-called "green" solutions like solar, wind, ocean temperature gradients, etc., because we'll have reliable backups.
I'm 65 and I can see as plain as can be the exponential growth in all aspects of technology (where exponential means what it means mathematically, which is a scary thought). We may not have The Singularity in twenty years, but we will certainly solve the nuclear containment problem in the next fifty years by some means we don't even understand today. Nanotechnology may allow us to encapsulate dangerous materials (with nested buckyballs, perhaps) or even transmute them. I trust technology and scientists far more than I trust those who think the future is a linear extrapolation of the past. And that includes much of today's environmental groups: Good motives, commended for acting, but often scientifically-deficient.
June 12, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brian Schweitzer is a rather interesting choice. His experience with energy issues is a good one, but a person that has more experience, including a stint as Energy Secretary, is Bill Richardson, the current governor of New Mexico. Now that would be a strong VP choice.
June 12, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No question about experience with Governor Richardson, the problem with him tho is that he's, um, boring. He's not much of an attack dog, which is a good quality for a V.P. pick, and he's just too gosh darn nice.
Governor Richardson would be a great cabinet secretary, but V.P. not so much.
June 12, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Richardson would be a great Secy of State. I like Brian Schweitzer a lot too. I wrote a blog post about him a while back at http://bademus.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/meet-brian-schweitzer/
There is another good profile of him at
http://www.theleftanchor.com/2008/05/vice-presidet-1.html
June 13, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
exregis -- I'm around the same age and hear you!! Gore would be wonderful because I think that is our biggest problem, but why he should want to at this point in his life is beyond me. I wouldn't be surprised if, directly or implicitly, that question hasn't already been asked and answered, as they say.
I probably should have added that one can't be blind to electibility concerns: no sense bringing a land mine to the party. You and I both lived through the Thomas Eagleton situation and that was very damaging: good candidate (I think) but came with his own personal land mine.
So, while Richardson is one of those statesmen (again, my opinion), you have to be clear-eyed about two minorities on the ticket, possible women problems (I have NO idea if accurate), and, well, maybe not the best campaigner. ------- Webb is fascinating, but the screeners would have to look hard at the rumors (perhaps nothing else) of less-than-awareness to women's issue and whether 2 divorces and children ranging from 2 years to 30-something wouldn't sit poorly or distract many voters. (To his credit, I gather wife #2 was campaigning for him for the Senate even after he was married to #3.) I think this year a candidate's 'record' with women and on women's issues is going to be very important -- same thing with the reaction of Hillary supporters if another woman - other than her - on the ticket.
I wasn't suggesting being blind to political realities, just that that be a *second* question, not the primary one. In other words, this person would be a good statesperson, a good partner and would make a good president. Now, are there any electibiity problems?
----- Schweitzer doesn't, so far as I know, come with any landmines. Only thing I've heard is that perhaps he and Obama just don't get along too well, but one can hear anything and I don't know if the men have ever met even! Position on guns and death penalty make me uncomfortable but might not be a big factor with most. That's what screeners are for. He is very intriguing and the idea of a black president and an Arabic-speaking VP: THAT would certainly help shake up our image overseas!
My own personal choice (if they were to ask me, but alas they haven't called) is Joe Biden, for reasons I've expressed elsewhere. Or John Kerry, who I supported whole-heartedly four years ago. Balance the concern about Obama's newness, unfamiliarity with *known* and respected (if not adored in all quarters).
The very nice thing is that we Dems. have a whole host of very interesting and potentially exciting possibilities - of both genders and several races. I heard the other day that the logical, effective thing for McCain to do would be to select a woman ...... but they aren't sure they have any 'ready for primetime' so to speak.
It will be interesting. Obama's judgment has been so spot on in other things that I look forward to seeing who he will select. For some reason, I suspect that he's had someone in mind for some time now but is being thorough about it, to test that choice or see if he overlooked an even better option.
June 13, 2008 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink