Home / General / Schweitzermentum!

Schweitzermentum!

Comments
/
/
/
388 Views

Personal to Brian Schweitzer: you really need to find some constituency beyond brogressives rather than making your appeal even more selective.

Schweitzer has always been a joke as a potential Democratic presidential candidate — right, sure, “complete and total rejection of Barack Obama’s presidency” is something that will play well among Democratic primary voters — but his frequent tendency to say the quiet parts loud just adds to the comedy.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • sleepyirv

    Well, where now will the media find their folksy wisdom from a nominal Democrat? Because they’re obviously not going to give up on the idea.

    • Malaclypse

      Are you kidding? David Brooks is already typing out a paean to Schweitzer’s “Sister Souljah Moment.”

      Left unexamined is why Democrats need to yell at black people, which Republicans are right to coddle up to secessionist crazies.

      • Steve LaBonne

        Because secessionist crazies are white Real Americans. But you knew that.

        • Glenn

          “traditional” is the word, I think

          • Aimai

            I like to think of them as “old timey.”

            • N__B

              “Olde Timey.”

              • Aimai

                No, not that Olde. The a little younger than Olde. Just Old. Its like Alte Kocher’s vs. Medievalists.

                • BigHank53

                  Cracker Barrel Monkeys. As it turns out, they’re not much fun at all.

    • Johnny Sack

      This is such a bizarre electoral strategy on his part. The commenters here and on other liberal/left blogs are much further left than most of my friends (I say that as an observation, I’m not judging).

      Most of my friends are mainstream Democrats. Obama is as popular as ever with them (I’m not saying they’re right or wrong, just observing). Their criticisms of him are mild at best and offset by their dislike of Republicans.

      Any Republican is going to peel off the Obama-haters by default I think. No Hillary fan I know is going to be swayed by him running to her right or left. The up for grab votes among mainstream candidates is going to be split with other jackasses like Rand Paul and other than party label I don’t really see how he’s differentiating himself.

      • sleepyirv

        There isn’t a strategy per se. This is the real(ish) Brian Schweitzer, the media really likes him for some reason (Folksy! Fun biography! Not a pocketbook liberal!) so they write all these stories on him, making him think he has a real chance. Except there’s no doubt he’s roadkill in an actual Democratic primary. I can’t imagine a scenario where Schweitzer get the nomination even without these comments. I doubt he could beat Cuomo or O’Malley, much less Clinton or Biden.

        • catclub

          Huntsman got the same love, and Schweitzer will get about the same number of primary voters.

          • Ralph Wiggum

            Ouch.

          • cleter

            You think he’ll last all the way to South Carolina?

            • Random

              He’s already out of the running as of today. Finished, over, done. There’s no coming back from this.

              • cleter

                I guess that makes him less of a Huntsman and more of a Pawlenty, then, with just a hint of Pete Wilson.

  • I look forward to his keynote speech at the Republican convention.

  • mark f

    Weird that he’s been on Real Time With Bill Maher so often.

    • JustinV

      Not that weird really. That seems like a show that is produced very much with an eye toward the brogressive market.

      • timb116

        Yeah, well, since it’s really the only popular entertainment show that deals with politics from 90% of muy perspective, I can like it

        • JustinV

          Sure, yeah. No problem. Bill Maher just strikes me as smarmy and much less funny than he believes himself to be. The show retains a bit of a fratty taste that I think comes from Maher. Obviously, though, very popular with a number of smart people. I like many of his guests.

          • cpinva

            this. I can stomach it once in a while but, yeah, maher has the smarm factor going against him. which is kind of sad, because he does have a fairly wide range of guests, with completely different perspectives, and they manage to discuss the issues, without attempting to kill each other in the process.

          • witless chum

            Very much agree about Maher. I’m mainly just not interested in such a show, even if the host was someone easier for me to put up with.

            • Aimai

              I’d be interested in such a show if Maher wasn’t so smarmy. So if Rachel Maddow were doing such a show or if Maher’s basic sexism and self love weren’t so obvious.

              • sharculese

                This. My problem with Bill Maher is that he seems like a fundamentally incurious person, so even where I basically agree with him he can’t really bring any insight or value to the table.

                And so much of what he does is just #Slatepitch: The Show. The last time I had the misfortune to see him he was bravely (and he was very proud of himself for how brave he was being) coming to the defense of Brendan Eich because the gay rights fight was over because Michael Sam kissed a dude on TV. It doesn’t work as comedy and it doesn’t work as analysis.

              • mark f

                Isn’t that the Chris Hayes show?

              • dave

                I’d agree with this except that I find Rachel just as self absorbed and even more snarky. The difference is that she not quite as smarmy and she really has that fake self-deprecation thing down pat which seems to endear her to viewers although it appears so obviously fake to me.

                • Aimai

                  I find Maddow unwachable because she’s very dull and her show just drags out stuff (in terms of presentation). I don’t have the time in my life to watch a careful exploration of something for half an hour that I already know about from reading online in five minutes.

                • Anon21

                  Political television in general: kind of terrible. I know it’s boring, but just reading things online is vastly superior in terms of knowing what the fuck is going on.

        • TribalistMeathead

          The problem is that the other 10% involves being pro-racial profiling and anti-vaccination, as well as calling Sarah Palin a cunt.

          • timb116

            I’m in the minority here, but I don’t have a problem making fun of Palin for being a know-nothing grifter

      • mark f

        The internet is not always good for sarcasm :(

        • JustinV

          Ah. That makes a lot of sense. Sorry.

  • Paul Campos

    I still have a soft spot for his work with the Stray Cats.

    • Tyto

      He’s a LADIES CAT!

    • Scott Lemieux

      I’m not sure about his Louis Prima revival album, though.

  • taylormattd

    Uh oh, now you’ve done it. You’re sure to get a nastygram from David Sirota.

  • Remember, it’s Brian Schweitzer, not ‘Brain’ Schweitzer!

    • Aimai

      CUND that made my day. Perfectly delivered. I only wish there were someone I’d bump into in real life who wanted to talk about Schweitzer so I could steal it.

      • Thank yee, ma’am!

        Comin’ from one such as yerself, that them thar’s a treeeeemendous compliment! ;-)

  • Bitter Scribe

    “Brogressives”? Never heard that before, but I kinda like it.

    A lot more than I like this Schweitzer, anyway.

    • JustinV

      My gloss is that a brogressive is a nominally progressive man who regards their own favored issue – often national security related – as the sine qua non of progressive, left, or liberal politics; while believing many other issues – nearly always issues surrounding gender – to be mere cultural issues that are obviously much less important and worth ignoring in favor of supporting a politician who is right on the favored national security issue. Additionally, they often police progressive politics by writing out of the coalition people for whom abortion, equal pay, or gay rights are more important than drones or the NSA. They are shitty about it, too. So a libertarian leaning candidate that is not pro-choice, does not opposed prayer in schools, and supports the repeal of affirmative action but who wants to dismantle the NSA is the “progressive” alternative to a Dem with a 99% NARAL and NAACP rating who does not support dismantling the NSA.

      • Aimai

        That seems about right. I think there’s another (potential) dimension in that brogressives often assert their right to be (occasionally) racist, sexist, homophobic or classist because their intentions are seen as pure or praiseworthy. So you get brogressives calling Sarah Palin a c*nt or otherwise demeaning women they don’t like as sluts or ugly bitches, or slurring Lindsay Graham as “Aunt Pitty Pat” or “Huckleberry J. Butchmeup” (OK, on that I’m as guilty as the anyone.) And they still, after all this time, look around and bleat “what? what? Its a joke you guys. Christ you feminists/gays/blacks are so humorless.”

        • STH

          I prefer “Huckleberry Closetcase” myself.

        • Ann Outhouse

          I think Urban Dictionary nails it:

          A person who holds progressive viewpoints on changes that benefit themselves, and horribly regressive views on issues which do not affect them.

          • Anon21

            I mean, NSA surveillance and drone warfare probably don’t really affect them either. They’re “sexier” issues and also issues where the brogressives think their hands are clean. With everything relating to straight white male privilege, brogressives are often part of the problem, which makes them sad, which leads them to derail and deride.

          • faux? bro? fire?

            Who are the people who have generally progressive viewpoints on changes that benefit themselves and regressive views on changes that negatively affect them?

            Their views, while not horribly regressive, are certainly not liberal, especially on policy that may affect their children and local issues that may impact their neighborhoods. They support mild reform but are completely opposed to challenging structural inequalities and the only cost they are willing to pay for a more just/equal society is a small increase in their marginal rates.

      • sharculese

        Basically of all of his except remember that they can also be shitty on race, as evidenced by the bit of drool from Sirota Scott linked.

        • Origami Isopod, Commisar [sic] of Ideology for the Bolsheviks

          Yep.

          Case in point: FireDogLake.

        • JustinV

          Yes. The race stuff puzzles me, too. Often the drones arguments are framed (tendentiously) as “why do you hate brown people and love to see them die!?” But domestic racial justice is not prioritized at all. Also, the response “Agreed, let’s knock off the drones, but let’s also try and build a coalition for a more just America at home and abroad which means prioritizing larger social and economic justice concerns in order to dismantle the sorts of power structures that power militarism and racism over the long term” is then met with “why do you hate brown people and love to see them die, you racist?!”

          • shah8

            I was just looking at Somersby’s series of posts (at Daily Howler) about the Atlantic Monthly’s resegregation in Tuscaloosa article. I didn’t read them closely because that series gave off such a Hirschmanian rhetoric of reaction vibe…

            brogressive, indeed, but I think we need a better tag, since it’s about anyone who’s mostly about fixing their own problems, rather than precisely a white, male, straight, upper class stereotype. In my own mind, I tend to use the term “last miler”.

      • Scott Lemieux

        but who wants to dismantle the NSA

        Although it’s generally even worse than that; more like “makes some anti-NSA noises that turn out on closer inspection to be an argument that the NSA shouldn’t be using drones on American gun nuts.”

    • joe from Lowell

      Speaking of brogressives.

      • WTF? I hadn’t realized Greenwald was into redbaiting. And criticizing Diego Maradona for wearing a tshirt calling Bush a war criminal?

        • Hogan

          See, that was before he started paying attention to politics.

          • joe from Lowell

            He was one of those apolitical civil rights lawyer types.

        • joe from Lowell

          Not “getting into.” That’s old.

    • DrDick

      Speaking as a Montanan, this is the real Schweitzer. Folks outside the state tried to turn him into some kind of progressive hero in a red state, but he was always a mixed bag. Tester is much better and more progressive. Bear in mind that Tester and Bauchus are about as progressive as you can be and get elected to office in a statewide election here.

      • panda

        As a local, what’s your take on why he gave up on the Senate race? Seems that if he wanted presidency in his future, keeping that seat for the Dems would have been a good building bloc in his resume…

        • President Howard (Two-Term) Dean

          There were persistent noises about campaign finance irregularities at the time.

          • Davis X. Machina

            Not that that ever stopped a Republican.

            Oh, and nym-fail.

        • DrDick

          I have no idea, but he did test the waters here. I think perhaps his support was a bit lukewarm, at least where it mattered. It is often a bit hard to figure what he is thinking. He does rather like a sure thing.

          • rea

            So, what’s he after, then?

            The Senate race wasn’t a sure thing, but was probably as good a chance as he’ll ever get.

            He didn’t have much of a chance of being president, or even veep, before, and these remarks pretty much zero that out.

            He might have hoped for a cabinet post, but not the way he’s been running his mouth.

            Has he concluded that wingnut welfare is his best bet?

            • panda

              If there is a market out there for people who find Obama and Clinton too corporate for their tastes but looooove that dreamy mountain of a man Mitt, he cornered it this week.

            • DrDick

              Your guess is as good as mine. I am just glad he is not governor anymore.

  • Aimai

    Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. Schweitzer also, rather infamously, just gave a pro-Mitt anti-Obama speech in which he undermined the actual Democratic President in order to suck up to Mitt Romney after he lost. But its Hillary Clinton who, according to (and I gag even as I type this out but I just came from yet another “we hate hillary” thread elsewhere) is seen as a political trimmer who stabs Obama in the back and spits on the democratic base.

    • Anonymous

      But, the time to give that speech is after Mitt loses. Before the election, the speech is disloyalty in the heat of battle and people on the left will notice and remember. After the election, there’s a bunch of bereft billionaires cradling the remains of their dashed hopes, looking for some new champion to embody their dreams of unaccountability. Schweitzer was savvily auditioning for the role.

      • Warren Terra

        ‘Twas I, sans cookies.

    • cpinva

      “But its Hillary Clinton who, according to (and I gag even as I type this out but I just came from yet another “we hate hillary” thread elsewhere) is seen as a political trimmer who stabs Obama in the back and spits on the democratic base.”

      I’ve read this and heard it said, but oddly enough, I never read or hear specifics, just a uniform claim asserted, with no actual evidence supporting it. or am I reading and listening to the wrong places/people?

      • Aimai

        People have very long memories for what they see as the Clintonian slights of the first campaign–specifically Bill Clinton saying that Barack Obama wouldn’t have risen so far so fast in the Democratic hierarchy of candidates without the extra added value of embodying so many Democratic ideals in one person (i.e. being black on top of all the other qualities.). To my mind “black” in that statement served as a shorthand for all the obvious qualities which made Obama a contender but which, had he not been black, young, and in perfect timing with the nation would have made him just another handsome, youthful, brilliant, white, first term Senator. Speaking as a practiced politician–and one who was groomed from his governorship to aim for the Presidency, Clinton was merely factually correct. Every single candidate has to find a “thing” that enables him to break out of the scrum of nearly identical candidates–a narrative, a story, a shtick, a tic that makes him memorable and enables people’s ideals and dreams to coalesce around him for the duration of the campaign. It was not (to my mind, but I didn’t hear the interview originally) any kind of disparagement of Obama’s many incredible and obvious talents and qualities.

        • pillsy

          It’s especially funny when they drag Bill into it, because he was, in one of those weird ironies of politics, a way more effective surrogate for Barack Obama than he ever was for Hillary.

          • clenis

            Bill had some experience being a ‘black’ man running a presidential campaign. On a more serious note, when PBC was stumping for HRC it often just reinforced all the Clintonian baggage whereas when he was explaining economic policy on behalf of Senator Obama you focused more on the message.

      • Manju

        I never read or hear specifics, just a uniform claim asserted, with no actual evidence supporting it. or am I reading and listening to the wrong places/people?

        Perhaps you should read this noted Political Scientist. I think he blogs somehwere. Summing up one of H.Clinton’s arguments:

        “See, Obama’s coalition is bigger. But Clinton’s is broader, because it consists of more Real Americans and fewer [insert adjectives from RNC attack ad here] elitists and Shiftless Negroes.”-Scott Lemieux

        http://lawyersgunsmon.wpengine.com/2008/05/armandologic-goes-mainstream

        • sharculese

          But that’s a different thing than what Aimai’s talking about, I think. The primary battle got weird and ugly, and I don’t think anyone’s going to go into 2016 less than conscious of that (we’ve talked about the Penn test, but a Hillary ’16 campaign should probably begin with a Ferraro test, too).

          There are also people on the nominal left who for reasons that aren’t clear insist that after Obama won, Hillary was somehow disloyal and working to sabotage his presidency. That’s what Aimai’s getting at here, I think.

          • catclub

            You know how we talk about the Iraqis having agency?

            It sure will be interesting if Hillary decides not to run. I can imagine a ‘fuck all this’ moment.

            • witless chum

              That sure would be interesting. It’d result in a real scramble and possibility of someone much worse than Clinton as the nominee just because things would be all weird, but it’d be interesting.

          • Random

            There are also people on the nominal left who for reasons that aren’t clear insist that after Obama won, Hillary was somehow disloyal and working to sabotage his presidency.

            That sounds more like Digby to me.

    • Murc

      But its Hillary Clinton who, according to (and I gag even as I type this out but I just came from yet another “we hate hillary” thread elsewhere) is seen as a political trimmer who stabs Obama in the back and spits on the democratic base.

      Wait… what?

      There are so many good reasons to not like Hillary Clinton, and that’s what people go with? Really? She’s been one of the most loyal SecStates in recent memory, and while her husband indeed spent a lot of time shitting on the Democratic base, I can’t recall Hillary doing much on that score.

      • Aimai

        Yeah, people argue that. Or argue that she will do it during the next election cycle. I find it fascinating because any and every Democratic candidate is going to try to hold on to the Obama coalition while just fractionally increasing their vote count by trying to bring the racist former democratic white voters back to the democratic fold on economic/class issues. That has to happen if the Democrats are going to stay in power and ever win back the house. Even if the Presidential candidate can win with nothing but blue states and non white voters the people farther down the ticket in purple states need both a good latino/AA vote and also a few ethnic white males to return to the fold. So any Democratic Presidential candidate is going to have to work hard not to piss off potential white voters while also courting Obama’s real life progressive voters. This is not rocket science. But I’ve seen people who treat HRC as somehow uniquely at fault if she does so.

        • Anonymous

          Democrats need something close to 38% of the white vote.
          Clinton will likely focus on recapturing the four points among white women that Obama lost between 2008 and 2012.
          For every white guy she picks up for being ‘not black’ she probably loses one for being a woman. Clinton also likely needs to pick up a point or two in the under $50K segment as she likely loses the same in the over $100K segment. (The middle income segment of the electorate declined by five points between 2008 and 2012)

      • Random

        and while her husband indeed spent a lot of time shitting on the Democratic base,

        Nope, this is a very common error though.

        The “base” of the Democratic Party from the 90’s through to just a few years ago has been self-identified moderates. Not liberals.

        In fact I think there were as many self-identified conservatives in the Democratic Party in the early 90’s as self-identified liberals.

        At any rate, there’s this common factual error that people make, thinking that the ‘real’ Democrats are ‘liberals’ and the ‘DINOs’ are moderates. It’s more like the other way around.

  • Morse Code for J

    Why candidates from the middle of nowhere have a really hard time dealing with a national media market, part eleventy gazillion.

    Hillary Clinton wouldn’t say something this dumb in her sleep.

    • Steve LaBonne

      Which is why I’m looking forward to the Scott Walker campaign. Should provide some quality entertainment.

    • Bill Murray

      Arkansas isn’t the middle of nowhere?

      • Warren Terra

        Wait it’s still 1992?

        What’s this wondrous device in my hand?

        • Malaclypse

          I take it 1992 was the year you turned 14?

          • Warren Terra

            1992 was when the Clintons were from Arkansas. It’s a bit weird to talk about today’s Hilary Clinton as if she just emerged from the backcountry.

            … oh, I was referring to my iPad, and you thought I meant my schlong

            • I think he might have meant your schlort.

      • cpinva

        “Arkansas isn’t the middle of nowhere?”

        Hillary isn’t from AR, bill is. she’s from Chicago, or thereabouts.

        • Gwen

          NEVER FORGET THE NEW YORK YANKEES CAP.

          http://www.windsorstar.com/cms/binary/3271465.jpg?size=640×420

          A WITCH! BURN HER!

          • Joseph Slater

            She turned Gingrich into a Newt. . . .

            • Richard Hershberger

              He got better…

              Wait, no, I take that back.

        • Lee Rudolph

          And much as one feels (particularly when one thinks of Freshwater Economics) that Chicago *should* be the middle of nowhere, apparently it’s not.

        • Manny Kant

          She’s also lived in Washington and just outside New York City for the past 21 years.

    • Anonymous

      Not this sort of dumb, no.

      On the other hand, there’s a headline at TPM that Sec. Clinton wanted us to have more troops in Iraq longer. This is obviously worrying in its own right (didn’t she understand the importance of Getting Out?), but also it suggests she’s got the same staff of clueless nimrods who F’d up her 2008 campaign, and who leaked this to the press. That’s a whole ‘nother kind of Dumb, a smug, arrogant kind that the Washington Media Consensus calls “smart” but the rest of the country sees right through.

      • Warren Terra

        Hm. Just noticed that my cookies got et.

        • cpinva

          we didn’t need to know that! :)

      • Aimai

        You really can’t trust TPM’s versions of things. I have routinely found their headlines completely misstate the import of what a given figure was saying and especially with HRC they are determined to use her for clickbait. I just read the transcript of the kinds of interviews she’s doing for the book–with Christiane Amanpour–and I found (among other things) that she was very careful to at every turn (against Amanpour’s very leading questions) to defend Obama’s decisions w/r/t Iraq and Syria. She was realy clear on the SOFA issues. She seems well aware that going or staying, sending troops now or not, the syria decision to arm/not arm the “moderates” was a judgment call. She sometimes seems to have disagreed with Obama or offered a different perspective but she doesn’t sound like she ever argued for more boots on the ground for its own sake because she really likes war. She’s a pragmatist and even pragmatists can come down differently than other pragmatists on matters of tactics.

        • Yes, they went full on clickbait around the same time they started offering premium services and some of the ledes were masterpieces of misdirection (but that could be shitty reporters).

          Now I rarely go over there.

    • Random

      Bill Clinton was the governor of *Arkansas* and nobody, including most of his enemies, is going to claim that he wasn’t a damn good public speaker.

      • Manny Kant

        Morse Code didn’t say that it’s impossible for candidates from the middle of nowhere to deal with the national media, just that it’s very difficult. And it’s not as though Clinton’s campaign didn’t have serious growing pains in 91-92.

  • sharculese

    Dear god, Brian Schweitzer the fuck why are you the fuck

    but also can we gawk at this little piece of weapons-grade both-sides-do-it-ism:

    And in the process, he gave the GOP a little ammunition to fight back against Democratic charges of its supposed “war on women” and its insensitivity toward the GLBT community.

    Never change, WaPo. Never change.

    • Aimai

      Because by the transitive property of bullshit a small amount of racism and sexism on the left side of the equation magically eliminates a massively larger amount on the right side of the equation.

      • sharculese

        Nor do I expect rabidly pursuing policies that make it harder for women and LGBT Americans to be full citizens to have a place of prominence in the theoretical never-gonna-happen Presidential campaign of Brian Schweitzer.

        Is he worse on those issues that Generic Democrat? Probably. I’m blissfully unaware of the details. But to think that saying bad things and actively trying to make terrible things happen are in any way similar here betrays a shallowness of thought that seems to be qualification 1 for the job of political blogger at a major old-world publication.

    • The fun begins when the GOP tries to use it. “Even the Liberal Washington Post says Schweitzer is proof the Democrat wars are waging the real war on bitches and poofs.”

  • Lev

    I’d never vote for him after his disgraceful “After ten months of pretending to be a candidate I’m not going to run for Senate, even though I’m the only real person who could guarantee victory” bullshit. I always thought doing favors and helping the party is how you move up in politics-I guess Schweitzer will show how far selfishness and petulance will take you.

    • Johnny Sack

      I’m not sure I agree. He bowed out with plenty of time for an alternate Dem candidate to establish themselves and run.

      It would’ve been nice because he might’ve been our best shot at holding the seat, but nobody owes it to us to run for Senate.

      • Manny Kant

        I think you kind of do if you want to run for higher office within the party.

  • Karen

    Good Lord. Everything the man said was a giant pike of sexist wrong.

    • Karen

      PILE of wrong. EDIT BUTTON, STAT!

      • Steve LaBonne

        But, but, I wanted to see Schweitzer’s head on that giant pike!

        • ninedragonspot

          He’s got a new perspective on Roe v. Wade?

          • catclub

            Gravitas, gravlax, whatever.

      • sibusisodan

        Most-LGM-relevant-typo ever.

      • joe from Lowell

        HUGE MISOGYNIST FISH!

      • N__B

        Stop carping.

    • Davis X. Machina

      Or a muskellunge of misogyny, at the very least.

    • Your Freudian slip is showing.

      • joe from Lowell

        I hate Freud.

        Freud is just like this big, giant spear thrusting into me and making me nothing.

        Ya know?

        • Hogan

          “Everybody has a dream, Pee Wee. Don’t you have dreams?”

          “Yeah. I’m all alone. I’m rolling a big doughnut and this snake wearing a vest . . . “

        • Warren Terra

          I love the joke where Freud is in heaven, long after his death, and an old colleague comes up to him and says “Sigmund, Sigmund, I’ve just learned that today’s psychologists reject a lot of your ideas and say you had this weird and more importantly very unusual Oedipal fixation that you wrongly projected onto everyone you disagreed with!”. Freud looks up from his oddly elongated harp and growls “What a bunch of mother-f*@&ers!”

        • Sigmund Freud

          You never replied to any of my fan mail either, sport.

  • Lev

    The other hilarious thing is that Schweitzer has no real base apart from (mostly male) netroots progressives, which isn’t even really a base. But between his passing on the MT Senate race and his ill-advised commentary about the Obama Administration, many of those hate him now. It’s safe to say he’s misread things a bit.

    • President Howard (Two-Term) Dean

      The other hilarious thing is that Schweitzer has no real base apart from (mostly male) netroots progressives, which isn’t even really a base

      I beg to differ.

  • MattF

    Schweitzer seems to me to be the last of the pre-ex-Democrats. But why not go all the way? What’s stopping him?

    • jim, some guy in iowa

      the idea a conservative democrat has more future than a liberal republican?

      • DrDick

        I think that is about right. Schweitzer can be rather progressive on some issues, but he is definitely moderately conservative on others. He is also a bit of a “good old boy.” There is also the fact that the Montana Republican Party is on a par with those in Oklahoma and Texas. They would burn him at the stake if he tried to switch sides.

    • sharculese

      Because he has the benefit of their experience, and knows that being Zell Miller is nice for ten minutes but that long-term, staying inside the Democratic Party is probably better for his visibility.

      • Manny Kant

        Zell Miller, I believe, technically stayed within the Democratic Party.

    • timb116

      He’ll be on either Fox or CNN as a “Democratic” contributor inside of 3 months after he drops out of the primary.

      • Ronnie Pudding

        Which explains why he’ll run in the primaries to begin with.

        • Anonymous

          needs more book sales

          Who will be our Jerry Brown/Wes Clark and our Bob Kerrey/Chris Dodd?

  • rea

    WTFin’F? Cantor lost because he comes across as gay?

  • Glen Allen

    What’s missing is that his comments were also anti-Southern.

    Face it, you’re going to be stuck with Hillary and all her baggage. Have fun with that.

    • JustinV

      Winning the Presidency for another term with a broadly popular candidate? Yeah, I bet we will enjoy that.

      • Bengaggage

        Also, have you ever noticed how women from Arkansas are kinda mannish? My dykedar is like 70, 80% on her.

      • Glen Allen

        She’s only “broadly popular” when out of politics. As soon as she gets back in her favorability will plummet. She’s the most polarizing and divsive figure on the American political stage since Richard Nixon. The 2016 campaign will make the ’90s look like paddy cakes in comparison.

        • Aimai

          You know what is polarizing? When you can’t get more than 27 percent of the people to admit you ever ran the country for 8 years.

          • Glen Allen

            Bush only had unified government for two fairly brief periods in the 2000s. I wouldn’t call that “running the government”. The Democrats, for example, controlled Congress when the economy collapsed and the deficit exploded. Both parties were complicit in the housing bubble.

            • Aimai

              This is so crazy there’s no point in even rebutting it.

              • Glen Allen

                What’s crazy? That the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House for a grand total of three years under Bush? Not crazy, it’s an established fact. It’s a matter of public record.

                • sharculese

                  You’re right. It’s established fact (for loose senses of fact) that you’re using to avoid taking responsibility for all that time all the normal people out there still remember and are still pissed about.

                  Again, I cannot stress enough how central not having the courage of your convictions is to the argument you’ve convinced yourself you’re making.

                • Manny Kant

                  Where are you getting 3 years? January 3, 2001 – June 6, 2001, is 5 months. January 3, 2003 – January 3, 2007, is 4 years. So that’s a grand total of four and a half years. Plus, the Democrats basically let Bush do whatever he wanted from September 11, 2001 – January 3, 2003, even though they officially controlled the Senate, so it’s really basically six years of effective control.

                • djw

                  That the Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House for a grand total of three years under Bush?

                  4.5 years; the first six months until Jeffords flips and all for years of the 108th and 109th congress.

                • djw

                  Or, rather, what Manny Kant said.

            • sharculese

              This is what it looks like when you drill and kill history.

              Emphasis on kill.

            • Warren Terra

              Those two “brief periods” being from January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005 and from January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007?

              Of course, you might decide he lost control of Congress on election day 2006, but that’s quibbling, and you’d have election day 2002 to consider.

              Plus: from 9/11 through election day 2002 the Democrats were totally cowed by the media’s claims that a terrified America must unite behind its Leader, and gave Bush most everything he wanted, directly related to the War On Terra or not.

              • Glen Allen

                Wow, you make it sound like the leaders of your party are balless. Cowed by the media? Jesus that’s weak.

                • sharculese

                  Fyi, everyone here noticed that you didn’t have a substantive response to Warren’s correction of your ‘brief period’ lie.

                  You’re not half as clever as you’ve convinced yourself you are.

            • Manny Kant

              The middle half of his time as president, plus about six months at the beginning (when he pushed through the main part of his domestic agenda) doesn’t count as “running the government”? (Plus, the Senate Democrats were totally subservient after 9/11, so it’s not like the fact that Daschle was majority leader from then until the end of 2002 actually stopped Bush from doing what he wanted in any practical way.)

              The only time when the Republicans didn’t effectively have control of the government was 2007-2008.

          • Glen Allen

            I will also add that both parties supported the Iraq War. Only fringe loonies on either side were strongly opposed in 2002. Need I remind you that Hillary, Biden, Kerry, and Edwards all voted “yea”?

            Yes, Obama claimed to be opposed but I do believe had he been in a position of real responsibility and power he would have voted for it, particularly if he had access to classified intelligence briefings.

            Everyone of any consequence thought there were WMDs, not just in the USA, but Europe as well.

            • Warren Terra

              You sure you want to stick with the nym “Glen Allan”? Maybe you’d consider Glen Garry? Glen Ross?

              • He’s not a closer. He doesn’t deserve the leads.

            • sharculese

              Well, gee, it’s so much easier when you get to argue with the Obama you made up in your head.

              The tradeoff is it makes you hard to take seriously.

            • Hogan

              I will also add that both parties supported the Iraq War. Only fringe loonies on either side were strongly opposed in 2002.

              Where “fringe loonies” includes 60% of House Democrats and Democratic senators like Conrad, Byrd, and Bob Graham (chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so he just might have had access to those classified briefings).

              Tell us more about the old days, grampa.

              • JustRuss

                +1. Yes, the Democrats weren’t able to stop the war, but there were plenty of non-loonies against it. His ignorance is understandable, since our media made a point of ignoring just about everyone who opposed the invasion.

            • Malaclypse

              I like the way you still believe that the people who were right, while you were wrong, must be “fringe loonies.”

            • Lurking Canadian

              Everyone of any consequence thought there were WMDs, not just in the USA, but Europe as well.

              Either [citation needed] or that “everyone of any consequence” is doing a shitload of work.

              • Emma in Sydney

                Millions of us marched against the war, in cities all over the world. It remains a toxic issue in many countries whose supine governments did the US’s bidding instead of listening to their people.

            • scoreboard

              US House 96% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats for

              US Senate 98% of Republicans and 58% of Democrats for

              Total Yeas: Republicans 263 Democrats 111
              Total Neas: Republicans 7 Democrats 147

        • Warren Terra

          She’s the most polarizing and divsive figure on the American political stage since Richard Nixon the last person to plausibly be identified as a national leader of the Democratic party.

          Fixed it for ya.

        • JustinV

          This is all projection. I’ve encountered it among older white men a lot. You don’t like her so you cannot imagine anyone liking her. It’s childish and funny (I promise to relate some of you comments here today to my friends later so that we can laugh at you). She hasn’t been out of politics in her entire adult life, she remains broadly popular. I don’t really like her as a politician, but pretending that she isn’t electorally strong is silly.

          • Aimai

            Its kind of the reverse of that line they love to throw in our faces, supposedly said by Pauline Kael about the election of Nixon which was supposedly “No one I know voted for Nixon.” The import is supposed to be that Liberals are so insular and stupid that they don’t realize that the country is bigger than their state or community and that, as we like to say, “there’s no accounting for taste.” All of Glenn’s arguments are based, as you say, on the notion that there is one and only one kind of real voter–he’s always male, he’s usually white, he is a chauvenist pig who hates his life and his family, he’s insecure and ill informed. That might be true for Glenn’s true friends but in terms of actual voters? Its a type of voter of declining importance and (speaking in my experience of the actual electorate) a shitload of those guys, if they are non white/hispanic or white working class don’t vote at all.

            Here’s the actual quote:

            But I have a huge problem with it, for several reasons: First, Kael never said it. Second, Kael is a giant of the form, one of the greatest writers on film in history. Her tremendous legacy is way, way bigger than one silly non-comment. Third, I’d venture to guess that there are as many Republicans as Democrats whose friends all voted for the same candidate. And fourth, I think history has shown that the friends of Kael’s who didn’t vote for Nixon had the right idea after all.

            The real quote comes from a speech Kael delivered at the Modern Language Association, on Dec. 28, 1972, as cited by the New York Times (Via Wikipedia):

            “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”

            Rather than showing out-of-touch insularity on Kael’s part, the quote actually shows Kael is perfectly aware of that insularity and is in fact making light of it. It also shows she’s perfectly aware that there are people out there in the world who don’t share her views, as if she hadn’t yet gleaned that when she was 53 years old in 1972. Or for that matter in the previous election, which was also won by Nixon.

        • daveNYC

          Eh, the ’90s might end up looking good, but the Republicans went off the deep end in ’08 so I don’t think the 2016 campaign will be any type of shocking to anyone who was awake the past eight years.

          • dmsilev

            I have faith that the Republicans will somehow find an even deeper end to go off of in 2016. I don’t know how they’ll do it, but I know it will happen.

            • “And in the lowest deep a lower deep,
              Still threat’ning to devour me, opens wide,
              To which the hell I suffer seems a heaven.”

        • pillsy

          She’s the most polarizing and divsive figure on the American political stage since Richard Nixon.

          Good thing Nixon was never elected President: he would have done a terrible job.

          • cleter

            So she’s going to win 49 states? Cool. Which sad lonely state will Cruz win? Utah? I bet it’s Utah.

        • Tyro

          Nixon was elected to the presidency twice.

        • Random

          She’s only “broadly popular” when out of politics.

          Status: False. The woman who has been voted the Most Admired in America for pretty much the last decade was broadly popular at a national level both during the time she was in the Senate and the time she was SoS.

          As soon as she gets back in her favorability will plummet.

          Her personal favorability is just the icing. The cake is that she’s a moderate running against a conservative. Any moderate is guaranteed to crush any conservative in a presidential campaign in 2016.

          The most divsive figure on the American political stage since Richard Nixon.

          You retards spent the last 6 years saying that about Obama.

          The 2016 campaign will make the ’90s look like paddy cakes in comparison.

          Doesn’t matter. Her opponent will be a conservative, therefore her opponent is guaranteed to lose.

          • Origami Isopod, Commisar [sic] of Ideology for the Bolsheviks

            You retards

            Don’t do that, please.

    • sharculese

      As a dude born and bred in the south it is with great pleasure that I say to you- a bloo bloo bloo, a bloo bloo bloo, a bloo bloo, bloo.

      You’re not a victim, no matter how desperately you want to be, and it betrays a basic lack of dignity and self-respect when you trot out this routine in public.

      • Glen Allen

        I never claimed to be a victim. In fact, I don’t believe in victim status and don’t understand why everyone these days seems to want to be a victim.

        But there is nasty anti-Southern prejudice in the rest of the nation and the national media. How often do we see those with Southern accents portrayed as stupid on TV, for example? It’s like if someone has a Southern accent their IQ drops 15 points according to the New York/LA Media.

        • JustinV

          “In fact, I don’t believe in victim status and don’t understand why everyone these days seems to want to be a victim.”

          Because large swathes the of population are indeed victims of violent, racist and misogynist actions on the part of the powerful few. So it’s really less wanting to be a victim so much as it is people reusing to roll over and die and instead shoving the truth of their victimization in your smug face. I understand that it makes you uncomfortable because you are insecure in your own status and are very afraid of leading a life prone to victimization. But it’s okay because your time is over and in the future we will feel sorry for some amalgamated idea of ignorant people like you.

          • Origami Isopod, Commisar [sic] of Ideology for the Bolsheviks

            and in the future we will feel sorry for some amalgamated idea of ignorant people like you.

            I hope not, because the likes of Glen Allen deserve no pity whatsoever, just scorn.

        • Aimai

          Wah! Wah! Wah!

          Aside from that–Christ on a Southern Cross the South has been claiming victim status since before the Civil War. If anything proves the absurd contention that people “seek” victim status it is the sob sisters of the confederate flag and their breast beating over losing their war of treason in defense of slavery 149 years ago. Longest running wail of pathetic whining in recorded history.

        • sharculese

          Instead of saying anything in response I’m just going to let you sit here and not get the irony of putting that second sentence after the first one.

          You’re not just whiny. You’re bad at being whiny. Grow the fuck up.

          • sharculese

            Paragraph not sentence but whatever. You want to be able to play the victim card and you want to huff and puff about the victim card.

            No dignity, no class, no courage. That’s you.

        • If any part of the nation knows about prejudice, it’s the South.

          • Cicero Illinois

            I’d like a quick word with you.

        • TribalistMeathead

          How often do we see those with Southern accents portrayed as stupid on TV, for example?

          About as frequently as we see anyone with any sort of regional accent portrayed as stupid.

        • Random

          I’ve never, ever held residence outside of the South.

          Southerners who have strong Southern accents definitely tend to be less intelligent than Southerners who don’t.

    • witless chum

      Hillary’s not locked in here with you Glenn, you’re locked in here with her.

    • We’re going to be stuck with Hillary. Get used to it.

      • Glen Allen

        I don’t see how she wins national office. Her voice alone is going to remind male voters of their mother-in-law nagging them to take out the trash. Big turn-off.

        • Aimai

          Do you even believe this stuff or is this just something you got in the box marked “in case of Democratic enthusiasm break glass and use?” Because its really, really, really, dumb. The Democrats have lost the “stupid white male vote” in every election–Bill Clinton himself did (IIRC). Obama certainly did. Its more than made up for by the number of voters who see her as experienced, empathetic, grandma.

          • Glen Allen

            What this all reminds me of is the Mary Sue Terry campaign for Governor of VA back in ’93. George Allen trounced her because she turned off the male vote. The same thing will happen here.

            • Aimai

              Really? I was thinking more Hillary Clinton vs. Rick Lazio.

              • JustinV

                No, Glenn is correct. An election in Virginia 20 years ago (when and where the electorate was whiter and more male than it is today) is a far better predictor, statistically speaking (using the masculine power of my brain!), of the electoral success of a candidate than any actual elections that candidate has participated in more recently.

                • NonyNony

                  Okay, I missed this earlier. Clearly Glen is a really subtle troll.

                  He’s using George Allen as his example of how Hillary’s campaign will collapse.

                  That would be George “Macaca” Allen.

                  Let it sink in EXACTLY what lessons should be learned from George Allen’s performance in 1993 vs. his performance in 2006 and then extrapolate those lessons to a 2016 election (and electorate).

              • daveNYC

                Lazio’s entire campaign seemed based on yelling “She’s not from NY!”, something that most New Yorkers didn’t give a damn about, and Hillary ran a very solid campaign and busted her ass getting out to all parts of the state.

                I’m not sure it’s a good comparison.

                • Aimai

                  Its not a good comparison at all but its Glenn who is looking for a model that looks like “man running against a woman.” He seems to think that the advantage is all to the man because men hate women who are running for office and will always vote for the dude. And maybe that’s true but the optics of the run are an issue for all voters and HRC vs. Lazio was one of those times when, famously, it was Lazio who was compared to “every woman’s first husband” and he was seen as bullying her.

                • Sam

                  I would point out that in her one national campaign, Clinton came very close to beating a man with very high positives and very low negatives who ran one of the best campaigns in modern politics and also outspent her.

            • sharculese

              Do you know what is the opposite of having a good argument based on precedent.

              A single example from twenty years ago involving a completely different electorate.

              You’re doing a bad job of having an argument. Bad Glenn.

        • JustinV

          White male voters are not the key to any national election, they are largely irrelevant. So they can think all the dumb nonsense they want, nobody is paying attention anymore. Nobody else has a problem with her that’s bigger than their problems with all other national politicians in both parties. White and minority women love her. I don’t have a nagging mother in law because I am not a sad parody of a 1960s sitcom – also I am not a misogynist. Everyone who is those two things was never going to vote for the winning candidate no matter who it was.

          • Glen Allen

            It’s not just white males that are going to be irritated. Black and Hispanic males will be as well. Just watch.

            • sharculese

              I can’t wait for your brilliant campaign of sullenly muttering ‘bitch’ under your breath.

              That’ll make you look like an adult.

            • Aimai

              I’ll give you Rubio, Cruz, and West but I don’t think Hillary is sweating losing their votes.

              • As goes Allen West, so goes the nation Alan Keyes.

            • JustinV

              No they won’t. There is not universe is which black turnout isn’t high in the 2016 election for the Dems. Hispanics will not vote for a GOP president for a generation (you all should stop screaming “amnesty!” at passing cars).

          • #s

            Overrated more than irrelevant. White men will still be about 1/3 of the electorate in 2016 and likely a point or two more numerous than all minority voters. The Democratic nominee will probably need 33% of that third but the real action will be in the white woman vote.

            • Projection of Conservative White Supremacist’s Fears

              the real action will be in the white woman vote.

              You’re telling me.

        • NonyNony

          Well adjusted males actually don’t hate their mother-in-law. That’s a comedy trope that dates back to vaudeville, but it really isn’t true.

          Much like how well adjusted males don’t hate and/or resent their wives. Or their kids. Dads in bad sictoms hate their wives and/or kids for “comedy” purposes, but most normal people in the real world aren’t like that.

          From this and your comments above, I’m getting the feeling that Everything Glen Allen Knows About Life He Learned From Bad Sitcoms. And I find that kind of sad and pathetic.

          • The Ol’ Ball And Chain

            What do you mean everyone doesn’t resent their wife and their mother-in-law?

            • NonyNony

              In the real world if you’re married to someone you despise who also despises you, you fix it by realizing you shouldn’t be married and go get a divorce.

              In bad sitcoms, you continue to live together and make each other miserable because COMEDY EVERYONE!

              And this is why The Lockhorns are the funniest strip on today’s newspaper comics page.

          • Origami Isopod, Commisar [sic] of Ideology for the Bolsheviks

            If you’re a conservative male, you don’t believe that men and women have anything in common, nor do you believe that marriage is anything but a duty. You may “chase skirts” before and outside of marriage, as is your male prerogative, but you see “women I enjoy being with” and “good girls to bring home” as nonintersecting sets.

            Needless to say, this does not make for happy marriages. But it’s easier to blame feminism or women’s evil nature than to admit that one’s worldview is antiquated and toxic.

        • Warren Terra

          their mother-in-law nagging them to take out the trash

          Allow me to attempt to convey my deep shock that your concept of American family life comes from 1960s sitcoms.

          • sharculese

            Or that Glenn has extremely creepy issues with women.

            • Glen Allen

              Happily married to one woman for 20 years.

              How about yourself?

              • sharculese

                Being married and being a creepy, sullen brat whenever a woman dares to have agency are not incompatible things. In fact, they often go together.

                But congratulations on using your wife as a prop so you can be a boor on the internet. You can really see the respect shining through.

                • Glen Allen

                  How many years have you been married, since you know so much about women?

                • Aimai

                  How many years do you think the average man lives with his mother in law and shares trash duties with him? I’ve been happilly married for 19 years and we’ve never lived with my husband’s parents or my parents. And, of course, as everyone has pointed out, normal men love their mothers-in-law because they love their wives and their wives are generally going to have some of the good qualities of their own mothers.

                • Glen Allen

                  I’m guessing you’re still in your 20s, still single. Possibly even still living with your parents. And yet you want to lecture me about women and family. Very typical of your generation. SMH.

                  When you do finally decide to grow up you’ll understand.

                • sharculese

                  I’m not quite certain what my knowledge or lack thereof of women has to do with my knowledge of bratty internet misogynists, which I can assure you is a subject I could write a book on.

                  I’m also not sure, why, given the scorn I’ve heaped upthread on your fondness for spin, bullshit, and dodges, I was going to allow you to do a subject change here just because you don’t like being called out on sounding like a creep, but I suspect it goes back to the ‘lacking the courage of your convictions’ thing I’ve been harping on.

                  Stand up for yourself or slither back to your klavern, but please cease with this mealy-mouthed tailchase.

                • sharculese

                  And yet you want to lecture me about women and family. Very typical of your generation. SMH.

                  I don’t want to lecture you. You’re not self-aware enough to learn from it.

                  I want to point and laugh at your for your immaturity and general bitterness. Which is cool, because you’ve been generous in supplying material.

                • Glen Allen

                  I just find it funny that I, as the one who has “serious issues” with women, is intimate with a woman while you are…well…not. And maybe never have been.

                • Glen Allen

                  immaturity

                  Says the twentysomething writing from his parent’s basement. This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

                • sharculese

                  So have we jumped past the point where you even pretend to have an argument to make and just try to puff up your chest about how gosh darn important you are? Will this section of your pratfall involve a lot of cliches like ‘parent’s basement’ because actually being clever is too hard, and you’re scared to fail? Will you continue to avoid standing up for anything you’ve said here because dodges and snivels are easier?

                  I think we all know the answer.

                • I just find it funny that I, as the one who has “serious issues” with women, is intimate with a woman

                  Someone doth protest too much.

                • Origami Isopod, Commisar [sic] of Ideology for the Bolsheviks

                  Note that he doesn’t reply to Aimai, either because she’s refuting him well enough or because, as a woman, she’s not worth arguing with in his opinion.

              • NonyNony

                So you’ve been happily married for 20 years but you hate your mother-in-law?

                I … kind of find that difficult to believe.

                • Glen Allen

                  Whoever said I hated her? I just wouldn’t want her to be President of the United States.

                • NonyNony

                  Um, you did:

                  Her voice alone is going to remind male voters of their mother-in-law nagging them to take out the trash.

                  This is not the “go to” example of a man who loves his mother in law.

                  Of course since you’re starting from a “all men hate women and won’t vote for them because reasons” POV you may not REALIZE the implications of that statement. But that’s what it says – that you have a bossy mother in law who nags you, and that Hillary Clinton, who you hate, reminds you of her.

                • Hogan

                  Glen doesn’t actually pay attention to what he says, so it’s really not fair for you to do that.

                • Manny Kant

                  I’m still puzzled by why Glen Allen’s mother-in-law is nagging him to take out the trash. Surely the sexist stereotype is of one’s wife nagging one to take out the trash.

                • Has he been intimate with more than one woman?

              • ChrisTS

                Oooh, ooh: a competition I can win! I have been married for 29 years!

                Of course, I am a mere female who rather likes her mother-in-law. So, I guess I don’t know anything.

                But, I’ve answered you. My turn to question: how long have you been living in your mother-in-law’s basement?

                • You made me count. My parents are a year and a half from their 60th anniversary, which will follow Mrs__B’s and my 10th by four months. And I’m pretty sure my grandmother doesn’t nag my father to take out the trash.

                • ChrisTS

                  Big Bear: It really is not that hard to stay married if you are 2 decent, normal human beings. ‘Glenn’s’ pride in the length of his marriage is curious.

                • It really is not that hard to stay married if you are 2 decent, normal human beings.

                  Yeah, but that doesn’t explain my parents.

                • Hogan

                  THEY’RE NO QUITTERS.

                • I final have an airtight proof that I am not Bristol Palin.

              • JustinV

                Married to a woman for 3, living together for 6. Don’t have the issues you do. My parents have been married for almost 40 years, dad his mother in law. Well adjusted people don’t hate their spouses. My wife doesn’t nag me, she asks me to help out with something or reminds me to do something because we f$#@ing live in the same house and help each other out. I do the same thing. It’s called being a grown up wit responsibilities rather than a sullen child who cannot deal with the real world. I know this because I am not a misogynist who is unwittingly and unconsciously angry at my own mother for marrying my father, whom I hate (that is, if I am remembering college psych correctly).

                • ChrisTS

                  Yeah, the weirdest part of this guy’s mentality is not – well, not just – that he hates women and his mother-in-law, but that he resents doing anything around the home.

                  Also, he says he has been happily married for 20 years. I think we should check in with her.

                • Jordan

                  My parents have been married for almost 40 years, dad his mother in law.

                  !!! :)

              • Random

                I hate to break this to you, but your wife has had several affairs.

              • Glen Allen’s mythic wife

                I am married, but not happily.

                • Glenn Allen’s Real Wife

                  I live in Canada.

                • Glen Allen’s Fleshlight

                  Thanks a LOT.

              • Tristan

                Was it the same one each year?

        • Captain Haddock

          Aaaaaaand scene.

          • Archie Bunker would have run upstairs and flushed the toilet.

            • Glen, how long have you resented your mother-in-law?

              Why do you resent anyone asking you to take out the trash?

              A mature male takes out the trash when asked, no matter who does the asking.

              • Hogan

                Hell, I don’t even wait to be asked; I take it out when it’s full or the night before trash pickup.

                Of course I can do that because I throw away my own trash, rather than having my wife or mother-in-law do it. That may be the key here.

                • ChrisTS

                  I collect the trash. My husband hauls it down to the street because he worries about my back.

                  Of course, he also likes HRC.

                • Cheap Wino

                  It occurs to me that Glen being happily married for 20 years doesn’t necessarily mean his wife is happily married.

                • It occurs to me that Glen being happily married for 20 years doesn’t necessarily mean his wife is happily married.

                  One might even posit a negative correlation.

                • ChrisTS

                  Ah. Cheap Wino beat me to it.

                • Origami Isopod, Commisar [sic] of Ideology for the Bolsheviks

                  Yeah, but who cares if his wife is happy or not, right? If she’s ever tried to bring things up with him, he just tunes it out. Women talking? Blah blah blah, amirite?

                  I don’t know if she’ll ever ask for a divorce or not, but if she does he’ll be one of those guys who “never saw it coming.”

        • pillsy

          So, basically, underneath the sneering misogyny, the best you can do is point out that Hillary Clinton is a woman in her sixties? I really hope whatever anal parasite runs the Great GOP Hope’s campaign in 2016 uses your playbook. If they do, the electoral map is going to be so blue people will think Clinton was just elected President of Smurfville.

          • Mickey Kaus

            “so blue…smurfville”

            is just so, so, perfect.

            • Anonymous

              Whatever, goatfucker

        • Random

          She necessarily has to win, if her opponent is a conservative.

  • allium

    “All power to the Schweitzertial dampeners, Mister Data!”

  • Gwen

    I like him because he’s so weird. I’m def one of the effeminate Southern males he’s talking about, although I’m not sure he intended that.

    Remember, this is a guy who vetoed an abortion bill with a f*ing branding iron. Which makes him approximately as bad ass as Wendy Davis, in my view.

    • STH

      I dunno . . . both are political stunts, but Davis’s stunt involved a fair amount of mental and physical endurance as well. Standing and speaking ON TOPIC for 11 hours without eating, drinking, or pee breaks? More than I could do, that’s for sure.

      • Aimai

        Yeah–taking a branding iron to a piece of paper is the very definition of faux populist grandstanding. Wendy Davis not only fought for hours on her feet, in brutal conditions–but she had to endure hate and death threats before and after.

        • postmodulator

          On the death threats, I’d be shocked if vetoing an abortion bill in Montana didn’t get you some. The gesturing is a fair point.

          • Mickey Kaus

            I doubt if a lot of death threats are issued to men, just like a lot of rape threats aren’t issued to men, while they seem to be nearly a matter of course for women in the public eye.

            • Warren Terra

              nymfail?

              • Aimai

                Oopsy!

            • postmodulator

              Do you mean just as regards men acting on issues which are perceived as gendered? (Abortion or whatever.) Because lots of men in the public eye get death threats. Jay Rockefeller said he got them. That colonel who criticized the NRA got them.

              • postmodulator

                Oh, and abortion doctors. Some of whom actually get murdered. My impression is that death threats from crazy fuckheads are equal-opportunity.

                • I agree that men get death threats but i really believe–perhaps erroneously but based on internet experience, that death and rape threats for women are more commonplace. Its been my experience that men will routinely go for threats of violence towards women (and gay men) where they are more cautious and instrumental when threatening other powerful men or men in office. So much of this violence is both rhetorical and sexualized. Men seem to feel most free to issue these threats against people who step out of their social sphere or who challenge social norms and hierarchies. Id bet that obsma comes in for more death threats qua black man than he does qua presudent. And i. doubt very much that schweizer gets half the abuse that wendy davis gets because tbere is no sexual/sadistic component to be enjoyed by the person issuing the threat.

                • I want to also add that although the two famous murders if abortiin dictors were of male doctors there are many women, and women doctors, involved with abortion rights at every level and they also routinely get death threats. Here in MA we had a shooting At an abortion clinic and i believe everyone killed and wounded was female. Im not arguing that men like schweitzer dont get *any* death threats–but im betting he doesnt get half as many as someone like “abortion barbie”.

                • Origami Isopod, Commisar [sic] of Ideology for the Bolsheviks

                  that death and rape threats for women are more commonplace.

                  Especially women of color. Basically, the more axes of oppression you’re on, the more harshly you’re attacked for unwillingness to defer to your “betters.”

                • Tristan

                  I’d be inclined to think death threats are always more likely when the threatened is of a lower social status than the would-be threatener. I have absolutely no numbers I can cite for this, but given the social order-policing nature of (at least politically motivated) death threats I’d be surprised at and skeptical of any evidence that men get them at the same rate as women on gender issues, or that whites get them at the same rate as non-whites on race issues, etc. Threats by their nature are about keeping people in line, and a man/white person/whatever may be ‘wrong’ on an issue of gender/race/whatever without representing an inherent challenge to the hierarchy embedded in such issues.

    • Aimai

      All that his comment needed was for him to be holding his pinky extended and adding “he’s a little light in the loafers and a bit la-dee-dah, if you know what I mean.”

      • Gwen

        +2

  • gorillagogo

    The next asshole Democrat that makes these types of disparaging comments will really be capturing the Schweitzgeist.

  • We don’t need Schweitzermentum, we need a Gravelanche!!

    • President Howard (Two-Term) Dean

      Or Testerosterone.

  • Ns

    During the primaries there will be a left alternative to Clinton. But who?

    • postmodulator

      I hope a left alternative actually does push her to the left. I worry that if she felt inevitable in 2008 she’ll feel twice as inevitable next time around.

      • Random

        There’s this old wive’s tail that you can somehow push a Democrat to the left by running to their left.

        Nobody has ever actually seen it work in the real world, nor is there really much logical reason to think that it would. But the myth for some reason still persists…..

        • push-pull

          John Edwards white-papered like mad in 2007 and did not appear to move Obama or Clinton policy wise despite being #3 and the two of them locked in a battle royale.
          Maybe his smarm tainted the policy.

          Screamin’ Dean might have made Kerry look more centrist than he was, but the senator was always more liberal than the governor.

          Jerry Brown’s magic turtleneck and ability to sleep on other people’s couches may have change Clinton’s rhetoric slightly at the end of that primary.

          Jackson’s second place does not appeared to have moved Dukakis though he did get to give a speech on the second night of the convention at 11 pm.

          Certainly hasn’t happened in my political life time.

          • Manny Kant

            I thought Edwards did move Obama and Clinton left on health care.

            • push-pull

              Major health insurance reform was the Democratic consensus going into the 2008 cycle.

              It is certainly possible absent Edwards, Clinton and Obama release weaker plans. His plan was good and he deserves credit for it. However, with Edwards and his 27 page plan in the race, Obama released a plan that did not cover everyone, had a weak public option and did not include a mandate. Obama then campaigned on how not having a mandate made his plan superior and the fiction that his plan was universal and won.

    • cleter

      All the other Democrats running, except for Schweitzer.

  • ASV

    Schweitzer is running for the same thing Rick Perry is, and it’s not the presidency — it’s future media dollars.

    • Warren Terra

      Also, corporate board positions, and maybe a sinecure at one.

  • need a nym

    I think I recall Schweitzer years back nationally promoting coal liquefaction, a process that is awful for the environment.

    • Baby Needs-A-Nym

      Yep. It seemed to mostly be a stunt to promote Montana’s burgeoning coal sector.

  • mike in dc

    A pure, progressive political policy agenda is David Sirota’s #4 priority, right after 1)David Sirota, 2)David Sirota, and 3)David Sirota, of course.

    • Warren Terra

      To be fair, he places the importance of a pure, progressive political policy agenda before 5) David Sirota.

  • Man from 2003

    Is he right, or is he right?

  • r

    When he calls Southern men fairies, I wonder who’s more offended–the Southern men, or the fairies?

    I imagine it’s pretty close.

It is main inner container footer text