Brian Schweitzer

[RJ]

Hope I spelled his name right.

Saw a piece on 60 minutes about him tonight. More reasonable and well rounded as a potential candidate than I gave him credit for. If he campaigns as passionate for his potential candidacy and presidential campaign as he does for his coal-into-diesel fuel program(which has been around for decades), I think he could win. Not saying it will happen in 2008, but a Democratic loss then will open the door in 2012.

I realize he's a longshot to even compete in the nomination process, but what are his chances? If he were nominated, how well could he do in a presidential race?

[Alcon]

You did spell his name right, and he's a favourite of members of both parties.  He talks like a populist, except he doesn't do it by dumbing himself down.  He's remarkably open and funny.

However, he's also new, and from Montana.  Both of these work against him.

[Jake]

He's your typical liberal and that will become apparent if he runs for President.

[Alcon]

He's your typical liberal and that will become apparent if he runs for President.

What exactly is your evidence for this?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He's your typical liberal and that will become apparent if he runs for President.

A liberal elected statewide in Motana? All the more reason to run him.

[RJ]

He's your typical liberal and that will become apparent if he runs for President.

He's anti gun control and has established a rapport with rural Montana.

[Jake]

What exactly is your evidence for this?

His economic policies are exactly what liberals are proposing, more benefits, more money, less reform to go along with it. His position on abortion is pro-choice, he opposes school vouchers, and has created a commission calling for ways to increase diversity in his government. Supporting gun ownership may be enough in Montana, but this guy's a liberal and a national race will expose that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's funny how Jake is trying to put a negative spin about a liberal winning in Montana.

[Jake]

Jfraud, whether he can win in Montana is besides the point. RJ pointed out why that's happening, namely his rural roots and his support for gun ownership. Those issues win it in Montana. Those issues certainly don't win it nationally, and as such, his chances are no better than your average liberal.

[RJ]

Liberal or not, he's one of the few politicians I've ever heard of who has a clue on how to at least stop the bleeding on one of our country's most serious issues: Energy sources.

His economic policies are exactly what liberals are proposing, more benefits, more money, less reform to go along with it.

What makes you think "liberals" are proposing these economic policies?

We have a true red conservative in the White House today and the budget is a horrible mess with no reform in sight.  When we had a "liberal" in the White House, the budget was managed effectively and there was some sense of fiscal responsibility. I think I'd take "liberal" economic policies any day if it means a little fiscal restraint and debt management.

[Jake]

Nice try with comparing Clinton and Bush. Clinton had the nice benefit of a roaring economy, something Bush clearly hasn't had at all.

Your post didn't contradict anything I said at all BTW. It may have been an apt comparison if I had said liberals stand for less fiscal restraint, except I didn't.

[RJ]

Clinton had the nice benefit of a roaring economy, something Bush clearly hasn't had at all.

Why do you suppose that was? Perhaps because the budget was balanced?

I was only comparing one aspect of "liberal" and god-only-knows-what economic policies.

[minionofmidas]

I like Schweitzer a lot. Guess that proves Jake right.

[they don't love you like i love you]

A liberal got 48% of the vote. A liberal who can get elected in Montana should certainly be able to top that by 2-3% at least.

[Jake]

Clinton had the nice benefit of a roaring economy, something Bush clearly hasn't had at all.

Why do you suppose that was? Perhaps because the budget was balanced?

I was only comparing one aspect of "liberal" and god-only-knows-what economic policies.

Do you understand how a budget gets balanced? There were certainly no great cuts in spending, merely more revenue coming in because of the economy. I see you've fallen victim to the idea that balancing a budget makes the economy grow, instead of the other way around.

[Jake]

Doesn't balancing the budget curb inflation? What about domestic spending being cut while corporate handouts are at an all time high? Who's economy does that help? What about the fact that the current president has never vetoed a spending bill? How's our spending today compared with that of, say, 8-10 years ago? You brought up the idea that spending wasn't cut under Clinton. What has Bush 43 done with spending compared to him?

There you go bringing up the President again when he is not relevant to the discussion. My statement: Clinton relied on a roaring economy to provide the revenue that balanced the budget, rather than cutting spending. Your response: Bush hasn't cut spending either. Please, refute the point without strawmanning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually am not proposing anything buddy, re-read posts I've made in this thread. You'll clearly see that I'm not proposing anything, merely stating the fact that the only surpluses we've had recently have come at the time of the greatest economic growth in recent history and without major cuts in spending. I've never stated my beliefs on a balanced budget. Not once.

[RJ]

I see you've fallen victim to the idea that balancing a budget makes the economy grow, instead of the other way around.

[/quote]

This sounds like a proposal to me. The economy balances the budget, but the budget itself has no bearing on the economy. Not so sure I buy that. What caused the economy to thrive under Clinton? Why is it sagging under Bush? If the economy is not bringing in more revenue now, why did Bush cut taxes and increase the Pentagon's budget, contributing mightily to the budget deficits we see now? If balancing the budget had no bearing on the economy, what did?

His economic policies are exactly what liberals are proposing, more benefits, more money, less reform to go along with it.

This sounds like another proposal: taking bad elements of budget management and associating it with one group of people. "Liberals." What do you mean by more money and less reform? What do "Liberals" have to do with it?

[Gustaf]

RJ, are you sure you know what the word "proposal" means? It doesn't really sound like it when you put it like that...and I think the boom under Clinton to an extent might have been helped by Reagan's reforms of the economy, but was mostly due to factors out-side of political control, somethuing I think is true of most changes in the economy.

The budget does affect interest rates and has a negative long-term impact. It tends to bog down state-finances if left unchecked. Jake is correct however, that the economy affects the budget a lot, lot more than the other way around. 

[RJ]

Jake is correct however, that the economy affects the budget a lot, lot more than the other way around. 

We've seen record deficits in the last few years. Does that mean our economy today is the worst its ever been? Under Jimmy Carter, we didn't see soaring deficits. Was the economy in good shape when he was president?

I'll admit I took something Jake said out of context:

I see you've fallen victim to the idea that balancing a budget makes the economy grow, instead of the other way around.

It sounded like he said the opposite of a balanced budget means economic growth, refering to an unbalanced budget. I went to edit my earlier post and deleted it on accident.

[Gustaf]

Jake is correct however, that the economy affects the budget a lot, lot more than the other way around. 

We've seen record deficits in the last few years. Does that mean our economy today is the worst its ever been? Under Jimmy Carter, we didn't see soaring deficits. Was the economy in good shape when he was president?

I'll admit I took something Jake said out of context:

I see you've fallen victim to the idea that balancing a budget makes the economy grow, instead of the other way around.

It sounded like he said the opposite of a balanced budget means economic growth, refering to an unbalanced budget. I went to edit my earlier post and deleted it on accident.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If the economy goes badly tax revenue is likely to go down. But an unbalanced budget will tend to aid the economy short-term, certainly not create economic disaster.