You're governor of what state?
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer was on Colbert Report last night.
What?? This guy actually runs the State of Montana? Apparently he missed the enormous uproar back in late 1998 when the Montana Supreme Court declared the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit unconstitutionally vague in State v. Stanko, 1998 MT 321, 292 Mont. 192, 974 P.2d 1132. Guess he also missed the part where Montana was without a speed limit until the Legislature finally passed the 75 mph during the 1999 session. No one threatened our highway funds. Congress took off the leash a few years prior--that's why there's no 55 mph limit anymore. Our governor? Oblivious.
You know, it's one thing to announce the new Russell skull quarter without so much as a mention of Charlie Russell. It might even be excusable to some extent to not be aware of how Montana came to have a speed limit. It's outright inexcusable to make up some story about the feds forcing us to pass one--especially in a state that until 2005 refused to pass an open container law and lost millions in federal highway funds simply out of spite for the federal government trying to strong arm it.
I guarantee you Bob Brown wouldn't have made that mistake.
Colbert: "Now you are the governor of Montana. No speed limits, right?"
Schweitzer: "No--"
Colbert: "Pedal to the metal, Sammy Hagar country."
Schweitzer: "We finally got speed limits."
Colbert: "What?? (Crowd moans) Wait, that's finding out there is no Christmas--"
Schweitzer: "We gave in."
Colbert: "You gave in to what, you pulled it?"
Schweitzer: "We pulled it."
Colbert: "You gave in to the feds?"
Schweitzer: "Like a cheap suit, yep. They said we were gonna lose our highway funds unless we implemented a speed limit, so..."
What?? This guy actually runs the State of Montana? Apparently he missed the enormous uproar back in late 1998 when the Montana Supreme Court declared the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit unconstitutionally vague in State v. Stanko, 1998 MT 321, 292 Mont. 192, 974 P.2d 1132. Guess he also missed the part where Montana was without a speed limit until the Legislature finally passed the 75 mph during the 1999 session. No one threatened our highway funds. Congress took off the leash a few years prior--that's why there's no 55 mph limit anymore. Our governor? Oblivious.
You know, it's one thing to announce the new Russell skull quarter without so much as a mention of Charlie Russell. It might even be excusable to some extent to not be aware of how Montana came to have a speed limit. It's outright inexcusable to make up some story about the feds forcing us to pass one--especially in a state that until 2005 refused to pass an open container law and lost millions in federal highway funds simply out of spite for the federal government trying to strong arm it.
I guarantee you Bob Brown wouldn't have made that mistake.
posted by Your Friendly Neighborhood Clark Bar at 10/13/2006 09:22:00 AM
Subscribe to Tommy Lawyer
4 Comments:
Bob Brown also would have bored the state and nation into a stupor.
Hey, he may not be the most exciting guy, but he just might be the brightest ever to run for governor in Montana. Shoot, Martz wouldn't have made that mistake either. And if she had, it not only would have been mentioned in all of the Lee Bureau papers, it would have been a top headline.
Surely, A-Rose, you can admit that it's a bit embarrassing to have a a governor say something like that on national TV. Yes?
I would be more concerned if he had mis-pronounced "Helena", or, ya know, said that some women deserve to be beaten, or, made TV ads making fun of his lack of exercise regemin. Who gives a rip about the speed limit?
mis-pronounced "Helena"
Not sure what that's supposed to refer to.
said that some women deserve to be beaten
Which wasn't what was said, although the actual statement was something that shouldn't be said by a governor. Of course, that actually got media attention. When your boy Schweitzer advocates drinking and driving thinking he sounds hip or whatever, that gets none. When he waxes on constantly about supporting Montana's economy and then purchases all of his vehicles in Idaho, no one in your party will even admit that there's a divergence between his ideals and his actions.
And now, he not only demonstrates a fundamental lack of basic political awareness on national television, but makes up some story about the federal government forcing us into passing a specific speed limit.
See, here's the difference. I can admit that I cringed at some of the things Martz would say in front of a mike. I openly discuss my vitriol for Conrad Burns all of the time. What bothers me is that your party will defend anything that Brian Schweitzer does or says, assuming that it even gets reported. It demonstrates to the rest of us that the Democratic party values the personalities within it more than the ideals it supposedly upholds. Not only is that wrong, but it exposes those ideals as pretense for what matters more to you and your party: bashing and beating Republicans. Your party, sir, is the Montana State of politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home