Montana Governor Schweitzer Criticizes Obama On Health Care, Energy Bill Vote
Montana governor Brian Schweitzer is sometimes mentioned as a possible running-mate for Barack Obama. And thus far he's neutral in the presidential race.
But in an interview with ABC News, he was surprisingly critical of the Illinois Senator's policies...
While Schweitzer has not proposed his own universal health care plan in Montana, he believes Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is right to have endorsed a mandate on the national level.By not requiring individuals to purchase insurance, Schweitzer believes Obama's plan to forbid insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions will lead to healthy people opting out and sick people opting in.
"You've got to get everyone in the system," said Schweitzer.
He is dismayed that Obama cast a vote for President Bush's 2005 energy bill while regularly criticizing the president on the issue.
"Sounds like Senate-speak," said Schweitzer.
Montana votes on June 3rd, the last day of voting. Schweitzer's criticism won't affect his choice of whom to back, since he said he'll endorse whoever wins his state. But it's unusual to hear such blunt talk from a neutral party -- one who has such a high profile in a state that's soon to vote -- about the likely nominee.
Yes, but it makes you happy, Greg. So it gets posted.
*sigh*
April 10, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The new prescription drug program is not MANDATORY but it seems to be working and saving money for all.
April 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
ack. Wouldn't use that as a good example...
April 10, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's fair criticism, and two issues I have with Obama as well.
(although I do think Obama's "voluntary" health care plan has a better chance of passing)
April 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, don't let the Clinton spin stick on on this particular issue.
It is a stretch to call it "Dick Cheney's energy bill," a hot-button reference for many Democrats. Although the House bill was framed according to the vice president's energy priorities, by the time it passed the Senate many of those measures, such as drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge, had been stripped away. Its broad new benefits for nuclear power and the coal industry mirrored Cheney's priorities, however.
Although opposed by environmentalists, many Democrats viewed the final bill as the best compromise that could be achieved in a GOP-controlled Congress. Clinton at the time said she opposed the bill because it did not do enough to cut reliance on foreign oil and address global warming.
Clinton's claim that the bill "was loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies" also overstates the case. While it included $2.6 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas industries, that was offset by nearly $3 billion in oil taxes, mostly in an extension of the oil spill liability tax. The bill's $14.3 billion in energy tax breaks mostly went for renewable energy and efficiency programs and the nuclear and coal industries, both of which are prominent in Obama's home state of Illinois.
>>
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jyrMRzzhtkEXXcGY9cNmKYSRpVigD8VBG6UO0
April 10, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I disagree. I think that SCMadden has it right here. Sen Clinton is to be commended for voting against that energy bill. Sure, it is not as bad as Cheney wanted, but it still was not good enough for democrats to support. Democrats should be congratulated for showing the spine to stand up to the administration's bullying, so Sen Clinton deserves some credit here. Obviously (given that I am precinct captain for Obama) I do not want to make out as if Sen Obama's vote was so awful as to disqualify him from the office of president, but it was a mistake and I think that democrats are right to criticize him for it (even if I think that they should still support him in the end because he is, on balance, the better candidate).
April 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be precise, Sen. Clinton voted FOR the Senate bill and against the combined bill.
April 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to commenter AudaciousOne, the following excerpt by Obama on this:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/new_obama_ad_in_pennsylvania_a.php#comment-2712072
April 10, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Governor Schweitzer's comments aren't news?
April 10, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, his comments are news and indicative of where he stands regarding his superdelegate status. I do think his comments are wrong regarding the mandates issue. I know that Congress would NEVER pass a bill with mandates, and that Clinton's bill would be DOA basically.
Plus, the Massachussetts model show that mandates really haven't helped people afford health insurance.
April 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently because they are critical of Obama, they are not news.
April 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure that you do not need me to tell you this, Mr Sargent, but please do not take your critics too seriously. They speak for themselves, to be sure, but not for everyone. I am as far gone for Obama as anyone, but I appreciate these news items even when they are not rah-rah pro-Obama. I am obliged to you for posting them.
April 10, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: No, his comments are not news. Try looking at McCain's confused mind instead. By the way, are you wearing your HRC button to Elton's concert?
April 10, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see...
Just what is the chance that Congress will create legislation to FORCE people to have insurance?
0%.
Conservative Democrats in red states and ALL REPUBLICANS will filibuster any kind of bill w/mandates.
These idiots who are all for mandates don't realize it doesn't have a chance in HELL in passing in the House and ESPECIALLY the Senate.
The USA is not MAssachusetts.
Regarding the 2005 Energy Bill, the idiot MT Gov. doesn't realize that although not perfect, actually has NET TAX RAISES for oil companies. It has the largest investment in renewals.
Better to take half a loaf then none! The 2005 Energy Bill was actually a miracle given the Republican President and Congress to have so many renewables in it.
Also, let's not oversee that after the bill passage, Obama initiated an amendment to get rid of ALL tax breaks to oil companies.
April 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The energy bill is bad policy because it (1) fails to decrease our dependence on foreign oil for its lack of mandatory improvements in automobile fuel efficiency ("CAFE" standards); (2) provides billions of dollars in unjustified subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries; and (3) repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an essential consumer protection that ensures that electric utilities exist to serve the people, not the profit interests of large corporations."
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/
April 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the best we could have gotten at the time. It's called compromise. That's why we need a DEM president and a larger senate majority.
Obama will deliver that. I'm not so sure about Clinton.
April 10, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing this out about mandates. For some reason, discussion of which plan is more passable has been completely absent, as if either candidate can magically implement their plan should they be elected. "Hillarycare II," for all its appeal, has ZERO chance of passing. It would go down in flames just like Hillarycare I. Obama's plan actually has a chance of becoming law.
April 10, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who's heard Schweitzer talk for more than a soundbite knows he's about 50% BS, and that he'll spin any yarn to further his self-interest.
WJC probably offered him an agency slot.
Jon Tester and Max Baucus carry a lot more weight in MT, but I haven't heard a peep out of either.
April 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He is dismayed that Obama cast a vote for President Bush's 2005 energy bill while regularly criticizing the president on the issue.
"Sounds like Senate-speak," said Schweitzer."
Yup.
April 10, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to actually research what the energy bill was all about, and then you'd see that A) it raised taxes for oil companies, contrary to Hillary's lies, and B) it included a ton of subsidies for alternative energy, which is why Obama supported it.
But hey, if you'd rather follow Hillary's talking points and distort truth, go right ahead, who am I to stop you?
April 10, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Gov. Schweitzer expresses some concerns that people have about Sen. Obama. This is a good thing. Obama, like every other politician, needs honest appraisals and criticisms from respected public officials more than he needs cheerleaders.
April 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The interview is weird. HE also criticizes Obama on coal and on long-term bases in Iraq - even though Clinton has the same in her program !
Wassup with that ?
April 10, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the interviewer may have been asking him specifically about Obama, and whether or not he would endorse Obama.
April 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think Clinton and Schweitzer both favor permanent bases. Obama does not.
April 10, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Greg - on the one hand you say it is and on the other that it doesn't really make any difference.
So I'm a tad confused - sorry.
I guess it is news. Or not -hell if I know! :)
April 10, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow I'm not surprised this story popped up on here.
The problem would be that Schweitzer doesn't understand that the energy bill had a net tax INCREASE for oil companies, and boosted subsidies for clean energy. Apparently the Gov. has been following Hillary's talking points a little too closely.
And mandates don't work my friend, nor would her plan be universal even if they did. Nor could a plan with mandates ever pass through Congress.
Face it, if we really want to fix the health care system, you need truly universal coverage, which NEITHER candidate has a plan for, only Kucinich did. That's the honest truth.
And I've never understood why people float Schweitzer's name as VP or potential presidential candidate in the future...the guy is a far less qualified version of Bill Richardson, he wouldn't stand a chance and he wouldn't even be on my long list of potential Veeps. And that isn't because of these stupid comments, I've thought it for a long time.
April 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can forget about Schweitzer getting the VP slot.
He said that neither Hillary or Obama have any chance of carrying Montana in November. That means that he would be absolutely useless on the ticket. If he does not believe they can carry his own state, then why would he swing any other states to them. This guy is a gun nut and talks like a loose cannon. The less the Democratic nominee has to do with the this guy the better off they will be. You never know what will come out of his mouth.
April 10, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama has a shot at carrying MT in November--MT has a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators, along with a Democratic majority in the state Senate if I remember correctly. It also went for Bill Clinton in the 90s. Montana is definitely a purple state, turning bluer and bluer, I wouldn't count them out.
But they only have a handful of electoral votes, so it is still insignificant. Also, you are right, he would never get the VP slot, he really doesn't offer much of anything if you ask me.
April 10, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can forget about Schweitzer getting the VP slot.
He said that neither Hillary or Obama have any chance of carrying Montana in November. That means that he would be absolutely useless on the ticket. If he does not believe they can carry his own state, then why would he swing any other states to them. This guy is a gun nut and talks like a loose cannon. The less the Democratic nominee has to do with the this guy the better off they will be. You never know what will come out of his mouth.
April 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are on-the-record comments about one of the presidential candidates from a governor and uncommitted superdelegate in a state with an upcoming primary. This is very newsworthy. I haven't always been entirely comfortable with Greg's analyses in some posts, but to jump on him for reporting this doesn't make much sense.
On Schweitzer's comments:
Even though it's true that the Clinton plan's mandate doesn't have a prayer in Congress and Obama probably deserves some credit for putting forward something a least a little bit more realistic, these are the policies the candidates are running on and at this point it's fair to debate them on their own merits. Realism, though, is a merit, too.
Schweitzer's full of BS on the energy bill vote, though. He's oversimplifying the bill and Obama's position to arrive at the same talking point Clinton has used.
April 10, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I thought Obama was the candidate of ideas and strength and prinicples and truthiness. Are you saying he is cyincal and playing the odds that he can't get the Bill that we want passed? Tell me that its NOT TRUE...
April 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, folks, but I guess I'm going to bite on this one:
Louisville, how do you come up with that? I suggested I believe one of Obama's concerns in crafting his health-care plan might have been a desire to put forward something a little closer to what could actually be realized in practice. Wouldn't that be more honest than pitching something you know to be further from reality?
Ironically maybe, I think Obama and others might have learned something about the value of incremental progress by noting the problems with Clinton's well-intentioned health-care push in the '90s.
Anyway, more generally, these absolutes you try to turn back around on Obama are caricatures you like to create because you're too mentally lazy to grapple with principled positions that exist in anything other than a political vacuum.
I like the foundational stability of Obama's principles, but what attracts me to his candidacy more is his seeming ability to carry those principles into the field without coughing them up. He can throw a straight-arm and still protect the ball. And as much as I admire his role in the conversation, this is something someone like Kucinich can't pull off.
And your oversimplifications are why your criticisms of Obama (as opposed to some legitimate ones that certainly exist) are followed by such a resounding thud most of the time. You're on the sidelines having a pretend showdown with the cardboard cut-out of Obama you patched together out of found pieces of misinformation. Meanwhile, the real contest is going on in three full dimensions out on the field.
April 10, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is interesting that he is coming forward spouting Clinton talking points about health care mandates, which haven't been an issue for quite a while, at the same time another "neutral" person, Elizabeth Edwards keeps commenting on them publicly over and over again. I somehow doubt it is a coincidence. Especially considering Hillary just recently attacked Obama using the same distortions about the energy bill vote.
April 10, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really hard for me to support Obama's vote for the energy bill.
The subsidies to oil and gas companies who are making record profits are bad enough.
It's nice to see some Obama supporters spin this, and there are some valid points about having to compromise, etc. But, I tried to spin this yesterday, and felt dirty doing it.
I'm not going automatically praise everything Obama does, or criticize everything Hillary does. Our candidates are human, we are not going to agree with them 100%.
I want to be honest with myself, and criticize Obama when I disagree with him.
It doesn't do anything to change my support for him, or my belief he will be a better President than Hillary or McCain.
April 10, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The weird thing is though he criticizes Obama's vote on the energy bill and then also criticizes him for not favoring...wait for it....liquid coal!!!
It's like criticizing someone for voting for the Iraq War because you think they should have voted for war with Syria instead.
April 10, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
Yeah, "clean coal" is an oxymoron.
April 10, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that Montana is the Saudi Arabia of Coal,....it might not be clean right now but with the right technologies(ie; sequestration), it could be cleaner and less harmful to global warming. Montana has the potential of meeting America's energy needs for the next hundred years by supplying coal so Schweitzer has plenty of incentive to push clean coal technologies. It won't be for awhile until these technologies will be demonstrated, but as the world transitions to renewables,....transitioning to cleaner existing power sources is just as necessary. Go Democrats!
April 10, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not you'll see this I don't know, but it's very nice to see you come around on this energy bill. Though I support Hillary, there are definitely votes I find objectionable. Most notably, the Iraq war vote.
April 10, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But it's unusual to hear such blunt talk from a neutral party."
It's not unusual if you know Brian Schweitzer. The man has opinions and is happy to share them - bluntly. It kind of makes me think of what I heard Elizabeth Edwards say last night - that being neutral gives her more freedom to fight for her policies regardless of the candidate. Energy issus are near and dear to Schweitzer's heart. If he can bring people around to his way of thinking, he will.
Anyway, if he is going to support the state's outcome, then it's in the bag for Obama. : ))
April 10, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's ok with her voting for war in Iraq, however.
April 10, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think he is.
I think the article is just written in a way to convey his criticism of Obama, written by the same guy who has been pushing the Wright story with all his might for ABC.
Considering Clinton isn't even mentioned in the article, I'd certainly like to see a transcript of the interview to see if the article is an accurate reflection of the governor's comments.
April 10, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely news. Though in terms of balance it might have been interesting to note that Schweitzer also critcized Obama from the right, suggesting he should agree to keep long term bases in Iraq and should not require higher carbon emission standards for coal-to-liquid fuels.
Basically, the guy is all over the map. Probably not surprising for a successful Democrat in Montana.
April 10, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
It's interesting that you highlighted Schweitzer's criticisms of Obama from the left, but not his swipes from the right (criticizing Obama for not favoring liquid coal and not favoring permanent military bases in Iraq).
Also, someone should question if they even asked Schweitzer about Clinton, as she isn't even mentioned in the article. Add to that the fact that the article is written by the same guy who has been pushing hard on the Wright story for ABC and you have to wonder about the fairness of the piece and whether it is an accurate representation of the interview with Gov. Schweitzer. A transcript would certainly be helpful.
April 10, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet silence on her votes for flag burning, threats to Iran, and of course Iraq.
As far as healthcare, Hillary is singularly responsible for us not having ANY healthcare for the last 16 years.
I think the orthodoxy regarding "all or nothing" among Democrats is the reason we have ZILCH after 50 years of trying. Why not give Obama a chance, since his looks more likely to pass.
At least when we have some sort of national health care, we can add people into it, or add mandates if it is failing.
But Hillary's approach, to swing for the bleachers each time, and walk away with a strike out, is truly stupid.
April 10, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't know that he was silent on those things. The article was written to criticize Obama...who knows what he said about Clinton.
April 10, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do know that he said that neither Hillary or Obama can carry his state in November. That should end all discussion about putting this guy on the ticket. He would be just another loose cannon, or a Zell Miller in training. Since he does not think he can deliver Montana to the Democratic nominee, then to hell with him.
April 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, he is right in his criticism of Obama's health care plan.
Second, it is not at all unusual to hear such blunt talk from someone who is supposed to be neutral. Just look at Pelosi. She's "neutral", but that doesn't stop her from siding with Obama again and again at critical moments when it hurts Clinton (whom she personally despises). It is actually quite common for the supposedly neutral to use the aura of neutrality to enhance the impact of their completely partisan statements.
April 10, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
We do know that he said that neither Hillary or Obama can carry his state in November. That should end all discussion about putting this guy on the ticket. He would be just another loose cannon, or a Zell Miller in training. Since he does not think he can deliver Montana to the Democratic nominee, then to hell with him.
April 10, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Obama's healthcare plan has problems, so I'm totally fine anyone criticising it, but I also know that the mandates in Hillary's plan, suck. Because they are not mandating health care, they are mandating buying health insurance and all that does is subsidize an already broken industry that doesn't help many people now, with denying services or tests, and charging too much for co-pays and deductibles. And I don't think her plan to subsidize for people, will be nearly enough. Not if it's anything like the Massachusetts plan, which it seems to copy.
I could do without fellow Dems putting out the message that Hillary's plan is universal health care, or closer to it than Obama's. It's not. Neither plan are the single payer plan that would achieve that and is the only way to provide health care over health insurance. So in that, this MT Governor, like the wonderful Elizabeth Edwards, both need to get educated and try and educate others about real universal health care? Or I would rather not hear them weigh in at all. We don't need any more disinformation about Hillary's mandates or universal health care. We have the Rethugs doing that for us, enough.
April 10, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Gov. is right. Not having mandates will bankrupt the system. If your not going to Nationalized care then you have to give Insurance Companies a reason why they have to stay involved. Not having Mandates is right out the Repbulican playbook. I would expect Bitchy McConnell to come out with something similar.
April 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama realizes that any health care plan that has the potential to be adopted will be accepted in several stages. A mandated plan that is too aggressive and stomps big Pharma and the big Health Care Chains will never get through the Congress intact. He is a realist. There will only be so much money for any plan and there will be compromises. Arguing of the details at this point is pointless and Obama knows this. Hillary's plan as laid out will meet the same feet as her first attempt.
April 10, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - Hillary's health care plan is better.
Obama omits 15M of us before he begins Kumbaya sessions with the Insurance Industry.
However, Obama is NOT a friend to those in need of health care since he bowed to the Repubs and the Insurance Industry when he used their 1994 "Harry and Louise" ads against Hillary.
Regardless of the Dem nominee or eventual President, the Repubs will use Obama's anti-Hillary health care ads to rail against health care for all.
Perhaps they'll just recyle his ads recyled from their "Harry and Louise" ads.
April 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're supporting Hillary because it'll take a smart Bitch to fix the Economy!
Kumbaya won't do.
April 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only mandate that matters is a mandate for universal health CARE. A mandate for insurance is something else altogether and no one should be confused by the shell game.
April 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink