Washington Post on Schweitzer

[illflem]

"In politics, it doesn't matter what the facts are," Schweitzer said. "It matters what the perceptions are. It is the way you frame it."
In Montana, he continued, the best way to frame an issue is to get horses and guns into the picture. Schweitzer arrived at this epiphany, he said, after getting beaten in 2000 in a race against Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.).

That was Schweitzer's first go at elective politics and, in the wound-licking that followed, he found that men in Montana were 11 percent less likely to vote for him than were women. For his gubernatorial campaign, Schweitzer hired focus groups to find out why.

He learned that a significant percentage of Montana men are mule-headed, unwilling to change their minds on issues, even when presented with information showing that their views are not supported by facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2005090401095.html

[Wetzelbill]

1. that's a pretty good article...

It sounded like he was being a bit of a dick when talking about John Kerry. I doubt he meant it to come off like that, though. He's just not an arrogant ass like that. One thing I noticed about Schweitzer is his willingness to speak bluntly can be taken wrong. He can say things in a certain way that can even rub some Dems wrong. But, when you speak in the manner that he does, you don't want to ever pull that back, so he's good to go as far as I'm concerned. :)