May 23, 2011
— Ace
Pawlenty is a phony. I dont believe a word he says. He is exactly the kind of guy who would say a bunch of bold stuff and then once elected, back off it all and do nothing. Be warned. The guy isnt a conservative, no matter what he says....cap and trade? No serious conservative thinker would ever give a seconds thought to that scam and we know Pawlenty backed it at one point. Dont like him....dont trust him....his words wont change that.
So your theory is that T-Paw is making the difficult, vote-losing, support-losing, caucus-losing statement up front, but he's lying, he actually intends to keep the ethanol gravy train rolling, but instead of saying that (which could win him Iowa), he actually writes off a state and gives up support from that state...
...so that he can then, later, when he owes nothing to Iowa farmers (because they voted against him), give them everything they wanted from him in the first place?
This passes as a sound theory now?
Yes, two people wrote this. At least two I saw.
If it had just been one, I would have skipped it.
Two.
Two people figure that Pawlenty is probably planning on bribing Iowans to vote for him, except later, after they have voted against him already and his bribe is therefore pointless.
I kinda get the feeling some people aren't really analyzing this rationally and with an open mind.
Posted by: Ace at
12:10 PM
| Comments (203)
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: sexypig at May 23, 2011 12:12 PM (UmEOs)
Posted by: Soona at May 23, 2011 12:14 PM (2sOhR)
What makes you say that?
Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at May 23, 2011 12:14 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: Honey Badger at May 23, 2011 12:14 PM (GvYeG)
I would also like to add that Bin Laden is still alive.
Damn straight! He landed in a black helicopter in my back yard not 10 minutes ago!
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 12:15 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Honey Badger at May 23, 2011 12:17 PM (GvYeG)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 12:17 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 23, 2011 12:17 PM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Soona at May 23, 2011 12:18 PM (2sOhR)
...so that he can then, later, when he owes nothing to Iowa farmers (because they voted against him), give them everything they wanted from him in the first place?
I do find that argument silly. However, I do find it very plausible that if he is elected President the Ethanol subsidies will be something he is will to compromise on or drop altogether in order to get something else. If or when that happens, the benefits or damage that can cause will likely be up to people to decide on and whether he's actually getting something from it.
Posted by: buzzion at May 23, 2011 12:18 PM (oVQFe)
Let's see which way is the wind blowing...??
[checks out Pawlenty...] Okay, that's how it's blowing today.
Posted by: chuck in st paul at May 23, 2011 12:18 PM (EhYdw)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 23, 2011 12:19 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: alexthedude at May 23, 2011 12:19 PM (EQNrw)
Posted by: MJH at May 23, 2011 12:19 PM (kBLec)
As for the ethanol stuff I think most people will give him some credit for his stance. I don't much because his stance is somewhat week in that it is really a "we'll kick the can down the road and get rd of it some time".
Posted by: Vic at May 23, 2011 12:19 PM (M9Ie6)
Obviously you did not read the bill. Do not make the mistake of believing that a bill's title reflects what it actually does.
Posted by: Vic at May 23, 2011 12:21 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Iowa Farmer at May 23, 2011 12:21 PM (jkSbV)
T Paw is my candidate until someone better gets in the race.
I kind of like the Johnson guy from New Mexico, but he has no chance in hell.
Posted by: Ben at May 23, 2011 12:21 PM (wuv1c)
Posted by: nickless at May 23, 2011 12:21 PM (MMC8r)
I don't much because his stance is somewhat week in that it is really a "we'll kick the can down the road and get rd of it some time".
So, Vic, you're saying T-Paw has the political instincts of Newt Gingrich.
Just kidding. I figure it's the season for political suicide so we just just all point and laugh.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 12:21 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: catmman at May 23, 2011 12:21 PM (DTzwU)
Sounds about perfect to me.
There are only two possible reasons for Pawlenty to come out against ethanol subsidies (and they aren't mutually exclusive):
a. He actually thinks they're bad policy, and/or
b. He wants to excite the Conservative base (useful early in the election process. . .he needs to start raising cash). .
But thinking this is some sort of pander to the general public is just nutso. As mentioned, the Iowa primary is important and coming out against cash-for-corn is one of the must surefire ways to lose it.
Posted by: looking closely at May 23, 2011 12:22 PM (PwGfd)
The last Pawlenty thread has comments from a person who says that Pawlenty cannot be elected because his name sounds weird, like dog food.
Yes, this is one of the people yesterday who argued that concerns over Sarah Palin's electability were completely misplaced.
Posted by: Paper at May 23, 2011 12:22 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: SuperMag at May 23, 2011 12:22 PM (Da1UY)
The point is not that he is going to end ethanol subsidies; the point is that he brought up a topic that is sure to alienate many Iowans. Why do it, especially if he is truly a fraud?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 23, 2011 12:22 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Honey Badger at May 23, 2011 12:23 PM (GvYeG)
The last Pawlenty thread has comments from a person who says that Pawlenty cannot be elected because his name sounds weird, like dog food.
Oh, I guess I'm OK with thinking Sarah can't be elected because of her shrill, nasal voice.
Glad to see I've got that cleared for use now.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 12:23 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 23, 2011 12:23 PM (IXLvN)
Posted by: Sarah Palin in 2008 at May 23, 2011 12:24 PM (FYCiJ)
Remember that Iowa, NH, and SC are all split delegate States now.
Posted by: Vic at May 23, 2011 12:24 PM (M9Ie6)
Bulls@#t.
Its a carbon tax scheme disguised with "free market" clothing.
Posted by: looking closely at May 23, 2011 12:24 PM (PwGfd)
"I'm for anyone who is not Barack Obama."
Anyone, or any thing! If the Republican candidate is an emptybottle of Rolling Rock Beer I will be at the polls when they open to vote for it.
Posted by: Craig at May 23, 2011 12:24 PM (08KIw)
Posted by: alexthedude at May 23, 2011 12:25 PM (EQNrw)
The last Pawlenty thread has comments from a person who says that Pawlenty cannot be elected because his name sounds weird, like dog food.
Yes, this is one of the people yesterday who argued that concerns over Sarah Palin's electability were completely misplaced.
This is in the same league as making the case that McCain is simply another flawed candidate like Reagan since both supported amnesty!
Posted by: LAI at May 23, 2011 12:25 PM (R4ub4)
>>>The last Pawlenty thread has comments from a person who says that Pawlenty cannot be elected because his name sounds weird, like dog food.
>>>Yes, this is one of the people yesterday who argued that concerns over Sarah Palin's electability were completely misplaced.
Why do you expect a rational response to a position that these people were never reasoned into in the first place?
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 23, 2011 12:25 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: Will Folks at May 23, 2011 12:25 PM (UciSl)
Posted by: catmman at May 23, 2011 12:25 PM (DTzwU)
Posted by: Honey Badger at May 23, 2011 04:14 PM (GvYeG)
He's in favor of letting folks like you do all the work, and then he just takes it. "Thanks, stupid!"
Posted by: wooga at May 23, 2011 12:26 PM (2p0e3)
"I'm for anyone who is not Barack Obama."
Anyone, or any thing! If the Republican candidate is an empty bottle of Rolling Rock Beer I will be at the polls when they open to vote for it.
Thank you. There is no world where I will under any circumstances vote for Obama. Ever. End of story.
Posted by: shibumi at May 23, 2011 12:26 PM (OKZrE)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 23, 2011 12:26 PM (hIWe1)
Posted by: sexypig at May 23, 2011 12:27 PM (UmEOs)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 23, 2011 04:22 PM (LH6ir)
I don't understand the tie to the AGW scam?
Posted by: Vic at May 23, 2011 12:27 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Honey Badger at May 23, 2011 12:27 PM (GvYeG)
I like Palin myself, and the name argument is pretty f'n silly. I actually think your point about her voice is more relevant.
Well since we're parsing names...whoever thought we'd elect a guy who sounds like the capital of a small, corrupt African nation?
My sarcastic point is that if we (the editorial "we") are all concerned about something surface, then the Founding Fathers are now spinning in their graves like tops.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 12:27 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Olliander at May 23, 2011 12:28 PM (6uiF7)
Posted by: SuperMag at May 23, 2011 04:22 PM
True. The guy is boned.
Posted by: Arackbay Usseinhay at May 23, 2011 12:28 PM (IN2A4)
Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 12:28 PM (GIB2y)
Couldn't agree with you more.
That clown is unelectable because of his weird name.
Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at May 23, 2011 12:28 PM (PwGfd)
Posted by: sexypig at May 23, 2011 12:29 PM (UmEOs)
Posted by: Jean Crowden...not a Palin fan at May 23, 2011 04:28 PM (GIB2y)
Why don't you just change your silly little tag to "Not a Republican"
Fuck off troll.
Posted by: buzzion at May 23, 2011 12:30 PM (oVQFe)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 23, 2011 12:30 PM (mHQ7T)
Yeah...because the Iowa farm vote is such a huge block of support.
Count me among those who do not trust Pawlenty. As for lack af analysis...my wife was born and raised in Minnesota and she says she'd rather have Jessie Ventura running for president because "at least you know where he stands and it doesn't change from week to week."
Posted by: Sgt York at May 23, 2011 12:30 PM (uLilQ)
Parenting bizarreness:
Parents keep child's gender secret
http://tinyurl.com/3q6cc56
And yes, this is as strange as you might imagine. However, it does not take place in California.
Posted by: shibumi at May 23, 2011 12:31 PM (OKZrE)
Posted by: Bannor at May 23, 2011 12:32 PM (6AXh/)
More specifically, Ken Lay invented it. Tabibbi or however you spell that at Rolling Stone implied in one of his articles that Goldman Sachs had Enron taken down so they could steal the idea for themselves.
Posted by: Ian S. at May 23, 2011 12:33 PM (tqwMN)
"...the respondents were 46% Democrats, 29% Republicans and 4% Independents and 20% people who donÂ’t know what they are."
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 23, 2011 12:33 PM (CLYmB)
Obama will win 48 states.
12% real unemployment
Gas at $4 a gallon
Inflation ramping up.
Yes, he has quite a story to tell. Quite a story.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 12:33 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Honey Badger at May 23, 2011 04:31 PM (GvYeG)
I thought you didn't give a shit? What's next, you going to have a coming out party?
Posted by: robtr at May 23, 2011 12:33 PM (MtwBb)
Posted by: One of those dogs in the bacon treat commercials at May 23, 2011 12:33 PM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Rocks at May 23, 2011 12:34 PM (Q1lie)
He still says very plainly that he supports the idea of subsidizing ethanol. If we haven't even managed to defund things which we don't think should get funding in the first place, why believe it will ever happen for something a President and half the caucus thinks deserves funding?
It's a great way to permeate Telling the Truth buzz, though!
Posted by: John S at May 23, 2011 12:35 PM (hQ657)
And you have the intellect of roadkill, mixed with the charm of oozing chancres. Plus you're so braindead that you don't even know how many states there are- there are 58, you stupid shit. Just ask the stuttering prick you fap off to every night.
Posted by: Chariots of Toast at May 23, 2011 12:35 PM (XyjRQ)
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 23, 2011 12:35 PM (ujg0T)
I thought you didn't give a shit? What's next, you going to have a coming out party?
Posted by: robtr at May 23, 2011 04:33 PM (MtwBb)
It's my sacred honor to inform you that I had sex with Honey Badger after we flipped through old issues of OUT magazine.
Posted by: Will Folks at May 23, 2011 12:35 PM (UciSl)
I think Tpaw is an acceptable candidate on our side. I will support him over Obama for sure. He doesn't deserve this kind of emotional attack from our side. But you seem to take it to the extreme to make your point (which I think is cheap). There is a case to be made that the mood in the Rep primary now is urgent fiscal conservatism. So Tpaw is playing politics, as Drew pointed out, to position himself to win the Rep primary. There is nothing wrong with this. It is simply the right thing to do and smart politics. Some anti-Tpaw people simply claimed that they didn't believe him. This is the kind of partisan politics we want to avoid in the primary. But it is not a big deal in my opinion! Other candidates endure this kind of attack all the times. We need someone to defend the principles of the Ryan 's plan. Ideally Ryan should run and defend it since he put the party in the position to win or lose with his plan. Since he is not running, we need someone to defend it on the national stage to protect other candidates. I hope Tpaw step up to do that. Otherwise, we need another one to make the case to provide cover for him!
Posted by: LAI at May 23, 2011 12:36 PM (R4ub4)
OT from headline sidebar - Supremes say 5-4 that 46,000 inmates must be released in terminally-boned Cali ? Any morons know where I can buy 12 gauge shells cheap ?
Posted by: societyis2blame (stringing razor wire around the yard...) at May 23, 2011 12:36 PM (srV3y)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 23, 2011 12:36 PM (1fanL)
Posted by: Dick Cheney at May 23, 2011 12:37 PM (UciSl)
I'm with you 100%. Any "R" running against Obama has my vote.
But the issue isn't winning over persons like myself or typical AOSHq readers.
Like always the issue is going to be swinging the swing states.
Iowa, for example, is one of the States that went for Bush (over Kerry) in 2004, but for Obama in 2008.
Personally, I think this meme about "no good Republican candidates" is a bunch of BS. Frankly at this stage of the game last election cycle, the leading Democrat candidate was Hillary Clinton. In which universe were her, Obama, and Edwards a bunch of strong candidates?
Obama won the nomination largely because he was the best non-Clinton candidate. He won the election (rightly or wrong) because he was the Democrat candidate after 8 years of Republican Bush, and because he wasn't vetted by a fawning press.
Pawlenty is a stronger candidate now than any of them were then, and I think he's only going to get better with time.
Posted by: looking closely at May 23, 2011 12:37 PM (PwGfd)
oh and 4. contrary to popular beliefs, fostered by the MSM, the American people are fighting back in a way. They are saving, they are paying down their debt and they aren't buying, literally buying only what they need. They are the voracious consumers that they were depicted as in the past. As you can see, short of forcing people to spend, the keynesians are screwed as their little system is based on lots of buying and credit and conspicuous consumption. Americans are quietly tanking their own economy cause they've had enough of DC and wall street and the little piece they can control, they are controlling.
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 12:39 PM (k1rwm)
And they said Pawlenty doesn't inspire passion in people. Pfffft!
Posted by: Rocks at May 23, 2011 12:40 PM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Judy the E-Mailer at May 23, 2011 12:40 PM (6uiF7)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 23, 2011 12:40 PM (J8NCi)
Posted by: Jean Crowden...LGF Buttboy at May 23, 2011 12:41 PM (c45xH)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 23, 2011 12:41 PM (IXLvN)
#44
Ugh. I'm still hoping for the possibility that some people see that no candidate is perfect and that even a slight amount of pragmatism can go a long way in helping to sort through the field.
Posted by: Paper at May 23, 2011 12:41 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: Olliander at May 23, 2011 12:42 PM (6uiF7)
OT from headline sidebar - Supremes say 5-4 that 46,000 inmates must be released in terminally-boned Cali ? Any morons know where I can buy 12 gauge shells cheap ?
Posted by: societyis2blame (stringing razor wire around the yard...) at May 23, 2011 04:36 PM (srV3y)
Well, the inmates probably will have some.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 12:42 PM (z1N6a)
Yes it has a conservative pedigree. Essentially the exact same idea was implemented under GHW Bush to control sulfur dioxide emissions, which cause acid rain. (C. Boyden Gray was the architect of that.) The idea is that if you want to reduce the amount of something that is bad, the government can either rely on direct coercion and mandates to force people to do it, or they can rely on this market-based mechanism which causes people to reduce their emissions on their own. To the extent that we conservatives would rather have people coming to their own conclusions about what to do, rather than government coercing them to do it, that is why it is called a 'conservative' solution. Cap-and-trade is still a form of government coercion, it is just not as obnoxious as the typical government regulation route.
But it all rests on the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are 'bad' in the context of global warming. That is a hypothesis that is not yet been established, to say the least.
BUT, back before the East Anglia email leak, the balance of evidence SEEMED to favor the pro-warmist side. SO, if you accept the hypothesis that man-made CO2 emissions are as bad to the environment as, say, SO2 emissions in causing acid rain, then it is completely understandable why a conservative-minded guy like Pawlenty would choose a cap-and-trade type scheme. (In addition to the political benefits that would accrue to him for governing in a liberal state.)
Oh and let's not forget that the hard-left enviro-whackos oppose cap-and-trade because they don't think it goes far enough, because cap-and-trade won't force people to stop burning gasoline like what the watermelon greenies want to do to us.
So yeah it is bad that Pawlenty didn't look more carefully into the AGW scam before declaring his support for cap-and-trade but in my mind at least this is only a small knock against him. He went along with a reasonable idea to solve what was presumed to be a problem at the time.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 23, 2011 12:43 PM (7mSYS)
I know, what do I know, I'm a NYer and my vote doesn't count. So I shouldn't even bother right?
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 12:44 PM (k1rwm)
Building a successful Presidential campaign requires a pretty big infrastructure.
Its already getting close to the 11th hour to do it, and anyone on the fence who hasn't formed an "exploratory committee" to run already is getting close to too late to do so.
The point is, the field is probably pretty well defined already.
In terms of "flip flop", I honestly don't think "cap and trade" is really on the forefront of the electorates mind right now, and to the extent that it is, I don't think being against it is the wrong side. Again, the point is that I don't see this particular issue as hurting Pawlenty.
Posted by: looking closely at May 23, 2011 12:45 PM (6Q9g2)
whining? word choice can be important. how about "noting" or "talking about"? As for me I took notice and raise him a few notches in my book.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 23, 2011 12:45 PM (IXLvN)
well, Iowa is going to be a swing state in play this year...
Posted by: Bob Dole! at May 23, 2011 12:46 PM (7mSYS)
Oh and incidentally, Pawlenty didn't let that guy in your link out of jail. He had already served out the entirety of his sentence. Pawlenty's pardon was retroactive.
You really are a worthless scrunt.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 23, 2011 12:47 PM (hIWe1)
Bob Dole thanks you for your support!
Posted by: Bob Dole! at May 23, 2011 04:45 PM (7mSYS)
You see, with the democrats last time there were a lot of "I'm for anyone who isn't hillary" types and look who we got.
that's why people are so afraid to jump on the "anyone who isn't BO" bandwagon, why they want a serious candidate with the personality of trump and christie and the knowledge of Bolton and Cain and the political experience of newt and the money raising capability of mittens and the steely face book postings of saracuda and the absolute balls of bachman and brewere and fiorina.
So where is that guy or girl?
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 12:49 PM (k1rwm)
Hard to argue with that.
Its *especially* hard to argue with a position against an additional fuel tax with $4.00 a gallon gas right now.
Which side of "cap and trade" is Obama on? He's for it.
Posted by: looking closely at May 23, 2011 12:49 PM (6Q9g2)
#105
It is getting very late. Even Thompson formed an exploratory committee June 1st in 2007. He also was polling very well nationally at that point until around October.
The only candidate who has the name recognition to pull something like that off this cycle is probably Sarah Palin.
Also, Romney raising about $30- $40 million this quarter will probably kill off anyone still on the fence when the numbers come out in August.
Posted by: Paper at May 23, 2011 12:49 PM (VoSja)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 23, 2011 12:50 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Soona at May 23, 2011 12:51 PM (2sOhR)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 23, 2011 04:47 PM (hIWe1)
And Jeff B. is so much better than you, that he can easily identify a worthless scrunt, even without looking in the mirror!
Posted by: Jeff B.'s Catamite at May 23, 2011 12:51 PM (c45xH)
Amen. Pawlenty is the new Palin, or sort of. Politics is becoming jejune and kinda frenzied in a weird way.
All this time under Obama is making a lotta people cra--zeeeee
Posted by: SantaRosaStan, a Leading Indicator at May 23, 2011 12:52 PM (UqKQV)
Posted by: Dan at May 23, 2011 12:52 PM (mXBxH)
I mean how do you counter act the idea that you are considered stupid? How do you prove you are smart? Cause that is the one thing I"m always told about palin, "oh she's so stupid"...everyone gets quiet and no one says anything after that. And, I've noticed them starting to say that with Michelle Bachman too, it worked once so they figure they can do it again. Oddly to the women. the lib/dem/left NOW hypocrites are quiet cause it suits their agenda.
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 12:54 PM (k1rwm)
Personally, I think this meme about "no good Republican candidates" is a bunch of BS. Frankly at this stage of the game last election cycle, the leading Democrat candidate was Hillary Clinton. In which universe were her, Obama, and Edwards a bunch of strong candidates?
To me this is looking more and more like the 1992. Conventional media wisdom making the incumbent seem unbeatable. The economy as the #1 issue. High profile candidates like Mario Cuomo and Algore declining to run. A murderer's row (sarc) of Jerry Brown, Bill Clinton, Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas, Tom Harkin as candidates.
Hopefully one of these guys will come out of nowhere as Clinton did.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at May 23, 2011 12:54 PM (JxMoP)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 23, 2011 12:54 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 23, 2011 12:54 PM (IXLvN)
But at least we can see the difference between McCain and Reagan. We are not talking about perfection here. This purity talk is a cheap ploy to attack the candidate you don't like, and then fall back on the perfection fallacy to support the candidate you like!
Posted by: LAI at May 23, 2011 12:55 PM (R4ub4)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at May 23, 2011 12:55 PM (J8NCi)
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 12:58 PM (k1rwm)
We can apply the same strategy against them. Simply claimed that the Obama is an arrogant fool and claimed that his supporters are so stupid. We can play with parody. Obama is so smart that he can make his supporters to suspend logic/facts/reason. And we have plenty of material to work with. For example, some slogans like winning 58 states, going back to 1967 budgets etc... As Rush pointed out, the question is not whether we can but whether we have the guts to do it. They will do it to our candidates. Instead of giving in to them, ridiculing them back when they bring up Palin. Compare her to Obama and ridicule them etc...
Posted by: LAI at May 23, 2011 01:00 PM (R4ub4)
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 23, 2011 01:00 PM (tUIG0)
Sarah, you betcha. I know this puts two of us at right angles to Ace (ty, Tangonine, that was good) but there you go. If she does not run, I will for the first time do a write-in. I refuse to NOT vote, that's just asinine. That said, the arguments here are really informative, and I mean that with no snark or sarcasm.
Posted by: irongrampa at May 23, 2011 01:02 PM (ud5dN)
#123
What would give you the impression that I think that McCain is as conservative as Ronald Reagan?
I made the point yesterday that every candidate has done at least one thing that would put them on someone's 'never' list. That includes Ronald Reagan. I'm sorry that pointing out a fault of Reagan's to make a point means I'm some sort of McCain loving RINO.
What you don't seem to understand is that the most conservative, electable candidate is different in 2008 than it was in 1980. There is no reasonable argument to say otherwise. You may not like that (I sure as hell don't), but it doesn't change that reality.
Posted by: Paper at May 23, 2011 01:02 PM (VoSja)
I wish Pawlenty and the others would focus on the big issues of the budget rather than these small issues. We could eliminate all the ethanol "subsidies" and our deficit would not budge.
I agree they should be gone, but lets do the big stuff please. Small ball will not cut it anymore.
I see- so what you're saying is that we tell seniors that we're going to have to reduce their Medicare benefits, but all those other guys getting free shit- they get to keep theirs.
You're not going to convince people that we need to make big cuts when you're not willing to make the little ones first.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 01:02 PM (SY2Kh)
Sarah, you betcha. I know this puts two of us at right angles to Ace (ty, Tangonine, that was good) but there you go. If she does not run, I will for the first time do a write-in. I refuse to NOT vote, that's just asinine. That said, the arguments here are really informative, and I mean that with no snark or sarcasm.
She still won't have sex with you, so give it up already.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 01:03 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Passably Affable at May 23, 2011 01:04 PM (2Ukpz)
There is a simple, bulletproof observation one can make from all of this.
You are all RINOs out to make TruePatriots look too extreme and crazy.
However, even those TruePatriots look suspicious. I heard one enjoys buttsex and another painted their car red.
Buttsex and Red both have the letter R...
Just like a RINO.
Posted by: CAC- who enjoys long walks on the beach, tits, and burning straw. at May 23, 2011 01:05 PM (O3+7J)
I mean how do you counter act the idea that you are considered stupid? How do you prove you are smart?
You get out there and demonstrate it. You go toe-to-toe with people who ask tough questions, and you give smart answers. She hasn't.
And no, ghostwritten Facebook postings and platitudes on Hannity don't cut it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 01:08 PM (SY2Kh)
That 's fine. It is a no brainer to know that we live in the imperfect world. People are not looking for perfection. Reagan has an unashamed record of conservatism in words and deeds. And we all know that politics is the art of the possible since we have opposing ideas at any given time. So Reagan made a wrong compromise here and there to advance other important issues (economic growth and national defense) on the conservative agenda. That 's why Reagan is a conservative icon and McCain (or Tpaw) is not. That 's the point.
Posted by: LAI at May 23, 2011 01:09 PM (R4ub4)
Pawlenty: Everything I say to you is a lie. I'm lying....
Norman(idiot) - If everything you say is a lie, then you must be lying, but if you are lying, then you must be telling the truth, but you can't be telling the truth because everything you say is a lie (head explodes).
Posted by: Captain Pawlenty at May 23, 2011 01:11 PM (lRqIF)
Posted by: marine43 at May 23, 2011 01:12 PM (mOkwb)
Guess what, so does the individual mandate. The Heritage Foundation, the very same Heritage Foundation that Rush Limbaugh humps all the time, introduced this concept in 1989 and not only hasn't backed off it they were one of the architects of Romney's plan.
And tht was a semi-legitimate argument... right up until Obamacare passed.
Yes, Romneycare was at the state level, but the two are similar enough that there's no good way to spin it as a conservative advancement while advocating a repeal of Obamacare.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 01:14 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Damn Dirty RINO at May 23, 2011 01:14 PM (hSwL0)
I really feel there is a huge rift in the republican party, the rove/bush contingency and other contingencies like the folks that like christie and cain. I think they are holding funding over people's heads to get them to step in line and I think Rove is a real trouble maker. He's not pro huntsman, he's pro jev bush and they are going to role jeb out at the last minute.
Also, no matter what anyone says, Rove's imprint was all over BO's campaign....and when I said that someone here responded "money is green".....
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 01:14 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 23, 2011 01:17 PM (r4wIV)
He appears wholly genuine, is brilliant, has a wicked sense of humor and loves this country with a fiery red passion. Plus he doesn't behave like the quintessential politician (looking at you mittens and t paw)...he behaves like a regular guy. And he makes you think that your opinion, what you think, matters to him. He doesn't make you think you are too stupid to even have an opinion like BO and mittens and huntsman do.
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 01:18 PM (k1rwm)
Pawlenty is a big government "progressive" Republican who dove into the deep end and wallowed in the most fucked up liberal causes.... and is a fucking pussy
...and who gets trashed here??
Posted by: beedubya at May 23, 2011 01:19 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 23, 2011 01:20 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 05:19 PM (k1rwm)
Might have for some.
Posted by: Boned GM Stock Owner at May 23, 2011 01:21 PM (EL+OC)
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 23, 2011 01:21 PM (9k7/I)
Posted by: beedubya at May 23, 2011 05:19 PM (AnTyA)
Have you no mercy, beedubya? What did I ever do to you?
Posted by: Jeff B's Keyboard at May 23, 2011 01:24 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Damn Dirty RINO at May 23, 2011 01:24 PM (hSwL0)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 23, 2011 01:27 PM (TMB3S)
#147
I can't speak for everyone who dislikes Palin as the nominee, but I don't support her because she has some of the most consistent and negative political approval numbers of a major candidate for President in decades.
Why can't it be possible to recognize that she is a conservative but absolutely the wrong choice for this election?
Posted by: Paper at May 23, 2011 01:28 PM (VoSja)
Just for shits and giggles, I'd LOVE to watch those of you who take such pleasure in denigrating Palin in a face to face chat. I suspect you'd get your asses handed to you so nicely you wouldn't even realize it 'til much later. And further, I doubt you'd have the nerve to actually confront her with some of the asinine bullshit that has been posted here.
Posted by: irongrampa at May 23, 2011 01:31 PM (ud5dN)
Let's see.....Palin has common sense, conservative stances on the issues....and is not afraid to take it to the left..
Pawlenty is a big government "progressive" Republican who dove into the deep end and wallowed in the most fucked up liberal causes.... and is a fucking pussy
...and who gets trashed here??
OK...is Sarah running, or not? No point in discussing her negatives if she is not actually running. See Daniels, Huckabee, Thune, et. al.
Posted by: Curmudgeon at May 23, 2011 01:31 PM (ujg0T)
Why can't it be possible to recognize that she is a conservative but absolutely the wrong choice for this election?
Posted by: Paper at May 23, 2011 05:28 PM (VoSja)
If so, the primaries will show it. Therefore I don't see the point of shrieking it for years prior to those primaries.
Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2011 01:31 PM (z1N6a)
Back when the left and the MFing MBM were blaming the Tea Party (for which I proudly wave my flag high) and Palin for the Gifforfds shooting...T-Paw did an interview where he was asked about the infamous Palin "target map" (which she was only tangentially related to) he took his cue and said it had no place in political discourse and that she should apologize for it
...ironically enough, T-Paw was promoting his book called "Courage to Stand"
Just sit down, you fucking, pussy
Posted by: beedubya at May 23, 2011 01:31 PM (AnTyA)
Didn't the first TARP succeed?
Define "succeed".
In the end, the jury should still be in that fucking room waiting the for the Fed's easy money policy to take its course.
Posted by: wtfci at May 23, 2011 01:32 PM (qITbz)
The hits keep coming. Good.
Posted by: Barbarian at May 23, 2011 01:33 PM (EL+OC)
I couldn't agree more with what the commentor said. T-Paw is a clear RINO....doesn't mean he is a bad person, just means if that's who you want for President....don't whine when you end up with someone who will be more Progressive than Conservative.
If T-Paw is my choice I will vote for him, but I will definitely vote him out in the next election....He will only be a fill in, not a long term solutions Leader.
"Tim Pawlenty....Our cardboard, Tofu, Rice Cake Fill-In Leader!"
Posted by: Jimi at May 23, 2011 01:38 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: Jake Blues at May 23, 2011 01:39 PM (a2CS5)
Paultards
Obamabots
(fill in the blank)
You get the picture.
Btw- for the trolls who love to shriek "nominate x and Obama will win 40+ states."
It is electorally impossible. The states in the last 2 decades have drifted rather far apart in ideology for a Republican to lose more than 38 states.
A Republican will always- I repeate this in case some want to ignore the three dimensional space-time box we call reality- always carry:
Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, South Dakota, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina in all Presidential races.
A Democrat will always- again, repeating for the hard of thinking- always carry
Hawaii, Maryland, DC, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Delaware, California, and Illinois.
There are some states that in some odd remote chance could flip to the R or the D, but NO Republican will carry more than 41 states, and NO Democrat will carry more than 39 states. It is not politically possible, save for their opponent raping a gang of toddlers on live TV while repeatedly screaming HAIL STAN (because they are so intolerable they can't even say Satan's name right).
So if you are going to troll or speak in landslide scenarios, try to keep one toe on the earth.
Posted by: CAC at May 23, 2011 01:43 PM (O3+7J)
I don't think she will run...and this has nothing to do with it anyway.. I am fucking pissed as hell at the shit our side gives her for pretty much the same reason I am for those like Gingrich and that little twat Scott Brown slamming Ryan and his plans.
Palin is a fucking force, whether you like her or not, especially because she is one of the very few to stand up for conservative principles and has the fucking balls to take it to the left. Trashing her only marginalizes her...and helps to do the same to the ideas she espouses.
It's an Alinsky tactic. Rule #12: RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.
...and there are too many on our side joining in....and this only galvanizes the left.
From what I read, not many here disagree with her substantively on the issues.
Oooooh...but Tina Fey said she said she could see Russia from her house...and she has a nasally voice
Posted by: beedubya at May 23, 2011 01:44 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Jeff at May 23, 2011 01:44 PM (A3tpD)
I see- so what you're saying is that we tell seniors that we're going to have to reduce their Medicare benefits, but all those other guys getting free shit- they get to keep theirs.
You're not going to convince people that we need to make big cuts when you're not willing to make the little ones first.
Great Scott! - a Hollowpoint post I agree with 100%.
Posted by: mrp at May 23, 2011 01:45 PM (HjPtV)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 23, 2011 04:22 PM (LH6ir)
Because he's just in it to run interference for Romney. We will see a series of RINO's enter and leave, and each time the true conservatives and Tea Partiers will cheer and pat themselves on the back. Meanwhile, conservative votes will be split amongst too many good candidates and RINO-Romney will win the nomination. It's all been planned out.
Posted by: Bill at May 23, 2011 01:46 PM (JmgKH)
Posted by: bigred, Cheesehead at May 23, 2011 01:50 PM (weBtw)
Did you get an erection while writing that?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at May 23, 2011 01:52 PM (LH6ir)
Posted by: Bill at May 23, 2011 05:46 PM (JmgKH)
Ready for the "secret plans?".
Behind Closed Door Hats Rino Hats Pawlenty Hats Pusslenty Hats Purity Hats Secret Meetings Hats Elders of Zions Who Control Bachmanns Brain Hats Cain Equals Rino Cuz The Feds Hats Audit The Fed Hats Hat Hats Machine Hats
Posted by: TinFoilHats4Less.com at May 23, 2011 01:52 PM (O3+7J)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 23, 2011 01:56 PM (mHQ7T)
Just ask Alice Palmer, Blair Hull or Jack Ryan.
Operation Thin the Herd 2012 is right on track -- Trump, Barbour, Daniels, Huckleberrybee, whatever, all gone. Pawlenty's going to hang around but the media will carve him down to size, or, more accurately, keep him looking like a dwarf compared to my teleprompter. That leaves Romney. Please. Be still my beating heart. The one and only Republican candidate who looks worse on health care than I do so he takes that issue off the table for 2012. Gee, thanks.
So keep on eating yourselves. You're only making my re-election a done deal.
Posted by: Obamarod at May 23, 2011 01:57 PM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: polynikes - Romney supporter at May 23, 2011 01:58 PM (T8iAI)
@167
Jeff,
"anyone who think he is a RINO is delusional"
And then we are forced to actually fess up to reality.......
"The era of small government is over.....government has to be more active....more aggressive." - Tim Pawlenty 2006
"It looks like we should have listened to President Jimmy Carter...He called us to action, and we should have listened...Climate Change is real. Human Behavior is partly and may be alot responsible. Those who don't think so are simply not right. We should not spend time on vioces that say it's not real." Tim Pawlenty 2006
Yeah sure Jeff......whatever you say!
Posted by: Jimi at May 23, 2011 01:58 PM (JMsOK)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 23, 2011 01:59 PM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: Dan at May 23, 2011 02:02 PM (mXBxH)
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 02:05 PM (k1rwm)
He appears wholly genuine, ...
gag.cough.gag Look at McCotter's record on union issues. He voted for friggin' card check and auto bailouts!. Thad McCotter and John Conyers are equally sure votes for the UAW.
You want to daydream? Then daydream about Paul Ryan running.
Posted by: Reuther's ghost at May 23, 2011 02:05 PM (Xv7f/)
---
That's not what I recall. Do you have a link?
This is what I found with respect to Pawlenty on Palin's target map (Jan 11, 2011 as reported by CNN:
"It's not a device I would have chosen to do. Everyone has their style and their own choices," Pawlenty told the New York Times when asked about the map. "But I don't want to have anyone infer that there's evidence in this case that it caused or was a contributing factor. We don't know that."
"To draw some broad judgment or condemnation or conclusion based on the acts of a madman, particularly when all the facts aren't even in, is I think premature and unfair," he said. "There's no indication at present that this gentleman did anything that he did because of what Sarah Palin did or didn't do."
Did he follow this statement up with some additional statement in which he said she should apologize?
Posted by: Y-not at May 23, 2011 02:07 PM (pW2o8)
T-Paw did an interview where he was asked about the infamous Palin "target map" (which she was only tangentially related to) he took his cue and said it had no place in political discourse and that she should apologize for it
...ironically enough, T-Paw was promoting his book called "Courage to Stand"
Just sit down, you fucking, pussy
False. He didn't call for her to apologize for it.
He said that "I wouldn't have done it", but also went on to say that there was no reason to believe that her map had anything to do with it.
But yeah, I know- anything less than unqualified praise and worship to St. Sarah (pbuh), patron saint of the unelectable, is tantamount to treason and blasphemy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 02:08 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 02:11 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: polynikes - Romney supporter at May 23, 2011 02:12 PM (T8iAI)
From the beginning I preferred Rand Paul's plan. At least it's a plan and at least it goes far enough to make a difference. I never liked Ryan's plan and I don't like Ryan for president. I don't trust Ryan at all.
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 02:13 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: curious at May 23, 2011 02:15 PM (k1rwm)
Asked about the attempted assassination of Rep. Giffords, Pawlenty predicted it would alter political debate. He differentiated himself from Sarah Palin by saying he never would have used crosshairs on a map as she did to signal GOP campaign targets. But he stressed there "was no evidence" to suggest it motivated the shooting.
Posted by: Vic at May 23, 2011 02:15 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Narco Lepsy at May 23, 2011 02:17 PM (PK/GB)
Anyhoo, he said he's waiting for the debates to see how the candidates shake out. Of the folks who've been mentioned as possible candidates (the broadest universe, including people who say they won't be running) he is most enthusiastic about Paul Ryan. He also likes Chris Christie. He thinks Palin is not prepared to be President. He likes some aspects of Newt (I suspect historical) but thinks he's immoral and untrustworthy. He didn't have much of an opinion about Romney (although he thought Romney had said that Masscare was a mistake, which is not what I've read) and no opinions about Daniels or Pawlenty. He thought Cain looked interesting, but he thought he might not be prepared to be president.
The only one that surprised me was that he was very impressed by Michelle Bachmann.
I confess she does not impress me, but if that's how my dad perceives her, perhaps she would be a viable candidate.
Posted by: Y-not at May 23, 2011 02:17 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: K~Bob at May 23, 2011 02:22 PM (9b6FB)
My aunt, who is about the same age as my dad, voted for Obama last time after being hounded by her kids (my cousins). She lives in central Massachusetts. Widowed. On a fixed (and very modest) income. She's made it clear that she will vote for anyone that the Republicans put up. She just won't tell her kids what she's doing.
Posted by: Y-not at May 23, 2011 02:22 PM (pW2o8)
But yeah, I know- anything less than unqualified
praise and worship to St. Sarah (pbuh), patron saint of the unelectable,
is tantamount to treason and blasphemy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 06:08 PM (SY2Kh)
It has nothing to do with Palin directly, but rather the way that T-Paw can't take a fucking stand. You could sub anyone name for Palin..and he's still a fucking little twat.
Posted by: beedubya at May 23, 2011 02:25 PM (AnTyA)
"random bunch of folks all went for cain, it was a set up, but why?"
For the same as usual reasons:
Race Trumps Gender Trumps Class Trumps Age Trumps Morality. Anybody associated with the media will always put the minority over the commonsense solution. You can't be in the media unless you instinctively think this way. You are weeded out if you do not fit this line of thinking. There is no question that there are some Conservative thinking in MSM, but don't be fooled, most of them are still Progressives, who are merely being paid to pretend as if they are Conservative.
Posted by: Jimi at May 23, 2011 02:28 PM (JMsOK)
No shit T-Paw, you little bitch.
Have The Courage to Stand© up to the MFing MBM and call them on their bullshit. No reason to believe?? That's your comeback, you "progressive republican" little f*g?
It wasn't just the implication that Palin was responsible for the leftist fucking whack-job for the shooting, it was all part of the MFingMBM campaign to smear Tea Partiers as violent racists.
...and all Timmeh could say was..."Well, gee whizzers...*hyuck*...I wouldn't a done it"
what a ball-less little fucking twat
Posted by: beedubya at May 23, 2011 02:36 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: sexypig at May 23, 2011 02:37 PM (UmEOs)
Posted by: Damn Dirty RINO at May 23, 2011 02:41 PM (hSwL0)
False. He didn't call for her to apologize for it.
He said that "I wouldn't have done it", but also went on to say that there was no reason to believe that her map had anything to do with it.
But yeah, I know- anything less than unqualified praise and worship to St. Sarah (pbuh), patron saint of the unelectable, is tantamount to treason and blasphemy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 06:08 PM (SY2Kh)
It's worse than that. They bitch - ENDLESSLY - that Sarah is misrepresented and misinterpreted and smeared and lied about, and then turn around and spread every false rumor possible about any and every other Republican who might pose a threat to her hypothetical candidacy. They're the biggest bunch of hypocrites and crybabies in the political spectrum.
Posted by: Vyceroy at May 23, 2011 02:45 PM (a/dfF)
No shit T-Paw, you little bitch.
Have The Courage to Stand© up to the MFing MBM and call them on their bullshit. No reason to believe?? That's your comeback, you "progressive republican" little f*g?
It wasn't just the implication that Palin was responsible for the leftist fucking whack-job for the shooting, it was all part of the MFingMBM campaign to smear Tea Partiers as violent racists.
You tell 'em!
In fact, he should've told the interviewer that he not only would've released a map with symbols that kinda looked like crosshairs, but he'd have put out wanted posters that read "Wanted: Dead or Alive, but preferably DEAD" with Giffords picture and home address on it.
He didn't imply that she was in part responsible, he said it wasn't his style but there was no reason to blame her for the actions of a deranged individual. Calm down.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 02:46 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Old grizzled gym coach at May 23, 2011 02:46 PM (QBQcg)
Nonsense. Facts don't change just because they go out of fashion.
The individual mandate was a conservative position long before anyone had ever heard of Obama. And it should be.
After Obamacare ws passed, 90% of conservatives who vote in the primaries would disagree, be they right or wrong.
Perception is reality, and you know it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 02:49 PM (SY2Kh)
Take it from a life long Minnesnotta (nose high in the air when you say that) resident. You don't want two-faced Pawlenty for President.
Posted by: IggyRules at May 23, 2011 03:04 PM (WEMRH)
For nearly a decade, the voters in Hennepin County MN had held at bay an attempt by the powers that be to build a new stadium for the Minnestoa Twins at the expense of the public. Minnesota law requires that any community that wishes to raise the local sales tax MUST put the issue before the voters of that community.
On Rush Limbaugh's radio show today, Pawlenty bragged that he built the Twins new stadium without using any state tax revenue to pay for it. What he neglected to say was that Pawlenty and the Minnesota state legislature passed a law specifically exempting the voter referendum on the sales tax hike for Hennepin County.
Yes, Pawlenty didn't use state taxes to pay for the Twins stadium; he used the power of the state to require that only Hennepin county residents pay for the stadium.
Posted by: MSO at May 23, 2011 03:36 PM (KCMKh)
Posted by: FrozenStiff at May 23, 2011 05:14 PM (ulFzq)
But yeah, I know- anything less than unqualified praise and
worship to St. Sarah (pbuh), patron saint of the unelectable, is
tantamount to treason and blasphemy.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 23, 2011 06:08 PM (SY2Kh)
It's worse than that. They bitch - ENDLESSLY - that Sarah is misrepresented and misinterpreted and smeared and lied about, and then turn around and spread every false rumor possible about any and every other Republican who might pose a threat to her hypothetical candidacy. They're the biggest bunch of hypocrites and crybabies in the political spectrum.
You are providing the perfect example of the very hypocrisy you are talking about. Can't make a straight argument without an ad-hominen attack. Why are you bitching endlessly when people pointed out some problems with Tpaw? Now anything unqualified praise and worship of St. Tpaw is tantamount to treason now? Oh yes, Reagan is just another flawed candidate. It it sad if you are not a troll.
Posted by: LAI at May 23, 2011 05:38 PM (gDhR9)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.265 seconds, 331 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








I kinda get the feeling some people aren't really analyzing this rationally and with an open mind.
Because logic isn't taught anymore outside of small Catholic colleges.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 23, 2011 12:11 PM (sbV1u)