Pawlenty flipped faster than Romney flopped

Megyn Kelly just interviewed Tim Pawlenty on Fox News on his change of heart over Mitt Romney. She played clips and read quotes of T-Paw criticizing Romney on "Obamneycare" and nominating liberal judges. Here's what Pawlenty said on Romney's healthcare debacle in MA:

‎"Governor Romney has told me directly, as he has told the country, that his first order of business as president will be to repeal Obamacare including on the very first day in office granting waivers to states to opt out. So I'm absolutely convinced and assured that he will do everything and in fact repeal Obamacare so I'm comfortable with his position on that."

Oh...OK....the Governor told him directly.   That changes everything. Where do I get my Romney yard sign?

On the issue of Romney appointing liberal judges to the bench:

"Mitt has indicated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, people who will apply the law as written as opposed to making it up on the back of a napkin. I trust and believe that will be the case. And as I understand the MA judicial selection system there's some limited options for who he could pick from to fill some of those slots. But his commitment to appointing strict constructionists gives me reassurance that he'll certainly do that as president."

"Mitt has indicated...."   Apparently the magic words for Pawlenty.
Even though Mitt's words don't match his record as a governor. And even though Pawlenty's words today are diametrically opposed to his words two weeks ago.
Finally, it appears that Pawlenty has switched to Establishment Tea. No more of that pure Tea Party brew for him:

"[Romney's] got the most capability, the most knowledge, he's got the most electability. I think he will make the best president - not just for the Republican party, but for the nation. And he can beat Barack Obama. He's the one that can unify the Republican base and he can go into those swing states we're going to need and also get conservative democrats and independents to join the cause as well."

Pass the Dramamine.

CNN GOP Debate

Monday's GOP debate, hosted by CNN, was largely an exercise in frustration and futility.  The format allowed each candidate 30 seconds to answer each question - hardly sufficient to say much more than, "Well, first, I'd like to say..." By the time the candidate would get those words out, moderator John King would start grunting and wouldn't stop until the candidate had concluded the answer.  It was irritating and distracting.  And weird.  King needs more training as a moderator.  I suggest a couple years on the spelling bee circuit before they let him anywhere near a high-profile debate again.  


I was also frustrated by the "11th Commandment" pact the candidates had apparently agreed to prior to the debate.  By that, I mean Reagan's famous 11th Commandment never to speak ill of a fellow Republican.   Aside from the fact that even Reagan didn't follow the Commandment religiously, this was a primary debate.  The idea is for candidates to convince voters to choose them and not their opponents.  While it's great to criticize Obama and his policies, it's also important to debate important issues within the Republican party.  There are important differences between the candidates, both in philosophy and governing history, and those issues need to be addressed and debated.  Ignoring the elephant (pun intended!) in the room just makes it highly likely that the candidate with the most money and the highest name recognition will win the nomination - Mitt Romney.  But by default, rather than on the merit of his ideas, beliefs, and record.    


Here's my assessment (in no particular order) of the candidates' performances on Monday night:


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)  - Rep. Bachmann took the opportunity to announce that she had filed the paperwork to run for president.  Like Sarah Palin, some on the Left have made a sport of turning her into a bizarre caricature. In this debate, she was able to show 3.162 million viewers  (up 400% from CNN's normal audience) that she is warm, smart, determined,  and can play with the big boys.  Her story of five natural children and 23 foster kids shows that her lectures and policies relating to family values are more than cerebral ponderings and book knowledge.  She's walked the walk and has skin in the game.  I think she was a big winner, especially among those who had not heard of her and those who had only heard her taken out of context. 


Gov. Mitt Romney - Governor Romney was a winner in the sense that he didn't lose any ground.  He "looked" presidential and managed to stay above the fray.  The other candidates refused to attack or even engage him on his state-mandated healthcare program in MA and his flip-flop on abortion.  He must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.  I was irritated that he obfuscated on several answers, seeming to remain just vague enough that he could back away from his answer and later say, "That's not what I meant."  For example, moderator John King could not pin Romney down on whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised.  He said, 

"I believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president is finally, finally willing to be a leader on the issue the American people care about."  

So, in other words, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless we will.  Got that?  



Gov. Tim Pawlenty - Gov. Pawlenty had some good moments, but much of it was overshadowed by the completely awkward confrontation with moderator John King.  King asked, cajoled, even BEGGED Pawlenty to criticize Romney about what Pawlenty had - just the night before - referred to as "Obamneycare."  As Romney looked on , Pawlenty punted.  He went after Obama instead, refusing to lay a hand, or even a sharp adjective on Romney.   Pawlenty has said over and over again on the talk show circuit that he can be nice, but as a former hockey player, is willing to "throw a sharp elbow" when needed.  It was needed at this debate and he came off as more of a figure skater than hockey player. Would he do the same in a debate with Obama staring him down?  He left me with that question. 


Rick Santorum -   I honestly don't know there is so little enthusiasm for this man.  He gets it.  He can articulate the values of the Tea Party and he voted that way consistently when he was in the Senate.  When he talks about foreign policy,  he sounds like the adult in the room. And no one in the race is a more solid social conservative.  During the debate, he was passionate about the Constitution and his love for this country and confidence in the American people.  I just don't agree with detractors who say he is "boring."  


Ron Paul - I didn't hear all of what he said, as I learned to tune out that frequency of whining when the boys were little.  Really, he didn't belong on that stage.  He's a Libertarian, not a Republican.  Oh, he runs on the Republican ticket and he often votes with the GOP, but you won't find the issues he's most passionate about and for which the loons flock to him  anywhere in the GOP platform (ending the Federal Reserve,  isolationist foreign policy, legalizing drugs).   During the debate, Paul alternated between populist (to a certain segment that he appeals to) slogans and monetary mumbo jumbo that almost no one understands:

"And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money."

 I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what that means.  I have no idea what it means.  If you fail to communicate, you can't win.  That, in addition to his many other issues. 


Newt Gingrich - His demeanor was more "grumpy old man" than elder statesman.  In fact, he may have overtaken Ron Paul in this category.  I don't think he cracked a smile the entire evening.   He's clearly a very intelligent man, knows his facts, has been around a long time.  We know because he reminds us. Constantly.  He gave some of the best answers of the night, including those on immigration and appointing Muslims to his cabinet.  However, he's got so much baggage it's hard to discern what is fact and what is campaign fiction with this man. 


Herman Cain - I like Herman Cain.  I enjoy listening to him, I love his story of realizing the American Dream and I really want to like him more. But I fear there is little more to him than slogans, acronyms and 5-point plans.  Most of his answers in the debate started with, "We have to work on the right problem."  True enough, but not enough.  He usually followed up with a 3-point plan represented by an acronym.  To me, it came across as simplistic rather than studied.  He also has still not articulated a foreign policy, instead, continuing to insist that he cannot give his opinion until he has all the intelligence at his disposal.  This is a very amateurish policy and not one I wish to see in a presidential candidate.   I want to like him more, but I feel like it would be foolish to do so.  


So what did you think?

March 22, 2011

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty - T-Paw - makes it officially almost official - he's the first to throw his hat into the presidential campaign ring by announcing a presidential exploratory committee.  The announcement came in the form of a video that The Blaze called "epic."  I wouldn't go that far, but concede that it's professional and very well done.  This is no amateurish "I am not a witch" video:

American Thinker reports on Pawlenty's connection to the Evangelical community and support for Israel:


American Thinker Blog: Pawlenty, the Presidential Campaign, and the Evangelicals:

"Mary Pawlenty is an evangelical Christian and her husband joined her church in the mid-1980s when they married.  The evangelical Christian community are strong supporters of the America-Israel relationship for a wide variety of reasons (having nothing to do with end-time scenarios).

But the church they attend, Wooddale Church, is not your just-down the road church.  Wooddale is an influential evangelical mega church. The Pawlentys were married by Leith Anderson,  a senior pastor at the church since 1977. However, Anderson is far more than a senior pastor. He is also the long-time president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), an organization that represents more than 30 million American evangelicals.

LifeNews shares some of Pawlenty's life-affirming policies:


Governor Tim Pawlenty Presses Pro-Life Issues in Iowa Speech | LifeNews.com: 

"Pawlenty crafted a strong pro-life record as governor of Minnesota that will appeal to GOP voters in early primary and caucus states like Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. He named Eric Magnuson, an attorney who has worked with pro-life groups, the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court and told Minnesota agencies to reject Obamacare, which could fund abortions.

Pawlenty also signed into law the Positive Alternatives program passed by the state legislature in 2005 with the support of pro-life groups. The law, which provides state funding for pregnancy centers that help women with pregnancy support and abortion alternatives, has already proven successful in lowering the number of abortions.

The Minnesota Department of Health shows 13,037 women received services from the Positive Alternatives grant during the second grant cycle of the program, running from July 2008 through June 2010. More than 12,000 pregnant women were helped during the first two-year grant cycle, July 2006-June 2008. The Pawlenty-supported positive alternatives program is credited with dropping Minnesota abortions, in 2009, to the lowest point since 1975.

In April 2010, Pawlenty declared the month as Abortion Recovery/Awareness Month to help women negatively affected by their abortions. Pawlenty also pleased pro-life advocates on bioethics issues by vetoing the Kahn-Cohen Cloning Bill in May 2008, which would have legalized human cloning and forced taxpayers to pay for the destruction of human life. He also signed, in May 2009, a bill to ban taxpayer funding of human cloning."

Newsweek asks, "How dumb are we?"  They gave 1000 people a citizenship test - 38% failed. 

"When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar."

 

How'd you do?  I was relieved to get 100%.  : )


UPDATE: I am smarter than a Hillsdale College student.  Just sayin' 

Arlington lawmaker's bill would protect questioners of evolution | Star Telegram:

 "An Arlington lawmaker has filed a bill aimed at protecting Texas college professors and students from discrimination because they question evolution.

The measure from Republican state Rep. Bill Zedler would block higher education institutions from discriminating against or penalizing teachers or students based on their research into intelligent design or other theories that disagree with evolution.
Zedler said he filed the bill because of cases in which colleges had been hostile to those who believe that certain features of life-forms are so complex that they must have originated from a higher power.

'We can have the academic freedom to have all kinds of ideas and philosophies but, lo and behold, even mention intelligent design and there are people that want to run you out of town on a rail,' Zedler said."

This should be entertaining to watch. Those who get their knickers in a twist and go to to Def-Con-4  when someone questions the doctrine of macro-evolution will be falling all over themselves to paint their opponents as knuckle-dragging morons - ironically, demonstrating the need for this bill.  At the Mother Jones blog an interview with Rep. Bill Zedler is recounted and then mocked and ridiculed in the combox.  Here are a couple comments from our "tolerant" friends: 

"We should discriminate against crazy ideas like these, and often. We used to. Not too long ago people like Zedler were viewed as nutcases, like the people in wool caps who stand on street corners drooling and shouting about UFOs."

"As for Creationism, it ends at its premise, as there is no evidence supporting Creationism, and we shouldn't be in the business of protecting the willfully ignorant or the blatantly stupid...regardless of whom they choose as their imaginary savior." 

Finally, on the heels of our annual county septic inspection....