Video: Pawlenty calls for end of ethanol subsidies — in Iowa

posted at 5:30 pm on May 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Ed touched on this earlier, I know, but it deserves a post of its own. Man, if the “boring” candidate in the race is willing to be this bold in front of the hometown crowd, I can’t imagine what the “exciting” candidates will do.

The early read on this move is that it’s a smart play for him politically. I agree with that — from a macro standpoint. But there are people who will tell you that Pawlenty has no chance if he doesn’t finish strong in Iowa, in which case … is his campaign now DOA?

Pawlenty is, in theory, strongly positioned in Iowa. He’s from a neighboring state, he’s been working it on the ground, and as an evangelical, he has the right profile to appeal to social conservatives there. “He has real credibility on the social issues and a faith testimony that will resonate among the grassroots,” a prominent social conservative says.

Yet there’s potential trouble on the launching pad. Rep. Michele Bachmann is also from Minnesota and has a strong bond with social conservatives and tea-party backers. Her fundraising machine, even before it’s ginned up during a presidential run, is formidable. If she gets in, she could easily steal Pawlenty’s thunder in Iowa and deal a severe blow to his candidacy.

A Republican donor who supports Mitt Romney puts the most dire spin on it: “There is no plausible path to the GOP nomination for Pawlenty absent a win in Iowa. Thus, Bachmann poses an existential threat to T-Paw.”

I can picture three scenarios where T-Paw wins the nomination after losing Iowa. One: If Palin or some other grassroots candidate with a real chance to win the nomination jumps in and takes the state by storm, the GOP establishment will panic and might rally behind Pawlenty before New Hampshire on the assumption that only he has a chance of beating the Iowa winner in South Carolina. Two: If Pawlenty earns the endorsements of enough prominent establishment conservatives — Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, etc — it could boost his profile to the point where he comes back to win indie-minded New Hampshire no matter what happens in Iowa. (Given Romney’s huge fundraising advantage, T-Paw might not be viable without those endorsements anyway.) Three: Huckabee could endorse him before Iowa, which might lock up enough social conservative votes to undo any damage from his ethanol heresy. All of those scenarios are dodgy, though; he’s taking a huge risk, needless to say, by giving a hard dose of fiscal reality to a crucial state he’s actually well positioned to win, especially now that Huck’s out. Ace is right that if Pawlenty goes on to lose the caucuses, he can now spin the defeat not as a case of him underperforming but of having been punished for being a truth-teller. But that’ll be a cold comfort when he then has to move on to New Hampshire to face Romney, who’ll have spent a ton of money there, and Huntsman, who’ll probably be camped out there for the better part of the next eight months.

That said, like most of you (I assume), I respect him more today than I did yesterday, which of course was the whole point of this move. T-Paw’s macro strategy here is straightforward: He needs to balance his appeal to the center as an electable, non-bombthrowing Republican with his appeal to the base as a conservative who’ll stand fast for core principles as president. His argument on the first part of that was already solid — Huntsman is too far to the center to win the nomination, in all likelihood, and Romney has all sorts of baggage that could keep too many base voters home in the general election. His argument on the second part is weaker, especially if a grassroots favorite like Palin jumps in. Forced to choose between someone like T-Paw who seems more electable but less confrontational and someone like Palin who’s perceived as the opposite, many base voters will opt for the latter on the theory that they’d rather stick with someone whom they know will fight for principle and let the electoral chips fall where they may. Pawlenty’s ethanol gambit forces them to rethink that by posing the following question: If he’s willing to confront Iowa voters about their little ethanol gravy train in the name of fiscal responsibility — even though his candidacy probably depends on winning the state — then who wouldn’t he be willing to confront? He’s got guts. I’m not so sure about his risk-assessment skills, but he’s playing to win. Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Lawdawg86 on May 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

He’s not really a fired-up kind of guy. He is presently my second choice. We will see.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Steebo & Pseudo: Sure, it’s nice to have the information. A single link to the results would have been better, I think.

And is this a flip-flop? Sure. But look at the context. He’s not flipping to a position his listeners want to hear. He’s flipping to a position his listeners do NOT want to hear. (This assumes, of course, that Iowa does not want to hear that ethanol is bad.)

More important than this is how he plans to stop the subsidies. As we should all know by this point, the executive branch of the government does not hold the purse-strings. And if Congress passes a bill for subsidies for ethanol, he can veto, but that’s it.

I just wish people would focus on the executive part of the job, and not on parts that must work with the other branches. IOW, don’t make promises you can’t keep.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

I find it odd that local news articles from Pawlenty’s tenure as Governor are all somehow “slanted oppo research” and considered off limits.

steebo77 on May 23, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Amen. And even if it was opposition research, so what? The more information about a candidate, the better; how else are we supposed to get a true picture of him?

That being said, I exponentially prefer a candidate who retracts and forcefully argues against his/her past wrong-headed positions than one who doubles down on a stupid position to avoid appearing inconsistent.

Lawdawg86 on May 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

He’s not really a fired-up kind of guy. He is presently my second choice. We will see.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Haha, I was just making a lame pun on your name :)

Lawdawg86 on May 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

But look at the context. He’s not flipping to a position his listeners want to hear. He’s flipping to a position his listeners do NOT want to hear.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Well that’s not really true, is it. Look at the comments in this thread. It’s just a different audience.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

If he’s going to posture politically, don’t you think he’d do it to his advantage?

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:13 PM

This is to his advantage. Iowa is one state and there are 49 others (56 in some counts). He needs to win the more conservative voters and he needs to win Iowa.

Points to his credit, he isn’t as stupid as Newt Gingrich. He knows the Internet exists. So out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerges… Pawlenty.

He reverses course and says that eventually they will have to cut ethanol subsidies. He gets credit for doing so in Iowa which is a stand he has to take at some point in any case. Its a smart move. This was something he had to do and he did it in a way that maximized the advantage for his campaign.

sharrukin on May 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

I just wish people would focus on the executive part of the job, and not on parts that must work with the other branches. IOW, don’t make promises you can’t keep.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

All I’m really asking is for the rules to stay the same for every candidate. If Romney’s a flip-flopper, then so is Pawlenty. If we can go back into every nook and cranny of Palin’s time as governor, the same applies to Pawlenty.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

At one time, Pawlenty was in favor of Cap and Trade. In fact, he appeared in a Public Service Announcement for the Environmental Defense Fund with then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano where he pleaded:

Come on Congress. Let’s get moving. Cap greenhouse gas pollution now.

He’s since done an about-face on the issue, saying:

Everybody in the race, at least the big names in the race, embraced climate change or cap-and-trade at one point or another, every one of us, so there’s no one who has been in executive position whose name is being bantered in a first or second-tier way who hasn’t embraced it in some way.

Really, Governor?

The question is in my case, I’ve said, ‘Look, I’ve made a mistake.’ I think cap-and-trade would be a ham-fisted, unhelpful, damaging thing to the economy. It’s misguided. I made the mistake. I admit it. I’m not trying to be cute about it. I just come out and tell you it was a mistake.

kingsjester on May 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM

But look at the context. He’s not flipping to a position his listeners want to hear. He’s flipping to a position his listeners do NOT want to hear.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Well that’s not really true, is it. Look at the comments in this thread. It’s just a different audience.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Exactly. “That Pawlenty….man, he’s got GUTS!”

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM

pseudo: Please explain the ‘It’s media’ comment. Yes, it’s vetting, but I’m afraid that the sides are already being drawn.

I think we all agree that we want America to win. We should not want ‘this candidate’ or ‘that candidate’ to win. The only question we should have to ask is whether America wins if a given candidate wins.

steebo: I’m not trying to dispute the facts, beyond questioning their source. I still find it very odd that he flips into opposition in an early primary. Why?

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I’m aware of the issue. But that doesn’t change the facts–that Pawlenty mandated a doubling of ethanol usage in Minnesota, that he headlined an ethanol group’s conference, that he’s gone on international trade missions to promote Minnesotan ethanol, or that he backed subsidies in the past.

steebo77 on May 23, 2011 at 6:19 PM

You don’t need a dozen cut-and-paste links to point out that he was pro-ethanol and signed a bill increasing the propotion of ethanol gasoline sold in MN.

We got it with the first one.

By the way, know who previously promoted ethanol while campaigning in Iowa?

Hollowpoint on May 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Basically I’m glad he said it, it needs to be said and by influential people who can make it happen. It’s also a pretty clear flip-flop. It’s also really early yet. So.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:29 PM

pseudo: Please explain the ‘It’s media’ comment. Yes, it’s vetting, but I’m afraid that the sides are already being drawn.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I’m saying that we can’t disqualify media items just because they come from lib media outlets. The stuff they produce sticks anyway. Katie Couric is a left-of-center type as well. All of a sudden now it seems that there’s some sort of rules change. We can only accentuate the positive when it comes to Pawlenty, and we’ll probably be told the same when Romney formally declares.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Basically I’m glad he said it, it needs to be said and by influential people who can make it happen. It’s also a pretty clear flip-flop. It’s also really early yet. So.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:29 PM

It’s really early yet, more flip-flops to come…

idesign on May 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

By the way, know who previously promoted ethanol while campaigning in Iowa?

Hollowpoint on May 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Lay a link on us.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Say “hypocritical flipflopper” a hundred times. This is
a manufactured position only because he is running for president.

Amjean on May 23, 2011 at 6:16 PM

And I suppose you would say the same thing about Ronald Reagan’s “flip-flop” on abortion.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM

By the way, know who previously promoted ethanol while campaigning in Iowa?

Hollowpoint on May 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign when McCain flip-flopped on the issue pandering for votes.

sharrukin on May 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM

idesign on May 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Let’s not be eeyorish. Lots can happen between now and then.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM

pseudo: So to say what he did in Iowa is just an exclamation point on the entire deal? I guess I could see that, but it still seems odd.

And I agree that all candidates should be fair game. But the fact remains that I’ve seen virtually the exact same posts in nearly every thread. There’s no progress on vetting. It’s just the pro- and anti- sides of every candidate putting forth their arguments. We’re not even reaching metathesis, much less synthesis.

BTW, I fault Romney less for flip-flopping than the degree to which it was done, and specific topics he flip-flopped on.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Too many Pawlenty posts! Oy vey. What next, ‘Pawlenty goes to the john. Updates to come.’ I’m not against the guy, but it’s getting ridiculous here at HA. There’s more T-Paw than Mitt here now?

Herman Cain effed up with Chris Wallace yesterday. Did that get analyzed & posted and I missed it? What’s Gary Johnson up to? Still tokin’ with Willie? What are Huntsman’s policy positions, besides suede collared jean jackets? Inquiring minds would like Ed’s, AP’s and Tina’s analyses on the other candidates and potential candidates.

JimP on May 23, 2011 at 6:34 PM

pseudo: I certainly discount anything that I hear from the MSM about conservatives, and that specifically includes Ms. Couric.

If I wanted a liberal’s opinion, I’d go to HuffPo or DailyKos. Or the NYT. Or the Star-Tribune.

If you’re making the argument that the media can define a candidate, then I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

kingsjester on May 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM

When AGW is the cultural law of the land, well then yeah, only the fringes are going to be against it. Sarah Palin has said that she has **seen** the effects of AGW in her beautiful state of AK.

Ok, let’s all sober up. Before Steve McIntyre, et al. AGW was the consensus. It was the prevailing wisdom. You can not judge someone by what they said years ago. We are evolving very quickly.

Here’s an analogy…a President says that he will maintain a Peace, reduce DoD. Then when attack reverses his position. You have to have context…

r keller on May 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Dusty on May 23, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Agree. If anyone who has made a mistake in their position or beliefs and then comes to acknowledge that they were wrong and admit it, I have more respect for them than those who will not acknowledge and accept the fact that they were wrong. I call that growing.

Mirimichi on May 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Lay a link on us.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Steebo isn’t the only one who knows how to use Google.

Of course, if she were to come to Iowa and do what Pawlenty just did, I’d give her props… if she could be bothered to get on the campaign trail, that is.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

By the way, know who previously promoted ethanol while campaigning in Iowa?

Hollowpoint on May 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

“John and I will adopt the all-of-the-above approach to meet America’s great energy challenges,” she told the crowd in Des Moines. “Yes… That means harnessing alternative energy sources, like the wind and the solar and the biomass and the geothermal — and the ethanol!”

steebo77 on May 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Lay a link on us.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sarah+palin+ethanol+2008

:D

But seriously:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Ud68Sn6kQ

Lawdawg86 on May 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

JimP: The guy announced today, right? I should think that he would get a lot of posts…

And, uh, you may be interested in Huntsman’s positions. I’m certainly not.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

And I agree that all candidates should be fair game. But the fact remains that I’ve seen virtually the exact same posts in nearly every thread. There’s no progress on vetting. It’s just the pro- and anti- sides of every candidate putting forth their arguments. We’re not even reaching metathesis, much less synthesis.

BTW, I fault Romney less for flip-flopping than the degree to which it was done, and specific topics he flip-flopped on.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM

You forget the media. If Obama was vetted properly, he wouldn’t be President today.

idesign on May 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

T-Paw just put the elimination of ethanol subsidies in the debates…

… win or loose, now it’s on the table.

More of this, please…

Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM

typing too fast

Then when attack reverses his position. You have to have context…

means

Then when the country is attacked reverses his position. You have to have context…

r keller on May 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM

What’s Gary Johnson up to? Still tokin’ with Willie?

JimP on May 23, 2011 at 6:34 PM

You say that like it’s a bad thing…

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM

What’s Gary Johnson up to? Still tokin’ with Willie?

JimP on May 23, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Nah. Willie’s a Kucinich man.

steebo77 on May 23, 2011 at 6:39 PM

More of this, please…

Seven Percent Solution on May 23, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Indeed.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:40 PM

idesign: I’m not forgetting the media at all. I simply think that they are irrelevant in the conservative primary, and I hardly expect them to do any good work for conservatives or any bad work for liberals.

And do you really expect liberals to attack liberals? Why in the world would it be in the media’s interest to vet Obama?

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:40 PM

This reminds me of Huckabee campaigning for the Fair Tax when he raised taxes back home — it’s just a distraction.

CultureWar on May 23, 2011 at 6:42 PM

if she could be bothered to get on the campaign trail, that is.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

You’re just always cranky, aren’t you.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:44 PM

idesign: I’m not forgetting the media at all. I simply think that they are irrelevant in the conservative primary, and I hardly expect them to do any good work for conservatives or any bad work for liberals.

And do you really expect liberals to attack liberals? Why in the world would it be in the media’s interest to vet Obama?

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:40 PM

You do realize that there is a battle going on between the beltway establishment and the grass roots, and the beltway way boys are part of the media….

idesign on May 23, 2011 at 6:44 PM

I do see it as something good. He either is showing a true willingness not to pander to the immediate crowd or the ability to take a risk in positioning himself outside the pack.

Either way, I think it gives him some points.

TiminPhx on May 23, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Nah. Willie’s a Kucinich man.

steebo77 on May 23, 2011 at 6:39 PM

From what I am told, Willie wouldn’t let such a trivial thing as politics get in the way of a good burn with a good smoking pal.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Sooooooo, this is boring, eh?

Suicidal? Perhaps. Boring? Not so much.

Pablo Snooze on May 23, 2011 at 6:45 PM

You’re just always cranky, aren’t you.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Just stating the Truth. Isn’t that what this thread is about?

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

idesign: As I do not consider ‘the establishment’ conservatives (which I distinctly used as opposed to Republican), they’re lumped with the rest of the media.

If the American people are stupid enough to allow the media (including the beltway establishment) to choose their candidate for them, then they deserve what they get.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

2nd look at Pawlenty. Just about the only thing he could have done to get me to do it. The other would have been backing rescheduling the Iowa caucuses for much later in the process.

Are there any other candidates currently opposing ethanol subsidies? I’ll give them a second look too.

Any candidate who can’t be serious about cutting the wasteful, counterproductive pork of ethanol subsidies can’t be trusted to be serious about anything to do with the financial mess we are in.

cool breeze on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Thanks for your input, steebo77.

davidk on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Are there any other candidates currently opposing ethanol subsidies? I’ll give them a second look too.

cool breeze on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Ron Paul.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Just stating the Truth.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Sigh. The Truth is Unknowable. You are stating your opinion.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Just stating the Truth. Isn’t that what this thread is about?

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

The Truth is Unknowable. You are stating your opinion. And yes, that is what this thread is about.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Comment-eating bastards.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Any candidate who can’t be serious about cutting the wasteful, counterproductive pork of ethanol subsidies can’t be trusted to be serious about anything to do with the financial mess we are in.

cool breeze on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Can’t say that I am convinced that he is serious about cutting ethanol subsidies. This is a rather sudden reversal and so far its just words about eventually cutting them.

Serious is when you actually do something. He had years to act and chose not to.

sharrukin on May 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM

What an interesting philosophical position, AFU. It’s one I happen to virulently disagree with, as stated.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Bold!!

If we have to go down then we should go down swinging and do some damage to the other side.

Go T-Paw!!!!

NickDeringer on May 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

The Truth is Unknowable. alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:49 PM

I’m sorry you find the truth (something Pawlenty claims to hold dear) irritating.

steebo77 on May 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Apparently steebo disagrees with you.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Nick: If I may ask… how does this do damage to the other side?

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:53 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

It happens.

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Are there any other candidates currently opposing ethanol subsidies? I’ll give them a second look too.

cool breeze on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Ron Paul.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM

LOL, I was going to add “(not counting Ron Paul)” but I thought, “why bother, no one takes him seriously anymore”

I stand corrected.

cool breeze on May 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Just stating the Truth. Isn’t that what this thread is about?

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Why step in this early when her opponents are self imploding.

the_nile on May 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM

That’s akin to asking the NYT their opinions on anything conservative.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Excellent post!..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM

The other would have been backing rescheduling the Iowa caucuses for much later in the process.

Agreed. I love that Branstad is begging Romney (and more importantly, his money) to come play in Iowa. I don’t like Romney, but I’m glad he’s giving the finger to Iowa. The Iowa caucus racket has nothing to do with vetting candidates; its about candidates pouring money into the coffers of the Iowa political class to “organize” for the unpredictable caucuses. Why not just hold a primary??? Its a crooked system that deserves to die an ignoble death, and I hope that all the candidates with some cash to spend deprive Iowa of its unearned, quadrennial Christmas bonus.

Lawdawg86 on May 23, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Lawdawg86 on May 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

That was a priceless post!..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Why step in this early when her opponents are self imploding.

the_nile on May 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Whether Pawlenty’s going into Iowa and kicking the subsides out from under them will lead to implosion is yet to be seen. Personally, I think it’s a net positive for him… but then again, I don’t grow corn for a living.

But the fact remains he did it. And if/when Palin does it, she’ll be a Janey-come-lately.

That’s the reason to get in the race early. Allows you to lead, rather than follow.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 7:04 PM

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 7:04 PM

She’s been out front on so many issues, it’s nice to let others take the lead for once. ; )

alwaysfiredup on May 23, 2011 at 7:06 PM

This is VERY long overdue. An awful lot of people in Iowa are just as sick of the “primary season giveaway” game as everyone else is.

logis on May 23, 2011 at 7:06 PM

I’m not sure how this ultimately works out but it is brilliant political play for someone many consider a long-shot.
Why you say?

Romney

Romney has a reputation of, well let’s just say his positions are often “transitional”

Tpaw is doubling down on the “I’m not like the rest, I will speak the hard truths” positioning. If it does not work, nothing lost, he likely wasn’t going to get the nomination anyway…but if it does???

He magnifies Romney’s negatives and by contrast makes Romney seem even less solid in his core belief systems.

Win or lose, this is how to come out guns blazing to differentiate yourself, well played.

He still puts me to sleep and I can’t imagine him as CIC but at least he’s showing some smarts.

NextGen on May 23, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I was going to add “(not counting Ron Paul)” but I thought, “why bother, no one takes him seriously anymore”

I stand corrected.

cool breeze on May 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Tell it to Glen Massey.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I’m not so sure about his risk-assessment skills, but he’s playing to win. Click the image to watch.

All RINOs have very high risk assessment skills…that’s why they go to the squishy middle where there is “less risk”, but of course there is also less reward if one risks less.

I think we have a “pundit opinion” problem…people who have never run for elected office spouting out opinions such as when our candidates get bold pundits spout out: “That’s too risky..!”

Political pundits who are scared of risk wouldn’t even run for dog-catcher because of the fear of getting bit by a dog….

Mcguyver on May 23, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Well he didn’t implode first day, I give him that.

djohn669 on May 23, 2011 at 7:19 PM

WORDS…..

Nice words TPaw but call me a little jaded after listening to lying politicians for the last 40 years.

As our current Oval Occupier reminds us everyday….words come with expiration dates.

PappyD61 on May 23, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Oval Occupier

PappyD61 on May 23, 2011 at 7:22 PM

+1

Mary in LA on May 23, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Sounded good to me.

Bishop on May 23, 2011 at 7:26 PM

“JimP: The guy announced today, right? I should think that he would get a lot of posts…
And, uh, you may be interested in Huntsman’s positions. I’m certainly not.
Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM”

LOL Scott you obviuosly are a T-Paw man. Otherwise you’d acknowledge the over abundance of T-Paw posts that show up here and not just today. Your wisecrack about Huntsman, while funny, just shows your bias for Tim. Relax, it’s not like T-Paw will get ignored if the HA team has posts about the other candidates. Oh, and don’t tell you that you ARE relaxed. You wouldn’t be acting like a sorehead about one little complaint about too many T-Paw posts if you were actually relaxed.

Best regards, (not intended sarcastically)

JimP on May 23, 2011 at 7:28 PM

In what weird world, is Pawlenty more electable than Palin? Even granting her low current unfavorables, he’s polling much worse than her simply because nobody knows him. And in the general election, do we really want a non-confrontational conservative? Really?

promachus on May 23, 2011 at 7:31 PM

He still puts me to sleep and I can’t imagine him as CIC but at least he’s showing some smarts.

NextGen on May 23, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Explain how bold is boring…?!

Perhaps you should take some more caffeine pills…or Ex-lax if coffee doesn’t work.

Mcguyver on May 23, 2011 at 7:33 PM

What are talking about? Pawlenty is a pretty conventional conservative.

terryannonline on May 23, 2011 at 5:43 PM

In the “Exclusive interview with Tim Pawlenty” thread, the Palin supporters are linking to lots of anti-Pawlenty articles. I’m trying to get some clarification on those accusations from those who don’t have an axe to grind.

csdeven on May 23, 2011 at 7:33 PM

In the “Exclusive interview with Tim Pawlenty” thread, the Palin supporters are linking to lots of anti-Pawlenty articles. I’m trying to get some clarification on those accusations from those who don’t have an axe to grind.

csdeven on May 23, 2011 at 7:33 PM

This is from CATO…

Pawlenty, who reportedly coined the term “Sam’s Club conservative” to describe his political philosophy, has been an economic populist and big-spender generally. Among other things, he:

* Supported government subsidized health care for all children as the first step toward universal health insurance, and opposed President Bush’s veto of a Democratic bill that would have expanded the State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP) to families earning as much as $83,000 per year;
* Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform, including a “health care exchange” and an individual mandate;
* Has called for banning all prescription drug advertizing, and seeks government imposed price controls for drugs offered through Medicare;
* Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children;
* Pushed a statewide smoking ban smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars;
* Increased the state’s minimum wage;
* Imposed some of the most aggressive and expensive renewable energy mandates in the country;
* Was an ardent supporter of the farm bill;
* Received only a “C” ranking on Cato’s 2006 Governor’s Report Card, finishing below such Democrats as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and tied with Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/a-big-government-running-mate-for-mccain/

sharrukin on May 23, 2011 at 7:36 PM

My first reaction was it was very courageous… but I wonder…

Has there been polling on how popular Ethanol subsidies are in Iowa? It is conventional wisdom that they are very popular, but Pawlenty is from next door and he seems to think this is a good move.

The complete change in position is stark (nod to the links Palnistas). And it wasn’t so long ago. So it feels a little bit bandwagonish. Does Pawlenty know something we don’t know about Iowa?

petunia on May 23, 2011 at 7:36 PM

In the “Exclusive interview with Tim Pawlenty” thread, the Palin supporters are linking to lots of anti-Pawlenty articles. I’m trying to get some clarification on those accusations from those who don’t have an axe to grind.

csdeven on May 23, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Yes but allowing discussion is useful… where as the opposite is true in threads about Palin… totally useless. I’d rather those threads were more like this one. And we could really figure out how important the negatives are.

This plus for Pawlenty, is also a mild negative. That’s good to know.

Of course you can’t be in love with the guy to discuss him.

petunia on May 23, 2011 at 7:40 PM

I think, for this election, the NH primaries mean absolutely nothing.

faraway on May 23, 2011 at 7:43 PM

So, is someone paying steebo77 to spam the threads, or is he irritating us for free?

Slublog on May 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I think getting the bad news about all candidates is good. Steebo77 is being consistent too. He likes Palin and has no problem putting her record under the microscope. Especially on the issue of her abdication. And I have never seen him use personal insults or call anyone vile names.

csdeven on May 23, 2011 at 7:46 PM

sharrukin on May 23, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Ouch.

I was liking what I heard from Pawlenty for the most part, but that’s quite a bit to mull over. Can’t wait to ask him some questions.

MadDogF on May 23, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Why all the Pawlenty hate here?

After all the comments from everyone here that T-Paw is boring, you know, I thought that he would actually be you know really boring but when I heard him today for the first time, I thought that perhaps he had a “sex change operation” based on what you guys kept on saying…..!!

What is the standard for a non-boring candidate now? An Al Franken look-alike….??!!

You must all have liberal brain implant that are saying Pawlenty is boring?! Anybody that has a pull-up-from-bootstrap story is interesting in my book and I think to most other sane-thinking people.

“But then again (putting on my Dennis Miller voice for non-boring impact)… that could just be me..”

Mcguyver on May 23, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Ouch.

I was liking what I heard from Pawlenty for the most part, but that’s quite a bit to mull over. Can’t wait to ask him some questions.

MadDogF on May 23, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Simple truth is that out choices suck.

The GOP has become Democrat-lite and many of those running are going to come from that background. They don’t mean what they are saying, and while that sort of thing was possible before the Internet, it is now no longer possible as Newt discovered in a spectacular fashion.

We can find out in hours or days what the truth is regarding a candidate and the Democrats are busy doing research on the candidates as well. The GOP and their loyal followers haven’t really clued onto this fact as yet.

You can’t hide who you are any more.

sharrukin on May 23, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Of course you can’t be in love with the guy to discuss him.

petunia on May 23, 2011 at 7:40 PM

I prefer the open discussion too. I never read one article about Pawlenty until today. Most people seem to be pretty rational and fair in their analysis. Others, not so much.

csdeven on May 23, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Sounded good to me.

Bishop on May 23, 2011 at 7:26 PM

I agree!..:)

Dire Straits on May 23, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Lawdawg86 on May 23, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Exactly right, and those cauci (apologies to Rush) are probably the reason we still have ethanol subsidies at all!

MJBrutus on May 23, 2011 at 8:21 PM

csdeven on May 23, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I got it, even though you forgot the sarc tag :-)

MJBrutus on May 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Timely call.

paulsur on May 23, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I think, for this election, the NH primaries mean absolutely nothing.

faraway on May 23, 2011 at 7:43 PM

All primaries are worthless if we only get squishy RINOs winning them.

The Iowa caucus should be the last one to vote, that’s how much weight I put on it.

Mcguyver on May 23, 2011 at 8:35 PM

How is it a gutsy move if he’s already they best positioned of all the candidates to win in Iowa? It would only be gutsy, IMO, if Iowans were ambivalent about him and he gave them a fat dose of reality anyway, knowing it could well cost him their votes.

NoLeftTurn on May 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Idid a little due dilgence last fall, and thought, then, that Gov. Pawlenty would be a formidable candidate. Nine months later and he continues to be my first choice among conservative candidates who can beat Obama next fall. He is an experienced and successful political campaigner. He has the necessary political executive skill-set. He can win the center-right “independents”.
The more I think about it the more convinced I am that he is the ONLY declared candidate who can beat the boy-king.
Yes I have read about the sex-offender pardon, but that case seems to be so unusual that if the governor gets ahead of it early, he should be able to defuse it.
Or to put it another way:
Romney: a sincere, plastic politician whose time is past
Gingrich: stopped actually listening to anyone a long time ago. Just ask David Gregory.
Paul: Nope. We need someone without a lot of caricature quotient.
Santorum: A better candidate than Bachmann or Palin, but, like them, he has little chance of uniting the opposition to Obama in time for next year.
Cain: I like the guy but that’s a BIG foreign policy learning curve. Last Sunday it took him too long to recall what “the right of return” meant. Not a serious threat just yet anyway.
Huntsman: living in Denial, somewhere near Vanity.
The Other Governor: Wait, wait, don’t tell me….
Christie: I do not believe that he can unite the opposition to Obama once his record and beliefs are in play.
Randy

williars on May 23, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Lay a link on us.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Steebo isn’t the only one who knows how to use Google.

Of course, if she were to come to Iowa and do what Pawlenty just did, I’d give her props… if she could be bothered to get on the campaign trail, that is.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Oh, OK. I was thinking she must’ve been there touting ethanol in, like, August 2010.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

The too-short video didn’t give us any response from T-Paw’s Iowa audience.
Boos?
Murmurs?
Cheers?
Silence?

itsnotaboutme on May 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM

And I agree that all candidates should be fair game. But the fact remains that I’ve seen virtually the exact same posts in nearly every thread.

Scott H on May 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Correct. And we’ve seen the same anti-Palin stuff for nearly 3 years now. Now it’s Pawlenty’s turn, and it will soon be Romney’s. And we won’t even have to mention the kids of either.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 8:54 PM

I got it, even though you forgot the sarc tag :-)

MJBrutus on May 23, 2011 at 8:24 PM

lol Yeah, I only use sarc tags when there may be a question as too the context. lol

csdeven on May 23, 2011 at 8:55 PM

In what weird world, is Pawlenty more electable than Palin?

promachus on May 23, 2011 at 7:31 PM

In the same world where Daniels was the GOP savior.

But the fact remains he did it. And if/when Palin does it, she’ll be a Janey-come-lately.

JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Pawlenty’s been pretty quiet on a lot of other things, though. If ethanol subsidies were the only burning issue, you’d have a point.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Pawlenty’s been pretty quiet on a lot of other things, though.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Not so.
Here are a plethora of clearly articulated T-Paw positions:
http://www.youtube.com/user/GovernorTimPawlenty

itsnotaboutme on May 23, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Anyone who thinks corn is better in gas tanks than in our food supply is not someone I want as president. Good & Plenty you are a candy ass.

Wade on May 23, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Pawlenty’s been pretty quiet on a lot of other things, though.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM

Not so.
Here are a plethora of clearly articulated T-Paw positions:
http://www.youtube.com/user/GovernorTimPawlenty

itsnotaboutme on May 23, 2011 at 9:03 PM

He’s never led on any of them. That was the point.

pseudoforce on May 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM

I’ll give him props for this.

cs89 on May 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3