Which, in and of itself, means only that he’s correctly gauged the political winds, should he wish to appeal to TEA Party conservatives. But then to follow up your promise to tell the truth with a speech in Iowa calling for the end to ethanol subsidies? That suggests that perhaps he (unlike, say, Newt Gingrich and the politics of local pander) has seen the light.
And so that marks Pawlenty as a candidate worth watching and listening to. At the very least, his candidacy could — if he sticks to his word and tells the truth (jinx!) — keep the other GOP contenders, you know, honest.
Once you explain that all subsidies do is transfer wealth from one business to another, and don’t create any jobs in the long run, making a case for ending them should work out well. Of course, this will be another point for the Dems to use to scare the electorate.
I thought he gave a good interview on Rush today. His stock has gone up with me.
I expect Gingrich to sell him out as a radical any moment now.
Somebody is just going to have to have the guts to proclaim be not afraid…
…and then withstand the hit for pandering to the Catholic vote.
Isn’t Pawlenty some kind of godbothering hoochie what hates the abortionings and teh buttseks?
CRUCIFY HIM!!!11!!
I was impressed, too. Tell Iowans that the ethanol subsidies have got to go? Go to Florida and say that Medicaid and Social Security are unsustainable?
Now THAT’s gutsy.
You know, when Obama said Israel should return to the 1967 borders, he meant “end ethanol subsidies”. All the smart people know that.
Yes, but is it gutsy on the same scale as ordering the killing of a notorious mass-murderer?
Granted, I haven’t paid closest attention to all this because of 1. personal stuff, 2. work stuff, and 3. sweet jeebus it’s only May 2011!. But it seems to me that something missing that was present in 1979 was Reagan’s optimism.
The US was in a crapheap. Reagan didn’t shy from telling us how big a crapheap or how bad it could get. But, he also told us that together we could get through it. And people believed him.
Are any of the current lot (Cain, Pawlenty, Mittens, Bachmann, Palin, Nor Luap) giving us any of that optimism? Because I think that’s going to be essential to selling the message. Not just what’s wrong, not just what needs to change to fix it, but that we CAN do it and that things WILL be BETTER once we do.
Now we’re talking.
This is pretty bold, I have to say, and makes me more open to listening to Pawlenty in the future with an open mind.
I didn’t hear the interview though. Maybe it’ll be on the ‘net later.
Pawlenty’s message ended with a burst of optimism. I know, because I was thinking that telling the truth is great as a campaign strategy, but that it needs be coupled to American optimism and exceptionalism. And it was.
One thing certainly in Pawlenty’s favor is that he’s not from a moneyed family, or a political “dynasty” of any kind.
Jeff, even your pal Medved is saying it is a two way race: Pawlenty and Romney. Medved is going with Pawlenty because he does not have to defend Romneycare.
I recognize the odds favor Romney and Pawlenty. I am glad a few conservatives are still in it. I am not counting them out.
It’s a demonstrated fact that the candidate who has the most optimistic messaging wins the election.
So it’s quite the tightrope when things are much worse than when Carter was in office (the 60s radicals were still in school or in jail, not in the White House, and Howard Zinn had not rewritten American history), and you really DO have to tell the hard truth, which usually does not count as optimism.
Unless, of course, everyone understands how dire the problem is, in which case, saying, “I’m going to cut the cancer out and administer several months of chemo instead of leaving it there to kill the patient” should count as optimism.
Surely the voters would rather hear “HARD TO STARBOARD!” to avoid the iceberg than “FULL STEAM AHEAD!” and ram into it.
So it’s quite the tightrope when…you really DO have to tell the hard truth, which usually does not count as optimism.
I dunno. It shouldn’t be that hard to shape your message into something along the lines of “things can only get better.” Might not be completely accurate, but it’s a message one could sell.
I’m doing alright
getting good grades
the future’s so bright
I gotta wear shades
Damn I miss the 80s
Gotta say, it’s hard not to give him a second look if he’s going to do things like this.
More please.
Just be thankful that I left out the part about T-Paw putting his dream into action, Ernst.
Is JOhn going to double down on douchey again today?
Hard to get much more optimistic than Herman Cain. It took a cynical old curmudgeon like me a bit to get used to it, actually.
I thought he hit all the right notes. I’d vote for him over Obama. Of course, I’d vote for zombie Jimmy Carter over Obama.
Both Cain and Palin have been saying that we can overcome our problems if we are willing to work at them. My only caveat is that no socialist ever backs off unless driven off. Violently.
How will we distinguish Zombie Carter from the live version?
Hmmm… might be worth a second look – that was just about the opposite of pandering. I’m still for Cain, first. But should he be this primary’s Fred Thompson, I may have to give Mr. P a second look.
Pawlenty?
I’m sorry. Even I have trouble with that name.
Pawlenty? Sounds like something I would order at Overton’s Seafood Stand. Like ordering Greek Shrimp, or Czech Lobster a la Shmegma. Pawlenty is going to have the devil of a time being heard because Palin’s voice is so totally, shreikingly obnoxious, albeit absorbing. Pawlenty must learn to shriek! He must sound like your mother on Xtasy telling you that your girlfriend is a slut (that’s a plus, by the way).
Reagan truly was unique…Too bad he’s way dead…
Please! Somebody shoot me!
Sorry.
In truth, I trust none of the GOPers.
They are too worried about “triangulation:.
Bottiom line.
Ask Olivia Newtface Gingrich if you need a clue.
Think of his name as a southern pronunciation of “plenty”, dog.
Puh-lenty.
“I’m sorry. Even I have trouble with that name. ”
me too: barack hussein obama.
Pawlenty is easier on the tongue than Barack Hussein Obama, that’s for sure. And he’d be easier on what’s left of our bedraggled Constitution too, I’ll warrant.
Oops. Quick-draw newrouter wins that one~!
oh good the rovester is on hannity charting “his” future.
Now all we need is some VP timber named Goode.
And love, love.
b/w Baby, You’re a Huntsman
“his” future
Project Butterball
Shoot for center of mass. If he doesn’t go down immediately go for the Mozambique. Zombie or not, that will do the trick.
So, I took a look around the ‘net to read up on Pawlenty’s record.
Found this in the WSJ. Be warned, it’s essentially a hit piece. And I know jack shit about Minn. politics. But, it does serve to remind me why I didn’t pay much attention to Pawlenty in the first place.
Why exactly does Rush like this guy again?
I don’t know if Rush necessarily “likes” Pawlenty any more than he “likes” any of the other proto-candidates. He may have just been being fair; I confess to not hearing the interview or reading the transcript. Because as apostate a move as it may sound, I don’t really listen to Rush too often…
Pawlenty has always impressed me as a get-along, comity, kind of guy; a Rockefeller Rethug! of sorts. Like Ahhhhnuld, he’s tried to be fiscally conservative, that being his primary bona fides as well as being able to “work with a legislature full of Democrats”. But he has given affirmation too often, in my opinion, to brain-dead ideas like AGW. He also was far too ready to give tongue baths to Obama, declare him a “good man” as was the mainstream vogue at the time.
But all that said, he was governor of a deep-blue state, so is any of this a big surprise? Not to me…
I get the feeling he’ll “apologize” a lot for things he’s been for over the years. But some of the Minnesotans here can fill us in better than an outsider like I could.
My timing is fairly terrible with that comment, btw.
It’s stupid to smack a dog on the nose when he just did what you wanted.
I didn’t catch it live, Bob, but heard it afterwards on the internet and saw this facebook thingy linked somewhere:
Well thanks bh,
That led to a transcript of the interview; I’ll check it out now. I find it ironic that Rush would say Pawlenty has “the guts” to take on Obama, since I remember the comity tongue-baths he gave him in 2008-2009 in the name of “comity”.
Maybe he does now? I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, for now. But I must say that Cap’n Ed is often “pushing” T-paw since the last election cycle in 2008, and that gives me pause-you know what I mean?
He also needs to develop more personal magnetism. I hear he comes off really good in person, but that sure doesn’t translate to TV, at least in my opinion.
I’d like some Minnesotans here to give us the low-down on him, to save me from having to discern which articles are hit pieces and which ones are fair.
Oh, and for all the heat on Cheri, maybe Mitch shouldn’t be counted out for sure:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=40F2F40D-F559-43AC-B9AD-566576F465D4
But it is politico…
Well, I think I can count out Mitch myself, whether he runs or not. Too many people dislike him. Like Rush himself. And Rush has a huge voice. So, can’t win. Still wouldn’t mind having one person talking DEBT MONSTER/growth/deregulation in the primaries as their main focus though. Maybe someone will fill that niche.
I always had a similar view of Pawlenty, Bob. Which makes me suspicious of sudden changes of heart.
Still, he did what we wanted here. Maybe he does this another half dozen times and he’ll be worth a third look.
By really engaging in “straight talk”, Pawlenty has earned my attention-for a time; I’ll take him seriously. I have to admit that I’m smitten by Cain at this point, despite my rational mind being uneasy with his lack of foreign policy experience. It just seems to me that he embodies what Adams and Jefferson alluded to when they spoke of the “aristoi” of society taking turns stepping up for a time and leading the nation. But I’m trying to avoid letting my emotion get the better part of my decision making, although that is an intergral part of politics.
Regarding Mitch, I think you’re correct that he would have at least driven the discussion in a direction it needs to stay focused on, regardless of the possibility of any ultimate success. I’ll avoid talking about the motivations of his decision, I admit to saying some pretty harsh and judgemental things about Cheri the other day. And it’s not so much that I regret what I said, as it really is his decision in the end. Isn’t it ironic that the man who was derided for wanting a “social issues truce” may have actually demonstrated the ultimate in looking our for his family(That is, if we discount that the nations greater good would ultimately be the best for his family in the long term…)?
But, not everyone can have Palin’s courage and ability to weather the storm.
We’re in agreement about Cain, Bob. I like the guy. He’s my top pick at the moment.
Oh, I forgot to mention this, Cain just won the straw poll at the Wisco Rep convention. Speeches like this certainly helped him around here.
Well that certainly is an interesting result.
By the way bh, speaking of WI, Dan Collins had a post up saying that state sentate recall elections had been scheduled for July 12. 6 Rethugs! and 3 Dems. Are you still confident about the senators facing recall?
Just curious.
I am. Mainly because we don’t have six beatable candidates. We have two beatable candidates. Which is one less than they have.
If the Supreme Court election had gone the other way I’d be more worried. They threw everything and the kitchen sink into it — literally a once-in-a-generation effort and intensity — and they still lost.
There’s no groundswell of anger against Walker. To win, they’d need it and they’d need it peaking this summer. If anything, people will start wondering what everyone was so worked up about by then.
I’m truly happy to hear that. I’d hate to see the irresponsible behavior of “fleebagging” rewarded.
Not that I’m in WI, but I’d like to send a big thanks to that elections clerk who “screwed up” by not reporting the accurate numbers to AP, even though she reported the right numbers to the state. Accident or no, there’s zero doubt in my mind that if the extra 7K votes for Prosser had been accurately reported to the press, the Madison or Milwaukee districts would have ‘magically’ produced an extra 8K votes, if they thought they needed them.
Red districts in states dominated by big Blue cities (PA, I’m looking at you… since you’re all around me) should maybe just refuse to give their numbers to the press on election night, if possible.
From bh’s WSJ link:
I can’t think of any context in which that statement doesn’t scare the bejeezus out of me, especially coming from a republican.
I’d like some Minnesotans here to give us the low-down on him, to save me from having to discern which articles are hit pieces and which ones are fair.
The WSJ piece linked above was penned by Jason Lewis, a local righty talk-radio guy. It may come across as a hit piece, but it’s a hit piece by a disappointed conservative; not a standard Minnesota liberal with an axe to grind.
Pawlenty is, first and foremost, a politician. He’s far too prone to go for the short-term “victory” by making compromises that harm our long-term goals. Case in point: the budgetary sleight-of-hand that let him “hold the line on taxes” while State spending continued to increase. This was done by spending down the State’s reserves, making a lot of one-time accounting adjustments, delaying payment to school districts and municipalities, and instituting a wide variety of “revenue diversification” schemes. True, he was working with a hostile Legislature, but I don’t think he played the adversarial system as well as he could have.
One bright spot to temper my criticism was his attempted use of unallotment to get around a recalcitrant Legislature that refused to send him a budget he could sign. Basically, he decided that his power to reduce spending in an emergency meant that he could unilaterally decide not to spend money on line items he felt were unnecessary. He was ultimately rebuffed by the state Supreme Court, but the battle marked one instance where he stuck to his guns.
I soured on him at the end of his last term, when every press appearance and policy stand was obviously done as a means of positioning him for this Presidential run. I felt that at the end, his governance was more about his ambitions than about the management of the state.
I’d like to hope that he’s changed. I’d like to hope that he’s learned from the successes of the Tea Party — the recent GOP takeover of the Legislature, the support shown to Bachmann, the dismissal of Oberstar. His statements this week are very promising in that regard. But I can’t escape the suspicion that he’s just saying what he thinks we want to hear, as a means of positioning himself against the other candidates, and that if elected, he’ll shy away from tough battles and compromise away our hard-fought gains. I also fear he would preside with one eye on his legacy, which isn’t the sort of leadership we need right now.
This isn’t to say I hate the guy. I’m just disillusioned with him, as familiarity breeds contempt. I’d love it if he proved me wrong.
Thanks a lot for the insight Squid!
OI-Limbaugh asked Pawlenty about that quote, and T-Paw contends that was lifted out of context completely, contending that it was him quoting David Brooks. Which, it sounds like Brooks to me.
The link to the interview transcript that bh put up is pretty good actually; in my humble opinion it at least justifies listening to the fellow a bit more. That said, I’m biased in favor of Cain myself, with a bit of apprehension about his lack of foreign policy positions.
I presume Pawlenty was referring to this from 2004:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/magazine/29REPUBLICANS.html?pagewanted=all
Warning! It is David Brooks.
Thanks, Squid.
I’ve been looking for some sourcing on that Pawlenty quote in question and I can’t find any sources I would trust. (Dana Milbank? Sorry.)
It sounds to me that he said it but without the context I can’t make all that much of it one way or the other.
As Bob’s already noted, Pawlenty was quoting Brooks and the STRIB attributed the thought to Pawlenty himself. The question now is, where was Pawlenty going with his reflections on Brooks’s pronouncement. Did he agree, disagree, or hedge? I guess I’ll have to find the article (bearing in mind that the STRIB is hostile to Pawlenty).
I really don’t know what I think of Pawlenty. His association with McCain is a mark against him. On the other hand, he was reelected in a very, very bad year for MN Republicans (hell, Republicans everywhere). That should count for something.
I checked their website using the latter part of the quote as the search and didn’t find anything, Ernst. I was hoping to find the article and correction.
It was in 2006 if that helps at all.
Can’t find it either, bh.
The Milbank piece, as you noted, is bullshit. Pawlenty needs to tell the truth, like GINGRICH!
Sister, please.
Heh. I thought that was a particularly funny formulation myself, Ernst.
Funny how the “truth value” of a given statement is directly proportional to the extent that it conforms to the collectivist worldview isn’t it?
Somebody ought to start a blog to explain how this racket works.
They’re definitely the worst but we all have a little of that in us, I suspect, Ernst.
I should know. I still have sand in my vagina over Daniels.
Think I wasn’t more likely to think the worst of Pawlenty’s past statements given what I see as an inexplicable double standard on Rush’s part? That it wouldn’t be a satisfying way to jab at him?
From my first comment: “Why exactly does Rush like this guy again?”
I suppose my only saving grace is that I notice it in myself and don’t actually think it’s for some greater good.
Gentlemen, I get the feeling that this may be a “down the memory hole” situation on the part of the Star Tribune.
I’ve been unsuccessful at finding a link to the interview.
Bob, here is a page that has the link but when clicked the Star Trib says sorry the page no longer exists.
I wouldn’t take an appearance on Rush’s show as an endorsement by Rush, myself.
Past performance/future results, variable mileage and all that.
Does the STRIB online archive go back to ’06?
Somebody ought to fire an email to Pawlenty’s people and suggest they get that correction posted to their website. And maybe the article too. If they don’t want to post the interview, that suggests the context then isn’t favorable to Pawlenty now.
If you go to the Trib’s search page and choose advanced search, there’s an option to search by article title.
Since the hamster banging away at the mechanical adding machine inside my desktop box doesn’t speak whatever the hamster running the Trib’s search page is speaking, somebody else is going to have to enter “Pawlenty Sees Himself as a Reformer” and see what pop’s up.
Of course that doesn’t get us to the correction, I’m guessing.
Didn’t say endorse. Said like.
From Limbaugh’s Facebook page that I linked above:
I think that qualifies as likes. In fact, it is an endorsement of sorts. He’s qualified. He’s a fighter. Given his main themes, that’s quite high praise.
The fact that it doesn’t seem to match up with Pawlenty’s record? The fact that this is normally the sort of guy that Rush hates?
It’s discordant. And I can’t quite explain it by the fact that Pawlenty talked shit about ethanol.
bh, my idiosyncratic take is that Rush is trying to push the field in the direction of taking the fight to Obama and the left; “out and proud” conservatives who don’t feel the need to apologize for believing in that which we know from experience to work instead of a bunch of Sally Fields wanting to be liked.
I see your point about the reality being better than the rhetoric in the case of Daniels, and (for now) the rhetoric being better than the reality in the case of Pawlenty. The apparent preference for rhetoric over reality is disconcerting. What I hope is that Rush is pushing the notion that the rhetoric can create reality when we choose to practive what we preach.
But what the hell do I know? I’m just another failed academic acting out his frustrations through rhetorical Visigothery. And you know what sucks about that? No Vestal Virgins on the left to rape –not even rhetorically.
I think there is something to your notion of Rush’s underlying objective. And, that could be an admirable goal even if I’m not particularly happy about how it’s been working in practice lately.
I guess my problem is that I almost always go by the record over the rhetoric. (This isn’t to imply that Daniels is faultless. But again, that’s the nice thing about the record. I know that he and I have fundamentally different views of the judiciary. No matter what he might have said on the stump if he had jumped in.) From Boehner to a backbencher, all these guys can make the right noises when we poke them. They can often do it for entire campaigns. And that always seems to end with $100 billion > $30 billion > $350 million > actually, maybe it increased spending.
I want a way to praise the rhetoric — in this instance, talking smack about ethanol in Iowa — while also saying, “Talk is cheap, bucko.” And I want to do it in such a way that they mainly just hear the latter part.
Btw, I’ve forgotten where the Visigothery joke was started but it still keeps cracking me up.
As far a T-Paw is concerned, I’m in “trust but verify” mode, good Reaganite that I am.
Daniels killing himself with overly solicitous, conciliatory rhetoric is a topic for another occassion. One when I don’t have a grill full of chicken pieces roasting.
OK fellows,
Here’s a page from a research firm that has the full article for perusal upon signing up for a free trial offer
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151398323.html
I didn’t bother simply because the abstract page led with the information that the Star Tribune published a correction on August 22 2006, clarifying that Pawlenty had been quoting David Brooks and not expressing his original thoughts.
I guess if someone has nexus/lexus they can get it, or, if in Minnesota might be able to see it on library microfiche. But as far as the Star Tribune is concerned, it’s definitely an internet memory hole situation.
Good grilling, Ernst. Later.
And that’s where it get’s interesting. Was he agreeing with Brooks? Disagreeing? Agreeing in part and disagreeing in part? What?
I mean, even if you’re arguing that the folks have been habituated to the narcotic Big Government, and we need to start gradually weening them off it, there are going to be folks to your left arguing for the equivalent of methadone maintanence, and folks to your right arguing that it’s time to quit cold turkey before we overdose.
Thanks bh. Barbecueing chicken tonight as a practice run for spare ribs this weekend.
outta here
All I know Ernst was that the context was reigning in corporate excess, and T-paw was talking about the need to be more proactive:
Now some salt is required, because this quote is via the excerable Dana Milbank, but it’s the closest to a pull-quote I can find…easily. Maybe more is available on microfiche.
The David Brooks article at NYT from 2004, There is also a piece by David Wessel at WSJ Sept 5th 2005 and/or this one which is from the same day. Referenced here, scroll down to August 22nd 2006 “Governor Pawlenty of Tax Increases Tries to Backtrack”
Sounds to me like Pawlenty’s people were trying to dismiss Pawlenty shooting off his foot as just a mere fleshwound.
Sorta.
Thanks for digging Geoff.