Pawlenty announces pres. bid (well, exploratory run for now)

[RealConservativePatriot]

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/pawlenty-explains-his-exploratory-committee-white-house-run-says-no-fly-zone-over-libya-s

The Former MN is the first major contender to take the first steps to run. I like T-Paw, he is a reformer who reduced taxes, cut spending, and took on public employee unions and illegal immigration. Pawlenty is probably, as many have noted, the "lead objectionable" candidate, and I believe he has the ability to unite the conservative base, moderates, and independents. That being said, he also has to answer questions about his past position regarding cap and trade. He is authentic and honest, a good speaker but not a forceful speaker. However, eloquence is often over rated, but results are not.

[DefiantSix]

GAWD!!!!  What does it take to get the RINOs to give it the hell up and let somebody with a real principle or three run instead.

Damn;  I guess this was a bad week to stop smoking/drinking/smoking pot/sniffing glue/taking amphetamines.

[docstew]

GAWD!!!!  What does it take to get the RINOs to give it the hell up and let somebody with a real principle or three run instead.

Damn;  I guess this was a bad week to stop smoking/drinking/smoking pot/sniffing glue/taking amphetamines.

Well, if 2008 wasn't enough to get the RINOs to step out of the way, then we haven't hit rock bottom yet. First part of any 12 step program is admitting you have a problem, and they don't see it yet, even though everyone else does.

[RealConservativePatriot]

GAWD!!!!  What does it take to get the RINOs to give it the hell up and let somebody with a real principle or three run instead.

Damn;  I guess this was a bad week to stop smoking/drinking/smoking pot/sniffing glue/taking amphetamines.

I don't agree T-Paw is a RINO. In fact, he is one of the more conservative candidates who are running based on his record as a Governor.

[DefiantSix]

I don't agree T-Paw is a RINO. In fact, he is one of the more conservative candidates who are running based on his record as a Governor.

CATO Institute gives him high RINO marks.  Here's some of why:

He was a big runner-up for VP under McCain.

Some of the things listed at the Cato Institute that Tim Pawlenty stood by in Minnesota -

    * 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.

LINK

We don't NEED any more "Big Government" Republilcans, no matter how recognizable their ****in' name is. 

[RealConservativePatriot]

Pawlenty held the line on taxes, cut spending, enacted performance-pay for teachers, took on public employee unions, and I don't re-call him ever supporting mandates in health insurance. On green technology, he does have a weak point.

Here is one article about his record: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/112831449.html

As governments deal with looming fiscal crises highlighted by a recent "60 Minutes" report, Pawlenty fundamentally reset spending expectations for Minnesota government, alone a major achievement, but there's much more.

When Pawlenty took office in 2003, census data ranked Minnesota second-highest in taxes per capita. Three years later, Minnesota moved out of the top 10 states in taxes -- a goal previous governors of both parties had failed to achieve -- and is now ranked 12th.

Along the way, the DFL-led Legislature attempted to increase taxes even as the global economy tanked.

Pawlenty vetoed every tax hike sent to him -- $7.5 billion in total -- and set the veto record for a Minnesota governor in one year. He also eliminated the marriage tax penalty, created an Angel Investment Credit to help early-stage companies, and helped businesses expand markets, leading seven trade missions.

Minnesota's manufactured exports rose 39 percent since he took office.

Certainly there have been cuts. But critics would have you believe every dollar squeezed from state spending popped up as a tax increase somewhere else. Facts show otherwise.

[DefiantSix]

Pawlenty, Clarified

Posted by Michael D. Tanner

My recent blog on Minnesota governor — and potential Republican vice presidential nominee — Tim Pawlenty brought a great deal of e-mail from Pawlenty partisans. Most of their criticism was of the “definition of ‘is’” variety. Governor Pawlenty doesn’t support “price controls” for the Medicare prescription drug program, he merely wants the government to “negotiate” prices. (Anyone who thinks that distinction is a difference should read this article by Robert Goldberg (unfortunately, this article isn't available without a subscription) or this piece by Benjamin Zycher). And, while he supported one increase in the state’s minimum wage, he opposed a second increase. (So he only abandons conservative principles and basic economics sometimes.) However, in fairness to Governor Pawlenty, two of my criticisms do deserve clarification.

On SCHIP: Governor Pawlenty did not specifically oppose President Bush’s veto of the Democratic expansion of SCHIP. He did praise the bill for “increasing” SCHIP funding, and both individually and as head of the National Governors Program urged the program’s renewal, while the Democrats were trying to override the president’s veto. But he did not specifically call for overriding the veto.

And, on an individual health insurance mandate: Governor Pawlenty’s Health Care Task Force endorsed such a mandate. Although the governor initially hailed the task force report and called it “a framework” for reform in Minnesota, he did later distance himself from the recommendation for a mandate.

I don’t think any of this makes him less of a big-government conservative, but I want to make sure my criticism is as accurate as possible.

LINK

[DefiantSix]

Will GOP Learn from This?

by Michael D. Tanner

The Republican Party is on the verge of its second consecutive election debacle. In two years, the GOP will likely have lost the presidency, more than a dozen Senate seats, and more than 50 seats in the House—if it's lucky. Republicans will have gone from controlling every arm of government to controlling none.

As it emerges from the electoral rubble, the Republican Party must decide what it actually believes in before beginning rebuilding its battered fortune.

On one side is a growing chorus that believes Republicans need to become more like—well, Democrats. In books like "Grand New Party," by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam; "Heroic Conservatism," by Michael Gerson; and "Comeback: Conservatism that can Win," by David Frum, big-government conservatives have argued for a more activist federal government that embraces the goals, and sometimes even the means, of liberalism.

In their opinion, the public is no longer amenable to the traditional Republican message of lower taxes and limited government in an age of economic insecurity. To be successful, they say, Republicans must compete with Democrats to give voters what they want, be it national health care, more government spending or a bailout on their mortgages. Their arguments are perhaps best summed up by Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, who told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that "the era of small government is over." And, they say, Republicans need to adapt to this new reality even if it means abandoning traditional conservative principles.

LINK

Yup, sounds like a real CONSERVATIVE to me.

[RealConservativePatriot]

CATO On T-Paw, 2010

In his first few years in office, Governor Pawlenty backed tax increases on corporations and cigarette consumers. However, the governor has changed course in recent years, consistently supporting tax cuts and opposing tax increases. In 2008, he vetoed a large gasoline tax increase. In 2009, he twice vetoed giant tax packages passed by the legislature,which included increases in the top personal income tax rate and increased taxes on gasoline, beer, wine, and liquor. In 2010, he again vetoed an income tax rate increase. Pawlenty has also proposed substantial business tax cuts to make the state more competitive, and he wants the corporate tax rate reduced from 9.9 percent to 4.8 percent. Under Pawlenty,state general fund spending rose 22 percent between FY03 and FY08, which was less than the average state increase. The governor’s proposed spending for FY11 is down 10 percent from the FY08 peak. Pawlenty has proposed a constitutional amendment to limit annual growth in the state’s general fund spending over the long term.

[DefiantSix]

CATO On T-Paw, 2010

...Under Pawlenty,state general fund spending rose 22 percent between FY03 and FY08, which was less than the average state increase. The governor’s proposed spending for FY11 is down 10 percent from the FY08 peak. Pawlenty has proposed a constitutional amendment to limit annual growth in the state’s general fund spending over the long term...

So, I'm supposed to be impressed that he's not as big a RINO as some of the other big government Republican governors?  "Not as bad as"... is by no means the same thing as saying "he's a conservative", which you'll note only his shills and lackeys seem to be saying about him.

[RealConservativePatriot]

You make a good point, and that is something this voter will consider. There are 9 folks thinking of running who have or do hold executive positions in either a state (or city in the case of Rudy.) All of them have their pluses and minuses, and all voters should consider those pluses and minuses. As important as record is, vision is more important because this country, in my view, needs a president who will cut deficits, create jobs, and defend this country. Ideally, switching over to a fair tax would be something on an economic plan that accomplishes less spending and more jobs. As far as T-Paw is concerned, I believe his record on economic matters is relatively strong, though he has some issues as well.

[DefiantSix]

As far as I'm concerned, the deal killer for Tim Pawlenty is the words that came from his own mouth.

..."The era of small government is over."

Mr. Pawlenty didn't have to make that statement.  That statement certainly exemplifies the unspoken attitude and beliefs of überRINO John McCain, and yet he at least has had the political temerity to keep from saying things so blatantly dismissive of the core belief of the overwhelming majority of conservatives of all stripes.  Tim Pawlenty didn't.  He opened mouth, inserted revolver, and suck-started his presidential aspirations right out the back of his skull.  That tells me that not only is Tim Pawlenty not a conservative, but he also doesn't possess so much as John McCain's political foresight, which is a fairly low threshold to fall short of, to begin with.

[RealConservativePatriot]

As far as I'm concerned, the deal killer for Tim Pawlenty is the words that came from his own mouth.


Mr. Pawlenty didn't have to make that statement.  That statement certainly exemplifies the unspoken attitude and beliefs of überRINO John McCain, and yet he at least has had the political temerity to keep from saying things so blatantly dismissive of the core belief of the overwhelming majority of conservatives of all stripes.  Tim Pawlenty didn't.  He opened mouth, inserted revolver, and suck-started his presidential aspirations right out the back of his skull.  That tells me that not only is Tim Pawlenty not a conservative, but he also doesn't possess so much as John McCain's political foresight, which is a fairly low threshold to fall short of, to begin with.

That may be true, but take a look at the 4 "front-runners" and you'll notice they are not consistently conservative.

1) Huckabee

According to the Tax Foundation, the state and local tax burden on the average Arkansan increased from 10.1 per cent to 11.3 per cent under Huckabee. When he came into office in 1996, Arkansas ranked 30th in the nation as the state with the highest taxes. When he left at the beginning of this year, it had risen to 13th.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/huckabees_record_on_taxes.html

2) Romney

Massachusetts’ game plan shares several characteristics of the national legislation, but there are differences, including one major distinction: The level of vitriol directed at the federal law doesn’t exist here. Sure, there are criticisms and compromises, disagreements and disappointments — but they come with a distinct lack of the death-panel-type furor that rose up against the law Obama pushed.

http://factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

3) Gingrich

Newt Gingrich addressed his biggest political liability with Christian conservatives by talking about marriage – and marital infidelity – during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network.

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate,” the former House speaker told CBN’s David Brody.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/09/gingrich-talks-about-marriage-and-infidelity/

4) Palin

Momentum is building for a push in the coming weeks to roll back the oil tax increase that stands among the biggest legacies of Sarah Palin's time as governor.

The oil industry and its allies in the Legislature tried and failed last year to cut the profits tax, which still has influential defenders, particularly among Democrats in the Senate. But anti-tax legislators are getting ready to make a hard run when the 90-day legislative session starts in just over a week. Some lawmakers who voted for the tax when it passed in 2007 with Palin's backing have flipped.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/07/106325/alaska-lawmakers-may-roll-back.html

Just shows there is no perfect candidate.

[DefiantSix]

I'm curious what marks those four in particular as "frontrunners"?  Looks to me - mostly - like the preferred candidates list for the RNC's leadership, a group I will continue to hold in abject derision until they step away from the RINO dust.

Of those four, the only one I have even the remotest interest in at the moment is Palin.  She's the only one  - of those four - who hasn't spent years and years building connections and greasing palms inside the Beltway.  I cannot emphasize enough that I am sick and effin' tired of "politics as usual" and big government Republicans by what ever name they choose to call themselves this week.  That eliminates Romney and Huckabee right out of the starting gate for me  (and I'm a Mormon, so I catch a whole lot of flack from others in my circle of friends for not supporting the "Mormon candidate", but it doesn't buy Romney so much as another second's consideration from me).  Gingrich is on very thin ice with me: he got a lot of credit for the '94 Contract with America, but he blew a huge chunk of it with his riding of the Skuzzyfava band wagon straight into the crapper, and for not a few "anti-conservative" comments made by him to try to gin up support for Skuzzy in the last few weeks.

As far as there being "no perfect candidate", I as a conservative do not expect one.  I am simply saying that continuing to front the same "democrat lite" candidates the GOP has been backing for well over 10 years is not going to cause me to back down and vote for one.  Small Government conservatism works:  it resonates with voters every time it's tried.  It is time for Republicans to stop driving away their base by being too cowardly to stand for the principles that get their base energized for them, or it is time for the Republicans to go the way of the Whigs, and make room for a new party that stands for liberty and conservative values.

[RealConservativePatriot]

I'm curious what marks those four in particular as "frontrunners"?  Looks to me - mostly - like the preferred candidates list for the RNC's leadership, a group I will continue to hold in abject derision until they step away from the RINO dust.

Of those four, the only one I have even the remotest interest in at the moment is Palin.  She's the only one  - of those four - who hasn't spent years and years building connections and greasing palms inside the Beltway.  I cannot emphasize enough that I am sick and effin' tired of "politics as usual" and big government Republicans by what ever name they choose to call themselves this week.  That eliminates Romney and Huckabee right out of the starting gate for me  (and I'm a Mormon, so I catch a whole lot of flack from others in my circle of friends for not supporting the "Mormon candidate", but it doesn't buy Romney so much as another second's consideration from me).  Gingrich is on very thin ice with me: he got a lot of credit for the '94 Contract with America, but he blew a huge chunk of it with his riding of the Skuzzyfava band wagon straight into the crapper, and for not a few "anti-conservative" comments made by him to try to gin up support for Skuzzy in the last few weeks.

As far as there being "no perfect candidate", I as a conservative do not expect one.  I am simply saying that continuing to front the same "democrat lite" candidates the GOP has been backing for well over 10 years is not going to cause me to back down and vote for one.  Small Government conservatism works:  it resonates with voters every time it's tried.  It is time for Republicans to stop driving away their base by being too cowardly to stand for the principles that get their base energized for them, or it is time for the Republicans to go the way of the Whigs, and make room for a new party that stands for liberty and conservative values.

The point I am trying to make is that everyone thinking of running has their issues and we need to wait until they have to start defending themselves and fact checks are done to see if they are credible. Candidates must run on their records, but their vision is really what matters. I do not know of anyone in the race who has a perfect record, they all have their ups and downs. I agree with you, small government conservatism works. These candidates have ups and downs on that as well. Romney must answer for his healthcare plan, Huckabee must answer for the fact that his state increased the size of its government by 20% under his watch, Palin must answer for that windfall profits tax increase under her watch, and Gingrich has his baggage. On spending, the strongest candidate is probably Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. However, on tax cuts, FMR. NYC Mayor Rudy Giulliani and FMR. NY Governor George Pataki are probably the strongest tax-cutters. I don't think a lot of conservative voters will vote for one guy who wants a social issues "truce" and two others who are pro-choice and for gay rights. In my view, the republican party needs a nominee who is a proven reformer who will defend our country, secure our border, and promote economic growth and fiscal discipline. I feel most of the 2012 contenders have a good record on these issues, but not all are perfect and some are not even adequate.

[DefiantSix]

...Candidates must run on their records, but their vision is really what matters...

Barack Obama has a lot of vision.  Does that mean that he should get my vote in 2012?

Politicians all have vision(s).  All they can do to elucidate their visions to me is to tell me.  Unfortunately, to borrow a truism from Franksolich: "Politicians lie.  All the time, politicians lie."  This means that relying on what a politician says is gonna leave you butt-hurt more often than not.  However, as much as most of them would like you to believe otherwise, their actions ALWAYS tell you who they really are, because their actions will tell you what they stand for when the talking is done.  So it is their records that MUST be examined, and my vote will go to the lying scumbag politician who's votes most closely match what my own would be, were I in his or her position.  I will vote for NO MORE government expanders, even especially if they have the (R) beside their name. 

If the GOP can't come to terms with that one remaining principle, then they will not have my vote in 2012.  It's that simple.

[RealConservativePatriot]

Barack Obama has a lot of vision.  Does that mean that he should get my vote in 2012?

Politicians all have vision(s).  All they can do to elucidate their visions to me is to tell me.  Unfortunately, to borrow a truism from Franksolich: "Politicians lie.  All the time, politicians lie."  This means that relying on what a politician says is gonna leave you butt-hurt more often than not.  However, as much as most of them would like you to believe otherwise, their actions ALWAYS tell you who they really are, because their actions will tell you what they stand for when the talking is done.  So it is their records that MUST be examined, and my vote will go to the lying scumbag politician who's votes most closely match what my own would be, were I in his or her position.  I will vote for NO MORE government expanders, even especially if they have the (R) beside their name. 

If the GOP can't come to terms with that one remaining principle, then they will not have my vote in 2012.  It's that simple.

I said their vision is what matters. In 2008, Barack Obama's vision was to increase deficits and the role of government as a way to promote economic growth. Whether you liked McCain or not, he emphasized tax relief, energy independence, and worker re-training as his vision. But, because Obama tied McCain to Bush, Obama won.

[DefiantSix]

...Whether you liked McCain or not, he emphasized tax relief, energy independence, and worker re-training as his vision. But, because Obama tied McCain to Bush, Obama won.

Bullshit.

McLame was NOT advocating tax relief, he was in up to his snowy white eyebrows in the Cap and Tax scheme instead of any real government withdrawal from energy over-regulation, and McLame lost because instead of offering a clear difference between himself and the Dhimmi'Rat nominee, he presented himself as "Dhimmi'Rat Lite".  If the squishy Independents want a Dhimmi'Rat, they'll vote for the REAL Dhimmi'Rat over the lying "me too" moderate politician every time.

[RealConservativePatriot]

Bullshit.

McLame was NOT advocating tax relief, he was in up to his snowy white eyebrows in the Cap and Tax scheme instead of any real government withdrawal from energy over-regulation, and McLame lost because instead of offering a clear difference between himself and the Dhimmi'Rat nominee, he presented himself as "Dhimmi'Rat Lite".  If the squishy Independents want a Dhimmi'Rat, they'll vote for the REAL Dhimmi'Rat over the lying "me too" moderate politician every time.

My point was to show that Obama had vision, but not the right kind of vision. Lets be honest here though, Obama smeared McCain and presented his own agenda in a dishonest fashion. In 2012, Obama will do the same to anyone who is his opponent.