Bye Bye Pawlently

YouTube Preview Image

Tim Pawlenty is the first casualty of the Republican primary contest for President, with his announcement today of his dropping out.  I am not too surprised.  His only hope as a candidate was to win the Iowa caucuses.  His attacks against the frontrunner in Iowa, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, in the debate last week proved completely ineffective.  His loss in the Saturday Aimes, Iowa straw poll, coming in a distant third after Bachmann and Ron Paul (R. Pluto), demonstrated that his hopes in Iowa were minimal.

Pawlenty was a successful governor of Minnesota and is solidly pro-life.  I doubt if he we will not hear from him in the future.  There is a rumor that he may run against Senator Klobuchar in 2012 for that Senate seat.  If he does, I would rate Pawlenty a slight favorite.

 

53 Responses to Bye Bye Pawlently

  • H. Bunce says:

    Always find the writing, opinions, and ideas on this blog to be interesting and well-reasoned.

    That said, I also find it extremely disheartening to see the flippant disregard to the candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul. Your notation of “(R. Pluto) after his name is a childish and snide knock at a solidly principled candidate for president.

    If you are looking for a candidate that has a decades long pro-life record, Dr. Paul is one.

    If you are looking for a candidate that has a decades long fiscally conservative record, Dr. Paul certainly qualifies.

    If you are looking for a candidate whose actions throughout their career demonstrates unwavering fidelity to rule of law, individual freedom and liberty, and the God-given rights of every human being, Dr. Paul stands out well beyond every Republican and Democrat candidate for this office.

    To tag him (R. Pluto) is to join Rush Limbaugh and his “nuts on parade” diatribe against the only candidate who truly espouses peace and freedom. This doesn’t make sense to me on a blog that otherwise seems to write in favor of these fundamental human principles.

  • Thos. Collins says:

    What the hell is the purpose of a “straw poll” more than six months before the caucuses, which are themselves six months from the convention.
    Why does our election process from the “starting to begin to consider forming a committee” stage to finally actually casting ballots have to be so ludicrously elongated?

  • “That said, I also find it extremely disheartening to see the flippant disregard to the candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul. Your notation of “(R. Pluto) after his name is a childish and snide knock at a solidly principled candidate for president.”

    Nope, it is an accurate statement about Paul. The man is a headcase on foreign policy and his type of thinking would be begging for a nuclear Pearl Harbor.

    A typical Paul divergence from reality was when Osama bin Laden was taken out:

    “Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.

    “I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”

    Well maybe it was because we knew that sections of the Pakistani military are in bed with the Jihadists and have been protecting Osama. When it comes to foreign policy Paul inhabits a dream world made up of wishful thinking, isolationism, conspiracy mongering and raw ignorance.

    http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/05/16/isolationist-fever-ron-pauls-delerious-statements-on-bin-laden/

    Beyond that, his ignorance on a great many subjects that he insists on pontificating on, including the Civil War, is a wonder to behold. The Congress will be a better place when he is out of it in 2013.

  • “Why does our election process from the “starting to begin to consider forming a committee” stage to finally actually casting ballots have to be so ludicrously elongated?”

    Probably because those candidates who start early have tended to be the ones elected since the Sixties. That, and the huge amounts of money required to run a race, which takes an enormous amount of time to raise.

  • I’m with Bunce on this, McClarey. Ron Paul is only a headcase insofar as he aspires to return us to the days when we didn’t feel compelled to meddle in every part of the world where we might have had some tangential interest – and the US will be done as a nation before that ever happens, I am convinced. And one of the reasons is that nationalist idolators and military adventurists with far more public exposure than yourself share in your casual and cavalier disregard for ideas that you can’t actually defeat in a debate. Or, lestways, I haven’t seen anyone with gumption enough to even try, let alone succeed. Why bother, when dismissal or snide comments like yours and Art Deco’s are so much easier?

  • Wolfie, Paul yearns for the days when America could hunker down behind two vast oceans and let the rest of the world go to the Devil. His complete nonchalance about a rogue regime like Iran obtaining nuclear weapons amply demonstrates that he does not understand what we are facing in the world and does not wish to. Although I almost wish I could be there after a smuggled nuke takes out an American city to hear President Ron Paul explain how he will solve the problem by issuing letters of marque and reprisal!

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    I’m kind of disappointed to hear that Pawlenty dropped out… I was thinking that he might be a good president precisely BECAUSE he wasn’t the greatest campaigner nor was he a highly polarizing figure. The last thing we need is another president of EITHER liberal or conservative persuasion who cultivates a cult of personality or a “political savior” image. Just find someone who can do the job.

    In other GOP campaign (sort of) news, I just found out that the Sarah Palin bus tour stopped at the Lincoln Presidential Museum in Springfield this morning. Nope, did’nt see her (would have been at Mass at the time anyway), didn’t even know she was in town until she was gone and the local newspaper (www.sj-r.com) posted a story on its website.

    The newspaper invited people who may have seen her at the museum to post comments to the story, but needless to say, NOT ONE comment so far is from anyone who actually saw or met her, it’s all Palin haters and Palin defenders arguing back and forth as usual.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    As for Ron Paul, perhaps he, like Newt Gingrich, is half genius and half crazy — and you can’t always figure out which half is in charge at any given time. He might do well as a lower level economic adviser to a GOP administration, and might come up with some good ideas; just be sure he isn’t in a position where his bad ideas will do actual damage.

  • T. Shaw says:

    This is sort of unusual for me.

    I’m about 88% in agreement with AD on this one: “H. Bunce, if you are looking for a candidate who has ever superintended a corps of people larger and more complex than his office staff, Ron Paul is not that guy.”

    Absolutely! Currently, America is experiencing the horrors attendant with a president whose prior executive/superintending experience consists of organizing sit-ins, and aiding and abetting government frauds, i.e., Rezko.

    I’m starting to think the Swiss model: everyone knows not to attack us (ICBM’s, nuke trident subs, ABM) and keep our nose out of everybody else’s business. That may be appropriate for American peace and prosperity. The Swiss franc is the envy of the world, too.

    I recently converted to the gold standard. If you oppose central planning, collective control of the economy, or the Washington/Wall Street five trillion dollar a year money ring, Rep. Paul may the best man in the areas of fiscal and monetary policy.

    The 12% where I disagree with AD above is wherein I believe the federal government should be THAT small and THAT simple.

  • H. Bunce says:

    “Nope, it is an accurate statement about Paul. The man is a headcase on foreign policy and his type of thinking would be begging for a nuclear Pearl Harbor.”

    No, sir, it is wildly inaccurate. It doesn’t make sense to oppose the clumsy and destructive interventions by government domestically while simultaneously supporting the same clumsy and destructive interevention internationally.

    It is interesting to juxtapose your above statement with this one… “Well maybe it was because we knew that sections of the Pakistani military are in bed with the Jihadists and have been protecting Osama. When it comes to foreign policy Paul inhabits a dream world made up of wishful thinking, isolationism, conspiracy mongering and raw ignorance.”

    The Pakistani’s possess nuclear weapons, are corrupt (according to your statemtent, and I agree with you), worked closely with jihadists, and apparently were protecting/harboring bin Laden. Given this, shouldn’t we be warring with Pakistan first before we begin the war with Iran?

    Dr. Paul’s book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, is his collection of statements and positions regarding American foreign policy both before and after 9/11. In my opinion, it is a stunning book that shows a grasp of foreign policy that rivals any office holder since the beginning of our republic. I’m sure you disagree, but it thoroughly refutes your claim of “wishfull thinking, isolationism, conspiracy mongering, and raw ignorance”. Raw ignorance?! For God’s sake, the man understands more about what brought our country to futile wars from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya (and beyond) than any potential Republican presidential candidate and certainly Barack Obama.

    When I was a young boy, the argument was we must fight and die in Vietnam to prevent the “dominoes from falling” to communism. 58,000 dead Americans later, Vietnam was a communist country. 40 years after that, we trade with them, we are tourists in their country, we invest in Vietnam. In short, we engage with them peacefully whether we like their form of government or not; whether they continue to oppress their own people or not.

    Fast forward to 2011, think about this Vietnam lesson, and ask whether we should be engaging Iran, Pakistan, Libya, and every other nuclear or non-nuclear country we currently vilify…or should we be bombing and killing them?

    To say Dr. Paul is an “isolationist” is a thoughtless smear. To say he is ignorant of reasoned foreign policy is contrary to fact. To say he engages in wishful thinking is the opposite of his entire record since his first term in 1976.

    You obviously don’t agree and I respect that opinion. To drop in the childish (R. Pluto) even further degrades that opinion.

  • “The Swiss model”

    Yep the Swiss model works! All you need is a United States of America to defeat Nazi Germany and deter the Soviets from conquering Europe subsequent to World War II. Which nation T.Shaw do you propose as the US if the US becomes Switzerland?

  • “Given this, shouldn’t we be warring with Pakistan first before we begin the war with Iran?”

    No Pakistani leaders have promised to use nuclear weapons against Israel and the US unlike Iranian leaders. Pakistan also isn’t supplying weapons to Hamas and to kill American soldiers in Iraq as Iran is doing.

    “40 years after that, we trade with them, we are tourists in their country, we invest in Vietnam. ”

    And the Church is persecuted, the Vietnamese know no political freedom and over a million Vietnamese fled their country, risking their lives on the high seas. Why it’s Nirvana!

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is quite simple. Retreat to Fortress America and let the rest of the world go to Hell. His foreign policy, if implemented, would be a disaster for the US and the rest of the world. Fortunately he will never get the opportunity to learn how little his delusions accord with the real world.

  • H. Bunce says:

    “No Pakistani leaders have promised to use nuclear weapons against Israel and the US unlike Iranian leaders. Pakistan also isn’t supplying weapons to Hamas and to kill American soldiers in Iraq as Iran is doing.”

    Pakistani leaders and the nation’s population as a whole is deeply influenced by Islam and Pakistani’s have made innumerable statements condemning and threatening Israel. And just where are the sanctuaries and support (weapons among them) currently for Al-Qaeda and Taliban? The answer is Pakistan. Who is killing Americans in Afghanistan? Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

    “And the Church is persecuted, the Vietnamese know no political freedom and over a million Vietnamese fled their country, risking their lives on the high seas. Why it’s Nirvana!”

    Come on, this is a complete and total straw man argument and you’ve always been better than that on this blog. Did 58,000 American dead prevent Church persecution, no political freedom, or any of the other misery of life in Vietnam? No, it didn’t and I never intimated that this country was any sort of paradise. What has helped some since the end of the war, and may do much more in the future, is American trade, tourism, investment, interaction with the Vietnamese people. It can do so much more effectively, and morally I might add, than American guns and bombs. THIS is the foreign policy advocated by Dr. Paul.

    It can do the same for Iranians, Libyans, Somalis, Pakistanis, ……

    “Ron Paul’s foreign policy is quite simple. Retreat to Fortress America and let the rest of the world go to Hell. His foreign policy, if implemented, would be a disaster for the US and the rest of the world. Fortunately he will never get the opportunity to learn how little his delusions accord with the real world.”

    This is a gross mischaracterization of Dr. Paul’s foreign policy positions. In fact, it is completely the opposite of his 30+ years of speaking and voting on all these matters. Each of us, and generations yet unborn, are facing a debt burden that is unpayable and immoral. This is due in large part to NOT following Dr. Paul’s exhortations against American empire building. And this doesn’t even begin to calculate the staggering human cost of our current course of foreign policy, advocated by all the other Republican candidates.

    Don’t take my word for it, and certainly don’t take the MSM word for it. Find out for yourself by investing a few hours in reading what he has to say. If you find no merit in what he actually says, then so be it. At least you will be clear in what Dr. Paul’s ideas are. Agree or disagree, one could not help but respect the man and his adherance to the principles of freedom and peace.

    He may not get the opportunity to implement his policy views. And that is too bad for my children and yours.

  • “Pakistani leaders and the nation’s population as a whole is deeply influenced by Islam and Pakistani’s have made innumerable statements condemning and threatening Israel.”

    They have never threatened to nuke Israel and the United States. Additionally, elements of the Pakistani military have been fighting against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban for years. This places them in a different category than Iran. It is precisely an inability to make such distinctions that makes Ron Paul such a buffoon on foreign policy. That, and his belief that the solution to our conflicts overseas is simply to abandon the field to our enemies and to retreat to our shores.

    “Did 58,000 American dead prevent Church persecution, no political freedom, or any of the other misery of life in Vietnam?”

    The Church was certainly not persecuted while American troops were in Vietnam, the South Vietnamese enjoyed far more political and economic freedom and over a million South Vietnamese had not had to flee their homeland to escape Communist tyranny. There are real life consequences when we give up, take our marbles and go home, and the consequences for the Vietnamese who fought beside us during the Vietnam War were dire. Ron Paul and other isolationists simply refuse to deal with the real life consequences of their preferred solution to foreign policy difficulties which is always US retreat.

    “Don’t take my word for it, and certainly don’t take the MSM word for it. Find out for yourself by investing a few hours in reading what he has to say.”

    Oh I have been following Ron Paul and reading his writings long before he came into the public limelight in the last decade.

  • Anthony says:

    The constant name-calling against Ron Paul by mainstream GOP members only reveal how childish and morally bankrupt they are. Instead of honestly debating him, they simple appeal to the voter’s base nature.

    Ron Paul scares the establishment because he’d actually shrink the size of government, and not just talk about it. Who here actually thinks a theoretical Republican president would rollback the size and scope of D.C? God forbid they actually passed a balanced budget, let alone wrote one.

    On foreign policy, the GOP won’t be happy unless they are blowing up somebody on the other side of the planet. War is their solution to every problem, it seems. They love war, and slurp it up from the public trough like it’s an ice cream sundae. They love war just as much as liberals love the welfare state. Fact.

    But you know, I could let that all slide if only the opposition were capable of being mature, decent human beings. You know, Ron Paul has some strong rhetoric, but I can’t recall him ever singling out a person and calling him names. Maybe he’d do better in the polls if he actually did.

    People like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman and Rick Perry honestly give me the creeps. I would rather sit out the election or vote third party than be morally culpable for the whirlwind these crazies would stir up.

  • “Ron Paul scares the establishment”

    No one is scared of Ron Paul Anthony, because no one believes he will ever be President. He is simply a clown who has a cult who adore him and who stack internet and straw polls for him. He is the GOP Lyndon Larouche and his act got old a very long time ago.

    He is also a hypocrite when it comes to government spending as his long time love affair with government pork projects indicates:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/104609/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget-updated

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

  • Joe Green says:

    Looking at the GOP field so far, I’d say Barry has little to worry about.
    Paul comes off as a wacko, Romney as an empty suit, Bachmann as Palin lite, Cain as an overachieving pizza maker, Santorum as a yawn, Perry’s “that’s fine with me” on homo marriage as wishy-washy, Gingrich is yesterday’s news, and Pawlenty proved he’s a RINO and irrelevant.

    As for the straw poll, only George W. Bush, winner in 1999, came out first in the general election. The other winners all went nowhere (George H.W. Bush, Pat Robertson, Bob Dole and Phil Gramm – they tied in 1995 – and Mitt Romney).

  • Anthony says:

    You still haven’t made a single argument. You’ve just got schoolyard name-calling, like any old bully or pundit.

    The man says what he believes, believes what he says, and has the voting record to prove it. Paul is far from perfect, but he has my respect, and for that he’ll get my vote in the primaries.

    I’m sick and tired of the chattering classes telling us all what to think, and Paul’s candidacy is for people sensitive to this growing and constant problem. I genuinely hope he causes migraines for the GOP.

    I have zero confidence that the GOP is capable of putting in a president who will change the nation’s course for the better. I’m 100% confident that should any of the mainstream candidates get in the oval office, we will get more of the same: more war, more spending, and steady decline.

  • “You still haven’t made a single argument.”

    Rubbish Anthony. I have made arguments as to Ron Paul’s insane foreign policy and his love of pork. You have chosen not to respond to the arguments.

    “I genuinely hope he causes migraines for the GOP.”

    No, even as a purely gadfly nuisance candidate Ron Paul is completely ineffective. I would like to see him run on a third party ticket with Dennis Kucinich (D. Neptune), however, for the sheer entertainment value.

  • Art Deco says:

    Looking at the GOP field so far, I’d say Barry has little to worry about.

    Gallup has some handy historical statistics published, covering the entire post-war period. Given B.O.’s level of public esteem at this date, should he be returned to office it would be…an innovation. And that is presuming the current unpleasantness in the Eurozone does not draw us into the maelstrom.

  • Don the Kiwi says:

    Joe Green.

    I’m having quite a laugh here. You say Ron Paul (R – Alpha Centauri)
    Don says Ron Paul ( R – Pluto).

    At least, Alpha Centauri is a remote galaxy – Pluto is essentially a non-existent planet.

    Take your pick :lol:

    I’m sure Ron will be happy with his retirement package in a few years.

  • T. Shaw says:

    “Yep the Swiss model works! All you need is a United States of America to defeat Nazi Germany and deter the Soviets from conquering Europe subsequent to World War II. Which nation T.Shaw do you propose as the US if the US becomes Switzerland?”

    That was the. This is now.

    I don’t relish debating “What would have happened if Custer had machine guns” possibilities.

    War and peace are tough for me.

    Today is a BIG (Feast of the Assumption!). I love this Feast.

    History: Today in 1971, President Nixon (he robo-signed signed my commission) officially closed the Treasury gold window. He took the US off the gold standard. Gold was $35 an ounce. By 1974, gold was $195 an ounce. By January 1980, it was $800 an ounce. Nixon ended the gold standard to assist with the misguided wage and price controls regime.

    The government can’t central plan or collectively control the economy with the gold standard. Since 1971, the world has experienced 39 hyper-inflationary episodes . . . and umpty-umph recessions.

  • “That was the. This is now.”

    Human nature doesn’t change T.Shaw, and I do not think that the challenges we face abroad will vanish if we decide to retreat to a Fortress America.

    In regard to Nixon, it always amused me that he was hated so by Liberals, as his Presidency indicated that he was one of them, a fact noted by conservative critics of the Nixon administration at the time. His moniker of “Tricky Dick” was well earned, but his main trick was putting a conversative facade over what was a RINO essence.

  • Art Deco says:

    I think it is difficult to discern a set of political principles from Richard Nixon’s career that would fix him at a particular place on our domestic spectrum. Garry Wills attempted it in Nixon Agonistes, but his framework told you more about Wills than about Nixon. I suspect the man was a careerist reacting to the world around him. Both he and Spiro Agnew had a vigorous (and, one suspects, genuinely felt) antagonism to the liberal establishment as a subculture, but they carried with them little or nothing in the way of plans for dismantling the liberal establishment’s policy architecture (beyond dismantling goofy initiatives like the Office of Economic Opportunity).

  • Nixon was a big government man through and through Art. Wage and Price controls, the EPA, expansion of domestic federal spending, these and more underlined that Nixon, no less than Johnson, was a believer that large Federal spending was the key to bettering society. His downplaying of human rights as a consideration of US foreign policy and his China policy, indicated that his anti-Communism was skin deep. He opposed abortion publicly, but privately supported it in some circumstances, a stance he embraced openly in his retirement.

    His antipathy for his liberal critics I think was always more because they hated him and wouldn’t let him be a member of the club. He thought there was some snobbishness against his humble background, and I think he was right on that. Nixon in many ways was a fairly conventional liberal Republican in the Thomas Dewey mode. His initial campaigns for the House and Senate in which he pretended, for political expediency, to be a conservative set a pattern by which he was misunderstood throughout his political career by opponents and supporters.

  • c matt says:

    With the loser GOP field we have, Obama is headed for a second term. Not one of them could beat him in a general election, regardless of the “polls”. As the old saying goes, Americans deserve the government they want, good and hard.

    As for US foreign policy, it is soon to be irrelevant. Collapsed countires cannot do much foreign policy – we are about to become as relevant as Argentina (only with a crappier soccer team – on the bright side, our wines will still be as good).

  • c matt says:

    I do not think that the challenges we face abroad will vanish if we decide to retreat to a Fortress America.

    Kind of begs the question – would we have to face these challenges abroad if, um, we weren’t abroad? Donald, this just seems to be a particualr blind spot for your otherwise pretty spot on analyses.

  • Art Deco says:

    I was not inside either Nixon’s head or Agnew’s head. I merely note that both men were in their way practitioners of bourgeois virtue in their mundane lives, both came from petit bourgeois backgrounds (w/ both fathers in small business), and (until they were well into middle age) lived on (and saved from) their earnings; neither man had much in the way of social connections. A characteristic of liberal opinion of the age was to belittle (from several different directions) the achievements and tastes of men such as Nixon and Agnew. Wills does that in spades in Nixon Agonistes, even sneering at Sprio Agnew’s dog. I do not think either man wished to join a club populated with the likes of Garry Wills and Arthur Schlesinger.

  • Similar predictions were made cmatt about the inevitability of a second Carter term in 1979 when looking at the Republican field. Reagan was especially written off as an over the hill politician who was far too conservative to be elected. That is why we have campaigns, to see if our crystal balls are working well or not. Considering that Obama is now descending into the thirties in approval in polls that I think understate Republican strength, I believe whoever the GOP nominates will have an excellent chance of giving Obama an early start on his true career: World Celebrity For Life.

  • “I do not think either man wished to join a club populated with the likes of Garry Wills and Arthur Schlesinger.”

    Agnew the corrupt small time politician I do not venture an opinion on. Nixon certainly did. Hence his churning out turgid tomes in retirement to be taken seriously as an elder statesman by the chattering classes who despised him. Nixon was partially successful in this, as the “moderate” Nixon was a useful stick with which to belabor current conservative Republican politicians.

  • Art Deco says:

    With the loser GOP field we have, Obama is headed for a second term. Not one of them could beat him in a general election, regardless of the “polls”. As the old saying goes, Americans deserve the government they want, good and hard.

    Again, Gallup has made available some historical statistics. Several of our recent presidents have recovered in public esteem sufficiently to be returned to office: Truman did, Nixon did, and Reagan did (a task at which Messrs. Carter and Ford failed). Obama will have to recover more territory in less time than any of them (bar, perhaps, Carter). That is not something you would rule out without qualification, but not something you would expect, either. (Most particularly with the Eurozone mess).

  • Art Deco says:

    That is why we have campaigns, to see if our crystal balls are working well or not.

    That’s not why we have campaigns.

    I think Nixon and Agnew were more interesting (and tragic) figures than you say. They both had a great many assets, unfortunately put to ill use.

  • c matt says:

    Which nation T.Shaw do you propose as the US if the US becomes Switzerland?

    China. Not because it will want to, but because it has the most to lose/gain from instability as it conquers the world. And frankly, is the only one that can at this point. We won’t like it, I’m sure, but not too many actually “liked” the Pax Romana either (for that matter, there are many dissenters of the “Pax Americana” as well). But these things do not happen by choice, they happen by force, and I am afraid we no longer are in a position to exercise significant force politically, economically or militarily for much longer. We had our run, it was a decent one (although rather short-lived), thanks for all the fish.

  • Art Deco says:

    Kind of begs the question – would we have to face these challenges abroad if, um, we weren’t abroad?

    Yes, and that is the problem with Ron Paul. He fancies international conflict as a function of the discretionary decisions of policy-makers not so wise as he. No problem with self-esteem there.

  • “That’s not why we have campaigns.”

    You are too much of a literalist this morning Art! :)

    I have never had any use for Nixon. I think the man did great damage to the nation and the GOP. His one saving grace is that the men he defeated in 1968 and 1972 would doubtless have done even greater damage to the nation.

  • c matt says:

    I believe whoever the GOP nominates will have an excellent chance of giving Obama an early start on his true career: World Celebrity For Life.

    I would love for that to be the case, provided his replacement truly is a better candidate and not something the same or worse.

    As for Ron Paul’s alleged craziness, well, as Mr. Joel sings, he may just be the lunatic we’re looking for. We’ve tried just about everything else, why not give him a shot?

  • “China. Not because it will want to, but because it has the most to lose/gain from instability as it conquers the world. ”

    Please. China will be doing well if it can hold together mainland China, and not have it disintegrate into warring parts, a fairly frequent occurrence in Chinese history. The aging Communist bureaucrats who run China realize this, even if outside observers from the West are blind to it.

  • Joe Green says:

    Another Liberal media gotcha moment about Bachmann, taking one stupid quote and blowing it up into a headline:

    “She didn’t sit down to visit with us and eat with us,” attendee Mel Shaw, 57, told the U.K.’s Telegraph newspaper. “She came into the room like she was Madonna or something, a big star appearing before all us little people. She didn’t want to answer questions. That’s not the way we do politics here.”

    Complete story can be found here:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44142133/ns/politics-decision_2012/

  • T. Shaw says:

    Whew! I was not praising Nixon. My attempted “point” was about taking the US off the gold standard, nothing else, 40 years ago today.

    PS: the gold standard was invented by one of the most intelligent men that ever lived. The man invented Calculus.

    Mitt Romney named the Obama (Palin-copycat) bus tour: the “Magical Misery Tour.”

    Obama cannot run on his horrible record. His orc minions must demonize the opponent.

    By the way: Gallup poll finds Obama’s approval rating is down to 39%, and disapproval is 54%.

    “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with” Nixon.

  • Don the Kiwi says:

    A couple of hours ago i watched the ABC interviews etc. the day after the Iowa straw poll – Pawlenty pulling out etc., and Perry, although not there in Iowa, presenting himself as a candidate. Much of the show also focussed a lot on Michelle Bachman.

    Now from an outsider just looking at Perry and Bachman, they both look great, speak great, have their successes – Perry benefitting from the current economy in Texas and its growth from escaping Californians, low internal costs etc. etc.

    I know its far too early to make any sort of call, but right now, I don’t think that would be a silly ticket – Perry/Bachman. I feel that the US isn’t quite ready for a Madame President at this time, but who knows?
    My 2 cents.

  • TommyAquinas says:

    Ron Paul should be president … of Russia.

    Seriously, from hacking Estonia’s government to invading Georgia (advancing beyond the boundaries of Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and probable interfering with Ukraine’s elections, it seems to me that the Rus could use some isolationism.

    And the fact that someone here wants to give world leadership over to the People’s Republic of China – a nation that forces abortions, persecutes Christians, jails dissidents, and was founded by a man who killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined – is deplorable. It’s hypocrisy worthy of Biden or Pelosi.

    (You could almost say it’s the unofficial credo of “paleocon” foreign policy – OK for thee, but not for me.)

    I’m not sure who my favorite GOP candidate for the White House is (O Santorum, why must you approve waterboarding?) In any event, I think we should get together and start a grass-roots movement to put Ron Paul in the Kremlin! ;)

  • Mike Petrik says:

    I think the country is indeed ready for a woman president, but it must be a conservative or moderately conservative woman who is more accomplished and less eccentric than Bachmann.

  • Joe Green says:

    Too bad we can”t turn the clock back 30 years and get Maggie Thatcher over here. I have nothing against eccentricity although it didn’t help Adlai Stevenson, for one.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .