Tag Archives: Tim Pawlenty

Tim Pawlenty Drops Out

After finishing in 3rd place in the Iowa Straw Poll former Minnesota Govenor Tim Pawlenty is dropping out of the race.

In a Sunday morning conference call with supporters, Pawlenty said, “We cannot envision a path forward to victory, and so therefore we made a decision to end the campaign.”

Pawlenty expected to get a boost from the Iowa straw poll results for his struggling campaign. As he stated on “This Week”, “We needed to get some lift to continue on and have a pathway forward. That didn’t happen, so I’m announcing this morning on your show that I’m going to be ending my campaign for president.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, also a Presidential candidate, release this comment on Pawlenty’s decision:

This morning I spoke with Governor Pawlenty to express my respect and admiration for him, and to wish him and his family well. Running for the presidency requires enormous self-sacrifice. Governor Pawlenty brought an important voice and ideas to the campaign, and he served the people of Minnesota and our country well. Our party and our country are better as a result of his service and commitment.

 

 

 

Ames Straw Poll Results and Follow-Up

Days of news coverage of the Ames straw poll have come to conclusion – Michele Bachmann won, Ron Paul took second and Tim Pawlenty rounded out the top three.

First the detailed results. Out of 16,584 votes cast:

  1. Michele Bachmann 4,823 votes / 29.1%
  2. Ron Paul 4,671 / 28.2%
  3. Tim Pawlenty 2,293 / 13.8%
  4. Rick Santorum 1,567 / 9.4%
  5. Herman Cain 1,456 / 8.8%
  6. Rick Perry 718 as a write-in / 4.3%
  7. Mitt Romney 567 / 3.4%
  8. Newt Gingrich 385 / 2.3%
  9. Jon Huntsman 69 / .4%
  10. Thad McCotter 35 / .2%

Neither Mitt Romney nor Rick Perry participated in the event, but Rick Perry showed much stronger than the former Massachusetts governor.

While Michelle Bachmann is a daughter of Iowa, has strong social Conservative beliefs and was strong in the polls entering the Iowa event, another important detail can be gleaned from her win: she has the organization to win caucuses.

There has been much made about her only being able to win at the district level in her own state of Minnesota. To win the straw poll she had to overtake significant spending by Tim Pawlenty and an always strong Ron Paul Ames straw poll organization.

Tim Pawlenty being in the top three will likely keep him going in the 2012 election cycle despite lackluster numbers in nationwide polls. Pawlenty admitted so much saying that he needed a strong finish in Iowa to jump start his campaign. After the results came out, his campaign released a statement:

Congratulations to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann for her victory in today’s straw poll. We made progress in moving from the back of the pack into a competitive position for the caucuses, but we have a lot more work to do. This is a long process to restore America — we are just beginning and I’m looking forward to a great campaign.

Gingrich, Huntsman, and McCotter showed poorly. Newt’s campaign has dealt with numerous defections, mis-steps with Conservatives, and it has run out of money. Huntsman is far too liberal to survive the nomination process and McCotter has image, money and name recognition problems to overcome. It is highly likely that 2 or 3 of these candidates will withdraw from the race in coming weeks.

Rick Perry will be in Waterloo, Iowa tomorrow to officially kick off his 2012 Iowa campaign. Perry represents what might be the biggest threat to Bachmann in Iowa and should top Mitt Romney in most other states.

We may be looking at a tight race between Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry as the presidential race moves across the nation.

GOP Debate: Winners & Losers, But Mostly Losers

   So who won the GOP debate in Ames, IA last night?  With a mostly subdued panel-and moderator questions that ranged from contentious to downright bizarre –  the more pertinent question seems to be “Who lost?”

The most obvious losers were Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, and Jon “My Record in Utah” Huntsman.  Santorum and Pawlenty both carried the air of men who understood this debate was probably their last chance to distinguish themselves to voters and the media.  The two candidates came out strong, highlighting their records with solid, direct responses.  One of Pawlenty’s big mistakes of the night came when Chris Wallace offered him a “do-over” for his previous failure to stick it to Romney regarding Massachusetts “Obamneycare” during the first debate.  Even with the opportunity handed to him, Pawlenty could barely muster a direct jab at Romney and didn’t even use all his allotted time to respond.  And then there was his other big mistake – when he finally did summon a little pluck and decide to take on another candidate, he chose Michele Bachmann – the only woman on the stage.  Bachmann stood her ground, and Pawlenty made some salient points at her expense, but it didn’t seem like a wise strategy to let the first person he directly and forcefully engages be the only woman in the field.  Not good optics, as they say.

Santorum lost the debate because…well…he’s Rick Santorum – strong conservative, affable guy, but completely unmemorable.  His cause was not aided in any way by the moderators, who went as long as thirty minutes without directing a single question or comment toward Santorum.  As the night wore on it was obvious Santorum was frustrated with his screen time, but he was unable assert himself enough to demand more time.  He was just too…nice.

Jon Huntsman may have lost last night’s debate 2 months ago when he first announced his candidacy and many in the mainstream media picked him as a good opponent for Obama right away.  An endorsement from Jeb Bush didn’t help much either.  Has Huntsman never heard of Bush Fatigue?

And then there was Newt – no doubt the smartest guy in the room.  With his direct, thoughtful answers he ran circles around his competition.  However, Newt’s fatal flaw is his total confidence in his intelligence and stature.  Clearly irritated, Gingrich slapped away a question regarding the mass defection of his original campaign team.  The crowd seemed to enjoy Newt’s boldness at first, but ultimately his “cranky Uncle Newt at family Thanksgiving dinner” routine proved to be too much.  Newt didn’t lose, but he didn’t win anything either.

Herman Cain was fine.  He was given a moment to clarify his remarks about banning mosques and Sharia law.  His answers were not eloquent, but adequate.  He knows a lot about business and running a business and how businesses run and companies and such.  Cainiacs were no doubt pleased with his performance over all.

Ron Paul was Ron Paul.  He had his Ron Paul comb-over and wore his Ron Paul suit and read from his Ron Paul script.  He hit all his Ron Paul talking points.  The Ron Paul fans screamed at every Ron Paulism that came out of Ron Paul’s mouth.  Ron Paul probably raised a lot of money last night.

Michele Bachmann held her own but seemed somewhat subdued.  One wonders if her campaign advisors have been coaching her to avoid the “screeching woman” syndrome so many female candidates are accused of falling into. It was a pretty unremarkable night for Mrs. Bachmann until Byron York asked what was probably the most ridiculous, most bizarre question of the evening.  Without a hint of embarrassment, York asked Bachmann if, being a Bible-believing Christian, she would follow the commandment from 1Peter and submit to her husband even in the White House.  Bachmann seemed as stunned as the crowd for a brief second, then fired off a very sweet response about loving her husband and understanding that the verse is about mutual respect.  If Fox News were one of the players on stage last night, Byron York would have been the guy that lost the game for them.  It was an awful, silly question, which Bachmann handled with ease.  If she had a bright spot last night, that was it.

That leaves us with Romney, and Romney’s hair, which has its very own campaign team, don’t you know?  Romney and his hair were the clear winners last night, but perhaps more for what didn’t happen than what did happen.  Romney’s hair let Mitt do all the talking, and he said all the right things.  Obviously, Mitt has been looking at the polls and seeing that people are afraid he’s too soft to take it to Obama when the time comes.  But while he was purposeful and calculated in his remarks, Romney wasn’t engaging.  He was wide open to attacks on his governing record and flip-flopping but no opponents seemed up to the task.  It seemed inevitable that someone other than the moderator would make hay out of his disappearance during the debt ceiling battle, but no one took it up.  The result was a missed opportunity by at least 3 or 4 candidates to take out their competition.  Without challenges, a mediocre performance on Mitt’s part looked strong.

Last night’s debate was rather weak.  The field seemed unsure of how hard to attack and how much to preen.  The moderators offered weak questions and topics.  At times the most exciting thing about the debate was the audience.  They, at least, seemed engaged and excited.  It’s still early, but these candidates seem to need a bit more fire under them.  With Rick Perry now in the mix and Sarah Palin lurking around the edges in her tour bus that surely comes equipped with its own ‘Jaws’ theme music, it’s going to be a tighter race than ever.

Pawlenty vs Bachmann: Debate Quirrel Extends into the Press

As much of a #facepalm moment the debate became when Gov. Tim Pawlenty started a back-and-forth, playground-style tiff with Rep. Bachmann, it didn’t end there.

Press releases were sent immediately to all news outlets explain why each one was right and who had lied.

The fight started on July 10th when Pawlenty hinted that he was going to try to knock Bachmann off of her high-polling perch.

Then Bachmann hit back on July 25th comparing Pawlenty to Obama on everything from climate change to taxes.

We finally get to August 11th and the GOP debate – nothing has changed.

Bachmann has been strong in the polls lately while Pawlenty has been struggling, to put it lightly. Grabbing just 2% of likely voters, the former governor seemed to be grasping at straws – no pun intended.

After the debate, both campaigns sent out a flurry of press releases to try and re-message the disaster this little cat fight turned into.

45 minutes into the debate, we received this:

Tim Pawlenty’s executive experience is not an asset if it simply means bigger and more intrusive government.

“The era of small government is over,” Pawlenty said in an interview with the Star Tribune. “I’m a market person, but there are certain circumstances where you’ve got to have government put up the guardrails or bust up entrenched interests before they become too powerful … Government has to be more proactive, more aggressive.” (Star Tribune August 19, 2006)

That’s the same philosophy which, under President Obama, has brought us record deficits, massive unemployment and an unconstitutional health care plan.

“Back in 2006, Pawlenty was portraying himself as a conservative who was willing to intervene in markets, and he said that government has to “bust up entrenched interests before they become too powerful.” It appears he’s been backing off those positions in 2011, but that doesn’t change what his views were years ago. If he was quoting David Brooks when he said “the era of small government is over,” he seemed to be doing so approvingly… (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/26/michele-bachmann/did-tim-pawlenty-say-era-small-government-over/)

Tim Pawlenty supported a cap and trade system, but tried to deny it.

“Pawlenty told Fox News Sunday on Jan. 16 that he ‘never did sign a bill relating to cap and trade’ when he was governor of Minnesota, but that’s not true. He also said: ‘I’ve opposed cap and trade.’ However, that’s been the case only since 2009.

“In fact, the bill he signed in 2007 specifically required a task force to ‘recommend how the state could adopt’ a cap-and-trade system. Furthermore, he also signed a regional compact with other Midwestern governors agreeing to ‘jointly endeavor’ to ‘develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism.'” (FactCheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/pawlentys-political-climate-change/)

Tim Pawlenty was for government bail-outs before he was against them.

“So from a pure marketplace principle, you would not bail them out. But we also have to measure that against the consequences to the rest of the country. And, you know, that is an imperfect solution, but, like has been said, they are too big, the consequences are too severe for innocent bystanders to allow them to fail.” (National Press Club on August 6, 2008)

Tim Pawlenty held views on health care that are strikingly similar to Barack Obama.

“He favored exchanges and was ‘open to’ mandates. Then he ran for president.”

“In 2006, Pawlenty praised Romney for attacking health care costs, said he was ‘open to’ a similar insurance mandate and endorsed the idea that ‘everybody should be in a health plan of some sort.’

‘We all, I think, can chart a path toward universal coverage,’ he said in a luncheon speech to a Minneapolis health reform conference. ‘We’re going to have to move in stages.”

“In 2007, Pawlenty asked the Legislature to create a state-regulated health insurance exchange for individual health insurance policies — now the centerpiece of Obama’s plan to expand access to those who don’t have group insurance through their employers.

“‘It seems like there were two Pawlentys with regard to health care,’ said state Rep. Paul Thissen, a DFL leader who served on the governor’s bipartisan Health Transformation Task Force.” (Star Tribune August 6, 2011)

Tim Pawlenty raised taxes in Minnesota

“Tim Pawlenty misled readers in an op-ed by saying he solved Minnesota’s budget crisis in 2005 without raising taxes. Pawlenty’s 75-cents-per-pack cigarette tax — which he called a “health impact fee” — helped forge a budget deal…” (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/pawlenty-taxes-and-budget-crises/)  

10 minutes later, the Pawlenty campaign sent this:

Fact check on Bachmann's false attack

Pawlenty Cautioned Against Political Meddling In Health Care Policy And Twice Rejected The Individual Mandate, In 2003 And 2006:

Governor Pawlenty CriticizedPolitical Meddling In Health Policy. “Pawlenty also peppered his remarks with broad criticism of the nation’s current ‘tattered, outdated, inefficient’ health care system and hard shots at health maintenance organizations (HMOs), prescription drug advertising and political meddling in health policy” (Conrad Defiebre, “Pawlenty: Give Health Coverage To All Kids,” MinneapolisStar Tribune, 11/15/06)

The National Journal Singled Out Pawlenty For Rejecting Individual Mandates Twice As Governor Of Minnesota, In 2003 And 2008. “MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) defied recommendations made to him by advisers twice in the last 6 years about working to install individual mandates for health insurance coverage — and in doing so may have stockpiled some points he can use to score with the GOP base.” (Erin McPike, “Pawlenty Twice Turned Down Mandate,” The National Journal, 3/31/10)

The Star Tribune Issued A Correction For The “Era Of Small Government” Misquote Three Days Later After A Battle Pawlenty Discussed On Rush Limbaugh Several Months Ago:

The Star Tribune Issued A Correction For The “Era Of Small Government” Misquote. “An article on Page 01B Saturday quoted Gov. Tim Pawlenty saying ‘The era of small government is over,’ a comment he made in reference to a point made in a 2004 column by New York Times columnist David Brooks. Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said Monday that Pawlenty’s record shows he is not a supporter of ‘big government’ and that he was ‘simply talking about the need for government to be more effective and active.'” (“Corrections,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, 8/22/06)

In May 2011, Pawlenty Addressed The Misquote On Rush Limbaugh And The Battle To Get The Correction Printed. “Gov. Pawlenty: ‘Well, actually I’m glad you brought that up, Rush, because it gives me a chance to clarify. The other side has pushed that falsely for a number of years. What happened is in the Minnesota Star Tribune — not exactly a conservative publication — I made reference to an articlethat David Brooks wrote which was entitled, “The Eera of Small Government is Over.” I didn’t say those words myself; I was referencing his article. Yeah, and so the next day — the very next day — the Star Tribune, after a big battle, printed a clarification or a correction in their correction page. Of course, the main article was on page one and the correction was buried in some footnote in page three, but that incorrect quote has haunted me — and I’m glad I had a chance in this big national forum on your great show to clarify, because if you go to the next day’s newspaper you’ll see the clarification in the Star Tribune.'” (“Our Interview With Tim Pawlenty,” Rush Limbaugh, 5/23/11)

Neither Pawlenty nor Bachmann fared well in this exchange. The petty and angry exchange came off a bit raw. Bachmann had nothing to gain and failed to ignore the fledgling candidate. Pawlenty had nothing to lose and probably harmed a fellow Republican.

Pawlenty to Start “Road to Results” Tour

The Pawlenty for President organization today released Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty’s plan to travel through 26 cities in Iowa in eight days ending at the Ames Straw Poll on August 13th.

“As I have traveled across the state over the last two weeks, Iowans have voiced their frustration with President Obama and his failure to tackle our nation’s fiscal problems and create jobs,” Gov. Pawlenty said. “I’m working hard to meet as many Iowans as possible to share my record of conservative success in Minnesota. I believe Iowans are ready for a president with the courage to not just talk about solutions, but who actually has a record of results. At every stop of this tour, I will offer substantive solutions to overcome our nation’s economic hurdles.”

The “Road to Results” will be at the following:

Mason City Meet and Greet
Clarion Inn, 2101 4th Street SW (Highway 122W), Mason City, Iowa 50401
8:30 a.m. CDT

 

Black Hawk County GOP Women’s Lunch
Beck’s Sports Brewery, 3295 University Avenue, Waterloo, Iowa 50701
11:30 a.m. CDT

 

Dyersville Meet and Greet
County Junction, 913 15th Avenue SE, Dyersville, Iowa 52040
1:30 p.m. CDT

 

Manchester Meet and Greet
Pizza Ranch, 1100 West Main Street, Manchester, Iowa 52057
3:30 p.m. CDT

 

5 County Fundraiser
Clear Creek Amana High School, 311 West Marengo Road, Tiffin, Iowa 52340
7:00 p.m. CDT

 

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Grinnell Meet and Greet
Poweshiek County GOP HQ, 901 Main Street, Grinnell, Iowa 50112
9:30 a.m. CDT
Spirit Fest Concert
Jordan Park Camp, 2251 Fuller Road, West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
11:30 a.m. CDT

 

Jewell House Party
Home of Rick and Janet Young, 525 Edwards Street, Jewell, Iowa 50130
2:30 p.m. CDT

 

Grundy Meet and Greet
Johnny Ray’s All-American Grill, 2103 Commerce Drive, Grundy Center, Iowa 50638
4:30 p.m. CDT

 

Monday, August 8, 2011

Visit with Viking Magazine Employees
Viking, 715 E Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa, 50010
10:00 a.m. CDT

 

Johnston Meet and Greet
Rich’s Brew, 5800 Merle Hay Road, Johnston, Iowa 50131
4:00 p.m. CDT

 

IFFC House Party
Home of Jim and Rhonda Dilley, 2092 NW 134th Street, Clive, Iowa 50325
5:30 p.m. CDT

 

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Sully Meet and Greet
Coffee Cup Café, 616 4th Avenue, Sully, Iowa 50251
8:00 a.m. CDT

Family Research Council Action, National Organization for Marriage, and Susan B. Anthony List Values Bus Tour Kickoff
Iowa State Capitol, West West Capitol Terrace, 400 Finkbine Drive, Des Moines, Iowa 50319
10:10 a.m. CDT

Boone Meet and Greet
Boone Public Library, 702 Greene Street, Boone, Iowa 50036
1:00 p.m. CDT

 

Chantland-MHS Visit and Tour
Chantland-MHS, 2512 Lincoln Avenue, Humboldt, Iowa 50548
3:30 p.m. CDT

 

Humboldt GOP Meeting
311 6th Ave. North, Humboldt, Iowa 50548
6:00 p.m. CDT

 

Fort Dodge Picnic
Kennedy Park – Bob Huen Shelter, 1415 Nelson Avenue (2 miles north of Fort Dodge Airport), Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
7:00 p.m. CDT

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Adel Meet and Greet
Brick Street Books & Café, 803 Main Street, Adel, Iowa 50010
8:00 a.m. CDT

Winterset Meet and Greet
Northside Café, 61 E Jefferson Street, Winterset, Iowa 50273
10:00 a.m. CDT

 

Atlantic Town Hall
Family Table Restaurant, 609 West 7th Street, Atlantic, Iowa 50022
12:30 p.m. CDT

 

Harlan Town Hall
Pizza Ranch – Harlan, 613 Court Street, Harlan, Iowa 51537
2:30 p.m. CDT

 

Denison Town Hall
Cronk’s Café, 812 4th Avenue South (Junction of Highways 30 & 59), Denison, Iowa 51442
4:30 p.m. CDT

 

Ames Rally
Zekes, 3329 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50014
7:00 p.m. CDT

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Republican Party of Iowa, FOX News Channel and Washington Examiner Iowa Debate
C.Y. Stephens Auditorium, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011
7:00 p.m. CDT

 

Friday, August 12, 2011

Guest Pork Chef at Iowa Pork Producers Association Booth
Iowa Pork Producers Association Booth, Iowa State Fairground, East 30th Street and East University Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50317
11:00 a.m. CDT

 

Soap Box at Des Moines Register Booth
Des Moines Register Booth, Iowa State Fairground, East 30th Street and East University Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50317
12:30 p.m. CDT

 

Soap Box at RPI Booth
RPI Booth, Iowa State Fairground, East 30th Street and East University Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50317
2:30 p.m. CDT

 

College Students for Pawlenty Pizza Party
Greek Triangle, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011
5:30 p.m. CDT

Tim Pawlenty Campaign Releases New Video: The American Comeback

The Pawlenty for President campaign released an ad on Wednesday that displays his success as a state Governor.

 

ABC Sports says the campaign used unauthorized footage from the “Miracle on Ice” hockey game in this political advertisement.

“It’s a violation of our copyright and exclusive proprietary rights,”  said Louise Argianas, director of rights and clearances for ABC Sports.

Is Pawlenty Jealous of Bachmann’s Rise in the Polls?

It appears that that GOP hopeful Tim Pawlenty has shown his true colors, and it appears to be a bright shade of green!

While on Meet the Press this yesterday, the former governor of Minnesota seemed to give somewhat of a back-handed compliment to fellow candidate Michele Bachmann, while at the same time slamming her.

Mr. Pawlenty stated:

“I like Congresswoman Bachmann. I’ve campaigned for her. I respect her. But her record of accomplishment in Congress is non-existent.”

 

You can view the entire video here:

 

While Congresswoman Bachmann is ahead in the polls, Governor Pawlenty cannot say the same. In an early-voting Iowa poll last month, Tea Party favorite Bachmann was at the the op. Though he has led a very active campaign in Iowa, Mr. Pawlenty is still lagging way behind in the polls. He is also lacking much-needed campaign funds.

Yes, it does appear that Mr. Pawlenty is just a wee bit green with envy! Sir, the color does not suit you well!

Tim Pawlenty Releases Middle-East Foreign Policy Statement

Governor Pawlenty gave these remarks in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations:

Tim PawlentyI want to speak plainly this morning about the opportunities and the dangers we face today in the Middle East. The revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and a more prosperous Arab world. From Morocco to the Arabian Gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility.

Now is not the time to retreat from freedom’s rise.

Yet at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-looking. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical Islam see a chance to ride political turmoil into power.

The United States has a vital stake in the future of this region. We have been presented with a challenge as great as any we have faced in recent decades. And we must get it right. The question is, are we up to the challenge?

My answer is, of course we are. If we are clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. Our nation has done this in the past — at the end of World War II, in the last decade of the Cold War, and in the more recent war on terror … and we can do it again.

But President Obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. He has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests or a clear commitment to our principles.

And parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. This is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. The stakes are simply too high, and the opportunity is simply too great.

No one in this Administration predicted the events of the Arab spring – but the freedom deficit in the Arab world was no secret. For 60 years, Western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the Middle East. That could not last. The days of comfortable private deals with dictators were coming to an end in the age of Twitter, You Tube, and Facebook. And history teaches there is no such thing as stable oppression.

President Obama has ignored that lesson of history. Instead of promoting democracy – whose fruit we see now ripening across the region – he adopted a murky policy he called “engagement.”

“Engagement” meant that in 2009, when the Iranian ayatollahs stole an election, and the people of that country rose up in protest, President Obama held his tongue. His silence validated the mullahs, despite the blood on their hands and the nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels.

While protesters were killed and tortured, Secretary Clinton said the Administration was “waiting to see the outcome of the internal Iranian processes.” She and the president waited long enough to see the Green Movement crushed.

“Engagement” meant that in his first year in office, President Obama cut democracy funding for Egyptian civil society by 74 percent. As one American democracy organization noted, this was “perceived by Egyptian democracy activists as signaling a lack of support.” They perceived correctly. It was a lack of support.

“Engagement” meant that when crisis erupted in Cairo this year, as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square, Secretary Clinton declared, “the Egyptian Government is stable.” Two weeks later, Mubarak was gone. When Secretary Clinton visited Cairo after Mubarak’s fall, democratic activist groups refused to meet with her. And who can blame them?

The forces we now need to succeed in Egypt — the pro-democracy, secular political parties — these are the very people President Obama cut off, and Secretary Clinton dismissed.

The Obama “engagement” policy in Syria led the Administration to call Bashar al Assad a “reformer.” Even as Assad’s regime was shooting hundreds of protesters dead in the street, President Obama announced his plan to give Assad “an alternative vision of himself.” Does anyone outside a therapist’s office have any idea what that means? This is what passes for moral clarity in the Obama Administration.

By contrast, I called for Assad’s departure on March 29; I call for it again today. We should recall our ambassador from Damascus; and I call for that again today. The leader of the United States should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where America stands. As President, I will not.

We need a president who fully understands that America never “leads from behind.”

We cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in Middle Eastern history. We need decisive, clear-eyed leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interests.

Opportunity still exists amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring — and we should seize it.

As I see it, the governments of the Middle East fall into four broad categories, and each requires a different strategic approach.

The first category consists of three countries now at various stages of transition toward democracy – the formerly fake republics in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Iraq is also in this category, but is further along on its journey toward democracy.

For these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy.

Elections that produce anti-democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. We must do more than monitor polling places. We must redirect foreign aid away from efforts to merely build good will, and toward efforts to build good allies — genuine democracies governed by free people according to the rule of law. And we must insist that our international partners get off the sidelines and do the same.

We should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions faced by Libya, Tunisia, and especially Egypt. Whereas Libya is rich in oil, and Tunisia is small, Egypt is large, populous, and poor. Among the region’s emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity and the biggest danger for American interests.

Having ejected the Mubarak regime, too many Egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineered in the last decade. We act out of friendship when we tell Egyptians, and every new democracy, that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade—not subsidies and foreign aid. If we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth.

In Libya, the best help America can provide to these new friends is to stop leading from behind and commit America’s strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC as the government of Libya, and unfreezing assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli.

Beyond Libya, America should always promote the universal principles that undergird freedom. We should press new friends to end discrimination against women, to establish independent courts, and freedom of speech and the press. We must insist on religious freedoms for all, including the region’s minorities—whether Christian, Shia, Sunni, or Bahai.

The second category of states is the Arab monarchies. Some – like Jordan and Morocco – are engaging now in what looks like genuine reform. This should earn our praise and our assistance. These kings have understood they must forge a partnership with their own people, leading step by step toward more democratic societies. These monarchies can smooth the path to constitutional reform and freedom and thereby deepen their own legitimacy. If they choose this route, they, too, deserve our help.

But others are resisting reform. While President Obama spoke well about Bahrain in his recent speech, he neglected to utter two important words: Saudi Arabia.

US-Saudi relations are at an all-time low—and not primarily because of the Arab Spring. They were going downhill fast, long before the uprisings began. The Saudis saw an American Administration yearning to engage Iran—just at the time they saw Iran, correctly, as a mortal enemy.

We need to tell the Saudis what we think, which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. We will develop that trust by demonstrating that we share their great concern about Iran and that we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from Iranian aggression.

At the same time, we need to be frank about what the Saudis must do to insure stability in their own country. Above all, they need to reform and open their society. Their treatment of Christians and other minorities, and their treatment of women, is indefensible and must change.

We know that reform will come to Saudi Arabia—sooner and more smoothly if the royal family accepts and designs it. It will come later and with turbulence and even violence if they resist. The vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms that fit Saudi history and culture—but not to buy off the people as a substitute for lasting reform.

The third category consists of states that are directly hostile to America. They include Iran and Syria. The Arab Spring has already vastly undermined the appeal of Al Qaeda and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has significantly weakened it.

The success of peaceful protests in several Arab countries has shown the world that terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. Peaceful protests may soon bring down the Assad regime in Syria. The 2009 protests in Iran inspired Arabs to seek their freedom. Similarly, the Arab protests of this year, and the fall of regime after broken regime, can inspire Iranians to seek their freedom once again.

We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assad’s murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedom—it has demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one, is to weaken or replace the other.

The fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime itself.

To take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic channel to bring the Assad reign of terror to an end. We need more forceful sanctions to persuade Syria’s Sunni business elite that Assad is too expensive to keep backing. We need to work with Turkey and the Arab nations and the Europeans, to further isolate the regime. And we need to encourage opponents of the regime by making our own position very clear, right now: Bashar al-Assad must go.

When he does, the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally. If we peel that away, I believe it will hasten the fall of the mullahs. And that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. It’s the singular opportunity offered to the world by the brave men and women of the Arab Spring.

The march of freedom in the Middle East cuts across the region’s diversity of religious, ethnic, and political groups. But it is born of a particular unity. It is a united front against stolen elections and stolen liberty, secret police, corruption, and the state-sanctioned violence that is the essence of the Iranian regime’s tyranny.

So this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and speak with clarity. More sanctions. More and better broadcasting into Iran. More assistance to Iranians to access the Internet and satellite TV and the knowledge and freedom that comes with it. More efforts to expose the vicious repression inside that country and expose Teheran’s regime for the pariah it is.

And, very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told AIPAC that he would “always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.” This year, he told AIPAC “we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” So I have to ask: are all the options still on the table or not? If he’s not clear with us, it’s no wonder that even our closest allies are confused.

The Administration should enforce all sanctions for which legal authority already exits. We should enact and then enforce new pending legislation which strengthens sanctions particularly against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards who control much of the Iranian economy.

And in the middle of all this, is Israel.

Israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for and what it has accomplished. And it is unique in the threat it faces—the threat of annihilation. It has long been a bastion of democracy in a region of tyranny and violence. And it is by far our closest ally in that part of the world.

Despite wars and terrorists attacks, Israel offers all its citizens, men and women, Jews, Christians, Muslims and, others including 1.5 million Arabs, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, access to independent courts and all other democratic rights.

Nowhere has President Obama’s lack of judgment been more stunning than in his dealings with Israel.

It breaks my heart that President Obama treats Israel, our great friend, as a problem, rather than as an ally. The President seems to genuinely believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem in the Middle East. He said it Cairo in 2009 and again this year.

President Obama could not be more wrong.

The uprisings in Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli and elsewhere are not about Israelis and Palestinians. They’re about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. Whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments Israel builds in Jerusalem.

Today the president doesn’t really have a policy toward the peace process. He has an attitude. And let’s be frank about what that attitude is: he thinks Israel is the problem. And he thinks the answer is always more pressure on Israel.

I reject that anti-Israel attitude. I reject it because Israel is a close and reliable democratic ally. And I reject it because I know the people of Israel want peace.

Israeli – Palestinian peace if further away not than the day Barack Obama came to office. But that does not have to be a permanent situation.

We must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region perceives clearly that America stands strongly with Israel.

I would take a new approach.

First, I would never undermine Israel’s negotiating position, nor pressure it to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself.

Second, I would not pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas or a Palestinian government that includes Hamas, unless Hamas renounces terror, accepts Israel’s right to exist, and honors the previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. In short, Hamas needs to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step towards global legitimacy.

Third, I would ensure our assistance to the Palestinians immediately ends if the teaching of hatred in Palestinian classrooms and airwaves continues. That incitement must end now.

Fourth, I would recommend cultivating and empowering moderate forces in Palestinian society.

When the Palestinians have leaders who are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law, who understand that war against Israel has doomed generations of Palestinians to lives of bitterness, violence, and poverty – then peace will come.

The Middle East is changing before our eyes—but our government has not kept up. It abandoned the promotion of democracy just as Arabs were about to seize it. It sought to cozy up to dictators just as their own people rose against them. It downplayed our principles and distanced us from key allies.

All this was wrong, and these policies have failed. The Administration has abandoned them, and at the price of American leadership. A region that since World War II has looked to us for security and progress now wonders where we are and what we’re up to.

The next president must do better. Today, in our own Republican Party, some look back and conclude our projection of strength and defense of freedom was a product of different times and different challenges. While times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not.

In the 1980s, we were up against a violent, totalitarian ideology bent on subjugating the people and principles of the West. While others sought to co-exist, President Reagan instead sought victory. So must we, today. For America is exceptional, and we have the moral clarity to lead the world.

It is not wrong for Republicans to question the conduct of President Obama’s military leadership in Libya. There is much to question. And it is not wrong for Republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in Afghanistan— though my belief is that General Petreaus’ voice ought to carry the most weight on that question.

What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world. History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much more than we’ll save in a budget line item.

America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal. It does not need a second one.

Our enemies in the War on Terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength. Sometimes strength means military intervention. Sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. It always means moral clarity in word and deed.

That is the legacy of Republican foreign policy at its best, and the banner our next Republican President must carry around the world.

Our ideals of economic and political freedom, of equality and opportunity for all citizens, remain the dream of people in the Middle East and throughout the world. As America stands for these principles, and stands with our friends and allies, we will help the Middle East transform this moment of turbulence into a firmer, more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress.

Obama continues to lead in Florida

Raleigh, N.C. – Obama is in a decent position to once again win the key swing state of
Florida. Obama leads all potential Republican opponents by a greater margin than his 51-
48 victory over John McCain in 2008. Obama leads Mitt Romney by the narrow margin
of 47-43 (up from 46-44 in March). Obama achieves larger margins against all others
leading Tim Pawlenty 48-40, Michele Bachmann 49-40, Herman Cain 48-37, and Sarah
Palin 52-40 (52-39 in March).

Obama leads despite only tepid approval among Florida voters. Only 48% of Floridians
approve of Obama while 49% disapprove. As is true across the country, the unpopularity
of the GOP candidates makes up for Obama’s weak numbers. Bachmann, perhaps
boosted by favorable coverage from her last debate, is the most popular Republican
candidate, breaking close to even with a 36-37 favorability rating. She is followed by
Romney at 41-45, Cain at 25-33, Pawlenty at 19-39, and Palin at 37-58.

Marco Rubio starts his term off with a decent approval rating; 42% of Florida voters
approve while 35% disapprove. With Rubio’s solid numbers and position in a key swing
state, the eventual Republican nominee may be tempted to add him to the ticket. This is
unlikely to be a big help in Florida though. Only 31% of voters say Rubio as VP would
make them more likely to support the GOP, while 35% say it would make them less
likely, and 34% say it would make no difference. Worse for the GOP, the tenure of
Governor Rick Scott appears to be an unambiguous problem for their chances. 26% of
Floridians say Rick Scott has made them more likely to support the GOP, while 40% say
it makes them less likely to and 34% claim it makes no difference.

“Florida’s pretty emblematic of Barack Obama’s current postion,” said Dean Debnam,
President of Public Policy Polling. “Voters there aren’t in love with him but when they
look at the Republican alternatives and they look at what Rick Scott’s done while in
office as Governor he starts to not look so bad.”

Gov. Tim Pawlenty To Sign Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge

MINNEAPOLIS — Governor Pawlenty released the following statement today after being the first 2012 presidential candidate to sign the Cut, Cap, Balance pledge.

“I am encouraged by this measure that underscores the dire need to cut spending and balance the budget. Like my economic plan, this pledge will serve to reverse decades of Washington’s fiscal mismanagement,” Gov. Pawlenty said. “Washington has continued to kick the problem of out-of-control spending down the road. President Obama’s economic policies have failed and his Administration has racked up historic burdens of debt for future generations. As president, I would significantly cut federal spending, enforce a spending cap, and pass a Constitutional amendment to balance the budget, so I obviously support congressional leaders who are trying to do that now.”

Gov. Pawlenty recently unveiled his economic plan, ‘A Better Deal,’ at a speech at the University of Chicago where he proposed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget with a federal spending cap of around 18% of GDP. Earlier this year, he warned against raising the debt limit and urged others to reform entitlement spending in a Washington Post Op-ed. Gov. Pawlenty cut state government spending in real terms for the first time in Minnesota’s history and balanced the budget every year during his two terms.

 

GOP N.H. Debate: What Did We Learn?

The one thing that stands out in my mind after watching the GOP Presidential Debate in New Hampshire last night is that we have a stronger, more potent group of challengers to Barack Obama than most people know, or are willing to admit today, especially in the media. While we have been told there is no front-runner, or no real stand-out Republican candidate, I believe just the opposite was revealed last night. At minimum we have five or six strong, viable candidates right now, even without the very potent conservative from Texas, Governor Rick Perry, and the former VP candidate and Governor of Alaska, one Sarah Palin throwing their hat in the ring. Competition brings the cream to the top, and right now the competition for the 2012 Republican Presidential candidacy is wide open. This heavy-hitting lineup of conservative Americans also has folks like Rudy Guiliani and Donald Trump currently mandated to sitting on the sidelines as observers, which says a lot about this group. Thus, I do not believe anyone really stood out head and shoulders above the rest last night, but there were  some pleasant surprises. Lets keep in mind that every single one of these candidates qualifies as a form of the anti-Obama, in the fact that their love for America, and American values is unquestionable. Another point not to be forgotten is the fact that every Republican candidate grew up in America, which should be of vital consideration today, considering Obama’s largely anti-American views against capitalism and big parts of American life in general. So the debate and primary process should be about who looks like the strongest, most determined candidate to reverse the current Socialist, big government control and regulation of  our main industries agenda.

The biggest surprise of the night for many folks including myself was Newt Gingrichs’ gritty, tough forceful answers to every question thrown his way. Newt almost looked angry, yet kept his composure and certainly showed his intelligence concerning America’s problems and offering possible solutions last night. Many people might view this as good acting, but I saw genuine concern and a heartfelt desire to help America recover from the onslaught of liberal policies and regulations of the past four-plus years.That said, Newt reminded me of a tiger backed into a corner last night, and most of us know how he was the one who actually backed himself into that very same corner recently. He is still considered to be a strong conservative, yet his choice to re-start his campaign in L.A. just might be the final nail in Newt’s political coffin as a viable candidate in 2012. A Hollywood producer could not re-write Newt’s script well enough to completely cover up Newt’s recent ill-advised statements, and now most of his campaign staff has jumped ship. The upside to this tragedy, is that the rest of the candidates are going to benefit from listening to some of his political wisdom for as long as Newt hangs in there.

Tim Pawlenty stumbled a bit, especially when he was confronted by moderator John King who was trying to bait him into denouncing Romney on the health-care issue. Tim didn’t take King’s bait though, and while once again we see the he looks like he has some uncomfortable degree of intrepidation in these debates, he still offers some real solutions to America’s current slew of problems today. Pawlenty’s background and experience are solidly conservative, and we can look for him to study up and get more comfortable in future debates somewhat. Pawlenty is knocked for supposedly leaving Minnesota with a bigger debt than when he entered the governor’s office,which is proven once again to be false Democratic propaganda.  When the State has a Democratic majority in both houses. coupled with a strong element of progressivism, it can render a governor powerless to stop the spending, leading to increased debt,yetwith a Democratic majority during his second term, Tim Pawlentybalanced the state’s budget, period. (That is for the person claiming to be from Minn. last night in the RedState debate chat-room and whom lied about Pawlenty leaving Minn. with a huge debt problem and called him a progressive.)

Ron Paul stuck to his guns again last night and called out the insanity of the Fed printing out massive amounts of money that is damaging our economy and will continue to haunt America for years to come. Ron Paul articulated on the separation of church and state well, and blasted the illegal war actions in Libya and Yemen with a courage some of the other candidates lacked. No matter how the mainstream media, or the old guard GOP establishment  try to denounce and/or slander Ron Paul, he has held his ground on what he believes our government should have the power to do or not do, and his beliefs are all based on our Constitutional law. That resolve alone  makes him a difficult person for anyone to beat in a Presidential debate, to a certain degree. Ron Paul’s main problem is that many informed people in America today realise just how Barack Obama and our Congress are blatantly ignoring our constitutional laws today. If we truly elected a President on the basis of  our Constitution, and the obeying of it, Ron Paul wins hands down. The main problem with this, is that many folks have now accepted the almost daily pattern of  the ignoring our constitution today. This is the real tragedy here, and due to that acceptance of  ignoring our constitution, Ron Paul has less of a chance to being elected as President. How can folks say they are true conservatives and denounce Ron Paul at the same time? You either believe in the U.S. Constitution, or you do not.

Michelle Bachmann announced her 2012 Presidential candidacy right on the debate show last night, which was somewhat of a pleasant surprise for people across the conservative spectrum in America. She elaborated her answers to the questions thrown at her with conviction and resolve. She explained the Tea Party movement well, and I noted that she also was very graceful in acknowledging valid points made by other candidates, while expanding on those same points. Michelle Bachmann showed a deep determination in expressing her heartfelt desire to pull America out of the current Democratic economic ditch that we are currently buried in. Her support should increase somewhat after last night, especially since she has now formally announced that she is all in.

Rick Santorum had solid answers to most of the questions thrown at him last night, but was obviously being downplayed by the moderator in the fact of how much less air  time he received than other candidates. Santorum is a fighter, and I look to see him get more forceful in demanding more debate time in the near future. His conservative credentials can not be questioned, and his refusing to bend over for the media and play the part of a moderate is having an ill affect on the public’s perception of him, IMHO. I look for Santorum to fight back against this today and tomorrow, while hitting the airwaves and Internet to convey his answers to the questions he was left out of last night. Santorum has to step up his messaging, lest he be left behind by this solid group of conservatives.
Herman Cain, not Mitt Romney was the one who seemed to be under attack last night, and the man handled it very well. He was very quick to point out when John King spun his words and called him out on it right away. Cain got caught up in somewhat of a trap by King on whether he would hire Muslims in his cabinet, as King tried to paint him as some kind of racist against Muslims. Let me help John King out here on this topic. Americans now realise that they cannot distinguish Muslim terrorist sleeper agents from decent American Muslims in many situations today, and therefore are not comfortable having any of them in our government. That is a fact. Herman Cain, as our President would have the sworn duty to protect us from Sharia law creeping into our country, and for that he is to be thanked, not made out to be a racist. Cain is a problem solver who states that he understands how important it is for our President to surround himself with the right people, lest we get folks like the Communist Van Jones working right in our White House, or have you folks already forgotten that little episode in Obama’s fundamental transformation of America?  This is exactly what Herman Cain was trying to convey. Herman Cain is as conservative and American as you can get. This is exactly what type of candidate scares the left today, resulting in them attacking him 24/7. That alone should tell us he is a solid conservative candidate for President in 2012. This country has very serious economic problems, and Herman Cain has the solutions. Get the government out of private business and industry, period. This isn’t communist China we are talking about here, this is America.

Mitt Romney certainly played the debate game well, drawing on past debating experiences, in which he answered the questions quite impressively. I noted that Mitt Romney was given the podium at center stage also. Herman Cain and Rick Santorum were set out on the wings( fringe) and you can makeof that whateveryou will. In the political debate game, not much happens by accident, and this new debate style just seemed to carry with it an agenda of allowing the moderator to promote one candidate over another to some degree, as most TVdebates today appear designed to do. Mitt Romney was solid in this debate and this shows why he is leading the very early polls that we are bombarded with on a daily basis, some 17 months before the elections. I came away with the distinct feeling that this debate wasn’t necessarily designed to let these Presidential candidates show their true conservative credentials, and instead was a stealth attempt to discredit some, or all of them. Also of note is the fact that over 75% of the people that I chatted with online during the debate expressed disgust with John King as moderator. That shouldn’t surprise anyone, considered this debate was on CNN.

With the utter importance of the 2012 elections, I fail to understand the lack of attempts by anyone in the media to conduct more thorough debates in a manner that would show voters just what kind of a President these candidates would make. The short time period for answers does not let candidates state their stances and the reasons for them completely. I,d like to see the candidates themselves set up their own debates, to be moderated by a true conservative, period. Just like the Democrats did in 2008. Makeit more of a round-table discussion instead of a game-show. Split the candidates up into groups of 3 or 4, andthen switch the participants around for the next debate. Getdown to a real debate, like we had in high school, where one person states their stand on an issue and the others state their rebuttal or agreement. Take out the ability of the moderator to spin the questions as he sees fit. This isn’t rocket science here, just have people send in questions, put them in envelopes and have a candidate pick an envelope, read the question and answer it, plain and simple. The debate process itself has evolved into a TV production being used as a ratings ploy. Bring it back to more of a round-table discussion, and we might be able to better judge how a candidates ideology lines up with our own views.

The debate format and moderator aside, I am very proud of our 2012 Republican Presidential hopefuls last night. We are seeing just how diverse, powerful and straight-up American this group of Republicans truly are. There is no perfect candidate that will please everyone, yet the lasting impression I am left with after last night’s debate, is that any one of them would make a wonderful American President, something we haven’t had since Barack Obama took office. We will truly win the future in 2012.

 

The Dating Game .. errr New Hampshire GOP Debate

The New Hampshire GOP DebateThe contestants were selected with care for their appeal to the liberal network, the undesirables weeded out in the pre-selection process. The host was quaffed just so for his role, the questions light and fun..

No, this wasn’t The Dating Game, but what was supposed to be the first major debate among the GOP potentials for President. The fact that it was being held on CNN was my first tip that it may not be all that I had hoped. The “this or that” personal questions were laughable and a waste of valuable debate time, meant to somehow help us relate to these people who could possibly be in charge of the most important decisions in our country soon. However, I know now that Herman Cain would pick deep dish pizza and Newt Gingrich prefers American Idol to Dancing with the Stars. Definitely critical points for choosing a nominee for President.

Keeping up with the #CNNDebate hashtag was nearly impossible, but I caught quite a bit and was not the only one who seemed uninspired by the venue, King as moderator, or the course of questioning. Overall, however, there were a few surprises… and a few not so unexpected responses.

I was impressed with Michele Bachmann overall, and may have to take a closer look at the things that will impress me more than the number of times she has given birth or her stance on DADT. She was composed, prepared, intelligent, and much more interested in talking about her and moving forward, than bashing Obama.

Mitt Romney was completely predictable and ambiguous on many fronts. I remain convinced that he will do more damage than good at this point, but from the comments on Twitter he seemed to come out on top, or a very close second to Bachmann, with mainstream Republicans. I firmly believe that a person can learn and grow, even a politician. I hope that Romney does so soon.

Governor Pawlenty let far too many prime chances pass to show how committed he is to fiscal sanity. He played it low key, and was quickly forgotten by me, and I think by John King. His answers near the end of the debate seemed as rote as say.. Obama reading his standard “Let me be clear” from the teleprompter.

Rick Santorum started off strong enough, and he has a following, but his answers are already fading from my mind. He has the gung ho, but I just don’t think Santorum is getting out there enough and his appeal to the middle is about nothing at this point.

Ron Paul was as steady on his stances as he has been for the last forty years. He even semi-joked about his feelings for the Fed, which got a laugh from the audience. What was different this time is that, despite New Hampshire being a traditionally mainline GOP venue, he got more applause than any other candidate during the debate. Love him or hate him, he is still in the race.

Herman Cain was the biggest disappointment for me tonight. I genuinely like Cain and like his answers on many topics. I admire that he is still in it, and still touts that he is not a politician, but in a debate that can really hurt. He was stumbling and unclear on many points and should have stood his ground on the question of a Muslim in his Administation. Though I know he is a supporter of free markets, all I will remember now is that he said he supported TARP in the beginning. At least he knows what kind of pizza he likes.

Newt, who?

Who Do You Think Took the New Hampshire Debate?

[poll id=”19″]

D.A.M. Media Operative Bob Franken Bashes Pawlenty Plan

As I have been writing in my Democratic Attack Machine (D.A.M.) articles, the Liberal media is the heart and soul of D.A.M. today. Once again we see a once unbiased, honest reporter out of Washington D.C., Mr. Bob Franken turn into a media-puppet of the left. Also of note is that he is a cousin of the failed comedian and big mouthed leftist Al Franken ,who stole an election in Minnesota in which 341 convicted felons voted illegally, Democratic activist judges turned the other way and he won by 312 votes to crawl into the U.S.Senate. Meanwhile Cousin Bob (NYT) Franken was even too far left for CNN who refused to renew his contract in 2007, thus relegating him to the far left smear dungeon of MSNBC. Yes, that MSNBC, the very same arm of D.A.M. that houses the foul-mouthed Ed Shultz who called Ann Coulter a slut on national TV and is still there slinging his vile rhetoric at everything conservative, and Queen big-mouth butch, Rachel Maddow, both of whom wouldn’t know fair and balanced reporting if it fell on their heads. Such is the state of journalistic integrity and a total lack of morality over at MSNBC. Is it any wonder they are at the bottom of the ratings every single week? Yet they serve the purpose of the D.A.M. in spreading rumors, lies and misinformation to bad-mouth conservative patriotism 24/7. They simply do not report the news,  but instead they spin it into leftist propaganda in the nastiest of ways.

So now we have both the Franken-freaks bashing conservatives, one in the U.S. Senate, and the other writing for the N.Y.T. as some kind of supposed syndicated columnist. Bob Franken was once a solid, Emmy award-winning writer, covering three decades of important issues in America. Key words, once was a solid, Emmy award-winning writer there. Not any more, as our friends over at Newsbusters show us today:

It takes a former CNN “correspondent” to make Tim Pawlenty sound scary . .  .

It’s kind of fun to watch former MSM “reporters” turn into totally-out,  liberal partisans once they leave their “reporting” gigs.  Take Bob  Franken. For years a big-time national correspondent for CNN, the network let  him go in 2007.  Franken is now free to let his liberal freak flag  fly.

Check out ole Bob in that video up there. What are you now Bob, 90 years old? If I ever get that senile and am out in public spewing nonsense like that I bet I’d end up in the state loony bin, which is pretty much where Bob is at these days as a liberal mouthpiece in the media arm of the D.A.M. Tim Pawlenty’s new plan to try to fix America’s massive debt problem hadn’t even been finalised yet, and the D.A.M. went to work attacking and falsely slandering it and him. For decent, concerned Americans wondering how or if we will ever have a real leader in this country to address our crushing debt, I,ll let 2012 presidential candidate Mr. Tim Pawlenty tell you about his ideas:

 

« Older Entries