Game Over for Pawlenty?
Western Chauvinist ·
Jun 1, 2011 at 5:30am
He's on record supporting the individual mandate, not to mention heaping copious praise on Romney for his administration in Massachusetts.
It's the extra nudge I needed after listening to him tell Christiane Amanpour about the government's interest in education and his improved plan for administering health care via pay for performance. What does Professor Rahe call this kind of conservative? A progressive Republican?
I'm sympathetic to Hugh Hewitt's opinion that we shouldn't attack Republican candidates and rule them out on single issues when what we really need to do is beat Obama. But exceptional times call for exceptional measures and exceptional men. Paul Ryan must run.
H/T: Hot Air
- Comment (49)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
T-Paw has done something nobody else has: admitted he was a dumbass on some issues in a convincing and unequivocal manner. Conflating Pawlenty with Romney is unfair to the former, in spades.
Dec '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
I know he said he was stupid on carbon caps. What has he said recently about the individual mandate? Did he own up to what's on that recording?
When a guy tries to convince us he's a better administrator of Leviathan than the Democrat in office, I don't doubt his self-assessment. I doubt his small-government conservatism.
Oct '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Western, you are doing yeoman's service on behalf of Ryan. You are absolutely right that he is the man of the hour and I feel remiss not commenting in support when I see your Ryan posts. I'm buried at the moment, but keep it up.
I don't think Pawlenty stands a chance in the general election, not because of his policy positions which are overall solid, but due to his lack of charisma. I think this was evident at the Republican presidential debate where he appeared smug and patronizing, pinched and church-ladyish. In this video era that's a deadly impression to put forward, particularly for a conservative.
Ryan's manner is effortlessly thoughtful and winning. I don't know if Paul Rahe and Jennifer Rubin can guilt him into running, but I'm not going to condemn them for the effort.
Apr '11
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Western Chauvinist
When a guy tries to convince us he's a better administrator of Leviathan than the Democrat in office, I don't doubt his self-assessment. I doubt his small-government conservatism. · May 31 at 8:02pm
Ha! I won't argue with that.
Dec '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Thanks for the encouragement, Severely. I'm a stay-at-home mom with a passion for doing whatever it takes to save this country from the Left and the time to spend on Ricochet while guys like you and my husband are buried at work. I'm glad you and I agree Ryan is the man to turn the country in the right direction. This isn't over yet. Back to work for both of us.
May '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Well, this is depressing.
Aug '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Tim Pawlenty:
Mitt Romney:
Oh, they aren't 100% ideologically pure? Forget about 'em!
Paul Ryan:
He's a shoe-in for POTUS!
Time for a reality check folks! It's easy to sit in our little Ricochet bubble and pass judgement on the purity of candidates but unfortunately we only represent a few hundred votes. It might take one or two more to actually get someone elected.
Dec '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Right, Frozen. Here's how I see our choices. We have the ideologically impure progressive Republicans who are itching to get their hands on the reins of Leviathan to prove their executive competence. Or we have the true small-government conservative who is so humble he needs to be persuaded to try for the job of cutting Leviathan down to size. I'll take my chances with the latter.
And besides, given the 2008 election choices, apparently the electorate isn't as enamored with executive experience as you are.
Aug '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Trouble is, I dunno what Paul Ryan stands for, other than fiscally. For all I know, he could be for gay marriage, or any of a number of other liberal social causes...or at least unable to marshal the eloquence and clarity against them that he manages when discussing the budget.
Oct '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
I have no clue what Paul Ryan's foreign policy is either. sometime it's better for ryan to just not answer any questions not related to fiscal policy--it only has the potential to disappoint diehard fans and those who have elevated him to a pedestal.
Edited on May 31, 2011 at 11:12pmMar '11
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Frozen: I am sympathetic with your appeal to reality. Americans are suspicious of Obama's policies, but their not enamored with the Ryan plan either. Full disclosure: I don't have a favored candidate in the primary and am concerned all around by the field.
Western: It's not so much a question of one side of the party looking to demonstrate its competence while the other one wants to cut spending. I believe both are important: I want a small, competent government.
What irks me about the Pawlenty clip above is not if he's a true believer or not. It's that he shows neither imagination nor policy competence (both things Ryan has). He sort of says, "Yeah, you see, there's this medical care problem, and we should fix it. With insurance or coverage or a plan or something. Giving more access to a broken system isn't a solution."
He concedes the premises of the argument, and then proposes only a vague solution. This is the kind of politics which is the most tiresome: the-other-party-will-eat-your-soul, but I-don't-have-the-faintest-idea-what-to-do-that's-much-different.
Aug '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Western Chauvinist:
And besides, given the 2008 election choices, apparently the electorate isn't as enamored with executive experience as you are. · May 31 at 9:33pm
Republicans didn't give the electorate a choice - McCain didn't have any executive experience either.
Purity is great as long as it has the experience and skills to do something about it. Ryan may be a natural executive who doesn't need any experience, someone who can hit the ground running from day one.
Then again he may not be.
"Save us, Obi-Wan!"
Edited on Jun 1, 2011 at 5:47amDec '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Frozen Chosen
Western Chauvinist:
And besides, given the 2008 election choices, apparently the electorate isn't as enamored with executive experience as you are. · May 31 at 9:33pm
Republicans didn't give the electorate a choice - McCain didn't have any executive experience either.
That was my point.
Dec '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Paul DeRocco
Trouble is, I dunno what Paul Ryan stands for, other than fiscally. For all I know, he could be for gay marriage, or any of a number of other liberal social causes...or at least unable to marshal the eloquence and clarity against them that he manages when discussing the budget. · May 31 at 9:58pm
"Despite the heavily Democratic demographic of his home district, Ryan ran as a conservative in 1998 and won, beating the Democratic favorite by 15 percentage points. Before running for Congress, Ryan worked for several conservatives, including Sen. Sam Brownback and former housing secretary Jack Kemp."
He's not going to support gay marriage. He's a practicing Catholic who, in order to be in full communion with the Church, must believe marriage is a Sacrament between one man and one woman. I suspect this gives him the passion he needs to be eloquent. Oh, and he was a speech writer for Bill Bennett.
Some of his voting record is listed here
Edited on Jun 1, 2011 at 6:39amDec '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
John Marzan: I have no clue what Paul Ryan's foreign policy is either.
Edited on May 31 at 11:12 pm
I don't either. If he nominated John Bolton for Secretary of State, would that help?
Mitch Daniels was right about this. The new Red Menace is red ink. Paul Ryan understands the threat and he meets katievs' height requirement.
May '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Frozen Chosen
Purity is great as long as it has the experience and skills to do something about it. Ryan may be a natural executive who doesn't need any experience, someone who can hit the ground running from day one.
I'm not looking for "purity"; I'm looking for principled and reliably conservative.
Ryan may not have executive experience, but he has extremely valuable experience of another kind. He's been deeply involved in Washington politics for decades apparently without losing his focus or his moral footing. He knows how things work; he knows who he can trust and who he can't; he knows how the game is played, and he knows how to play it.
Mar '11
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
This really took the wind out of my sails for Pawlenty.
drat.
Jun '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
There was a certain time when having the State of Minnesota (or any liberal State) get involved in healthcare just seemed inevitable. Voters with preexisting conditions complained about not finding coverage they could afford, and people couldn't change jobs without losing their healthcare. "So State of Minnesota, parent of all, what are you going to do? It's for the children...." That was awhile ago, before having a job in the first place became the main issue. Since then, reality set in, and many in government realize they can't do everything for everybody. They can't afford to do everything. It's a new world.
Jan '11
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
Judge candidates on what they say now and hold them to it if elected. Politicians face tough political realities, especially in blue states, and take positions they later regret or have to repudiate. That's the nature of politics. We shouldn't disqualify someone for past positions. We should disqualify people for current positions.
Remember Reagan's legacy. Before becoming president Reagan raised taxes, was pro-choice, instituted no-fault divorce, instituted emmissions standards and blocked big energy projects for environmental reasons. Then as president he signed an amnesty bill. But he was rock solid on the most important issue of the time, the Soviet Union and rebuilding American strength, and he didn't disappoint. Pawlenty has shown his metal on the most important issue of our time, fiscal insanity. Let's not disqualify all of our candidates yet.
The trick isn't finding a mythical savior, it's getting someone who'll do the right things on the biggest issues, even if it's for the wrong reasons. That's the best you can hope for from a politician. I'm with Frozen, let's be realistic people.
Edited on Jun 1, 2011 at 6:45amMay '10
Re: Game Over for Pawlenty?
There's nothing unrealistic about being dismayed that Pawlenty not so long ago supported cap and trade and the individual mandate.
That kind of thing gives rise to very natural and perfectly rational suspicions that he's another finger-in-the-wind type--in other words, not the type Republicans should nominate this season.
(Nor would there have been anything "unrealistic" in having similar doubts about Reagan before he proved himself a true conservative over a long course of years.)