Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tpaw Steps Up



Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will serve as vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Photo by PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images

The Republican Governors Association announced this morning that Tim Pawlenty will serve as the organization's vice chair, the latest indication that the Minnesota governor is stepping up his national profile in advance of a likely presidential run in 2012.

Gov. Haley Barbour (Miss.), the RGA's chairman, praised Pawlenty as a "leader in the effort to grow the Republican Party beyond our traditional base while remaining true to our principles" and noted that Tpaw has cracked the code in getting elected (and re-elected) in a "purple state".

For his part, Tpaw said that "electing fiscally responsible governors is the most important task facing our party between now and the end of 2010."

The vice chair slot came open when Barbour ascended to the chairmanship following the resignation -- and political implosion -- of Gov. Mark Sanford (S.C.) who was once seen as a 2012 candidate in his own right.

The announcement comes just days before Pawlenty is scheduled to address the Republican National Committee meeting in San Diego -- a speech being cast by his allies as a coming-out party of sorts.

Pawlenty's new role affords him several potential advantages as he looks ahead to 2012.

First, with 39 governors races up between now and next November, Pawlenty will have a chance (and a reason) to build relationships with a slew of candidates who could be helpful to him if they are elected in 2009 and 2010.

Second, as vice chair, Pawlenty will be able to broaden out his donor network nationally -- a critical piece of the puzzle for any aspiring presidential candidate, particularly one who will have to face President Barack Obama (and the $750 million he raised in 2008) i November 2012.

Pawlenty allies cast the move in contrast to the resignation of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Sunday -- pointing out that while she is stepping down, Pawlenty is stepping up to help the party. True -- to an extent -- but also evidence of just how much Palin is regarded as a prime mover within the party at the moment.

Regardless, Pawlenty's increased level of activity on the national stage shows that he is moving toward a candidacy in 2012 -- joining former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the "almost certain to run" category.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 27, 2009; 9:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2012 , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Morning Fix: What's Next for Palin?
Next: The Most Important Number in Politics Today

Comments

I don't take advice on how to live my life from a guy in a nuthouse

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 11:50 PM | Report abuse

I see chrisuxcox has ruined another thread with his belligerance, ignorance and malice. Try a life. It's fun.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 11:29 PM | Report abuse

here is not a single Republican of any stature who has given a moment's thought to being the running mate of Sarah Palin

==

But there are probably teenage boys all over the south who have crusty uh decorated pics of Palin who fantasize every night about being her "running mate."

One of them posts here.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 9:16 PM | Report abuse

You're lying.

Posted by: DDAWD

==

Reliable First Approximation: the GOP posters lie all the time

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

hahahahahahaha yeah sure

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

If anyone else (who is willing to answer my questions in a civil manner) wants to ask about how Gov. Palin can get 60+ million votes, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

As you know, I am not answering your questions.

==

Gotcha.

So when you toss out "Sarah Palin will get 60 million votes" and someone comes back with "from whom?" you will trot out this BS about who's on your "good" list.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

"Obama’s science czar co-authored a book in 1977 that advocated forced population control. "Black helicopter crap"? Heck, this isn’t even some fringe left-wing blogger calling themselves a Democrat. This is the science czar with a White House office."

You're lying.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 27, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

(1) a line in a 32-year-old book isn't quite at the level of federal agents busting down doors because a woman got pregnant. You're seeing monsters

(2) If 51% call themselves "pro-life" that does not translate to 51% believing as you people do that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. More to the point. it does not mean that the other 49% are "whack jobs."

(3) Ditto for 39% and gun control.

Since you regard large percentages of Americans as extremists, it's safe to say that the extremist is you.

Just look at the kind of uh people who agree with you.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

dbw1:

Definitely, not just probably, foolish -- to each his own -- someday, you will get tired of him too.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

I'll try to answer chrisfox8's questions when I have time, but I've found no matter how many facts I throw out he tends to dismiss them and proceed to his next impassioned leftist talking point.

I have this foolish hope that the more facts liberals consider, the more they will move to the middle and accept factual reasoning. Like I said, probably foolish...

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8 said: "Forced population control: this is black helicopter crap"

Obama’s science czar co-authored a book in 1977 that advocated forced population control. "Black helicopter crap"? Heck, this isn’t even some fringe left-wing blogger calling themselves a Democrat. This is the science czar with a White House office.

chrisfox8 said: "pro abortion whack jobs .. so a majority of US citizens are whack jobs while you 19-percenters are the sane ones. Gotcha."

["A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995."]

This isn’t from a right-wing blog. This is from May this year, courtesy of abcnews.

chrisfox8 said: "Gun-Control Whackos .. so now most of the world is crazy."

["Since 2001, most Americans have favored stricter gun laws, though support has slightly dropped in recent years: 54 percent favored stricter laws in 2001, compared with 50 percent in 2007, according to Gallup polling.
Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."]

Again, not from a right-wing blog. This is from cnn.com, April 2009.


chrisfox8 said: "You're pretty confident in your own deplorable opinions. I'm glad they're out of power for generations to come."

Actually, I’m pretty confident in my opinions because the majority of Americans see what happens when liberals are given free reign.

Like the mid-1990’s, the Democrat Party's un-doing over the next couple years will be their refusal to follow the will of most Americans, as they forge ahead with a leftist agenda that doesn’t line up with what most people want.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

As you know, I am not answering your questions. Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

dbw,
thinman1:

"...according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 15 million unemployed as of June, 2009. If we can agree on a number, I'd be happy to talk about how we reduce it."

Careful, you are close to walking into my trap. Of course there are only 14.7 million unemployed (as of end of June), but I figured I would use the same math on unemployement that Obama and the mass media uses to come up with "50 million uninsured", and of course the purposefully untrackable "3 million jobs saved or created".

See, if the 'stimulus' creates a job for even 1 month, it counts toward the 3 million. For example, if the stimulus provides funds for 12 schools to be painted, and it takes 1 month for one painter to do each school, Obama counts that as 12 jobs....even if it was one guy working for one year to paint all 12 schools.

Similarly, to get to the "50 million uninsured" they count anyone who was without insurance for even a single day of the year.

So I figured if they are going to continue using these misleading numbers, they should at least be forced to use apples-to-apples unemployment numbers....which I estimated at 45 million, i.e. the number who were unemployed for even one day in the past year.

I think it should be easy to agree on a number...if it's 14.7 million unemployed, I'll agree to discuss the approx 18 million uninsured (nearly half of which both sides agree are non-taxpaying illegal immigrants), not 50 million.

But in the health care debate, if Democrats want to keep talking about 50 million uninsured, then the comparable unemployment number to discuss is approx 45 million unemployed that Obama's "3 million jobs created or saved" is supposed to be fixing.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

What's to discuss about Pawlenty?

He didn't resign his post because he got bored.

He's not going to be president.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, am I the only one left on this thread who actually wants to discuss Tim Pawlenty?

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Sorry dbw but I have this "thing" about liars. I don't like them.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Sheeshh, chrisfox8, if anyone is looking for hate and intolerance they have to look no further than your posts to JakeD.

Ease up, my man...

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I have not unapologetically HOPED for an attack -- unlike you "hop[ing] someone knocks [my] f*cking teeth down [my] throat" -- that's the kind of "hatred and vitriol" I was referring to. Again, I am not answering your questions to me, e.g. "has anyone ever at any time taken you up on one of your invitations to discussion?"

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Ignoring idiotic and baiting statements (not even formulated as questions) is not "hate and vitriol," Jake

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

No Jake you have not "predicted" an attack you have unapologetically HOPED for one.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

As you know, I am not answering your questions, because you refuse to answer mine. That was just ONE example of the "hatred and vitriol" that you have spewed on this board. Perhaps if you had wanted your questions answered, you should have thought about that sooner and returned the same common courtesy to me.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

My last post is directed to mark_in_austin, FairlingtonBlade, and anyone who is willing to discuss the issues in a civil manner.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Predicting that we will get attacked because of Obama's lack of strong national security positions is NOT the same as "hoping" for that terrible outcome -- in fact, I am sounding the alarm with the hope that changes are made and we ARE NOT attacked -- if anyone else wants to discuss that (or even Tim Pawlenty), please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jake, has anyone ever at any time taken you up on one of your invitations to discussion?

Nope, and nobody is ever going to. Your reputation precedes you.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else want to discuss Tim Pawlenty?

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

at least my "hate and vitriol" has never extended to hoping for death or serious bodily injury

==

Yet you hope almost daily that the nation is attacked as a way to get your idea-free party back into power

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

One at a time, Jake, one at a time.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:

You're welcome (since you are always denouncing those posts of "chrisfox8" et al, you really come across as so reasonable -- at least my "hate and vitriol" has never extended to hoping for death or serious bodily injury ; )

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Not good enough, Jake, you said that I threatened you. That's not a threat from me. Not even close.

You lied. You lie all the time.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"Jake, I hope someone knocks your f*cking teeth down your throat ... It bears repeating that nobody here give a crap if you live or die."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | June 1, 2009

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/romney-condemns-obamas-tour-of.html

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't care less, since no one will be able to provide a link to any such quote of mine.

==

Yet you say I threatened you with death on here and you never produced a link either.

You're a lying troll. You've been caught lying so very many times, do you really expect anyone to believe your protests?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:

I couldn't care less, since no one will be able to provide a link to any such quote of mine.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 4:49 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
Do you really expect that anyone will believe you?

I would like to, but given all the hatred and vitriol you have spewed on this board, I just can't give you the benefit of the doubt even though you deserve it. Your behavior, sadly, won't let me.

Maybe it's time to turn over a new leaf, no?

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

For the last time, I never referred to interracial relationships as "deviant".

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

If you drew a Venn diagram of those who believe in forced population control, pro-abortion wackjobs, socialists (the true, card-carrying kind), and gun-control nuts, how much overlap do you think there would be?

==

Forced population control: this is black helicopter crap

pro abortion whack jobs .. so a majority of US citizens are whack jobs while you 19-percenters are the sane ones. Gotcha.

"True" socialists .. see Forced Population Control

Gun-Control Whackos .. so now most of the world is crazy.

You're pretty confident in your own deplorable opinions. I'm glad they're out of power for generations to come

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

dbw1 is 100% right on this topic. We see this fallacy all the time with Hitler comparisons. Having one thing in common with the Holocaust Museum shooter doesn't make you one in the same. Now being a birther means it is 99% likely that you are a racist on some level, but that doesn't necessarily put you up there on white supremacist level.

And for gods sakes, if we want to brand this person a white supremacist, this is a guy who has referred to interracial relationships as well as homosexual relationships as deviant. That's pretty much textbook right there.

(And no, I'm NOT making this up)

Posted by: DDAWD | July 27, 2009 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Supporting the murderers of doctors is not guilt by association, it is actively encouraging them.

Posted by: drindl | July 27, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

dbw,
Your question is tough to answer since, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were about 15 million unemployed as of June, 2009.

If we can agree on a number, I'd be happy to talk about how we reduce it.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Since the Post doesn't like to talk about "stimulus" and "job creation" these days, I can't really find a current board to ask this question to the Democrats on the board:

Even if Obama's dreamy estimates of the stimulus 'saving or creating' 3 million jobs comes true, how much help will that be to the 45 million unemployed Americans? It would be barely a drop in the bucket, wouldn't it?

What else are Obama and the Democrats doing to help the other 42 million unemployed?

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 4:22 PM | Report abuse

dbw,
You presented me with a scenario that, if a white supremacist advocated lower taxes and you agreed with that sentiment, what would it mean. You then tried to lure me into a discussion of whether or not disagreeing with President Obama = racism. I opted not to take the bait.

If my answers scare you, cease asking me troubling questions.

As for my own views, you've asked me nothing and I have presented you with no scenarios, so your accussation that I ahve not been practicing what I preach is wrong on its face.

But if there are areas, positions, and issues about which you are curious as to my point of view, I invite you to ask and I will be as straightforward and civil as I have been today.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

koolkat_1960:
"If you drew a Venn diagram of birthers and teabaggers, there would be a lot of overlap. Same for anti-abortion wackjobs and gun nuts."

If you drew a Venn diagram of those who believe in forced population control, pro-abortion wackjobs, socialists (the true, card-carrying kind), and gun-control nuts, how much overlap do you think there would be?

You are correct, though; fringe is fringe. Unfortunately, 'fringe' seems to be in control of the Democrat Party leadership, otherwise it shouldn't be so hard to get the centrist Democrats on board with their health plan.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:
"However, the statement that you share the views of a white supremacists would be technically accurate. I leave it up to you and everyone else her to draw from that whatever you wish."

...and to continue illustrating the absurdity of the logic you have presented in most of your posts, since the statement you made up about me sharing some views of a white supremicist is as technically accurate as the statement that you share the views of Stalin and Lenin, what should we conclude from that about you?

From calls for 'respect' to 'stick to the subject', you are pretty awful at following your own advice.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 4:11 PM | Report abuse

BTW, chrisfox,

My plea for civility and respet applies to posters of all political persuasions.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Luckily, for me at least, guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

==

Nobody said you were guilty of shooting up a Jewish community center, you stupid troll.

But you're definitely in the same crazy camp and Von Brunn and Scott Roeder. Birds of a feather.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

That won't wash, dbw.

"High taxes" is an opinion; the birther conspiracy is a radical belief, and for two people to hold that belief is in no way "incidental" like an opinion on taxation, it is a significantly defining shared extent into serious paranoia.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

zouk,
I wish former President Bush had uttered those same words and admitted that the Iraq War of Choice was a mistake.

That when it came to WMDs he thought he knew what he was talking about but he was wrong.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Luckily, for me at least, guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

If you drew a Venn diagram of birthers and teabaggers, there would be a lot of overlap. Same for anti-abortion wackjobs and gun nuts.

Fringe is fringe.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 27, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

If Sarah Palin were just some random hosebag on www.milfhunters.com and joked couldn't stop yanking to her pics, I'd find that reasonable, because she is an attractive woman of the MILF variety.

But, given who she actually is, joked's fixation with her borders on the creepy. And sadly, joked is not alone out there. Wonder how Palin feels about this army of slavering crank-yankers out there?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 27, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

dbw1,
Would it make you a white supremacist? No.

However, the statement that you share the views of a white supremacists would be technically accurate. I leave it up to you and everyone else her to draw from that whatever you wish.

As for disagreeing with Obama, we're not talking about that or about racism.

Let's stick to the subject -- treating with respect those we disagree with.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

If anyone new wants to know why I don't answer questions from those like "chrisfox8" or "JRM2" please let me know -- I am not ignoring them -- as long as you answer my questions in a civil manner, I will always return the same common courtesy to you.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

You know what? I made an honest mistake. I thought I knew what I was talking about and you rightly corrected me.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If only Obama had the wisdom to utter these words. Ever. Just once. Start with his most recent racist rant with no facts.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:
"As for Jake, what I said is a fact: Jake thinks Obama is hiding something in regards to his birth. The white supremacist who attacked the Holocaust museum feels similarly. Ergo, I was statring a provable fact. "

So, if the white supremicist who attacked the Holocaust believed our taxes are too high, and I believe the same thing, does that make me a white supremicist, too?

Or is it enough that I disagree with Obama on political policy that would qualify me as being a 'racist'?

Liberals have so watered down the real meaning of racism, it's a disservice to those minorities who have experienced real racism.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 3:34 PM | Report abuse

The Republican (whomever he or she is) is going to win because Barack Obama will be seen as worse than Jimmy Carter.

==

And who is the GOP going to run who would seem an improvement

(*crickets*)

Yeah that's what I though.

Go pull it to Palin some more

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

I am not a 'white supremicist' and I never referred to interracial dating as "deviant" behavior. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:
"Dude, go back to bashing Sotomayor. You aren't even close on this one."

Uhhh, "dude", if you were around during the Sotomayor week you will know that I was one of the few conservatives posting on these pages that Sotomayor should be confirmed.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"This noble call to treat those with whom we disagree with 'respect', coming from 'thinman1' who just on this board referred to JakeD as a 'white supremicist' and Zouk as 'shrill and irrational', for little more than them disagreeing with thinman's leftist view of the world...as far as I can tell."

Well, suppose JakeD referred to interracial dating as "deviant" behavior?

Because...well...he did. Either the guy is a white supremacist or he plays one on the internet.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Calling zouk shrill and irrational had nothing to do with disagreeing with me, especially since I hadn't posted anything. But rather it was an observation on the tone he typically takes and his leaps in logic.

As for Jake, what I said is a fact: Jake thinks Obama is hiding something in regards to his birth. The white supremacist who attacked the Holocaust museum feels similarly. Ergo, I was statring a provable fact.

As I ahve stated in the past, I had hoped that such am unfortunate pairing would encourage Jake to rein himself in a bit, but that has yet to transpire.

So I did not and have not attacked anyone.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"drindl:

"...because the core beleif of their present party is greed and racism."

I think we saw all the racism we can handle from Obama last week. Even after admitting he didn't know the facts of the situation, he still jumped to the side of the African American guy and blamed the 'stupid' white officer.

If that isn't the definition of prejudice and racism, pray tell what is?"

Dude, go back to bashing Sotomayor. You aren't even close on this one.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 27, 2009 3:13 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:
"...treat those who disagree with you with respect."

This noble call to treat those with whom we disagree with 'respect', coming from 'thinman1' who just on this board referred to JakeD as a 'white supremicist' and Zouk as 'shrill and irrational', for little more than them disagreeing with thinman's leftist view of the world...as far as I can tell.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Here's the question no Obot can answer:

Can you please show me where the LEGITIMATE Hawaiian birth certificate is? And if it has been produced, why has Obama spent money on attorney fees to keep it from being made public? How can anyone explain why teams of lawyers and tons of money are being spent to hide something that has already been revealed?

Read this to debunk the latest Obot urban legend - Hawaii has the documents and they're accessible.

The Obots can lie, lie, lie and otherwise obfuscate until the cows come home, and it won't change the fact that Hawaii has the documents and they're accessible.

CNN/US Boss Is An Obama Agent - Hawaii does the avoid/evade dance

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/cnnus-boss-is-obama-agent-hawaii-does.html

Here is the law that authorizes any law enforcement agent to have access to AKA Obama’s real birth certificate. Gee, and AKA Obama just pissed off a whole lot of cops.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-to-obtain-copy-of-obamas-original.html

Also see:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html

Posted by: AristotleTheHun | July 27, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

caribis:

The Republican (whomever he or she is) is going to win because Barack Obama will be seen as worse than Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

TPaw has cracked the code - well in that case the Republicans better start building a strong Independent Party in the other 49 states so that they can be elected with the same 47% of the vote two times running in strong Republican years.

If TPaw is going to win using his Minnesota formula, then The Fix needs to start his top ten list of third party candidates in 2012. Because that is how TPaw wins: a three way race getting less than half the vote.

Posted by: caribis | July 27, 2009 2:15 PM | Report abuse

dbw1,
You know what? I made an honest mistake. I thought I knew what I was talking about and you rightly corrected me.

With that said, there's no need to be insulting to myself or other liberals in our love for the Constitution.

While I disagree with everything he ever did, I do like the axiom coined by Ronald Reagan, disagree, but be agreeable about it. It's a shame that you, zouk, and JakeD cannot similarly treat those who disagree with you with respect.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

thinman1:

"Were the following who were born British subjects also similarly illegitimate Presidents? George Washington,John Adams,Thomas Jefferson,James Madison,James Monroe,John Quincy Adams,Andrew Jackson,William Henry Harrison"

No, they weren't 'similarly illegitimate', because of an old oddity called our "Constitution".

Read the Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 1. The natural-born citizen requirement only applied to those born AFTER the adoption of the Constitution. Not that I expect liberals to know what's in our Constitution since it's merely a pesky hurdle to their agenda, but any day I can help one learn what's in there is a good day.

And no, I'm not a 'birther'.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 2:00 PM | Report abuse

If that isn't the definition of prejudice and racism, pray tell what is?


Posted by: dbw1


didn't you hear? the NEW definition is anyone who disagrees in any way with the new order socialism.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

drindl:

"...because the core beleif of their present party is greed and racism."

I think we saw all the racism we can handle from Obama last week. Even after admitting he didn't know the facts of the situation, he still jumped to the side of the African American guy and blamed the 'stupid' white officer.

If that isn't the definition of prejudice and racism, pray tell what is?

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

plan to see lots of photo ops in the woods and 10k lakes. One thing Bush showed the way forward were the roral moments, casting him as a rancher from Texas... never mind he grew up in Maine, Connecticut and Washington. The Texas twang was another aspect of that matrix. It worked, and we got the son of a former RNC chairman, CIA director and President packaged as rancher slash business man. Palin knows all about that, taking reporters to Western Alaska to dip net, while all rivers elsewhere in the State are closed because of... NO SALMON. There is your news story.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 27, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Here's the question no "birther" can answer (Because I know white supremacist sympathizer JakeD LOVES to answer questions):

Were the following who were born British subjects also similarly illegitimate Presidents?

George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
William Henry Harrison

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Last week, ThinkProgress noted that CNN’s Lou Dobbs is one of the most high-profile “birthers” in America, continuing to demand that Obama present a “long form” birth certificate to prove his citizenship. Dobbs’ focus on the story has been so bad that CNN President Jon Klein eventually sent an e-mail to staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” declaring that the “birther” story is “dead,” though he later backed down a bit. Dobbs has responded to his critics by calling them “limp-minded, lily-livered lefties” who don’t like that he had “the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was.”"


Jon Stewart actually noted that one of Dobbs' guest hosts actually thoroughly debunked the birthers by providing all sorts of documentation for Obama's birth.

By the way, is there any show with stupider poll questions than Dobbs' show?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 27, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

If anyone who is willing to answer MY questions wants to debate Obama's birth certificate or Palin's 60 million votes, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 1:42 PM | Report abuse

If the only standard is "smarter than Palin" well we can credit TPAW with that. But as a Minnesotan I urge folks not to be taken in. For example, one-poster brags about Pawlenty's balanced budget...The Minnesota constitution requires a balanced budget. Timmy never works with the legislature he basically travels around the country too much to govern and simply sends the no new taxes message out in response to every attempt to maintain quality of life in Minnesota.

Posted by: babloom | July 27, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

too funny!

Memo to Birthers: Even Ann Coulter calls you a bunch of "cranks."

Appearing on Fox News this past Friday, Coulter further blamed the liberal media for using the Birthers to smear the political right, saying that multiple conservative publications looked at this issue last year and concluded that there's nothing there:

"So for CNN or MSNBC, or you Geraldo, the liberal on Fox, to be bringing this out as if it's an issue, you know, it's just a few cranks out there," said Coulter.

Posted by: drindl | July 27, 2009 1:07 PM | Report abuse

All because they can't stand it a black man is present of the United States --
Posted by: drivl

the stopped clock phenomenon comes true.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Last week, ThinkProgress noted that CNN’s Lou Dobbs is one of the most high-profile “birthers” in America, continuing to demand that Obama present a “long form” birth certificate to prove his citizenship. Dobbs’ focus on the story has been so bad that CNN President Jon Klein eventually sent an e-mail to staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” declaring that the “birther” story is “dead,” though he later backed down a bit. Dobbs has responded to his critics by calling them “limp-minded, lily-livered lefties” who don’t like that he had “the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was.”

On his Reliable Sources show today, CNN’s Howard Kurtz criticized Dobbs and others in the media who have given airtime to the “fringe of the fringe” that is the “birther” crowd. “These are ludicrous claims, there is no factual basis for them,” said Kurtz. “Why give the birthers any airtime?” He then specifically criticized Dobbs for not acting “responsible”:

KURTZ: Callie Crossley, Lou Dobbs on his radio show said, “I believe the president is a citizen of the United States.” But he keeps raising these questions, complaining about criticism from “limp-minded, lily-livered lefties.” Is it responsible for Dobbs and others to go on the air, talk about these claims, demand proof, when we have seen a copy of the birth certificate? When Hawaii officials say that Barack Obama was born there in 1961?

CROSSLEY: It absolutely is not responsible.

Posted by: drindl | July 27, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

and the R party slides inexorably towards madness...

"Recently, the birther movement has gained greater notoriety, with CNN’s Lou Dobbs promoting the discredited myth and right-wing activists confronting members of Congress. Though the conspiracy theory has been thoroughly-debunked, some Republicans continue to feed “the wacko wing” of the party. For instance, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) recently told Politico that he thinks the birthers “have a point”:

But as if to illustrate the touchiness of the subject, Hoekstra quickly added: “Not that this isn’t important.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe has also tried to find the elusive middle ground.

“They have a point,” he said of the birthers. “I don’t discourage it. … But I’m going to pursue defeating [Obama] on things that I think are very destructive to America.”

It’s unclear why Politico characterizes Inhofe’s decided support for the “birthers” as an “elusive middle ground” stance."

how soon will they ALL need to be institutionalized?

All because they can't stand it a black man is present of the United States -- because the core beleif of their present party is greed and racism.


Posted by: drindl | July 27, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

The fantasy world and economics of today's NeoCom Statist Destructionist Party.

Congrats on the 40 year anniversary of healthcare icon Teddy K denying Mary Jo her basic healthcare. Will your family fare any better under Obummercare?

Posted by: leapin | July 27, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

how cute. the moonbats are friends. they finally found a single person they like.

I would count messiah but he is above us all.

But still averse to facts of any sort.

the simple fact these days is that Dems are not going to allow messiah to ruin our country. they clearly value country over party. you loons and messiah could learn a thing or two. for one thing, stop blaming everyone else, especially Repubs, for your own ills.

and stop trying to change us into either a banana republic or the CCCP. We know Idi amin Obimbo is a true believer but that is a rarity.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox -- it never ceases to amaze me how much brownosing Mr. Cillizza will do for republicans.

Posted by: drindl | July 27, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing the crazy sh*t people will beleive about President Obama -- just because they can't stand that a black man is the president of the United States.

It has driven them insane.

Posted by: drindl | July 27, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Another day, another excited puff piece about another GOP snoozelord

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The Kingofzouk Shrillometer?

Yeah, the shrill is only going to louder and louder, and he will only post ever more frantically and incoherently, as his party inevitably flushes down the toilet.

Posted by: drindl | July 27, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Any smart, young-enough, republican would trade his support in 2012 to the most likely candidate in return for his support in 2016.
The GOP is hoping against hope that Obama's popularity will collapse if they just fight hard enough against his initiatives.
Instead, they are positioning themselves as "the party of NO" nearly unanimously.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | July 27, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Although our President barely knew the man, his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was, nonetheless a communist in the government of Kenya. The President’s Dad once theorized that it would be fine for the government to tax the wealthiest citizens in his country at a rate of 100%, so long as the “greater good” was served. Mr. Obama was eventually fired from his job in the Kenyan government, largely because Kenya was in the process of privatizing its economy, and he was severely out-of-step with his associates. But his ideas were nonetheless his, and Mr. Obama had a clear preference for the heavy hand of government, over the allegedly “greedy,” “selfish” tendencies of business owners.

the ACORN does not fall far

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Any smart, young-enough, republican would trade his support in 2012 to the most likely candidate in return for his support in 2016.
The GOP is hoping against hope that Obama's popularity will collapse if they just fight hard enough against his initiatives.
Instead, they are positioning themselves as "the party of NO" nearly unanimously.

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | July 27, 2009 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Jake.

How does Palin get those 60 million votes? What constituencies, what percentages?

(*crickets*)

Yeah that's what I thought.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 27, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

PAPER TIGER OR 'PAWING PAWLENTY'?

Pawlenty would show some gumption and capture the center if he'd just speak the truth to some well-placed media conduits: that Sarah Palin is divisive, erratic, has ethics issues and lacks the governing experience and the emotional maturity to ascend to a leadership role in the party of Lincoln. Chris, take him on "background" and make him say it.
***

White ethnic journo's "Professor Gates Moment":

http://nowpublic.com/world/anti-stalking-journo-seeks-lawyer-fight-stalking-charge

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 27, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Finally, speaking of trolls, my question to Al Franken would be, in response to his stating at Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing that she is the most qualified Supreme Court nominee in 100 years, who did he have in mind?

If Ms. Sotomayor is the best since then, Franken must be convinced that she is superior to, say, Benjamin Cardozo, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Thurgood Marshall, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Earl Warren. Even I, who can’t stand listening to his whiney voice, would certainly enjoy hearing the fatuous junior senator from Minnesota explain that remark.

If, as I suspect, the reason for Franken’s hyperbole is simply because of Sotomayor’s race and gender, the two things that make her so doggone extra special in her own eyes -- at least up until the time she was being grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- he shouldn’t have limited her greatness to a paltry hundred years. In fact, it’s almost insulting. After all, inasmuch as she’s the first female Hispanic nominee, he could have said she was the greatest in a billion or even, to use Obama’s favorite number, a trillion years.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I think there's a direct correlation between just how shrill and irrational king_of_zouk sounds and how the political winds are blowing.

In other words, the GOP is doing as badly as ever.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 27, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

mean, let us say, for the sake of argument, that a hundred million adults are in the U.S. legally and actually pay income taxes. If you divide that number into a trillion dollars, each one would wind up with $10,000. Now you can’t tell me that if every tax-paying adult in America suddenly received a check in that amount, it wouldn’t do more to cure America’s financial woes than paying for Harry Reid’s train or that tunnel that turtles are supposed to start using down in Florida. What’s next? An elevator for elderly alligators?

I would like to ask President Obama why the Trade and Cap bill that will double our energy bills while providing less and less energy for our industries? Why all the sweet talk for our sworn enemies and harsh words for our allies? Why the $250,000 date night in New York, not to mention the pricey sneakers and the $5,000 purse for the missus when most Americans are suffering through a financial malaise? Is it any wonder that a lot of us look at the two of you gadding about and see Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

simple simon, by all evidence you Libs love runaway spending.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"TPaw" (as only you, Chris, call him), has never carried Minnesota in a statewide election. He was blessed twice with feuding candidates, each more liberal. So he won with about 40% of the vote each time.

I hope the republicans do nominate him though; what a cakewalk Obama would have running against the most boring man in the universe.

Posted by: SteveBurns1947 | July 27, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

As reason5 indicates, in his 11:24 post, Pawlenty plays well outside MN. For one thing, he enjoys the credulous national media that repeats the message he intends - that he is a rational, moderate, popular governor. The reality is that he is personally likable, but that his policies have created a mess in Minnesota. For instance, this year he signed most of the spending bills, but vetoed the revenue bills. That makes him a borrow-and-spend Republican in the form of George W Bush; fiscal responsibility? Forget it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 27, 2009 11:52 AM | Report abuse

reason5:

And the main reason Pawlenty would have been a better VP choice than Palin is that he is not a pro-life woman. The left and the lap-dog media has made it very clear that if you are a woman, you will be skewered and pilloried if you dare to embrace a pro-life view.

Obviously only women who are 'hicks' and 'trailer-trash' could be so uneducated as to not fall in line behind the left-wing feminists.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Actually, Zouk, the current U.S. policy relative to NK is stronger than the previous administration's.

@koolkat - He's in Southern California, which is definitely another state of reality.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 27, 2009 11:31 AM | Report abuse

the next election will be based on a denial of Lib governance. Just like Jimmy Carter, the reaction to big government, big spending, high taxes, weak foreign policy and race based agendas will result in a landslide eviction of the Libs all up and down PA Av. the trend is already obvious to all with any ability to observe outside their cocoon.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I like Pawlenty. I advocated on this very blog in 2008 that McCain should pick Pawlenty as his running mate. Pawlenty has done well in Minn., has high popularity ratings & kind of a economic populist messege. Pawlenty is well liked by social conservatives, but doesn't make social issues the focul point of his governing. Pawlenty says in his speeches that he represents "members of the country club & members of Sam's Club." That's a strong messege, and was his own messege in 2002 when things were good. The same messege in a purple state worked for Pawlenty's election in good times (2002) & in rough economic times (2006). Minn. had balanced a budget during Pawlenty's 1st term. Impressive. Politically speaking, this is very smart of Pawlenty. Pawlenty served on John McCain's election team that won the Republican nomination & meet tons of fundraisers and lots of contacts through that. Now he has a shot to meet, greet & help new Republican's running for governor in 2010 in a GOP leadership role. Tim Pawlenty is making all the right moves prior to 2012. Who knows if Palin even knows what she's doing?

Posted by: reason5 | July 27, 2009 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Gregory really got to the crux of Obama’s foreign policy failures with this:

MR. GREGORY: Let’s take a step back and look at the larger vision for the president’s foreign policy. This is what the president said during his inaugural address, which was something of a mission statement. Let’s watch.

(Videotape, January 20, 2009)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA: To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: And yet isn’t the problem, six months in, that there may be a willingness to change the tone, there may be more engagement, but nobody’s unclenching their fist yet?

Mrs. Clinton never got around to answering that question, but the world answers it for her every day. In North Korea, Iran, and Russia, the administration’s outstretched hand has been getting mangled for six months. Meanwhile, those who wanted to believe in America’s commitment to human rights and democracy promotion feel like dupes.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

The other misstep that has bogged down the administration on healthcare specifically, is Obama's inability to communicate effectively to the American people, Light said.

While it is shocking to consider that Obama is anything less than one of the best communicators in modern political history, when it comes to healthcare, he simply has not been able to make the sell to people who do have health insurance.

And Wednesday night's prime time press conference was a "disaster," Light said.

Light said that for the president to regain political momentum, he needs to reclaim his agenda from Congress and start connecting with the public.

"He needs to take this over and own it," Light said.


his only skill, gone with the wind.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 27, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Any smart GOP looking to 2012 would approach her privately and offer his support in exchange for her consideration as her VP nominee."

I would love to know what universe joked lives in. This is great alternative-reality stuff.

There is not a single Republican of any stature who has given a moment's thought to being the running mate of Sarah Palin. Joked, you get more pathetic with every day's flood of Palin-worship posts.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 27, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Any smart GOP looking to 2012 would approach her privately and offer his support in exchange for her consideration as her VP nominee."

I would love to know what universe joked lives in. This is great alternative-reality stuff.

There is not a single Republican of any stature who has given a moment's thought to being the running mate of Sarah Palin. Joked, you get more pathetic with every day's flood of Palin-worship posts.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 27, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Tpaw and Hbar can advance a Palin/Sanford(or Ensign) ticket for 2012. Then we'll see if the country can be sold the a bill of goods that reflects the "Not so smart, and Not so moral" ticket the Republicans like to push. This would fit in nicely with the "Not so fast, no ideas, let's wait it out, let's think it over at the Christian Fellowship House on C Street, and who are you bedding down now other than your wife" philosophy of this once proud political party. My only question is what happened to the Republican Party? Why do they now put self before country? Why does Kyle think Palin has better judgement than Sotomayor? Was McCain so desparate to become president that he selected a woman he didn't really know much about...he ruined his last chance to become president and besmirched Palin's reputation...Not good judgement from someone who wanted to lead us. Can Tpaw save the day? Will Michael Steele be at his side?

Posted by: review001 | July 27, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

@dbw - The only fashion commentary this week was a negative assessment of Obama's "dad jeans".

As for T-Paw, let's see what happens. His appears to be a model way to go for a potential presidential run. Complete your term as governor while building up a national profile. Barbour & T-Paw? Sounds like a possible 2012 ticket.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 27, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is not light years ahead of anybody in terms of running for President. She will get smoked by Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty in the primaries. What Chris is arguing primarily is that Sarah Palin is influential in the party. Unfortunately the big money guys don't like her and the establishment doesn't like her. If for some reason she does manage to get the nomination (as a Democrat and Obama supporter I would consider that a good thing) Mitt nor Tim Pawlenty will want to jump on that sinking ship. They would be better off running in 2016. Both would still be viable then and they would likely be contending for an "open seat" as I don't see Joe Biden running for president then.

Posted by: cmb1 | July 27, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Why didn't they RGA put Palin in charge? After all, she's a governor and . . . oh . . . that's right. Never mind.

Posted by: nodebris | July 27, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting how quickly the Post editorialists are trying to sweep Obama's prejudiced 'stupidly' comment under the rug? (Hey guys, let's run 3 or 4 more Palin pieces this morning!)

I mean, these same Post columnists spent weeks on end talking about Palin's wardrobe. But the President jumping to a prejudiced conclusion that police 'acted stupidly' merits, what, a couple days and then we should just move on?

I can only imagine how long the leftist media would keep whipping up a frenzy if the professor had been white, the arresting officer black, and if Bush were the one saying the cop 'acted stupidly'.

Post editorialists and bloggers are so brazenly leftist in protecting 'their guy', I'm not sure whether it's funny or scary...

Posted by: dbw1 | July 27, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Are we going to get another week of being "fixated" on Republicans?

Hey, Chris, have you heard? Those who self-identify as Republicans is holding steady at 22%? The only reason they are even still a viable party is because the MSM gives them ore than 22% of the space.

When is the last time Republicans had an idea? When was the last time their ideology provided a success?

Posted by: PoliticalPragmatist | July 27, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1 writes:
"Ironically, this group does not include Governor Pawlenty."

You owe me a new keyboard -- and a cup of coffee.

Tpaw looks like a name you'd see in a science fiction novel. Or maybe "T'Paw".

Posted by: mnteng | July 27, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"For his part, Tpaw said that "electing fiscally responsible governors is the most important task facing our party between now and the end of 2010.""


Ironically, this group does not include Governor Pawlenty.


.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 27, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Just another competitor that Palin can devour in 2012...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | July 27, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

As Mr. Cillizza pointed out in the previous thread, Gov. Palin is light-years ahead of T-Paw. Any smart GOP looking to 2012 would approach her privately and offer his support in exchange for her consideration as her VP nominee.

Posted by: JakeD | July 27, 2009 9:39 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company