October 22-23, 2009
Oct 22 01:35 The White House Doesn't Want You To See This Oct 22 06:33 VP Cheney Takes President Obama to the Woodshed Oct 22 07:26 Oh Please!!! Oct 22 09:05 Only In Washington Oct 22 09:56 If This is Accurate... Oct 23 02:22 Reed, Clark Visit DC Oct 23 03:09 TPaw's Pretzels & Pints Fundraiser a Success Oct 23 09:08 Behind the Scenes At TPaw's Pretzels & Pints Event
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
The White House Doesn't Want You To See This
Dave Camp, the GOP Ranking Member on the House Ways and Means Committee, issued this devastating report on job creation attributable to the ARRA legislation. In state after state, the Obama administration's projections weren't just off but off by orders of magnitude.
Here's a partial list of the worst projections:
California projected gain: 396,000, California Actual: LOST 336,400These are just some of the worst miscalculations. Read the entire list but only if you've taken your blood pressure medication.
Arizona projected gain: 70,000, Arizona Actual: LOST 77,300
Colorado projected gain: 59,000, Colorado Actual: LOST 58,900
Georgia projected gain: 106,000, Georgia Actual: LOST 131,000
Illinois projected gain: 148,000, Illinois Actual: LOST 148,000
Florida projected gain: 206,000, Florida Actual: LOST 165,100
Michigan projected gain: 109,000, Michigan Actual: LOST 137,300
Nevada projected gain: 34,000, Nevada Actual: LOST 33,800
Ohio projected gain: 133,000, Ohio Actual: LOST 97,500
Pennsylvania projected gain: 143,000, Pennsylvania Actual: LOST 103,200
One oddity stands out in the report, namely North Dakota. They were predicted to gain 8,000 jobs. They didn't meet that mark but they gained 1,800 jobs. It couldn't have anything to do with their tax cuts , could it? Surely, that has to be coincidental, doesn't it King?
At some point, thoughtful people will reject President Obama's wisecracks about not following the "failed policies of the last eight years" because they'll judge President Obama on his economic failures. They'll notice that his economic accomplishments will consist of, in his eyes, the failed stimulus bill. Other than that, what can he point to as an accomplishment?
He certainly can't point to his budget. Why would President Obama highlight a budget that includes trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see? If President Obama were to highlight his budget, he'd be handing GOP strategists a powerful campaign theme on a silver platter. (Just imagine the TV ads showing President Obama talking about the green shoots he's seeing in the economy, then showing the annual deficits in bold red letters, followed by VP Biden talking about how the stimulus is working better than he could've imagined with headlines of monthly unemployment figures scrolling across the screen.)
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 1:42 AM
No comments.
VP Cheney Takes President Obama to the Woodshed
Wednesday night, former Vice President Dick Cheney took President Obama to the proverbial woodshed for his procrastination in making a decision on Afghanistan troop levels. It wasn't pretty:
Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.When President Obama announced his Afghanistan policy, foreign policy experts knew that the Karzai government was corrupt. The only thing that's changed since then is that they have more proof of it now. When President Obama announced his Afghanistan policy, foreign policy experts knew that having the Afghani government fail would mean that the terrorists would return to their old training camp. That hasn't changed, either.
President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, "If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban, or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." End quote.
Most importantly, the goal hasn't changed. It's still imperative that the terrorists not get their training camps back. Whether there's a corrupt government there or not, it's imperative that the terrorists not have a sanctuary to train for new terrorist attacks.
Next, former Vice President Cheney questions President Obama's willingness to make difficult decisions:
It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger. Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.President Obama's procrastination is causing America's allies whether it's safe to partner with us because they don't know whether they'll get thrown under the now-infamous Obama bus. They're all too aware of the fact that President Obama's promises come with an expiration date. If nations don't have a trustworthy partner, then there's no upside to partnering with them.
While President Obama can boast about the Nobel Peace Prize, it's largely irrelevant if other nations don't trust us. Thus far, President Obama has alienated Eastern European allies like Poland and the Czech Republic and traditional allies like Great Britain. Now it looks like he's starting work on alienating southwestern Asia.
Here, though, is the most blistering indictment against the Obama administration:
Recently, President Obama's advisors have decided that it's easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President's chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn't asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.That's the polite way of saying that the Obama administration's charges that the Bush administration did nothing are a gold-plated lie. Dick Cheney lays out in specificity that the Bush administration conducted a thorough foreign policy review of Afghanistan, laid out a plan that would "focus on counterinsurgency" and that gave NATO troops the best chance of defeating the Taliban once and for all.
In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama's team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision, a good one, I think, and sent a commander into the field to implement it.
Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.
It isn't the Bush administration's fault that President Obama refuses to make a difficult, important decision because he's afraid of the political consequences. If there's another terrorist attack that originated from Afghanistan, historians won't put an asterisk after President Obama's name, saying that it isn't really his fault, that he had other political considerations he was dealing with.
This is where a leader makes a decision. More importantly, this is where the military needs its CINC to point them in the direction of victory. BTW, victory is easily defined, contrary to what experts of nuance like John Kerry and Richard Holbrooke might say. Victory is defined by killing terrorists and their support system, giving the people of Afghanistan the ability to stabilize their government.
Right now, military officers like Gen. Stanly McChrystal are urging immediate action because they consider the situation critical. I'd offer President Obama this advice: when the foremost expert tells me what's needed for victory, and after you've stated numerous times that victory is imperative, then it's time to decide on winning in Afghanistan, whatever the political consequences might be.
Regardless of the Left's reaction, this must be done. It's impossible to win re-election after losing a war and presiding over a failing economy. It's just that simple when you think things through.
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:35 AM
Comment 1 by Facts Matter at 22-Oct-09 05:04 PM
General Paul Eaton, decorated 30 year veteran, takes 5 time draft-dodger Cheney to the woodshed:
"The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for seven years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it.
"While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of Sept 11.''
Bush/Cheney had 7 years to 'get it right' in Afghanistan. They bungled everything they touched, domestically and internationally. Their advice is worthless, and is recognized as such by anyone who's been paying attention for the last 8 years.
By the way, didn't it use to be 'anti-American' to criticize the Commander in Chief in a time of war? Why do you hate America? Oh, never mind - IOKIYAR.
(It's OK If You're A Republican.)
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Oct-09 08:25 PM
What's the matter with Cheney? Doesn't he have a Rupert Murdoch book contract to keep him occupied? You don't hear Palin [or even W for that matter] yammering about what should be done. She's worried over royalty amounts, and waiting until Obama does something to then wait until it fails like all else the Brits in the 19th century onward, the Russians, and now the US have tried in Afghanistan. It all fails. they grow their poppy and weed, and work it along the Silk Roads. But there is that big gold and copper reserve in Baluchistan; Barrick's atop it but hardly in control. And the pipeline routes ... And the election runoff before any policy can be formed. Complications, where the Cheney-Bush catch and torture plan was not super successful.
W has the good manners to go somewhere and sit quietly. Again, what's Cheney's problem?
Comment 3 by barry at 24-Oct-09 07:15 PM
Osama bin Laden key demand was the withdrawal of U. S. forces from Saudia Arabia.
The Bush Administration surrendered to that request. The first U. S. surrender to a foreign diktat since Corregidor.
Cheney is a five-time coward whose main interests seem to have been outing covert CIA agents and getting his othewise unemployable daughter a job as Deputy Secretary of State. Talk about your welfare queens.
That this traitor gets taken seriously shows the depths of depravity of the modern day GOP.
Had Bush/Cheney been in charge in 1941, we would have attacked Korea based on intelligence provided by Germany and annointed Hirohito our partner in the Global War or Air Raids.
Oh Please!!!
It's well-known fact that Tarryl Clark will tell people what they want to hear. According to this article , that appears to be what happened recently:
Clark's 2,412 donors contributed an average of $107. The campaign finished the quarter with just under $270,000 in the bank.I wrote here that Tarryl has represented the unions more than she's represented Central Minnesota:
"I think our strong start is a testament to the desire for change across the district," Clark said in press release. "Minnesota's families want a representative who is more interested in getting things done than in generating national headlines. They're working hard every day, and I'm going to work every day for them."
Clark has already earned more than a dozen endorsements in her campaign for Congress, including the Minnesota AFL-CIO, Minnesota Nurses Association, SEIU, AFSCME, and the Saint Cloud State College Democrats.
Finally, according to the SEIU's report card , Tarryl voted with the SEIU 100 percent of the time, giving her an A+ rating.It's curious that, after getting all these union endorsements, Tarryl won't say whether she supports EFCA. I'm betting she does. I'm betting that she isn't saying because supporting the elimination of a secret ballot won't sound centrist to Central Minnesota residents. While supporting the elimination of a secret ballot might earn her an A+ with the SEIU, I'm betting that it would earn her a D- with the average resident of central Minnesota.
Maureen Reed even got in a sharp dig on Tarryl's endorsements:
"Maureen demonstrates the fundraising strength necessary to defeat Michele Bachmann," Jason Isaacson, campaign manager for Reed's congressional campaign, said in a press release. "Maureen now sits with over $300,000 cash on hand, all of which was raised without relying on endorsements from prominent individuals or special interests. This outpouring of support shows that our message of creating jobs, fixing healthcare, and reducing the national debt is resonating with people. And to do this the old fashioned way, one-on-one talking to donors, is truly humbling and gratifying."I don't know how many of the people contributing to Dr. Reed are small donors but I'm betting that it's considerable. I'm thinking that because I'm betting that Tarryl has the big donors sewn up.
Tarryl's support in the Sixth District will mostly be from the people who rely on the government to fund their shelters and their libraries. It won't come from the business community. They got burned after supporting her in 2006, when she ran, surprise surprise, as a pro-growth centrist. That myth has been disproven by her voting for every major tax increase that the legislature has voted on. It's been especially disproven because most of the tax increases were on small businesses. Most of the tax increases weren't supported by the Chamber of Commerce either.
Tarryl's voting record doesn't translate into "working every day for" John Q. Public. It reads more like how she's represented the big spenders and the special interests.
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 7:26 AM
Comment 1 by Holger Awakens at 22-Oct-09 10:22 PM
Tarryl Clark says we want someone that "will get things done" - boy, that's specific, isn't it?!!
Does she mean pass more tax hikes?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-09 01:49 AM
Yes
Only In Washington
The last week, pundits have painted a picture that says passing health care reform with a robust public option is a fait accompli. After yesterday's vote, those pundits, with their tails between their legs, are noticing that there might be a difficult, lengthy slog ahead for them :
"For many of us, we're OK with the public option," said Rep. Steve Driehaus, a first-year Democrat from Ohio. "There are other things we're more concerned with."I hope the White House will forgive me for mentioning this but it doesn't sound like Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi have their caucuses pinned down. It sounds more to me like there's plenty of discord in the ranks. I've often thought it might come to this.
"I think they're miscalculating," Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) said about Pelosi's Tuesday night claims that she was close to having the votes she needed to move a government option pegged to Medicare. "They might have a list of 210 people who support the public option, but they don't have 210 votes."
"The last count we had, there were less than 12 Blue Dogs who could back a public option tied to Medicare," said Utah Rep. Jim Matheson, a spokesman for the coalition of conservative Democrats. That leaves 40 to oppose the plan, two more than they need to block a bill.
For me, the question that I'm looking for the answer to is whether there will be enough Democrats willing to suffer defeat in 2010 to pass this bill. At this point, I don't have the answer to that question but yesterday's vote gives me reason for some limited optimism.
I suspect that the keys to the legislation is the CBO's scoring once the doctor fix is included in the (semi)final bill and whether they'll try pushing the Medicaid unfunded mandate through. I think that they're the key to exposing the Democrats' gimmicks to portray the bill as fiscally responsible.
Once the doctor fix is included in the bill, there goes the thin veneer of deficit neutrality. Though I've never thought that deficit neutrality should be the biggest benchmark, nonetheless I think it's important because it strips away the political cover that wobbly Democrats need to justify their voting for the bill. If that political cover is gone, I suspect that alot of Democrats won't support the bill.
I also think that exposing the cost that the Medicaid unfunded mandate will have on states strips away more of the veneer that this is a fiscally responsible bill. That limits the wiggle room of Blue Dogs. Without that political cover, they're painted into a bit of a tight corner. They can't say that they're fiscally responsible if they're voting (a) to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes, (b) to dump a huge unfunded mandate on the states and (c) for a bill that raises the debt by $250,000,000,000.
This news won't help the Democrats' efforts:
Also, career government economists within the Department of Health and Human Services dealt a blow to the House bill Wednesday, releasing a report concluding national health care spending would increase because newly insured people would seek care.If people start noticing that their health care costs will continue to increase and that the bills won't eliminate the uninsured, they'll ask, like I've been doing, why the Democrats' health care legislation should be called reform. Here's a checklist of what the Democrats' health care legislation accomplishes:
Unlike the analyses produced by the Congressional Budget Office, which looked at the impact of legislation on the federal government alone, the HHS report examined the impact on the national economy. The report complicates President Barack Obama's pledge to sign a bill only if it slows the rate of health care spending.
- Raises health care costs
- Uninsured is still high
- Dumps alot of expenses onto the states at a time when they're having difficult times balancing their budgets
Finally, I have a message for Harry and Nancy: Welcome to the battlefield of ideas. Have a nice day.
Originally posted Thursday, October 22, 2009, revised 25-Oct 7:06 AM
Comment 1 by chris pedersen at 22-Oct-09 03:41 PM
Very well written. Simple and to the point. This is in my favorites.
Reid's eyes are as empty as his soul!No true American would do this to OUR Country. He needs to go. Joe Pesi in the movie "Casino", [you know, the one displaying the Mobbed-UP Teamsters Central States Pension Fund]stated "There's Alot Of Holes In The Desert".
Quick get the shovel, I'll grab the lime! He can dig the hole large enough for all of them to fit come the 2010 elections, one shovel full at a time Harry, Pelsoi, Dodd, Rangel et al.
We conservatives ARE KEEPING SCORE, no olive oil or garlic needed on the Vegas Tote Board of negative votes.That would be the votes against you Harry. Get the man some flash cards.
Your done and Hoffa Jr. will give you nothing but maybe the sign from the movie Casino!Teamsters Union and Unions of Gangsters & Thieves, Birds of a feather? Someone turn his O tank off, please.
If This is Accurate...
If this post is accurate, then Tim Walz is in a world of re-election hurt:
Where Congress StandsThis isn't a bright career move, especially considering Rep. Walz voted for Cap And Trade . It's one thing to take an unpopular vote now and again. It's another to vote for the two most toxic pieces of legislation of this generation. Voting for the public option, aka single-payer health care, won't sit well in a district that includes the Mayo Clinic. I asked in this post whether the Mayo Clinic could've been built if there was a single-payer system in place when Mayo was built. I'm betting that it wouldn't have gotten built.
Rep Timothy Walz D MN-1
Supports the choice of public Healthcare option? Yes
I'm betting that alot of research dollars will dry up if health care legislation is passed with a public option.
Combine voting for health care legislation with the public option with voting to raise MN-1 farmers' gas prices and you've got a toxic mix to dig out from. Good luck with that one, Rep. Walz.
Posted Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:01 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Thul at 22-Oct-09 10:45 AM
Walz also backed himself in a corner during his townhall meeting in Mankato. He promised emphatically that he would never vote for a health care bill that either a)included tax money for abortions or b)wasn't revenue neutral.
Given the different versions on the floor now, any yes vote by Walz would be breaking that promise.
Comment 2 by Hank at 22-Oct-09 08:58 PM
Oh, you mean the health care bill that Mayo is supporting? http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=422208
Or the one that has a 61% national approval rating?
God, you're an idiot. Just because you can't be bothered to understand the problems we're facing in America doesn't mean that the rest of us are as hopeless.
By the way, "Dave Thul", the current bills have explicit provisions to exclude abortion funding and are deficit reducers. Of course, they would reduce the deficit more, but you geniuses fought the public option (socialism is cheaper than half-assed non-solutions). Good for you, wrong and harmful to the country all at once.
Comment 3 by apathyboy at 23-Oct-09 09:48 AM
Grouping the public option with the single payer system is quite a leap. It pressumes that the public option will kill all private insurance companies which is a seperate discussion altogether (and completely bull IMAO).
Also a Democratic candidate for anything in MN is going to go along with the public option. Otherwise you lose the DFL which is political suicide for any Democrat, so I wouldn't say he's making a mistake.
Dave: The bill that will brought before congress will exclude tax money for abortions and will be revenue neutral (according to the CBO, which is good enough even if they're wrong). No corner there.
Hank: You're out of line with the idiot comment. There are valid reasons to oppose the public option. Antyhing the government does (regardless of party) should be criticized before it is accepted. [Personally, I support the public option.]
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-09 10:01 AM
It pressumes that the public option will kill all private insurance companies which is a seperate discussion altogether (and completely bull IMAO).You'd better do your homework. The legislation is being written with a slew of regulations that private insurers must meet to qualify as a accepted health insurance policy. If that isn't bad enough, then they're talking about capping the price that the insurance company could charge for that policy.
Furthermore, Barney Frank said that the public option is the best way to go from our current system to single-payer. That's before considering the video in which Jan Schakowsky, (D-IL), says it's the Democrats' goal to eliminate health insurance companies.
Response 3.2 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-09 10:06 AM
The bill that will brought before congress will exclude tax money for abortions and will be revenue neutral.Big whoop. So it's deficit neutral. That isn't difficult to do if you raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. That's the flimsiest argument to make.
I noted here the types of questions that legislators should be asking. Legislation that doesn't answer those questions satisfactorily isn't worth passing.
Comment 4 by apathyboy at 23-Oct-09 10:36 AM
"You'd better do your homework."
How, by watching nothing but FOX news and reading all the Heritage Foundation reports? I'm paying attention, but so far I'm not buying it. A slew of regualtions aren't going to tank an industry. At worse, the government will prop it up just to say they didn't kill it. The issue is fundamental, not categorical.
However I tend to agree with you in that the DNC is being misleading by trumpeting the bill as "deficit neutral." It's going to cost something regardless of how they spin it. I was making the point that Walz won't face any political backlash for supporting the bill. Beyond that, I'm with you on the "big whoop."
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-09 04:54 PM
How, by watching nothing but FOX news and reading all the Heritage Foundation reports?By reading the bills & the CBO summaries like I did. Yes, I watch FNC but that isn't where I get the bulk of my information from. I get that information by following various articles to studies & official reports.
Reed, Clark Visit DC
According to this Kevin Diaz article , Dr. Maureen Reed visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday:
Physician Maureen Reed, hoping to challenge Republican incumbent Michele Bachmann in next year's U.S. House race, was on Capitol Hill today meeting members of Congress, the media, and media consultants. There was no fundraiser, according to traveling consultant Leslie Sandberg. "It's a good idea when you're running for federal office to walk the halls, say hello, and introduce yourself," Sandberg said.That's a unique way of saying that being seen in the presence of elected officials raises a candidate's profile and possibly plays into the image that the candidate belongs on Capitol Hill. While I think it's a gimmick, I'd also say that it's something I'd have my candidate do if I was managing a challenger's campaign.
Meanwhile, a loyal reader of LFR called me Thursday morning to tell me that he'd seen Tarryl that morning trying to find the DNC headquarters. This loyal reader said that Tarryl looked a bit lost but not flustered. I find that a bit curious since Tarryl isn't the officially endorsed candidate.
It seems to me that the DNC, or any national party, should keep their nose out of a competitive endoresement fight. That's for the DFL's Sixth District delegates to decide, not the DNC's. It follows, then, that it'd be improper if the DNC offered any sort of advice or support to Tarryl.
Again, this race gives every indication that it will be competitive fight. That's all the more reason for the DNC to stay neutral. It'll be interesting to see if Tarryl has anything to say about her visit to the DNC's offices.
Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 2:22 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 23-Oct-09 11:46 AM
From one man's personal GOP perspective, Gary, which of the two would you prefer the DFL to choose?
And if you've the time, why?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Oct-09 04:51 PM
Eric, This might surprise you but I don't really care because these candidates will get beat & not by 2-3 points.
Tarryl doesn't fit the district worth a damn but she's built enough of a following to be as good a candidate as the DFL can put forth.
That said, I've noticed a couple habits that Michele will clobber her on. (I'll tell you what those habits are after the election, not now.)
TPaw's Pretzels & Pints Fundraiser a Success
Gov. Tim Pawlenty was in Washington, DC Thursday night for a fundraiser for his FreedomFirst PAC. Based on a friend's report, it was a rousing success. (Yes, this friend is the "loyal LFR reader" that saw Tarryl heading for the DNC headquarters.
The thing that my friend said that stood out for me was that approximately 300 people attended the event. That's alot of people, especially for someone whose name recognition is relatively low.
The other thing my friend said was that two veterans of the Bush-Cheney campaigns, Sara Taylor of BS '00 and Patrick Ruffini of BC '04, attended the event. The report I got was that Ruffini is helping TPaw. If that's true, that's a huge get for Gov. Pawlenty. I've talked with Patrick a couple of times. I also read his blog on a fairly frequent basis.
Patrick knows demographics as well as anyone not named Michael Barone or Karl Rove. As impressive as that is, the thing that is Pat's specialty are his messaging abilities. Patrick is sort of my mentor in that he's a cut to the best argument type of guy. Once he locks onto his best message, which is frequently, he'll use that message until his opponent quits.
Patrick isn't a believer in the traditional stay-on-message thing. On the contrary, Patrick loves seeing his candidate find a great argument that resonates with the people, then use that message to win that issue.
The other thing that my friend said that impressed me was that half of the crowd were young Capitol Hill staffers in their 20's. I don't doubt that because Gov. Pawlenty resonates with young people. In fact, my friend said that Gov. Pawlenty "went around and shook hands and spoke with everyone." My friend's observation was that they couldn't picture Mitt doing this even if his life depended on it. That certainly sounds like the TPaw I've met.
Simply put, TPaw is one of the most skilled retail politickers I've ever seen. Frankly, that's why I think he's tailor-made for Iowa and New Hampshire. Simply put, he's a natural for talking with main street people. That's something Mitt Romney will never have.
According to my friend, the biggest points to his stump speech were his criticizing President Obama's weakness on national security issues, especially as it relates to Iran going nuclear, and his talking about "Hillary begging on hands and knees" with the Chinese so that they'll buy up our debt.
That last point should resonate for two reasons. First, how embarrassing for President Obama after preaching about how, under his administration, we'd be popular again. For all President Obama's talk, the U.S. is less respected in the world now than when President Bush left office. At least with President Bush, allies knew that he'd honor his commitments once he'd made them.
Secondly, it's embarrassing to have the French lecture you as weak against the Iranians. It's a nice jab at President Obama that suggests that being liked isn't as important as being respected in the world.
The bottom line is that Gov. Pawlenty's PAC is off to a strong start. He's already connecting with people, which isn't surprising. It'll be interesting to see how much of an impact he'll have on the competitive races across the country. So far so good, though.
Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 3:09 AM
No comments.
Behind the Scenes At TPaw's Pretzels & Pints Event
Check out the size of the crowd in this video:
For someone who supposedly is lacking in name ID, there sure looked like there was alot of people at Tim Pawlenty's Pretzels and Pints event Thursday night. I thought Gov. Pawlenty's speech was especially effective in criticizing President Obama for his out of control spending (Hillary on rhetorial bended knee) and in his saying that he knows how to "reach out to people who are not yet Republican."
As good as Gov. Pawlenty is in that part of the speech, he's even better in this portion of the speech:
Partial Transcript:
GOV. PAWLENTY : You see them come into power saying that they're the party of the poor and the disadvantaged but one of the first things they do, in the first six months and come into Washington, DC and abolish the scholarships for poor children in the school districts who have a chance to flee a failing school district.This is typical Tim Pawlenty, talking in a measured tone of voice but flashing his sharp elbows in highlighting President Obama's abandoning of key allies that formed a counterbalance to Putin's Russia, saying that President Obama had sent the message that we couldn't be trusted when the going got tough even though those countries had "stuck their necks out for us."
Those are troubling signs but they represent sonmething else. They represent a suffocation, an encroachment of our freedoms and our liberties at every instance, whether it's your privacy at the ballot box at work or whether it's your right to make a health care decision, whether it's your right to make a decision on where your children go to school.
And one last thing, we now have an administration that says to some of our best friends around the world like Poland and the Czech Republic "You can't count on us even though we promised to stick with you, even though you stuck your necks out for us, even though you took a great risk, you'll never know when we might pull the rug out from under you. You have Lech Walesa saying that "You can't trust the United States. They're only out for themselves."
I thought that Gov. Pawlenty was great in highlighting President Obama's lofty talk about being for the little guy and the downtrodden but then abolishing the scholarships DC children need to flee the District's failing pulbic schools. Once again, President Obama's rhetoric is lofty even while his actions are despicable.
Last night's event only solidifies in my mind why Tim Pawlenty, not Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, is the candidate best equipped to defeat President Obama. His attacks are concise and on target. His demeanor is presidential. His record for fiscal restraint is solid.
Overall, based on a friend's eyewitness recollection of the event, coupled with these videos, I'd say Gov. Pawlenty made a positive first impression. The event went off like a well-written script. Most importantly, Gov. Pawlenty showed that he has the gravitas to go toe-to-toe with President Obama and the wit to draw in "those who aren't yet Republicans."
Posted Friday, October 23, 2009 9:11 AM
No comments.
