Tim Pawlenty made in his presidential campaign announcement in Des Moines, Iowa yesterday. Federal ethanol subsidies "have to be phased out," Pawlenty said, countering much of the agricultural community in Iowa, including many conservative Republicans in the state.
And he added that, "Tomorrow, I'm going to Florida to tell both young people and seniors the truth that our entitlement programs are on an unsustainable path and that inaction is no longer an option." (Weekly Standard)You may consider T-Paw a weak cup of tea, but his honesty is refreshing, especially coming from a presidential candidate. Ethanol is immoral. It is corporate welfare that drives up the price of food, starving people to feed cars, to the tune of tens of billions in taxpayer handouts.
Pawlenty also swore off all climate change tomfoolery, begging forgiveness for his cap and trade sins. I like a person who can admit he was wrong.
21 comments:
I think I read somewhere that trying to replace fossil fuel with ethanol would cost the average consumer just as much as or more than it costs to fuel our cars with dead dinosaurs.
It might be a good alternative for the few people who now opt for it, but as a large scale operation the conventional wisdom is that it would not be a good economic alternative.
Yeah, it's too early to commit.
But I will admit to liking Pawlenty. What he's saying now is a breath of fresh air.
Well, he's better than Romney (but you know what I think of Romney, heh). It's fine that he admitted he was wrong, but the underlying problem with his stance on both ethanol and cap and tax is what it reveals about his belief in the role of government (that did not change, only what he's saying now has changed).
He may be savvy enough to know those dogs won't hunt right now, but . . . . He's not my first (second or third) choice.
Off the top of my head, Ron Paul is about the only consistent person in the race. He believed thirty years ago what he believes now.
I'm willing cut some slack on the "flip flopping" charges if I think the flip flop is credible and they flopped the right way. Why berate someone for joining your side?
I also try to look at the whole package, even though some issues are more important to me than others.
I said somewhere else either today or yesterday that Ron Paul is probably one of the only honest politicians out there.
I don't always agree with his policy points, but you know that he's at least honest.
I don't crap allover politicians too much for flip-flopping in the same sense that a lot of people do. Although we get the feeling that many of them are just trying to get the most votes possible, I don't always rule out the possibility that they genuinely found themselves to be mistaken and changed their minds.
One word, lightweight.
We need a heavy-hitter not a Bob Dole Jr.
My fear is that we're all out of heavy hitters. If it's magnetic personality you're looking for, then Mitt Romney would likely be the best bet for that.
A goofy looking, older white guy with a run-of-the-mill personality is not going to beat Obama.
Obama is still relatively young, personable, has a magnetic personality, and let's face it: he's black.
That might sound racist or inflammatory, but it's the truth. Many of my black friends straight up told me "I only voted for him because he's black, and I'm actually kind of ashamed of that."
Pawlenty governed a liberal state and earned an A from libertarian CATO on fiscal policy for 2009 (he earned B's and C's in the year before.)
He also earned CATO's disdain recently by vowing to not slash defense spending.
He may not be the right choice, but he's hardly a lightweight.
@ Jack,,,
If you were responding to my comment I must ask what part of "NOT Bob Dole Jr." did you not understand?
@ Silver,,,
Pawlentys mannerism's, ad's and flip-flops spell lightweight and all see it clearly. He could not debate his way out of a paper bag, Obama would wipe the floor with this guy.
The biggest problem Pawlenty has is that he comes across as milquetoast, if not outright unimpressive as well.
His record features some good points, but like Sam Brownback in 2007, he doesn't instill the confidence in me that he can put America back on the right track.
Once I saw Pawlenty on FOX and he was asked what he thought about Obama going around the world bashing America? And his answer was "The feeling is Mutual".
I kinda took a liking to him since then. Although I do agree he lacks the "audacity" to take Obama to the woodshed.
I was just talking to my husband about a possible Bachman/Palin run and he said they would definitely win if they were democrats.
I have to agree.
Just wanted to throw that in.
@Christopher:
I was agreeing with your position and expounding upon it.
Is this an example of Pawlenty honesty, or is he merely testing the waters?
Christopher: It's just your opinion, but you're entitled to it. I brought facts about the man's record.
I don't think anyone should be discounted out of hand (except Newt). And I think it is too early for us to throw up our hands in despair.
Remember that you may end up having to support the candidate in the general that you trashed in the primary.
Criticism is good, but it should be fact-based.
Yeah, I could live with a Pawlenty in the White House. But I have a few other GOP folk who would get my primary vote before Timmy: Palin, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry, to name a few. Maybe even that 'the rent is too DAMN high' guy...or, on second thought maybe not.
I also had lots of other GOP candidates in 2000, as well. Dubya was LAST on my list, frankly, but I still voted for the guy (twice). I was a big Phil Gramm guy back then, and Steve Forbes looked good, too. Even Liddy Dole looked better as a keeper than Dubya.
Pawlenty talks a good game, but will he follow through if elected? That is the big question. I am tired of having the rug pulled out from under us every time a candidate we support gets elected.
For far too many years, the candidates from both parties build the hopes of the voters up, give a false sense that we are making a difference, then when they win, it is business as usual with we the people being made fools of over and over again.
No matter what, I will NOT vote for Romney, because as far as I am concerned, he is Obama light. Mitt is pro abortion, pro Gay, and all for ethanol subsidies.
A president Pawlenty would continue ethanol subsidies. Don't kid yourself.
You guys still don't have an energizing candidate.
JMJ
@ Jack,,Copy that, meaning understood.
@ Silver, As to facts I did bring them to the table. Have you seen his ad's? Did you watch that farce on Fox called a debate? Do you know of his flip-flops?
These things I speak of are not of my imagination.
Debate style; Bob Dole (as mentioned previously)
Coached (fake) mannerism's; Slick Willy
Flip-Flops; John Kerry (I was for it before I was against it)
So we have RINO, Liberal, Liberal
What does America need, more of the same?
He's not my favorite, but we could do a lot worse.
Christopher: Trestin said it well, and that is my point. You ignore his fiscal accomplishments and damn him because he's "boring." This isn't a Jersey Shore episode, it's a presidential contest.
Nobody's perfect. They all have flaws.
He might not be too bad, but he might also have the John Kerry effect: a guy who can't really fire up a crowd.
Remember that people usually don't vote on issues, but mostly vote on personality and looks, at least at the presidential level.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.