2012 presidential hopeful, Tim Pawlenty, is taking some well deserved heat from conservative bloggers because of his “weak-tea” responses to a questions posed to him about Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” map.
Here’s what Pawlenty had to say, as reported by The Politico:
“It would not have been my style to put the cross hairs on there,” he said Tuesday on “Good Morning America,” referring to a map like the one posted last year on SarahPAC’s website showing gunsights on the congressional districts represented by Giffords and a select group of lawmakers who supported health care reform.
“But then again, there’s no evidence to suggest that had anything to do with this mentally unstable person’s rage and senseless acts.”
“I wouldn’t have done it,” the two-term governor told The New York Times on Monday when asked about the map.
Okay, so that was two opportunities he had to smash a liberal narrative that amounts to blood libel…. and he punted.
Stephen Green says he’s tempted to scratch Pawlenty off his short list for President:
I’m no Palin partisan. Far from it. In fact — and here I go starting trouble again — although I like her, there’s not much chance I would vote for Sarah in any primary. So I’m not tempted to scratch off Pawlenty because he supposedly dissed Palin. It’s clear to me that he did no such thing.
My problem with Pawlenty’s statement is twofold: It’s weak tea (no pun intended) and this is the exact wrong time to make even the smallest concession to the lefty narrative. By weak tea, I mean: Pawlenty didn’t say much at all, and I’d rather have a stand up guy sitting at the Resolute desk. As to his concession, it was tiny but it was there: Words, symbols even, can be bad naughty evil things that make otherwise nice boys shoot at congressmen.
We fight the Left on this and we fight it hard.
And here’s my problem. “It would not have been my style.”
Really? If some Web guy had done that map, Tim Pawlenty would have looked at it and said, pre-Tucson, “Oh noes, those look like crosshairs! Take them off!” Tim Pawlenty may say he would have done that, and for all I know may even think he would have done that. But to me, agreeing with Stephen Green, above, it looks like an instinct to separate himself from controversy, and ingratiate himself with the interviewer, that speaks poorly.
“It would not have been my style”.
You know what that is? That’s “Minnesota nice” for ” Good God, NO”.
I’ve had my own run ins with “Minnestota nice”.
Like my Minnesotan mother-in-law saying, “It’s not what I would have done…”, the time I sponge painted white tulips all over the bathroom of my husband and my first house. (Yes, it was hideous).
Maybe he really feels that way, (doubtful) or as Insty says, it’s an attempt to ingratiate himself with the interviewer. Here’s the problem with that: 90% of his the MSM is left leaning. If his first instinct is to ingratiate himself with lefties, he’s going to be butting heads with conservatives on a regular basis. Kinda like Michael Steele did. And we all know how that turned out.
Scott, at Powerline, says:
…speaking only for myself, I would prefer a conservative leader who has the courage to stand and tell the MSM that he understands their game and they can shove it.
John pipes in with:
I share Scott’s disappointment that Pawlenty didn’t stand up more forcefully for his fellow Republicans.
He had, of course, a different agenda, and the last thing he wanted to do in these appearances was talk about Sarah Palin. But he should have anticipated that topic number one would be Tucson, and that if he wants to be held in high regard by the party’s base, he should take advantage of the opportunity to be a hero by standing up to the pathetically weak left-wing narrative. That he didn’t do so, strongly enough to be perceived as doing so by conservatives, is unfortunate, to say the least. We are in a moment in time where most Americans are ready to turn away in revulsion from the Democrats’ ghoulish opportunism, and Pawlenty played it much too safe.
Paul is being a squish:
I don’t think less of Pawlenty for having given what I take to be an honest and reasonable answer to a question on the topic of what the tone of political advertising should be.
Charles Krauthammer shows how it’s done, today in his WaPo oped:
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.
Such a reckless and scurrilous charge warrants a stronger push-back than, “But then again, there’s no evidence to suggest that had anything to do with this mentally unstable person’s rage and senseless acts.”
Thus we are all summoned to discuss the effects of Sarah Palin’s target symbols on the mind of Jared Loughner (quick version of that discussion: None) and pretend that it was a Tea Party “climate of hate” that cause Jared Loughner to get violent over his belief that the government was using grammar to mind control us and keep us from escaping into the world of “conscience [sic] dreaming.”We’re really supposed to have this discussion. And we’re supposed to be buttoned-up serious about it. People are dead, after all, so of course we must pay lip service to our opponents’ own Loughnerian escape into fantasy worlds of conscience [sic] dreaming.
As Allah asked: Am I awake?
Yes, yes you are. All of this shit? It’s really happening.
So, because one segment of the population has, along with Jared Loughner, fled to a dream world that they control, “consciencely” [sic], by simply asserting that white is black and day is night, we’re supposed to join them, and find common ground with them, and find something interesting that we can jointly agree upon.
I suppose: Yes, this world of conscience [sic] dreaming you’ve made is certainly a nice one, and, assuming the various false premises you’ve conscience [sic] dreamed into existence, I do see that your syllogism does follow (again, Loughner-like) from those false premises.
I guess I’m supposed to say that.
Pawlenty basically did.