Man-Up Tim Pawlenty

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 charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

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.”

That sounds like someone on the defensive – someone  implying that the false narrative is valid, instead of expressing  moral outrage and indignation at an unfair, and slanderous charge.
Not impressed.
Check out Ace, today, talking about the false narrative dream world the left is asking everyone to indulge:

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.



16 thoughts on “Man-Up Tim Pawlenty

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Man-Up Tim Pawlenty « Nice Deb --

  2. To somebody in the center-left such as myself, Governor Pawlenty is the about the best thing the GOP has going for it. You should support him, he’s your best bet in 2012. He’s really very close to a centrist like Obama on issues and in style.

    As for Zena Palin, if she knows violence is not the answer, then why does she so frequently allude to it?

    Let me tell you what it looks like: It looks like she is attempting to influence violent fools to do her dirty work for her by using the power of suggestion.

    Of course there’s no evidence of this. How very clever of her! I’ll give her this: she’s poorly educated but she has some street smarts and an unmistakable killer instinct (which explains the promo video of her shooting deer).

    Despite her instinct, her apologists will bleat that despite appearances to any sane person, it was not her actual intention to inspire people to go out and massacre politicians they don’t like for whatever reason. Just as they’ll whimper that Sharon Angle didn’t really mean armed insurrection when she referred to ‘second amendment remedies. And as they will mendaciously reassure us that people carrying guns to political rallies is no cause for alarm.

    But here’s the thing: People like Zena Palin and Angle may be able to manipulate the law, but their violent trash talk still looks bad to the people who don’t want to see that kind of thing happen – which is the majority of the good American people.

    So when something ugly happens, who are you going to look at first? The person who’s been doing the loudest smack talk. That’s just the way the world works.


  3. Well, well, the real Brian comes out: a lefty, as was obvious.

    if she knows violence is not the answer, then why does she so frequently allude to it?

    You’re going to have to cite some examples if you’re going to make a charge like that. And not examples of common campaign metaphors that are used on both sides all the time.

    And you’re going to have to come up with rhetoric that I can’t counter as being 10X worse on your side of the aisle –

    going all the way to the top:

    The real hatred and violent rhetoric comes from the left. Just because the MSM doesn’t report it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. We saw 100x worse than what we’re seeing now for 8 years under Bush.

    Where were you, then?



    The day you see violent rhetoric like that coming from conservatives, let me know, okay? In the meantime how about policing your own side where the real “climate of hate” exists.

    The sad irony of it all:


  4. On the subject of baseless accusations, I suggest you exercise a little more self restraint.

    I’m not a lefty, my views are very much in the center. The political center disapproves of Palin, Angle, etc.

    You might see the center as left wing, but that’s because your point of view is at a political extreme.

    It’s actually quite interesting how much you Tea Partiers have in common with the extreme left, of whom I also disapprove.

    In my considered opinion both political extremes represent a danger to democracy and the American way of life.

    Regrettably I cannot see any point in arguing with you, you’re too reactive and dismissive, and not sufficiently reflective. You always find a way to make your opponent wrong and you right. If you can show me any examples of when you’ve admitted that a leftist was right and you were wrong, I will retract that statement and apologize, and I’ll consider engaging in reasonable debate with you.

    Finally, for your information, the Blood Libel is almost always used in a religious context and refers to one religious group killing a member of another group and using their blood in rituals. Commonly it was used as a slur against Jews.

    Once again, Palin puts her foot in her mouth with an incendiary remark. Zena indeed!


  5. I’m not a lefty, my views are very much in the center. The political center disapproves of Palin, Angle, etc.

    Anybody still toting around the old “Bush lied” meme is a dirtbag lefty, and nowhere near the center.

    Finally, for your information, the Blood Libel is almost always used in a religious context and refers to one religious group killing a member of another group and using their blood in rituals.

    …and if you cared to do any non-lefty reading, you’d find that that has already been proven untrue.


  6. Brian, the “center” doesn’t disapprove of Sarah Palin in the hateful “dismissive” tone, you do. They may not be Palin fans, but they don’t hold her in visceral contempt.

    There’s nothing worse than a lefty who tries to pass himself off as “center”. People in the center are not still using the “Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction” canard, that has been debunked too many times to bother with anymore.. If there was still any doubt about your political persuasion, that right there ended it.

    If you think the tea party is the same as the far left, you’re getting your information from a bad source. I can tell you, from personal experience that the people who go to tea parties have nothing in common with the people in the photo montages we’ve been posting of left wing events.

    Why don’t you try going to one, and see for yourself?

    As for Palin using the term, “blood libel”- yes indeed, you are regurgitating the lefty talking points over her remarks just like I would expect a good lefty would. I guess, now that it’s pretty obvious that her rhetoric, and target map had nothing to do with the mentally ill Loughner, who had been obsessed with Giffords since 2007, and has been described as “very left wing” by a former friend, it’s time to move the goal posts.


    Alan Dershowitz, no right-wing sympathizer, on Palin’s use of the term “blood libel”:

    The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

    Um, yeah. People on the right and the left have been using the term, “blood libel” in a broader context for many years, and it’s a very apt term to describe what has been going on, here.


  7. Regrettably I cannot see any point in arguing with you, you’re too reactive and dismissive, and not sufficiently reflective.

    Forgot to address this little bit of whining. Look, Bri, all you guys waltz in here like you’re the first lib who’s ever visited. In fact you’re at the end of a long, long list numbering in the hundreds. They all say the same stuff, like you do, even when it’s been addressed/debunked all over the internet. So when you waltz by and start blithering, we naturally don’t take you at all seriously. It’s standard policy to drive people like you off as quickly as possible, because although hundreds have come by claiming they just wanted an honest discussion, they all went batshit troll crazy within a day.

    If you want to be taken seriously, say something that shows you’ve already researched the conservative side of the arguments. Say something that goes beyond the Daily Kos talking points. Say something interesting, at least.


  8. Oh yeah, LOL:

    If you can show me any examples of when you’ve admitted that a leftist was right and you were wrong, I will retract that statement and apologize, and I’ll consider engaging in reasonable debate with you.

    If it ever happens, (VERY UNLIKELY) you’ll be the first to know.


  9. Deb, you have conceded certain points to me before. While not whole parts of the argument, I find that you tend to be willing to concede or compromise if a person does their homework and point out facts that back them up just as Geoff points out. Thats why you are one of the few right blogs I still follow. You have never disrespected me and while we may disagree, I know that I can converse on level terms with you.


  10. If I may back up Brian on the “Blood Libel”, while it is starting to gain a broader meaning, it is still a term that should not gain such meanings. Consider “Nuclear Holocaust” and the general use of “Apartheid” to mean segregation. Both failed because linguists, historians and theologians felt that these new terms detracted from the importance of what they originally meant. The persecution of the right would seem to be hardly equal to the persecution of Jews. I feel as though there are many Jewish scholars who would disagree with Mr. Dershowitz’s claim. Saying Palin was anti-Semetic may be a bit far. Perhaps she choose it because it sounded like a buzz word. Perhaps she didn’t know the historic meaning. I can’t say as much as anyone else can. I just think a better choice of words could have been had.


  11. I just think a better choice of words could have been had.

    That’s almost always true. It’s typical, though, that rather than addressing her message, her opponents have seized on two words that may or may not have been entirely appropriate. It’s not even like her meaning was unclear.


  12. Usually Gettysburg. Bath, England for the semester. I return to my native New York in May and then back to G-Burg in August for Senior Year.


  13. I think bashing Pawlenty is a little unfair, but the gotcha crap that is floating around, which we on the right have every right to, exaccerbates our anti-rinoism.

    I have ALWAYS since 2006 favored Daniels, if you search Aces archives, you will find me saying “If Daniels wins the state by more than 3, and obama by more than 1, the election was stolen” But that was back when the election was close.

    Daniels won Indiana (I’m a hoosier) by a larger degree than obam did, BY QUITE A BIT! in elective politics.

    Daniels can’t give big speeches, but when he DOES speak, he knows what the Eff he’s talking about.

    I’m biased, but Mitch is AMAZING, and Daniels as president, and pence as governor?

    2 words.



  14. Geoff,

    I get a lot of my information from The Economist. Frankly I don’t trust much of the US-based media, and I consider that a publication that supports the interests of commerce with a longer view than the coming quarterly financial report is probably politically relatively neutral. The sister organization, The Economist Intelligence Unit, is widely considered on the right or the extreme right-wing, although based on your assessment of the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney lies, you might consider The EIU to be left leaning.

    I’d put you in the category of the brainwashed ultra-right, given that apparently you have swallowed whole a lie of such great consequence that it led to the demise of Prime Minister Tony Blair in the UK. There were no weapons of mass destruction. And we knew that for years before the war.

    A centrist is capable of viewing both sides with a degree of impartiality. What I can see is that the left is a lot more reflective than the right, and I think the reflective quality in me is one reason you are confusing me for a leftist, for I’m sure you have observed this trend too.

    For this reason, though, I tend to take the right wing press less seriously. Anybody who asserts they are always right is either lying or else delusional. Either way they lack credibility.

    I am not the only one in who sees this imbalance. Have a look at this link. It’s on an Economist blog.

    The key point is this, as the article states: “(Conor Friedersdorf) thinks the key difference between the sides is that Matthew Yglesias, like many other lefty opinion-mongerers, is quite willing to criticise the ridiculous things Keith Olbermann sometimes says, while people like Victor Davis Hanson never acknowledge the madness of Glenn Beck.”

    Also quoted is Andre Sullivan of the Maybe contributors to this blog will disagree with Andrew Sullivan and send him material from the left that right wing thinkers find offensive, and I hope you do.

    Now let’s look at the sense in antagonizing one’s opponents with hostile rhetoric. Why do it? This kind of behavior is widely credited as leading to the first world war. While both sides are at fault in this, according to the above, the right is the worse offender.

    When we look at Palin’s choice of words in “Blood Libel” even if some people say the phrase is in more common usage – which I don’t really buy, as I’ve only seen it used by firebrands – it still doesn’t take the brains of an archbishop to figure out the Jews will be deeply offended and upset by its use. For them it is a legitimate sore spot.

    So why would Palin do such a thing? Either she doesn’t know much about anything and therefore would be wise to observe the virtue of fools and remain silent, or else she simply doesn’t care if a term she blithely uses will create ripples around the world (see below links), and upset an entire people.

    The Australian is regarded as a center-right newspaper.

    Le Figaro is regarded as a center-right newspaper.

    Der Spiegel in Germany has an interesting read of the situation. This publication sits well to the left of both the Australian and Le Figaro. I tend to agree with them on the point they make: the left should not have held Palin responsible for the Tucson shootings.

    I think holding Palin and the Tea Party responsible for the shooting was an irrational response to a crisis, which was fueled by months and months of shock and disgust at the general tone of extreme right rhetoric. In other words, I think the left was in full fight mode and just kept swinging without really thinking about it.

    The result is that supporters rallied to Palin. So the left made a tactical error. Not sure how many commentators on either side in this country have pointed that out.

    To me the right is justified in denying a causal link, although my point is that the culture of violent talk is what contributes to this behavior. It could just as easily have been a right wing politician that got shot, which would have been equally terrible. The only other place I’ve heard such violent talk by politicians was in Nothern Ireland during the 1970s. The talk is more violent here, even though the war itself is cold.

    It’s not a spirited debate. Look to Australian politicians if you want to see that. Here the debate frequently strays into allusions of violence.

    I don’t absolve either side in this matter, and I don’t think it is anywhere near OK to continue the vitriolic discourse, either for politicians or pundits.

    Black Is White seems to think that the only alternative to violence and vitriol is kumbaya. Well that’s jumping from one extreme to the other. Maybe that’s to be expected from an extremist.


  15. Pingback: The Palin Conundrum « Nice Deb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s