So, Tim Pawlenty Walks Into Cato, and...

... I wasn't there. Neither was Delaware David Weigel, but that didn't stop him from monitoring the awkward audience Q&A online:

Question one: Why the hell does the United States have more than 170 military bases?

"I'm not one who's going to stand before you and say we need to cut the defense budget," said Pawlenty, who up to that point had been pounding the table about austerity. Get rid of the bases that sound like wastes of space and you risk American supremacy. "You'd see a massive realignment of the strategic relationship towards China and away from America in Asia," he said. "This is not where we're going to get six months, six years warning about the next conflict. I'm not for shrinking America's presence in the world. I'm for making sure America remains the world leader."

A more dangerous question was next: In the wake of NY-26, what did Pawlenty make of the Ryan plan? This elicited the safe, smart, tapioca answer that Pawlenty's been giving for weeks.

"In general," he said, "I think the direction of it is positive, but I'm going to have my own plan."

Issue, dodged. Pawlenty pointed into the crowd again

"We'll take the guy in the purple tie," he said. "That's a Vikings color!"

Unfortunately, the wearer of Vikings colors worked for the Marijuana Policy Project, who asked Pawlenty how he could be taken seriously on health care since he had opposed "my group" on medical pot.

"What was it?" asked Pawlenty? "Marijuana? Yeah. Well... I stood with law enforcement issue on this issue... we just have a respectful difference on this issue."

End of audience questions.

My main skin-deep impression of Pawlenty comes from watching him speechify while hosting the 2008 Republican National Convention, where in my biased opinion he was engaged in a spirited race to the bottom with eMeg Whitman when it came to most underwhelming political "comer" in a three-day snooze-fest chock full of 'em. I do know (because a colleague e-mailed me) that he's anti-14th Amendment, pro-Real ID, anti-medical marijuana, pro-cigarette tax and smoking ban, anti-gay marriage, and pro-Cuba travel ban. Which, along with his pro-defense spending, entitlement tapdancing, and even-for-a-politician dullness, probably make him a frontrunner in what passes for the modern Republican Party.

Blasto from El Pasto: Read Nick Gillespie in real time preferring Sarah Palin to Tim Pawlenty for 2008 GOP veep! Meanwhile, the Clever Cathys at Politico have spliced together some Cato lukewarmness toward their special guest from today:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    That clown isn't fit to shine Ron Paul's shoes.

    -jcr

  • fish||

    No he is....but absolutely nothing more.

  • Joe M||

    Pawlenty is a phony piece of crap who obviously has no intention of suggesting anything approaching a good idea. He just wants to be prez because, well, uh, because.

  • Terr||

    Sounds like he'd make a good Obama II.

  • Joe M||

    You mean Bush III.

  • Joedoe||

    You mean Bush IV.

  • dunk||

    You mean Bush XLV.

  • Sudden||

    you mean Louis XVI?

  • Joe M||

    No, Clinton the IV, Bush the V.

  • ChrisO||

    Tim Pawlenty: A Good Friend of the Oversized Rodent Community

  • ||

    Tim Pawlenty: "Rodents of Unusual Size? Yeah. Well... we just have a respectful difference on this issue."

  • H. "Godfather" Cain||

    I have to admit I've never heard of the "Fire Swamp." Are you telling me there's an actual swamp of fire with ROUSes? Is that what you're telling me? I don't think that's right.

  • Herman Cain||

    I will, however, assemble a team of experts, who are knowledgable about this "fire swamp", and they will devise a strategy for navigating it which we can use. I honestly do not understand our mission in the fire swamp.

  • ||

    Don't forget that Pawlenty hates bongwater:

    http://blogs.citypages.com/blo.....r_bill.php

    It takes a lot of moxie to veto a nearly unanimous bill intended to correct an outrageous court decision.

  • fish||

    Thanks Tingy.....yet another reason not to vote for him~!

    Shit! Not a single declared republican is vote-worthy!

  • M. Wild||

    I hate to slag on Weigel, but man does he still have a bug up his ass re: libertarians.

    Did you Welch and Gillespie steal his lunch money or something?

  • ||

    They didn't give him their lunch money, which according to Liberal Logic means they stole their own lunch money from him.

  • ||

    Are you referring to some offline meeting you had recently with Weigel? I ask because there's nothing at that link that supports your statement.

  • M. Wild||

    "It was in the Q&A section of the event that Pawlenty learned the true joy of answering libertarians."

    Tone means a lot. Considering his previous writings, this comes across as condescending.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    If neither Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, a lot of libertarians are going to have to question the utility of voting for the Republican candidate just to spite Obama.

    Hell, I'd probably pick the Socialist candidate before I'd vote for any of these jokers.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    If it's neither Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

    FIFM

  • Mo||

    If it's neither Ron Paul nor Gary Johnson.

    FTFY

  • Jim||

    Agreed. There's actually a few people in these forums who talk about voting for T-Paw, which I don't get at all. I mean, quite a few people voted for Obama just to repudiate Bush and his policies, and how's that worked out? Voting for someone you hate to punish someone else you hate just isn't a good exercise.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Apart from my libertarian convictions, I also searching out candidates that have a clear goal in mind. I'm tired of having a politician's platform designed by a committee for the purpose appealing to the widest spectrum of voters.

    Hell, give me the "I'll bite the nuts off a puppy to save the economy" candidate over the Dems and Reps. At least that's an idea I can understand.

  • ||

    All the issues on which Pawlenty sucks, Obama sucks worse. And there's plenty of issues where Pawlenty is at least OK.

    Don't get me wrong, if Ron Paul or Gary Johnson won the Presidency I'd streak naked from here to Washington in celebration, but part of being an adult is realizing that you have to compromise or you get shizzle.

  • Joe M||

    So compromise would be streaking naked only halfway to Washington?

  • ||

    Depending on how active the flasher patrols are on I-70.

    I sure hope RP or GJ abolishes sex offender registries upon inauguration, because I'm pretty sure streakers are eligible for it.

  • scientific value||

    I think it depends on your size or this

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You're disgusting. Just putting that out there.

  • rather||

    You're disgusting

    Yes, it can be disturbing to view abnormalities, burn victims, and naked pictures of epi. GTFOI

  • ||

    You're disgusting. Just putting that out there.

    That's what she said...

  • ||

    oops, I assumed Dr K was talking about me for some reason. We apologize for the inconvenience.

  • rather||

    We apologize for...

    Two heads or two heads?

  • Jim||

    @ Tulpa

    But if all you ever do is vote for the lesser side of the shit sandwich, then how does anything ever get better? I mean, you're sending the same message that those singing protesters gave to Obama: "I don't like you but I'll vote for you anyway".

  • ||

    I can see voting LP or some other third party if the major party candidates are equally horrible. I actually voted for Barr in 2008, so I sympathize (though I was totally wrong on McCain being as bad as Obama).

    But when there's daylight between the candidates it's unhelpful to insist that one of them be perfect. If libertarian concerns can be safely ignored by both major parties because they're unlikely to vote for either major party, nothing ever gets better either.

  • Jim||

    Thing is, "I love the military and will not cut it, I hate drugs and will continue the drug war" doesn't really show me a lot of daylight between the current abomination and this guy on a couple of very key issues. As SIV points out below, I might...grudgingly...compromise on Cain. But T-Paw is straight up old-skool statist, and I'll vote for a hapless LP'er before I would him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I kind of want to agree with Tulpa here, but T-paw and about every """serious""" GOP candidate just doesn't cut it. There has to be a threshold-'better' than Obama (*in theory) does not cut it.

  • ||

    At least with a Republican president, there is an outside chance we get court nominees who see the Constitution as something more than an outdated series of suggestions from dead white male slaveowners. With a Democrat, there's almost no chance.

  • Mo||

    Yeah, you'll get a bunch of court cases that invalidate the 4th amendment thanks to the new professionalism of police and judges that determine that a toilet flush is permission for police to break down a door.

  • SIV||

    Or they might need a black woman for identity politics reasons and we'll get Janice Rogers Brown. Alito is quite a disappointment but it has been many a long year since there was a decent "liberal" JOTSC.

  • ||

    I'd streak naked from here to Washington in celebration

    It's OK if you don't, unless you're really Salma Hayek, who's been here all along

  • SIV||

    T-Paw is not a compromise. Palin or Bachmann or Cain or some other candidate with a bit of pro-liberty leanings might qualify as a compromise but T-Paw is a pure statist.

  • ||

    This. Gary Johnson is the candidate I currently support, but I could hold my nose and vote for Bachmann or Cain.

    If Obama has come to embody just about everything I hate about Democrats, T-Paw embodies just about everything I hate about Republicans (see comments about military bases, war on drugs, etc.). Like Romney, the appeal of T-Paw completely eludes me.

  • free2booze||

    I agree about compromise. The question comes down to if enough Libertarian minded voters would be willing to compromise, and come out in enough numbers to influence the GOP primary, so that a Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul could get the nomination.

  • ||

    I'll just go out and flush my usual vote for whatever dog catcher the LP is running this time.

  • ||

    My ability to vote LP is well established. Paul or Johnson in the primary; most likely LP in the general, barring one of them receiving the GOP nomination.

  • ||

    Same here. I will not be donating any money to any candidate this time around, unless someone I like really picks up steam.

  • Joe M||

    What if it's Wayne Allyn Root?

  • ||

    LP unless a decent Republican or other candidate is available. At the moment, the only non-LP option I see is Johnson or Paul.

    No way I'm voting for Obama. Never have, never will.

  • SIV||

    He kept us out of that War with Iran McCain on his deathbed was going to start on DAY ONE.The President Palin would've got distracted from winning the War on Iran to hold witch trials for gays. So Obama has that going for him. He's kinda like a pro-labor Bush.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Actually, we're in a war with Iran regardless (since 1979)...and because of Obama, we're also in a war with Libya.

  • free2booze||

    Pro - I'm limiting this to just the GOP primaries, but do you think their are enough Libertarians to counter the evangelicals?

    Better said, are their enough Libertarians to push, for example, the Tea Party towards either of these two?

    I realize that most Libertarians want nothing to do with either the GOP or the Tea Party. However, more than anything, I fear the evangelicals becoming the driving force on the Right. At least for this election cycle, anything to counter balance the righteous righties should be considered a good thing.

  • ||

    Everything depends on how fed up and nervous the voters are about federal spending.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    You don't have to vote for each race on the ballot. I normally only vote for a candidate that I can support and leave all the rest blank (exceptions are made for judges with funny names).

    My dream would be for only 25% of the voters to actually choose a presidential candidate. The other 75% of the ballots would be blank. No more nonsense about a "mandate"*

    * The secretary of state in MN who presided over the Franken mess won his re-election bid with only 47% of the vote (there was a candidate from the Independence party as well as the GOP tard). Afterwards he went on lots of local news talking about how his re-election vindicated his performance during the recount.

  • Joe M||

    Well, considering that only about half of eligible voters vote, and only about half of them vote for the winner, dreams come true. Obama won with, what, ~60 million votes, in a nation of ~300 million?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Obama--just under 70 million

    McCain--just under 60 million

    131 million total voters. Eligible voter population guesstimated at about 210 million. 131/210 = ~60% voter turnout.

    70/210 = 1/3, so Obama only got about a third of the potential votes.

    All info from wikipedia.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Sorry, I meant that with 60 million ballots cast, the two candidates would only end up with 15 million votes. The other 45 million ballots would be blank.

    It would be entertaining to see how the pundits would try to spin the fact that 75% of the electorate wanted neither.

  • ||

    Are the percentages reported those of all ballots cast or just the ballots with a selection for that race?

  • Mouth Breather||

    This is an idea that I've been toying with too. What if a majority of all eligible voters (not actually-voting voters) were required to legitimize the power granted to a political office? Consent of the governed, or something. If less than 50% of people bother to vote, or actively choose not to vote, is it right to wield power over them from an office they didn't deem worthy of voting for? One could also include "Vote to Dissolve This Political Office" as another line on the ballot for each race.

    I often leave most of my ballot blank. If I don't know candidates, or don't like any of the choices, then I don't vote for those. I live in Madison, WI, so you can imagine how many blanks I've left.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    http://oceania.org/const/const.html#ii3h

    The guy who came up with the Oceania idea agreed. I'd support a constitutional amendment in that direction.

  • Mouth Breather||

    Cool - thanks for the link. I'll enjoy reading through this. I hadn't thought about the concept of voting for more than one candidate in an election. It seemed ridiculous at first, but thinking through it, I don't find any obvious holes.

  • asdf||

    Most of the people that I've met who don't vote, I wouldn't want voting anyway.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I'm not crazy about RJ Harris, and Wayne Allen Root sickens me. Mary Ruwart said she isn't going to run, so where does that leave the LP?

  • ||

    I'll only run if you guys draft me.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Ron Paul? He ran in 1988. This would be an especially good proposition on the off chance that he gets the Republican nomination.

  • ||

    Why the fuck would you vote in the first place? It's statistically insignificant for starters, let alone giving tacit approval by participating in a rigged system.

  • ||

    It's not statistically insignificant if you convince others to vote the same way you will.

    If anyone's giving tacit approval to the outcome, it's the people who don't vote. By your logic, we should hold Ron Paul in disdain for voting against the Patriot Act, rather than abstaining as some others did.

  • Brian||

    If there were a way to vote no on the presidential ballot, I would.

  • ||

    Have you ever been called for jury duty? I never have, and I vote in every election, most of the time writing in some smartass non-candidate such as "turd sandwich". I think the two are related.

  • ||

    I was called for jury duty in NYC years ago; never in Seattle. Of course, I'm not registered to vote.

  • ||

    I've been called for jury duty fourice, and every time the prosecution has kicked me out of the selection pool.

  • SIV||

    I got the old double strike at voir dire.
    There was a consensus.

  • ||

    I've been called like five different times. I've had to show up twice, and I actually made the jury once. It was a criminal trial. We acquitted, because we thought the prosecution sucked.

  • rather||

    Jury duty is tied to your driving license, and not voter registry in some states

  • Mr Whipple||

    Voter registration is tied to your driving license in some states.

  • ||

    IIRC in NYS it's tied to every possible record the state has of you.

    OK, exaggerating, but it's a pretty long list of records.

  • SIV||

    Jury duty is also tied to showing up. I round-filed the notices for years until they sent me a threatening form letter. I finally went down and the ladies laughed at me and said judges almost never issue bench warrants for failure to appear for jury duty in my county, my threat letter was random and automated and they had no record of me ever missing but as long as I was there...

  • ||

    I must drive a lot, because I know plenty of people who have never been called. It's ridiculous that I keep getting notices.

  • free2booze||

    If any of the non Ron Paul/Gary Johnson douche bags gets the nomination, I may HAVE to vote for Obama.

    Can you imagine the damage that would be inflicted on this country, if team Red nabs up the entire congress and the White House?

    I think the best we can hope for, is to tie the hands of both parties, by giving the Congress to the Reds, and allowing the Blues to keep the White House.

    Gridlock is your friend.

  • ||

    So you want Obama to nominate the replacements for Scalia and Kennedy?

    Wave bye-bye to campaign finance freedom and gun rights. Permanently, since liberal-backed precedents are etched in stone.

  • Jim||

    So the alternative is to give unfettered control back to Team Red? He would still have to get his nominations past a (presumably) red congress. I mean, Reagan wanted Bork.

  • Joe M||

    And they did such a fine job of stopping that wise latina.

  • ||

    The GOP hasn't controlled the Senate since 2006.

  • Gray Ghost||

    And looking at the projected races in 2012, I can't see them picking up 3 seats either.

  • ||

    Really? With all the Dems who rode anti-Bush hysteria to win Senate seats in red states in '06, I'd be surprised if there aren't plenty of vulnerable ones.

  • ||

    Bork was the exception -- he was so extreme and outspoken that the Dems couldn't let him past. Usually the other party concedes that the nominee is going to be on the same side of the spectrum as the prez and just tries to prevent someone really out there from getting through.

  • Jim||

    Granted, but if Team Red has all levers of power, what's to keep them from nominating some weirdos then who, oh, I don't know, maybe off the top of my head, believe that the police can kick in your door when they hear suspicious sounds? Good thing the republicans were in charge, or else guys who believed that might have been appointed to the court!

    I'm not saying Blue is better. I'm saying you don't win either way, so I don't follow the logic of compromising with one side or the other.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I'd give Team Red an edge in this battle because they've been on slightly better behavior out of power than Team Blue was.

  • Jim||

    Everyone's free to have their opinion, but I just can't get on board with the "well TEAM RED is 0.1% better than TEAM BLUE, therefore I will vote TEAM RED", even though they've shown time and time again that as soon as you return them to power, they'll be right back up to what they were doing before. I mean, how many times do they have to burn us before we learn?

  • ||

    The GOP were better-behaved while in power too. And no, I can't believe I'm saying that; my 2006 self would kick me in the nuts for even thinking it.

  • free2booze||

    I have no reason to believe that either of Scalia or Kennedy would retire while Obama is President.

    All I know, is that the last time the Reds controlled the government, we were blessed with the Department of Homeland Security, No Child Left Behind, The Patriot Act, and a two wars.

    With a large enough majority in congress, the Reds can effectively neuter Obama, dismantle ObamaCare and push for entitlement reform, without having sweeping authority the fear of creating any new agencies.

  • Jim||

    ^^ Bingo. They will return to being statists as soon as they have complete power, just like last time, and just like Blue in 2008. The solution is never to trust any of them with total power.

  • ||

    With a large enough majority in congress, the Reds can effectively neuter Obama, dismantle ObamaCare and push for entitlement reform

    Uh, no, they can't. Obama is even more of a unitary executive douche than Bush/Cheney were.

  • free2booze||

    I love when people comment in absolutes.

    Control of congress would allow Team Red to pass any legislation they wanted. They would need to compromise to some degree, in order to get enough Dems on board to override a Presidential veto.

    Easy, no. Impossible, as your comment suggests, nope.

  • asdf||

    Agreed sir.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Or give Team Red the White House and Team Blue the Congress. Your vote counts more towards congress, anyway.

  • ||

    Yes, but the person you vote for for Congress has a vote that counts less.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    True. Stupid democracy...

  • ||

    "Why the hell does the United States have more than 170 military bases?"

    Really? Name them.

    We have lots of bases with few or no full-time military personnel. In the Reserves, I used to shoot at Camp Butner NC. There hasn't been an active unit assigned there since WWII.

    Are Camp Geiger, Camp Lejune, Camp Johnson, and New River Air Station one base or four? They are all connected or nearby. What about Fort Dix, McGuire Airbase, and Lakehurst Naval Air Station? We used to drive tanks on the trails between the Lakehurst hangers and the Dix ranges - they are connected.

  • ||

    Damn you and your precision!

    But you have to admit that we do have too many bases, especially overseas.

  • free2booze||

    You make a good point. The issue I have with TPaw's response, was that he just shut the topic down completely.

    Maybe all 170 bases serve a necessary function, and it would be impossible to close any of them. Why couldn't he have said "I believe in American supremacy, however, I also believe government should be responsible with the people's money. I would be willing to look into ways to make the military more efficient, without sacrificing the effectiveness of our military". Or something to that effect.

    We are facing a debt crisis, and we should explore every aspect of government for savings.

  • ||

    Old Soldier,
    You obfuscate well. You ought to teach Pawlenty how to answer that question for the Cato crowd.

    Let me ask you, even if the USA has lots of bases with few or no full-time personnel, even if it's difficult to tell whether Camp Geiger, Camp Lejune, Camp Johnson, and New River Air Station are one base or four, why the hell does the United States have as many military bases as it has?

  • sevo||

    Google will tell you no one seems to know (or admit) how many US military bases currently exist, but the most common number is somewhere somewhat south of 800:
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\02\20\story_20-2-2007_pg7_24

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Old Soldier,

    Here are the Army's, for a start.

    Here are the rest.

    Having been in this man's Army for some time now, I can say that some of these entries comport with what you say (that is, they only really exist on paper or have minimal staffing), but most of these are active, manned bases. And the number has to be WAY over 170. That is a conservative number that must be taking into account say, the airfields that accompany almost every major Army base.

  • Amakudari||

    And here are troop counts.

    The US definitely has too much of an overseas military presence.

  • ||

    I had only heard vaguely positive noises about Pawlenty until now, but he's dead to me at this point.

  • free2booze||

    He was dead to me when I found out that he signed legislation, mandating 25% of electricity produced in MN, had to come from renewable energy sources.

  • ||

    Well they have to use all that sunlight they...oh, Minnesota.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So basically Pawlenty is hoping that by being indistinguishable from Bush-Obama, he'll appeal to voters who like white people?

  • juris imprudent||

    I'm thinking he went down on Kristol and got a mouthful of National Greatness!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    "mouthful" is probably a generous description.

  • ||

    If Pawlenty gets the nomination they might as well not even bother with a general election next year. Just give it to Obama now.

  • Barack Obama||

    That is going to be a critical part of my deficit reduction plan come October 2012. Cancel the presidential election in order to save govt money!

  • Sudden||

    This guy makes Al Gore circa 1992 look like the Most Interesting Man in the World.

  • Tman||

    It sucks to see how bad he is on civil liberties after he had the balls to come out against Ethanol mandates in Iowa and for Medicare restructuring in Florida. Those were two pretty bold steps.

    And then he opens his mouth about the rest and well.......sigh........

  • ||

    You forgot to mention that he's anti-stadium-spending, which is unusual for a politician. And of course the state gave in to the Vikings as soon as he left office.

    But if you want to just harp on the positions he holds in common with every other electable politician, go ahead, it's a free country (for now).

  • free2booze||

    Not really. In 2006, he signed legislation to subsidize a new stadium for the Twins. Pawlenty also supported state money for a new stadium for the Vikings, he just didn't support raising taxes to do so.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Bullshit! As one of the privileged residents of Hennepin county who is paying for that f-ing Twins stadium, let me state categorically that T-Paw was not anti-stadium.

    MN has a law that we passed in the hopes of stopping pols from giving billionaires money for stadiums that requires a referendum on any stadium plan that involves public money. The Twins explicitly said they wouldn't participate in any plan that required a referendum (they already lost one when St. Paul tried to build them a stadium).

    In the case of the Twins, they came up with a plan where only one county in the state had to pay the tax. Surprisingly, the legislators from every other part of the state passed a bill allowing an exemption to the requirement to hold a referendum. T-Paw eagerly signed it.

    Later when they asked him how he squared that new tax for the Twins with his "NO NEW TAXES" stance, he gave a weasely answer about how he didn't raise taxes, it was those durned county commissioners who raised the taxes.

  • asdf||

    MINNESOTA FUCK YEAH!

  • zoltan||

    Tulpa getting owned by facts? My day is made.

  • ||

    Depends on what "is" is.

    Kidding, of course. I was referring to his stance on the Vikings stadium, which as a loyal Bears fan I've been following since I delight in Viking anguish. Didn't know about the Target Field history.

  • ||

    I stood with law enforcement issue on this issue

    Fuck you, PawPaw.

  • PDog||

    Note to self: Never call on a guy with a purple tie.

  • NotSure||

    What exactly is wrong with Asian countries realigning away from America (a non Asian country) towards an Asian one ?

    World security would be greatly improved if Japan, India, Korea etc. had better relations with China than with America. Good for world peace, good for American taxpayers.

  • ||

    There are a couple of other significant differences between the PRC and the US besides which continent they're based on, that make a larger PRC sphere of influence muy undesirable.

  • sevo||

    Tulpa|5.25.11 @ 9:10PM|#
    "There are a couple of other significant differences between the PRC and the US besides which continent they're based on, that make a larger PRC sphere of influence muy undesirable."

    Agreed, but ya know, those folks in Japan could spend some of *their* money to provide a bit of counterbalance.

  • NotSure||

    The CCP is a very unpleasant party, but, the percentage of the Chinese population that is pro-war is miniscule compared to America. China is a threat to nobody, just like Russia, Chinas main challenge it to keep its own territory together. Overseas military action, besides Taiwan, will not occur.

  • ||

    The percentage of the Chinese population that is relevant to foreign policy decision making is also miniscule.

  • CE||

    If we wanted a formerly unknown governor from a backwoods state with moose, we would vote for Palin.

  • CE||

    I stood with law enforcement issue on this issue.

    This is a dodge*, too. Law enforcement is supposed to enforce whatever laws are on the books. Politicians are supposed to change the laws for the better, at the service of the people.

    *For a campaign that's supposed to be a Buick, there are a lot of dodges in there.

  • ||

    It sounds more like a Nash Rambler campaign to me.

  • Kevin Carson||

    Matt Yglesias' commentary on a Pawlenty ad:

    “I continue to be fascinated by the way in which the rhetoric of ‘freedom’ is always so closely associated with authoritarian populist nationalist movements. Absolutely nothing in the imagery of the video or the policy agenda of the Republican Party is suggestive of freedom. It’s full of flags and grim-faced folks and bourgeois respectability and military jets flying in tight formation. It’s an ad from a conservative politician that’s about exactly what an ad from a conservative politician ought to be about — about preserving a way of life against Muslims, freeloaders, sexual deviants, and other threats.”

  • ||

    I can see how that would rile someone who thinks the United States would be improved with more Muslims, freeloaders, and sexual deviants.

  • ||

    I'm not a Muslim.

    Am I OK with just two out of three?

  • ||

    Leaving aside your demonstration of religious bigotry for a moment, one can think the US would be better off with less of something without thinking we have to "preserve our way of life" from it.

  • ||

    Relax, I was in a snarky mood.

  • sevo||

    "I can see how that would rile someone who thinks the United States would be improved with more Muslims, freeloaders, and sexual deviants."

    Got the "freeloaders", but WIH does someone's religious leanings or sexual proclivities have to do with anything?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Religion. If the Republicans nominate a theocon again, I just might cry (not really).

  • ||

    Religious "leanings" may not mean much, but isn't it obvious that some religions are (on average) less friendly to libertarian ideas than others?

  • ||

    If you're talking about Christianity and Islam, no, it's not at all obvious. Need I dig out the Romans 13:3-4 quote again? Wanna take a cruise through Christendom's history and see how "friendly to libertarianism" it's been on the whole?

  • ||

    Let's stick to the present, or the last century or two. No contest.

  • GroundTruth||

    "anti-14th Amendment, pro-Real ID, anti-medical marijuana, pro-cigarette tax and smoking ban, anti-gay marriage, and pro-Cuba travel ban. " Thanks for the list! Nice roundup of the douchebag's positions.

  • ||

    "In general," he said, "I think the direction of it is positive, but I'm going to have my own plan."

    Issue, dodged.

    He didn't dodge the issue. He answered it squarely in favor of militarism and the american empire.

  • ||

    I had never heard of Pawlenty as a serious candidate two months ago. I have never heard any listing of his accomplishments. I could not name what office he has or has not held in what state.

    I have no idea what Team Red thinks it sees in him other than as a pleasant guy who would look good on a campaign poster. He isn't even as good a speaker as Obama.

    He appears to be a waste of organic molecules.

    Why the f**k is there so much talk about him?

  • ||

    He was against the Vikings getting a new stadium. That's not enough?

    Plus, like Romney, he's a Republican who's won elections in the midst of a deep blue constituency. That's huge, strategically.

  • free2booze||

    Pawlenty proposed creating a new lottery game to be used to finance a new stadium for the Vikings.

  • ||

    Lotteries are noncoercive sources of revenue, so I don't see how that's a problem.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No Tulpa that's not enough not by miles.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Tulpa,

    T-paw wasn't dead set against the Vikings stadium. Like f2b said he proposed a lottery to pay for one. Mostly he is for a stadium if he can somehow appear to keep his label as someone who won't raise taxes. And that tag is important to him only so he can run for Pres., not because he actually believes in fiscal conservatism for any reason.

    He proposed new taxes on cigs, but called them "health impact fees" so he could still claim he didn't raise taxes.

    Also, he didn't win his last election, his opponent lost it. He was behind Mike Hatch in the last election until Hatch lost his cool with a reporter in the last week of the election.

    Like Aresen, I'm mystified by why people think he is national stage ready.

  • free2booze||

    The evangelicals like his SoCon cred. Other than being 'born again', I don't know what he has done to earn it, but that's why they like him.

    Oh yeah, and his last name isn't 'Romney'. Evangelicals don't like the Mormons.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "The evangelicals like his SoCon cred."

    One more reason not to vote for him.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Get rid of the bases that sound like wastes of space and you risk American supremacy.

    Right. We need a military presence to force our currency on other nations. Take your SDRs and shove them straight up your ass. You want to control your own central bank? You don't want to be part of the IMF/BIS system? You want your own commodity based currency? You want to sell your oil for something other than USDs? We'll bomb your asses into the fucking stone age, mother fuckers.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Oh boy - someone drank deep at the Chomsy-style Crazy Fountain this morning.

  • Cytotoxic||

    There are many "libertarians" who think doing so gives them "insight".

  • Russ 2000||

    If Pawlenty comes up with some snappy campaign line for his "kick the can down the road" policy suggestions - I'm thinking something along the lines of "HOPE, CHANGE" - then this may be America's Man!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement