According to the Drudge Report, Mitt Romney has made his decision for VP.
Who is it?
According to Drudge, it is Tim Pawlenty.
Drudge links to a New York Times article that really says nothing.
After a short-lived presidential bid of his own last year, Mr. Pawlenty is again being considered for the Republican ticket. His fate is in the hands of Mr. Romney, a rival-turned-friend, who is on the cusp of announcing his vice-presidential selection. Mr. Romney has reached a decision, his friends believe, and he may disclose it as soon as this week.
The country received only an abbreviated introduction to Mr. Pawlenty, 51, a former two-term governor of Minnesota, whose working-class roots, experience outside Washington and evangelical faith have formed the core of his appeal to a broad spectrum of Republicans.
While Mr. Romney has kept more distance from the rest of his primary challengers, he has embraced Mr. Pawlenty, seeking his advice about running against President Obama and sending him to Republican events on his behalf. They began forging a closer relationship last year on a visit to the Romney family’s lakeside home in New Hampshire, aides said, and during debates this year when Mr. Pawlenty often traveled with the Romney campaign after dropping out of the race himself.
He has emerged as one of the most energetic cheerleaders and forceful defenders of Mr. Romney, firing back against Republican skeptics and Democratic critics alike. All but forgotten are the days when Mr. Pawlenty coined the troublemaking term “Obamneycare,” suggesting that few differences existed between the health care plans of Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama.
The conservative National Review now describes Mr. Pawlenty as “Romney’s traveling salesman.” While other potential vice-presidential candidates like Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have day jobs that limit their availability, Mr. Pawlenty, who has no other full-time position, is the political equivalent of an empty nester, available to do whatever Mr. Romney asks.
Drudge has close ties to the Romney campaign. When the Romney campaign wants to float something out there, they usually go to Drudge. Drudge recently broke the story that Condoleezza Rice was now a top contender for the VP.
Tim Pawlenty is to the right of Mitt Romney but then again so is the entire Republican Party except for Joe Scarborough and John McCain.
If Pawlenty is the VP nominee, it may set the tone for what will be our saying in era of a Romney administration.
“At least it is not…”
At least it is not Rice.
When he pursues repeal and REPLACE, we will be saying at least it isn’t Obamacare. When he does not cut taxes, we will be saying, at least it isn’t a tax hike. And when we get a Harriet Miers type nomination, we will say, at least it is not Eric Holder.
Meanwhile, as conservatives look for something to get excited about with the Romney campaign, they just keep feeding us more sleeping pills.
Tags: mitt, nomination, pawlenty, president, romney, tim, vice
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Limiting the issue to being one of the 10th and the state's right is not acceptable. For instance, if a state has enough islamic residents and politicians to enact policies that violate the Constitutional principles, it would be tantamount to treason. Was the violence and intolerance of islam going to be taught? Please do not avoid answering the motives behind some strange decisions by simply claiming something is a "states' right issue."
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on I wouldn't stake much against any of them being "squeaky clean." After all, you don't get political support from the business community because they all have the same pristine morals. Trying not to hurt your feelings too much, I sincerely believe that Perry's support for the toll roads and the HPV vaccine had something to do with payback, especially when one takes into consideration that both ideas faced stiff public opposition in Texas. If a governor is supposed to be a champion of state's rights, then it would make sense that he might pay attention to the cries of the citizens of that state. On those two issues, it was similar to Obama ignoring the country's anger over obamacare.
Also, it is obvious to Constitutional supporters that the states retain a great deal of power and not be overtaken by the federal government, but the underlying founding principle that individuals should be making most of the decisions in their lives instead of the government should transcend both the federal and state levels. It wouldn't make sense to argue that just because the state government is making the rules that they are therefore correct. For instance, if Perry took a blow to the head and mandated that every Texan purchase healthcare insurance (or have an HPV vaccination), it still violates the original intent of the individual retaining those God-given rights of freedom to make his own decisions on such personal things.
And quit giving the man a pass because the legislature blocked the mandate -- that's like saying "no harm, no foul" after a would-be assassin missed his target. We must be strong enough to admit when each of our favorite candidates screws up, and as I said before it is our duty to scream bloody murder when they do.
Perry admitted that the vaccine implementation was a mistake. I don't know what more that he could have done. In retrospect, he did "the wrong thing for the right reasons." Cancer had touched his family. It has touched mine and perhaps yours. The vaccine would reduce the threat, or so they say!
The toll road? Well, in theory it sounded nice. Having driven across Texas' wide open spaces, it might be nice to have an autobahn with no speed limits. Great, visionary men often have ideas that are later described as questionable. In 1861, Abe Lincoln's desire to relocate freed slaves to Belize was greeted with scorn by members of his own party.
The main point is, "we have applied a much more rigorous standard to Perry in comparison to the other candidates." Why is a good question. Maybe it's because he's from Texas. Maybe it's because he didn't attend Harvard. Maybe it's as simple as many Republicans still think that he is a Democrat.
I can't over emphasize the fact that none of these issues would be used by Barack Obama in the General election. None of them! The weaknesses Romney has play into Obama's campaign. He must have a "balancer." This is where Rubio can help.
J.C., I agree totally with Perry about demanding Romney produce his tax returns. In effect, Perry is doing Romney, and the party, a favor. We need to get this out and quit hiding behind Big Eight CPA firms and offshore bank accounts. Romney needs to produce his tax returns for the last ten years, then challenge Obama to do the same.
If Donna says she will stay home if Rubio is on the ticket, then Barack Obama and his campaign will thank her. They hope that there will be a lot more like her.
Permalink Reply by Donna on Jeff, I will NOT,and NO I Don't think obama would thank ME because there many people like you that would rather cheat to help him destroy our constitution by voting for an ineligible candidate----2 wrongs don't make a right!!!
If you know that your're not going to vote for Obama and you then stay home, you ineffect, cast your vote for the President. Or, you do the next best thing!
The Tea Party Express has already endorsed Rubio. That should be good enough for Tea Party Patriots.
Of course, there may be a huge division between these two Tea Parties. The Tea Party that I joined discussed fiscal issues, not social issues. Tea Party Express has crossed that line. As a result, they have been accused of being bigoted and racist. This was unfair, in my opinion.
Rubio is a great young conservative. I haven't talked to one conservative who didn't acknowlege as much. However, if NBC stalwarts feel that the question of his eligibility is sufficient enough cause to opt for Barack Obama for another four years, that is their privilege.
I feel sorry for these people. It's like their so hung up on an idea, that they would "shoot themselves in the foot," for the sake of a principle.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Let me get this straight: you would demand that our side release records for the opposition to use in making up their next angle of attack without asking for the opposition to release all other records that have never been released? Is the term "hiding" in your response used for a reason? That is an implication of guilt. Romney providing his records and then challenging the opposition to respond is going to get the usual response of nothing -- it would be like showing your hand in poker and then daring the other side to bet.
By the way, vaccines and autobahns are not evil things to me. It is the potential cronyism involved in these and many other issues that end up making us all pay. A less-effective vaccine might be chosen, or an overly-expensive road might be built. I hope you weren't attempting to dangle the carrot of the ideal end result in order to obfuscate the question of who would get the contracts and what connections they might have. We should never use the progressive tactic of painting rosy pictures of utopia without detailing where the money is coming from and who is responsible for making the decisions on the bids.
I adopt a rigorous standard to every one of these politicians, simply because they are human. This means that they are all corruptable, and it is our money being spent. The ones that have an even stronger religious platform are going to get an even more thorough lashing if they cannot provide compatible explanations for some of their actions. For instance, if Perry wanted to use the sympathy argument for a cancer victim he knew in his push for the vaccine, he must explain to the rest of us why he should be deciding for us where our money goes. We might use the money taken to pay for such things to pay for healthcare choices that we as individuals would make. Why is his idea deemed to be more morally superior? Who decided that the title of governor means he gets to play God in such moral issues, and our role is to not question it? "So they say" is one heck of a punt in the trust arena. The only medical decisions politicians should be involving themselves in are epidemics, not STD's.
Notice we both claim to be staunch conservatives, and yet we have major disagreements on what that means. For me it always comes down to who should be making the decisions of where our money goes on a daily basis, the individual or the government (state or federal).
Perry has admitted that the vaccine was a mistake. I haven't seen Mitt Romney stand up and admit that mandated healthcare was a "mistake."
Yes, there may have been some "despotism" in Perry's thinking. But he has never been a governor who insulates himself from the average person. The original thinking was that some young girls might benefit. In particular, "inner city, minority girls" in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.
As you know, these are all large cities. Often in the inner cities sexual intercourse begins at ages eleven and twelve. Many are from broken homes. Most live at or below the poverty level. Parental support is often non-existent.
Of course, this is a lame excuse for attempting to mandate the use of this vaccine. But, there was an opt out. And, most significiantly it was never implemented. We need to always remember this. Perry admitted to the mistake. That should be where it ends.
The autobahn was simply a hint into Perry's dreaming personality. If you have ever driven across West Texas(as I have) you can appreciate the possibilities of an unfettered freeway, devoid of speed limits. Perry grew up in Paint Creek, a tiny "whistle stop" 60 miles north of Abilene. The land is essentially treeless, except for Mesquite. It is likewise tablelike. Distances mean less out there than they do in the East.
The Governor evidently envisioned driving across Texas in four or five hours. Perhaps the methodolgy was a bit raw. But, I love people who think "out of the box." As President, Perry would likely join Newt Gingrich in advocating a space station on the Moon with the objective of mining Helium three.
Without question, we can find faults with every candidate. But none of our candidates are as flawed as Barack Obama. Personally, I find Mitt Romney more flawed than any of the other Republican candidates, including Herman Cain. I loathed the campaign that he ran. My biggest worry is that he may not sufficiently motivate Evangelicals to get out and vote.
Mormans do not believe in the "Trinity." In other words, they believe that the "father, son and holy ghost" are three separate entititles. To Evangelicals, this disqualifies them as true Christians. This may be splitting hairs for some. But, in North Carolina and Virginia, we must get Evangelicals out to vote! Or, lose the election.
What our Eastern Establishment "leadership" hasn't figured out is "Evangelical is often synonymous with "blue collar" Democrat."
We must win these voters. They are winnable. But Romney alone will probably fail to do so. Rubio could help. His wife is Evangelical. Perry connects better than any candidate with them. He's essentially one of them.
In the last election, only 30% of Evangelical voters turned out. We saw the results. If we can get that number to climb to 50%, North Carolina, Virginia and Iowa will be off the board for Democrats.
Conservatives get hung up on a vaccine and an autobahm where Governor Perry is concerned. But they seem to be willing to downplay Governor Romney's Mormanism and his creation of a "top down" mandated health care system. Never mind that he won't release his tax returns! Some of us are actually defending this action! Imagine that!
I will support Governor Romney if he is the nominee. But I believe that the GOP is committing the same mistake that was made in 2008. We are on the brink of nominating another seriously flawed candidate. I continue to push Rubio because I am certain that he would be the difference in a win or loss for Governor Romney. However, my preference would be for Governor Romney to "withdraw" for the sake of party and country. Unfortunately, that won't happen, unless those tax returns reflect some sort of violation or fradulent activity.
Which could actually happen!
Shady accounting can take place as the result of selecting the wrong tax consultant. Cronism is rampant in the Romney circle. As careful as Mitt may be, there is always the chance that somewhere along the line, somebody slipped up.
In the unlikely event that this did occur, we need to know now; not in October!
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Well, it's been over four years asking for such info about obummer, and it still isn't there, so why the big concern all of a sudden over Romney's tax records? Were they not important during the primaries? Why does this request just happen to coincide with the attack of the progressives?
I am as much concerned with Republicans nominating the right person to run this country. Democrats are Democrats. But we must be united as a party if we are going to win. From all indications, Romney doesn't look like he is the president to do it.
He has shunned the Tea Party. He has little interest in the South. Need we be reminded that we are the "muscle" of the Republican party.
Mitt Romney is the Ivy League Aristocracy; Americans ruling class. And, he is a confirmed globalist.
I honestly don't think Mitt Romney will be everyone's president. That's why we need to make sure that he is given no passes. I want to see ten years of income tax returns.
Comparing this standard to what Dems did with Obama makes no difference.
Permalink Reply by JC Patriot on Barring a miracle at the convention, Romney is the only alternative we have against obummer.
Therefore, the demands for information on those two should be similar in a reasonable person's mind, unless of course one's strategy is to try to get more potentially damaging information on the other side's candidate. But to demand more information from our own side in comparison to the enemy side seems odd. In other words, to wait until there is only one guy left, and then demand complete release, when there is litlle chance to replace him with another, seems a bit suspect. Where was this demand in the beginning before the other candidates were eliminated? That's why this stinks, and although I had Romney at the bottom of my list the whole time, I realize the motivation at this late stage is not to seek the truth, but to subterfuge his chances of defeating obummer.
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty on This came to me from an emailer. Think what you will of Mitt Romney; compare the following to Barack Obama, and vote accordingly in November. Don’t forget that there are House and Senate elections as well. One way to keep a president in line is to surround him with constitutionalists.
1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting’s #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.
2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.
3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)
4. Can’t speak in a fake, southern ” black preacher voice ” when up at the podium.
5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School . . . and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.
6. Doesn’t smoke or drink alcohol and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today’s America?
7. Represents an America of “yesterday” where people believed in God, went to church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!
8. Has a family of five great sons …. and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that “choice” alone has prompted America’s scorn.
9. Oh yes . . . he’s a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally responsible, charitable, self-reliant, and honest. Compare Romney’s Mormonism with the rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright.
10. And one more point . . . pundits say because of his wealth, he can’t relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that’s because he made that money HIMSELF . . . as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you un-relatable and offensive to Americans.
The post 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Mitt Romney appeared first on Political Outcast.
Reluctance to produce tax returns insinuates guilt. So why not come clean?
Romney is a great alternative to Obama. But Joe Paterno would have been preferable to Obama!
The key is his not allowing Democrats to spring an October Surprise. Smart money says that Romney may be hiding something.When people are struggling, they have little compassion for a rich guy who won't disclose his tax returns. That's human nature!
The future of the Republican party is in Romney's hands. If he loses the election, there will be a permanent split. Everywhere you go you hear of a desire for the party base to divorce the Northeastern faction. In reality, there are no states contributing electors from north of Virginia. Why should these Republicans be calling the shots?
There has never been a President elected who didn't carry his home state. In my estimation, being from Massachusetts should have automatically eliminated Romney from consideration. At least this "tidbit of history" should be mentioned at the convention.
Mitt Romney ran the dirtiest primary campaign in history. All the while, he has remained insulated. Try calling his campaign office in Boston!
In Florida, they are saying that the entire election is rigged. The real governing force of the United States is the Council of Foreign Relations. They desperately want Obama to win another term. But Romney was their Republican choice.
Yes, we are currently in a pretty bad way. We have a Democrat who seeks to ruin America. And we have a Republican challenger who is doing everything that he can think of, to lose.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
