Pawlenty Claims to be a "Serious Person" While Likening Governor Palin to Hulk Hogan

During an interview with CNN earlier this week, Tim Pawlenty took a strange yet arrogant swipe at Governor Palin. Politico reported:

Tim Pawlenty implied Tuesday that there are some less-than-serious presidential hopefuls eyeing the race, with a quip that seemed to lump Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump together with wrestling icon Hulk Hogan.

"You're going to have, you know, Mitt Romney who will start out as the front-runner with the most name-ID and money..." Pawlenty told CNN’s Piers Morgan in handicapping the race. "And on the other end of the continuum, you'll have perhaps Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, or I don't know, maybe Hulk Hogan will get in the race too. Who knows? But I think in between those two things on the continuum, there's a role for a serious person who has tackled these kinds of issues. We live in very serious times and the country's facing a grave challenge. And if we're going to restore America's promise, we're going to have to get back to leadership that is steady, clear and strong."

"Hulk Hogan," T-Paw... Really?

First he overstates Mitt Romney's "front-runner" status, as recent polling indicates that Mitt is losing support. Then he downplays Governor Palin's record by neglecting to acknowledge any of her almost two decades of experience in public service, including the Chief Executive for the State of Alaska.

Then he says, "[b]ut I think in between those two things on the continuum, there's a role for a serious person who has tackled these kinds of issues." Since when is Governor Palin NOT a "serious person?" Spearheading Conservative opposition to the White House on every issue, is indicative of a very serious individual.

Pawlenty ignored the governor's record, then attempted to tout his own by adding that line about getting "back to leadership that is steady, clear and strong." Since there hasn't been much in the news or on the blogs about Pawlenty's record, let's take a look at it, shall we?

Left Coast Rebel is one blogger who has had Pawlenty's number for some time. He recently posted a piece highlighting T-Paw's past position on Cap and Trade and other hot-button issues. He wrote:

Former Minnesota Governor has been caught with his hand in the "hey, look at me, conservative base I'm a global warming skeptic" cookie jar by Think Progress, of all sources. Think Progress has this audio taken from Laura Ingraham's show that highlights his hypocrisy:



Pawlenty's past indiscretions against the limited government movement don't just stop at support of junk science legislation.

I wrote this in 2009, alerting true conservatives and libertarians to the fact that I think Pawlenty is a liberal wolf in pseudo-conservative sheep's clothing:

I believe and know Pawlenty to be in the big-spending GOP camp. He would be a terrible choice. Albeit he would predictably start to strut around his conservative ideals only to govern like another quasi-RINO...

Cato lists plenty of Pawlenty's big-government spending track record. He was a big runner-up for VP under McCain.

Some of the things listed at the Cato Institute that Tim Pawlenty stood by in Minnesota:

* Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform, including a “health care exchange” and an individual mandate.

* Has called for banning all prescription drug advertising, and seeks government imposed price controls for drugs offered through Medicare.

* Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children.

* Pushed a statewide smoking ban smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars.

* Imposed some of the most aggressive and expensive renewable energy mandates in the country.

* Was an ardent supporter of the farm bill.

* Received only a “C” ranking on Cato’s 2006 Governor’s Report Card, finishing below such Democrats as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and tied with Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

You can read the whole piece here.

Pawlenty's history of creating massive government bureaucracy by going along with the Cap and Trade scheme, supporting RomneyCare like insurance mandates, and other over-reaching government programs proves that he lacks the ability to take real leadership with the issues our country currently faces. Those have been the so-called "solutions" of the past that are at the very root of the problem.

Speaking of leadership, where was then Governor Tim Pawlenty during the whole Coleman - Franken debacle? After claiming that there was "credible evidence of fraud," he turned the other cheek and certified the election results anyway.

If Governor Palin is such a marginal character, and Pawlenty is such a wonderful leader, why is he trying to replicate everything from her book cover to her policy positions? The budget debate has been raging in DC for weeks now. Governor Palin has made her position clear from day one. When the Republicans and Democrats finally came to agreement last week, Governor Palin was the first potential GOP candidate to speak up, doing so last Saturday on Fox. Pawlenty waited until Wednesday to say anything, which also just so happened to be the same day that the CBO reported it's findings that the cuts within the deal only added up to a mere $353 million, instead of the $38 billion originally reported, much less the $100 billion pledged by Republicans during last election season.

Pawlenty can downplay Governor Palin's record to the press because they will let him. They won't point out her achievements or history of fiscal discipline to challenge the narrative his campaign is trying to create. That's a given. When however, will they start asking Pawlenty questions regarding his own record? From what I've seen, he's been able thus far to give interviews listing his talking points, and offering somewhat empty platitudes to the Conservative base. I realize that the media sees nothing wrong with the big government, nanny-state mentality of the Tim Pawlenty's of the world, but the voters he's reaching out to might take issue with it.

Obama's Team Hoping to Face Mitt Romney 2012

I don't pretend to read the minds of those in charge of re-electing Barack Obama in 2012. I can however, read their signals and through deductive reasoning, make an educated guess what situation will benefit them the most in the upcoming election.

One of those signals was given last Friday by the outgoing Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. Politico reports (emphasis mine):

Gibbs took the bait when asked about Mitt Romney’s speech at CPAC, in which the former Massachusetts governor didn’t exactly dwell on health care. “I don’t know why he wouldn’t,” Gibbs said, smiling, also remarking that it will be “interesting to see throughout the next two years if the two words ‘health care’ come out of his mouth.”

Ouch.

Now, keep in mind what Obama told Bill O'Reilly during the pre-Super Bowl interview last week. He said:

Here's what I think is true. Over the first two years of my presidency, we had a complete disaster. Right?

Right.

Then Obama went on to blame the economy, saying:

The financial markets were breaking down. We were slipping into a Great Depression.

Now what did the Obama administration spend the first two years of his presidency doing? Getting his health care legislation passed and signed into (unconstitutional) law, that's what. He wasn't focused on the economy. His administration spent the bulk of their time trying to repackage and resell a bill that Americans did not want, no matter how the administration spun it. What better scenario for Team Obama, then to have that prickly issue taken off the table for 2012, in a bid to hold on to the White House?

Although Romney has taken to reworking his position (again) on health care, he cannot escape reality. The Obama people know this too. In fact, they credit Mitt Romney for the "blueprint" to the bill. As Politico reported:

Democrats have consistently pointed to the Massachusetts plan Romney signed into law as a forerunner for national legislation.

Last year, Steve Kornacki from Salon gave a pretty good overview of how the left perceives Romney's attempt to redefine himself on the issue. He wrote:

It's not news when man bites dog, so why should it be any different when Mitt Romney makes a brash and insincere pronouncement?

And yet there was the one-time Massachusetts governor forcing his way into Monday morning's headlines with what may have been the most over-the-top of all of the over-the-top Republican reactions to the House's passage of Barack Obama's healthcare plan.

"An unconscionable abuse of power," Romney declared while asserting that the president "has betrayed his oath to the nation."

When Mitt starts talking like this, it's usually because he knows his own past record makes him vulnerable on the issue at hand.

And when it comes to healthcare, his hypocrisy is particularly galling. Romney is actually the only governor in American history ever to impose an individual health insurance mandate on his citizens. And an individual mandate, of course, is at the heart of Obama's reform package.

Nor is the mandate the only common ground between RomneyCare and ObamaCare; the Massachusetts plan that Romney signed into law in 2006 is essentially the blueprint for Obama's plan. Both rely on the same basic formula: a requirement that everyone purchase insurance and government assistance for those who can't afford it.

As I noted in the recent post I wrote about Mitch Daniels, the left loves to exploit hypocrisy. It is a vital part of their game-plan to take the focus away from them, and put it back on to their Republican opponent. It is even common for them to invent hypocrisy where there is none, but in Mitt's case, that wouldn't be necessary.

Governor Palin fought against Obamacare from day one. She took many hits from the left, and even from some in her own party for taking such a strong stand. This issue would be alive and well in a hypothetical Palin versus Obama campaign. Considering the shellacking the president has taken in his approval rating, and the "disaster" that defined his first two years, Team Obama doesn't want the match-up. They would much rather see Mitt Romney standing across from Obama in a debate, spouting more of that hypocrisy they so love.