Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 21, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Benghazi Fiasco
  • Gosnell Trial
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Scott Whitlock's blog
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About
  • WashPost 'Express' Tabloid Cover Laments: How Can Obama 'Break from the Storm' of Scandals?
  • It Gets Worse: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
  • Crowley to Obama Advisor: 'Why Didn't the President Just Say, Yeah, Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?'
  • CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Says Team Obama 'Perfected' Delaying Info Release And Has 'Quit Talking to Me Altogether'
  • Fareed Zakaria Howler: 'Obama’s World View is Rooted in American Exceptionalism'
  • Video: Brent Bozell Cautions Media Will Quickly Revert to Defending Obama, Attacking GOP Over Scandals
  • Bozell Column: 'Progress' Gets Canceled

Morning Shows Bombard Pawlenty With Attacks From a Liberal 'Republican,' Demand Higher Taxes

By Scott Whitlock | May 23, 2011 | 12:16

A  A
Scott Whitlock's picture

All three morning shows on Monday bombarded Tim Pawlenty with a variety of liberal complaints and demands. ABC and NBC singled out an Obama-supporting "Republican" who slammed the presidential candidate's fiscal management of Minnesota. CBS repeatedly lobbied Pawlenty to raise taxes.

Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos identified ex-Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson as "one of your Republican predecessors." He quoted Carlson as saying, "I don't think any governor has left behind a worse financial mess than Pawlenty has." Stephanopoulos made no mention of the fact that Carlson endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 or that he was officially expelled from the Minnesota GOP in December of 2010.

On NBC's Today, Matt Lauer highlighted the same statement and described Carlson simply as "a former Republican Governor of the State of Minnesota." He challenged, "This is a Republican saying that. How do you respond?"

Pawlenty described Carlson's affinity for Democrats and show back, "So I don't think he's an actual neutral or honest broker of anything."

This isn't the first time the Today show forced Pawlenty to respond to other liberal governors. On February 10, 2011, co-host Meredith Vieira referenced Pawlenty's Democratic successor, Mark Dayton: "Last night in his State of the State Address, he said that he was left with a horrendous fiscal mess and state agencies poorly managed. So what makes you better-equipped to run the nation's economy, if you left your own house in such disarray?"

On Monday's Today, Lauer managed to get in a dig about how boring Pawlenty supposedly is. He derided, "...People often look at you and they say is there enough charisma there for Tim Pawlenty to beat Barack Obama? What's your answer to that?"    

Stephanopoulos pushed the Republican, indicating that the killing of Osama bin Laden has made Obama a successful foreign policy president: "In the wake of the successful attack on Osama bin Laden, you care to extend and revise those remarks?"

CBS's Early Show skipped the Arne Carlson question, but co-host Erica Hill instead lobbied for more taxes, insisting, "What about raising taxes?...At some point, do you have to look at raising taxes, and do people have to pay more for what's needed in this country?"

Continuing to lecture Pawlenty, she followed-up, "But if you lower taxes too much on businesses, you- of course, you need something coming in, because there is this wide deficit, which we talk so much about. You need revenue."

A transcript of the Today interview, which aired at 7:18am EDT, follows:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

MATT LAUER: Now to presidential politics. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is throwing his hat into the ring for the 2012 GOP nomination. He's in Des Moines, Iowa, where he will make a formal announcement today. Governor Pawlenty, good morning.

TIM PAWLENTY: Good morning to you, Matt.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Joining the Race; Tim Pawlenty Announces 2012 GOP Presidential Run]

LAUER: Nice to have you as part of the party. And let me ask the simplest question, why? Why do you want to be president?

PAWLENTY: Well, I want to be president because America is in big trouble. Our finances are out of control. The debt and deficit are not being tackled by the current president. I've got experience in Minnesota as governor in tackling spending. I balanced budgets. I got an 'A' rating from the Cato Institute, one of only four governors in the country to do it. The other three aren't running for president, by the way, Matt. But our country needs new leadership and we've got to get this economy moving again. President Obama unfortunately doesn't have the courage to look the American people in the eye and tell them the tough truth of things that we're going to need to do to get our spending under control. I'll do that.

LAUER: I was going to wait until a little later in the interview to bring this up, but since you talk about balancing budgets and your record in Minnesota, let me ask you about this. A former Republican Governor of the State of Minnesota, Arne Carlson, had this to say about your time there and your fiscal responsibility. Quote, 'I don't think any governor has left behind a worse financial mess than he has.' [Source: Time magazine, May 23] This is a Republican saying that. How do you respond?

PAWLENTY: Well, actually Arne Carlson had become an Obama supporter and a John Kerry supporter and said he had left the Republican Party some years ago. So I don't think he's an actual neutral or honest broker of anything. And it's not accurate. Every time during my time as governor – eight years, four budget cycles, two years each – I balanced the budget every time. And, in fact, the last one ends this summer and it's still going to end in the black. So they're talking about a projected deficit down the road that's based on a lot of big spending increases that I don't support and wouldn't have allowed had I continued on as governor.

LAUER: Let me ask you about money. It's going to take a lot of money to run for president, Governor, and especially when you're going up against someone like Mitt Romney, who can raise a lot of money and has a lot of money. Some of the thinking was that a lot of the donors in this race might have been sitting on the sidelines waiting to hear what Mitch Daniels was going to do. He's announced he will not run. I know you've – according to some reports – reached out to some of those donors. What kind of response are you getting?

PAWLENTY: Well, the response has been good. We're not going to be the money champion in the race to start with. Though my friend Mitt Romney will be the front-runner in that regard. But we're going to have enough money to run a competitive and successful campaign. It may not be the BMW or the Mercedes campaign but it'll be a good solid Buick and maybe even trending towards a Cadillac and that'll be enough for us to be competitive and win.

LAUER: In the early polls you're in the single digits. It looks like Mitt Romney, in most polls right now, seems to be the front-runner. So let me ask you a direct head-to-head question. Why would you be a better nominee than Mitt Romney?

PAWLENTY: Well, I don't criticize or draw contrasts to other people. I can just tell you what my strengths are. And my strengths are this: When it comes to getting this federal government spending and deficit and debt under control, I've got a record in Minnesota of actually doing that. Like I said, there's only four governors in the country that got that 'A' grade rating from Cato Institute. I did. I cut taxes, I did market-based, instead of government-based health care reform, performance pay for teachers, public employee pension reform. And that's why these outside groups are saying this is one of the best, if not the best, conservative record in the country. And I'm proud of the record and that's one of the strengths I bring to it.

And I also, Matt, have got a background that I think a lot of American will like. My – I grew up in a blue collar town. My dad was a truck driver for much of his life. My mom was a home maker. And so I think those kinds of life stories connect with people, not just in terms of policy positions but at a heart and gut level as well.

LAUER: And just in the ten seconds I have left, Governor, people often look at you and they say is there enough charisma there for Tim Pawlenty to beat Barack Obama? What's your answer to that?

PAWLENTY: Well, I'm not running for entertainer-in-chief. These are serious times and they need serious people with serious solutions. So if you're looking for the loudest or a comedian in the race, vote for somebody else. But I'll bring the solutions forward that will actually fix the country.

LAUER: Former Governor Tim Pawlenty, congratulations on the announcement. Good luck. Come see us in the studio, please.

PAWLENTY: I'll do it, Matt. thank you

About the Author

Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Scott Whitlock on Twitter.
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Erica Hill
  • Tim Pawlenty
  • ABC
  • CBS
  • Early Show
  • Good Morning America
  • Scott Whitlock's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Stop Being Polite

Submitted by dan iroticiv on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 1:17pm.

Again, stop complaining about the treatment by the msm if you are going bend over and take it. Stop being so damn polite and call these people out on their obvious bias

  • Login to post comments

Badges of honor

Submitted by octavioj on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 1:46pm.

If the liberal media is already attacking governor Pawlenty so early in his candidacy then maybe he should wear those as badges of honor. He must be showing something they do not like.

  • Login to post comments

agreed.

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:07pm.

usually when the msm runs with a story that seems to be coming out of left field. There is a reason - thier internal polling shows that they are in trouble. For example if you see MSM reporting Obama visited so and so at church and then later in the week you see him speaking to a church group it is because their internal polling is showing that He is losing Evangelical Christians. Or if the media shows him speaking to a jewish group (like this week) they know that Obama stepped in it when he was rebuked publicly by Bibi for demanding Israel return to 1967 borders.

The Meida is about
1) shaping opinions
2) promote pet causes
3) imposing THEIR worldview on to their audience.

But unfortunately not everyone understands this. I hope that Newsbusters and people reading will persuade friends and family members to be skeptical when watching: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or hollywoods version of politics. and don't even bother watching MSNBC.

  • Login to post comments

Does a conservative favor

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:12pm.

Does a conservative favor amnesty and cap-and-trade like Pawlenty?

  • Login to post comments

Pawlenty has made a mea culpa

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:32pm.

Pawlenty has made a mea culpa and said he is against both of which you speak.
ragardless, anyone, and I mean ANYONE would be infinitely better than the socialist we have now.

"I would vote for Elmer Fudd before Obama" - Rush Limbaugh

If Fudd is on the ticket so would I

  • Login to post comments

Riiiiiight. If he were a

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:37pm.

Riiiiiight. If he were a conservative with conservative principles, he never would have held those positions to begin with. He's an opportunist telling people what he thinks they want to hear.

  • Login to post comments

well if you have a twenty

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:48pm.

well if you have a twenty point litmus test and he hits 18. do you throw up your hands and say

"dangit, Im not voting for someone who "says" he supports ALL conservative principles - I would rather vote for someone who says and shows that He does NOT support ANY conservative principles"

makes sense

  • Login to post comments

I'm not going to vote for a

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:53pm.

I'm not going to vote for a phony, and Pawlenty is a phony.

  • Login to post comments

so you would vote for Barak

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:58pm.

so you would vote for Barak Obama instead huh?

what are your thought on Obama? do you agree with his Conservative credentials?

  • Login to post comments

How in the world do you come

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 3:59pm.

How in the world do you come up with that?

  • Login to post comments

just asking: given the choise

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:08pm.

just asking: given the choice between Pawlenty and Obama

would you vote for Obama because Pawlenty is a 'phony'

or perhaps not vote because Pawlenty is a 'phony'

i just notice you coming after Pawlenty and saying nothing about Obama

just for the record, I am not a big TPaw fan but I would vote for him over Obama any day of the week. If He repealed Obamacare I'm fine with him.

  • Login to post comments

People need to get out of the

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:33pm.

That's a false choice. People need to get out of the R-D binary trap. There will be choices on the ballot other than R and D, and I guarantee at least one of those choices will be a Constitutionalist.

  • Login to post comments

fair enough. so you would

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:39pm.

fair enough.

so you would support a third party candidate?

like a tea party candidate? or are you more in support of the Ron Paul candidate?

Assuming there is no such candidate and your choices are

a) Tim Pawlenty

b) Barack Obama

c) don't vote and wait until a constitutionalist candidate comes along next election cycle

  • Login to post comments

I do and have. I guarantee

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:57pm.

I do and have. I guarantee you that there will be a Libertarian candidate on my ballot. You are continuing to present a false choice.

  • Login to post comments

DANGER WILL ROBINSON !! PAUL

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:59pm.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON !! PAUL BOT! PAUL BOT!!

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless my friend is more evil than my enemy."
  • Login to post comments

DANGER WILL ROBINSON !! PAUL

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:59pm.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON !! PAUL BOT! PAUL BOT!!

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless my friend is more evil than my enemy."
  • Login to post comments

By the way third party

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:45pm.

By the way third party candidates lose elections

Just ask Ross Perot.

  • Login to post comments

There are plenty of third

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:56pm.

There are plenty of third party candidates who have won elections. That's a cop-out.

  • Login to post comments

name one

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:02pm.

name a third party candidate that has won a presidential election?

How is a hypothetical question a false choice?

let me ask you this. which candidate do you like the most? (hope that isn't a 'false choice')

  • Login to post comments

I didn't say one has won a

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:22pm.

I didn't say one has won a presidential election (although they have received electoral votes), I said third party candidates have won elections. Your argument is akin to saying that if you didn't vote for the winner, then you wasted your vote (and there is no such thing as a wasted vote). Out of the candidates who have declared for 2012, Paul is the only one who would abide by the Constitution.

  • Login to post comments

"Paul is the only one that

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:26pm.

"Paul is the only one that would abide by the constitution"

hmmm. That's what I figured.

good luck with that.

  • Login to post comments

Selective quoting. Read the

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:33pm.

Selective quoting. Read the whole sentence.

Do you disagree that Paul would abide by the Constitution? Do you think he would be like Bush and not use the veto power?

  • Login to post comments

Firstly, Bush used his veto

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:47pm.

Firstly, Bush used his veto power. He vetoed the Children's Health bill.

I don't see Paul as a social conservative and very weak on national defense.

Paul is fiscally conservative and that is about it.

Reagan had all three, but there isn't a cadidate like him this year but if Pawlenty would be fiscally, socially, militarily conservative like Ronaldus Magnus. I would vote for him.

  • Login to post comments

Surely you aren't going to

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:31pm.

Surely you aren't going to suggest Bush was a Constitutionalist? Bush didn't use the veto until his second term, and well into his second term at that. He did not view his office as a check against the legislative. Bush signed unconstitutional acts into law; Paul wouldn't.

I'd suggest that you take a better look at Paul. He is one of the strongest on national defense and he believes life begins at conception. He rightly recognizes that drug laws belong to the states, not the fed. I think if you actually looked at these social issues, you'd see he is in favor of liberty and personal responsibility and Constitutional government.

  • Login to post comments

It's not unconstitutional to

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:46pm.

It's not unconstitutional to not use the veto.

I have and heard Ron Paul wants to legalize illegal drugs. No thanks. but if Ron floats your boat go with him.

I'm conservative not libertarian. The candidate that most reflects Reagan that's who I'm voting for.

  • Login to post comments

I didn't say it was

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 7:46pm.

I didn't say it was unconstitutional to not use the veto. I said Bush didn't use it when presented with unconstitutional legislation, and that Bush wasn't a Constitutionalist. Paul wouldn't hesitate to veto unconstitutional legislation. So you want to keep using federal forces and tax dollars to fight something that can't be won, and that is really the purview of the states? Let me remind you of this:

"well if you have a twenty point litmus test and he hits 18. do you throw up your hands and say

"dangit, Im not voting for someone who "says" he supports ALL conservative principles - I would rather vote for someone who says and shows that He does NOT support ANY conservative principles"

makes sense"

  • Login to post comments

I think legalizing marijuana

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:06pm.

I think legalizing marijuana and heroin crosses a line that as a Christian with children could not vote for and that should
disqualify any candidate

And remember Pawlenty came back said he was wrong and promised he would be more conservative which is more than Ron Paul
with the legalizing of drugs.

And as I said before I would vote for anyone besides Obama but prefer someone who is like Reagan

Pawlenty is sounding more like Reagan (a true conservative) than Ron Paul (a libertarian who wants to legalize drugs)

Again no thanks.

But We will see how Ron Paul does

  • Login to post comments

Christianity has nothing to

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:08pm.

Christianity has nothing to do with it. Being opposed to the prohibition on drugs is actually being more conservative than being in favor of it. Being in favor enables and fosters crime, black markets, big government, and the suppression of liberty. But hey, if you want to engage in doublethink and favor a nanny state and believe you are a conservative, go ahead.

Have you ever heard of William Buckley, by any chance?

eta: and do you realize that marijuana - hemp - was only made illegal in the 20th century? For most of our country's life it was a legal crop and even many Founding Fathers grew it. I guess they weren't Christian and held the Constitution and liberty in disdain.

  • Login to post comments

Since when?

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:54pm.

"Being opposed to the prohibition on drugs is actually being more conservative than being in favor of it."

Since when? Being opposed to the regulation of the possession and distribution of certain drugs is more of a Liberal stance than a Conservative stance. You may not understand this as you are a Libertarian, but Conservatives understand that, sometimes, it is desirable, even necessary, to regulate and control the behavior of others so that all of society will benefit. That includes prohibitions on certain items that we consume, like, you know, DRUGS!

That's why for example, so many Conservatives were in favor of regulating the production and distribution of drugs like Opium. Ever hear of Laudanum? That opium based drug was regulated WAY back in 1906, back when Conservatives held a majority of the Senate! Or are you going to claim that they, too, weren't "true" Conservatives?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

"but Conservatives understand

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:37am.

"but Conservatives understand that, sometimes, it is desirable, even necessary, to regulate and control the behavior of others so that all of society will benefit."

More doublethink. No, I understand it very well. That's why I am libertarian. Do you even realize what you just wrote?

  • Login to post comments

They grew pot huh? Lol Did

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:39am.

They grew pot huh? Lol

Did they smoke it before or after the declaration of independence?

Maybe we should legalize prostitution for the same reasons you list above or just give our children to predators to reduce the black market for them oh and let's legalize crack, heroin, marijuana, and privatize meth labs that way someone can at least make some money and create jobs.

Did Buckley grow and smoke marijuana too?

  • Login to post comments

Yes, they grew it. And yes,

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:45am.

Yes, they grew it. And yes, prostitution should be legalized. Yes, all drugs should be legalized. You may not be aware, but both prostitution and drug use have not disappeared despite their being illegal. There are even some states where prostitution and marijuana sale and use are legal! The horror of state's rights!

Have you ever heard of William Buckley?

  • Login to post comments

Yes I have heard of William

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:33am.

Yes I have heard of William Buckley. And could care less about his thoughts on the matter. Sheesh.

As the mother of John Wesley(founder of Methodist church) said "anything that gives the body authority over the mind is an evil thing"

"....they have not disappeared"

Neither has rape, thievery, and serial murders. Should we make those things legal as well? Or do you think that is an issue to be left up to the states?

  • Login to post comments

I guess I'm not surprised

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:23am.

I guess I'm not surprised that you couldn't care less what the man believed. The man who is arguably single-handedly responsible for the rise of post-war conservativism and who was Reagan's mentor.

The rape, thievery, and murder questions show that you have no understanding of conservative or libertarian ideology. All of these are examples of someone's rights being infringed upon.

  • Login to post comments

Funny, So I guess you were

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:56am.

Funny, So I guess you were going to lecture me on how William Buckley agreed with the legalizing of illegal drugs ( something Reagan did not do)
Why else bring him up?

I do know the difference between the ideologies.

As a conservative, I understand the need for a limited government. Limited government does not equal no government. As a Christian I would like to see the decline of legalizing immoral practices: prostitution, drug use, homosexuality. Yes they will never go away but that is no excuse to make them legal.

If someone is high on drugs and takes someones life, how is that not infringing on someones right to life?

  • Login to post comments

For the second time, this has

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:16am.

For the second time, this has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. If you find them immoral, then don't do them. Plenty of people find alcohol consumption, gambling, or buying beer/liquor on Sundays immoral, and plenty of people don't. How about you actually respect people and respect their right to make decisions regarding their own lives?

  • Login to post comments

We agree that legality does

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:23am.

We agree that legality does not equal morality then?

How much respect should I give to someone who just killed my sister who made the 'decision' to get into a car drunk or high on crack?

  • Login to post comments

How do you feel about

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:34am.

How do you feel about abortion?

Should the government interfere with a womans 'right' to have an abortion?

  • Login to post comments

You are clearly confused.

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:03am.

You are clearly confused. Ingesting drugs does not infringe upon anyone else's life, liberty, or property. Getting behind the wheel and killing someone does. That you see no difference is sad. Do you favor the prohibition of alcohol?

  • Login to post comments

"Sad" again? Going for the kill now, Incestmo?

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:15am.

The poor guy previously agreed with you he was sad.

Well enjoy it while it lasts.

  • Login to post comments

Really? Ingesting drugs does

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:18am.

Really? Ingesting drugs does not infringe on anyones life? Really? Tell that to the families who are mourning tbe death of family members who had died at the hands of those who were out of their minds due to ingesting drugs/alcohol

"do you favor prohibition of alcohol?"

Considering fifteen thousand people die annually due to alcohol diseases what do you think?

  • Login to post comments

Yes, really. "Considering

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:44am.

Yes, really.

"Considering fifteen thousand people die annually due to alcohol diseases what do you think?"

I think - no, I know - that you are not a conservative and are anti-liberty.

  • Login to post comments

I am a Christian conservative

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:10pm.

I am a Christian conservative who believes liberty is given by God not by government

I follow the virtues of Jesus Christ and wish our government reflected more heavily the precepts of the Bible

I support conservatives such as Pawlenty, Palin, Santorum.

If you believe I am no conservative. That's your right. If you believe I am anti-liberty that too is your right. If you wish to legalize illegal drugs and immoral practices that too is your right.

But people here in this forum would disagree that you are conservative and I am the insulting names you call me. I support the traditional Christian conservative views.

  • Login to post comments

What insulting name did I

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:19pm.

What insulting name did I call you? I didn't call you any name. You are not a conservative, and your beliefs reflect it.

  • Login to post comments

You insult me by suggesting

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:30pm.

You insult me by suggesting I'm not conservative because I do not share YOUR views

If you ran a poll on the issues discussed more self proclaiming conservatives would agree with me not you

You don't even have the graciousness to say "you know, you are right we do disagree let's leave it alone. It's been nice discussing these things with you"

You have to go and say "you are not a conservative ( which many here would disagree with, I've read their posts about you) and your beliefs reflect it."

  • Login to post comments

You said I called you an

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:36pm.

You said I called you an insulting name. What name did I call you?

  • Login to post comments

You called me

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:53pm.

You called me Anti-liberty.

That is very insulting to me. Again just because I do not share your views on legalizing drugs (ronald reagan: war on drugs) does not make me "anti-liberty"

I have visited and posted here for years And i have not been ridiculed by anyone on this site (until now) for being "anti-liberty"

Again I will try once more:

We disagree on certain issues (legalizing certain things) lets leave it alone

  • Login to post comments

What insulting name did I

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:11pm.

What insulting name did I call you?

And you are anti-liberty. You don't believe people should be allowed to make their own choices for their own lives, you want government to make those decisions because people can't be trusted to do what YOU think is right. You want alcohol to be outlawed because you claim that 0.0000489 percent of the population dies every year due to alcohol. I am not ridiculing you, you are certainly free to believe what you wish;I am trying to show you, though, that your beliefs do not match with your claim that you are for smaller government and for liberty.

Outlawing something doesn't just end with the legislation. Agencies are created, taxes are seized, civil liberties are infringed upon by the courts and police in enforcing these laws, crime skyrockets due to black market opportinities, innocents are killed, etc. You think any of that sounds like smaller government or conservatism???

  • Login to post comments

Thank you satchmo, You proved

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:10pm.

Thank you satchmo,

You proved my point.

  • Login to post comments

I didn't say I could care

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:53am.

I didn't say I could care less on what the man believed I said "I could care less on his thoughts on the matter" (legalizing drugs) I always thought Reagan was in the mold of Calvin Coolidge not William Buckley

By the way how do you feel about Rand Paul?

  • Login to post comments

I might have missed it But

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:36am.

I might have missed it

But where do you disagree with liberals again??

  • Login to post comments

Liberals advocate using the

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:36am.

Liberals advocate using the force of government to control people and to take away their autonomous sovereignty, believing government is the answer and believing that government can make better decisions for people. Kind of like you and drugs, for example. Liberals want government control of the market, favor taxation and regulation, and are anti-human and anti-achievement. They believe social justice rather than legal justice is the role of government an the courts. Myself and other libertarians believe the exact opposite of all the above. I am always going to come down on the side of less government and more liberty.

  • Login to post comments

Finally. Thank you! Glad to

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 9:59am.

Finally.

Thank you! Glad to hear it!

  • Login to post comments

That's somewhat sad you

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:15am.

That's somewhat sad you couldn't figure that out by yourself given my posts in the thread.

  • Login to post comments

Agreed.

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:14am.

Agreed.

  • Login to post comments

Just curious. But if Ron Paul

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:47pm.

Just curious.

But if Ron Paul doesn't get on the presidential ballot who will you vote for?

  • Login to post comments

I'm certain he won't get the

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 7:53pm.

I'm certain he won't get the nomination, bu he's making strides and more people are listening about The Fed at least. The answer is I don't know until I see who the Libertarian and Constitution Party nominate and until they qualify to be on my state's ballot.

  • Login to post comments

O I see. Again, Good luck

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:55pm.

O I see.

Again, Good luck with that

I'm voting for whoever runs as the constitutional, fiscal, Social conservative

  • Login to post comments

The Ghost of Sarcasmo speaks!!

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:04pm.

What's wrong buddy, did the Hooters close in your town?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless my friend is more evil than my enemy."
  • Login to post comments

He was MY Governor.

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:47pm.

He was MY Governor, Satchmo, for six years so I know a LOT more about him than you could possible ever understand and, yes, he is a social Conservative, far more than most members of the GOP, as well as a fiscal Conservative. He managed to balance the State budget every year, even during the worst of the recession when tax revenues were falling like leaves in December, and THAT is a major accomplishment, especially when he faced so much opposition by the liberals in our State Legislature. If YOU are complaining about him, that just increases his Conservative credentials, as far as I'm concerned. Pawlenty would make a wonderful President, the Midwest version of Reagan.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

How juvenile.

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:49pm.

How juvenile.

  • Login to post comments

Nice counter-argument.

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:54pm.

Nice counter argument for someone who believes that Ron Paul is somehow a Conservative. Pawlenty is a thousand times the Conservative than Ron Paul could ever hope to be.  Ron Paul is a charlatan.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

CobraMan,I think he is a

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:21pm.

CobraMan,I think he is a liberal

I haven't noticed him say anything positive about conservatives or conservatism. (Such as Pawlenty) Telling.

And when asked who he would vote for if Paul can't run and another ran against Obama he dances around the question. He also seems skillfully careful not to impugn Obama
More telling.

  • Login to post comments

He's a poser

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:26pm.

I figured he was a poser.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

BTW dimwit

Submitted by MightyMouth on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:13pm.

Nice come back idiot. Ron Paul couldn't get us out of jackshit re: global geopolitical matters. He would be the WTF? President. Meanwhile, Obama is the LOL, OMG, girlfriend Prez.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless my friend is more evil than my enemy."
  • Login to post comments

And what kind of lib is Obama?

Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:57pm.

At war with a third country and counting. What kind of lib is Gitmo staying open for? What kind of lib is still conducting renditions in foreign countries?

No, I'm thinking that your "LIBERAL" prince's principals are so removed from his alleged political positions that this is beyond people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones into the realm of some lib spewing crap. IS your prince even close to perfect on your major issues.

What a hypocritical remark. You want to talk about being an opportunist... you're kidding right?

hbnolikeee
  • Login to post comments

Speak English, please.

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:38am.

Speak English, please.

  • Login to post comments

How are your views different

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:42am.

How are your views different than liberals?

  • Login to post comments

Did he not say those were mistakes?

Submitted by octavioj on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:55pm.

Satchmo,

did he not walk back those statements? I think he did. I think if he is sincere and defends the opposite with passion and has learned from his mistakes there is hope. One can forgive these indiscretions. Ronald Reagan was not a conservative until he was one.

  • Login to post comments

no use

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:06pm.

He is a Ron Paul fan. nuff said.

  • Login to post comments

And you believe him? I would

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:45pm.

And you believe him? Did you believe McCain honestly changed his mind when he just ran for reelection (and Pawlenty endorsed McCain in the 2008 primaries, btw)?I would suggest it would be naive to do so. Again, if he were conservative, his conservative principles wouldn't have allowed him to hold those views in the first place. He also supported McCain-Feingold. No thanks. He's a phony.

  • Login to post comments

Fine....stick with Ron Paul

Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 7:04pm.

Quit slamming everyone else.

You militant libertarians make the rest of us look bad. Go campaign for Gary Johnson, or better yet, Barry Hussein.

You're trying to carve out militant libertarianism as being the only "true" conservative position. Which is crap, of course. You're not conservative, you're a lunatic who thinks incest is okay between an adult child and his/her parent because "no one gets hurt". Anyone who openly advocates such idiocy doesn't deserve a forum to post his/her ideas here. That alone tags you as beneath contempt.

So climb off your high horse...the door is right over there. Don't leave mad, just leave.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Why are you making up things

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 7:39pm.

Why are you making up things I didn't say and don't believe? Why can't you be intellectually honest? Hell, why can't you be honest period?

  • Login to post comments

Let's be honest*

Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 7:53pm.

And lets show proof.

  • Login to post comments

As Al Gore would say...

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:02pm.

To paraphrase Al Gore, too bad NewsBusters doesn't have a delete button. Isn't that right, Satchmo?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

Nope.

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:10pm.

Nope.

  • Login to post comments

Ok, so you stand by you statement

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:40pm.

Ok, so you stand by your statement about incest. Does that mean you'll apologize to Blonde for calling her a liar?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

Which of my statements, that

Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:49pm.

Which of my statements, that it's irrational or disgusting? And Blonde is a liar and she knows it. I didn't say and don't believe the things she attributed to me above.

  • Login to post comments

How did she lie?

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:59pm.

Just HOW did she lie? You DID claim that you don't have a problem with incest as long as it was consensual did you not? Those were YOUR words, were they not?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

" thinks incest is okay

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:29am.

" thinks incest is okay between an adult child and his/her parent because "no one gets hurt". "

No, they are not my words. Nowhere in the thread did I say that, nor do I believe that. So it's a lie to say I did, especially using quotation marks to suggest she is quoting me directly. And no, I did not claim that I don't have a problem with incest as long as it was consensual. So no, those were not my words. Read the thread instead of making things up.

I said that it is not my business and it is certainly not government's business what two consenting adults do in their home no matter how disgusting you or I may find it as long as no force or fraud was committed.

Post #28: "No one is accepting incest. No one is saying it's ok. The reach of government is what is being questioned. Can you understand that?"

  • Login to post comments

So your stand would be

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:47am.

So your stand would be homosexuality, beastiality, etc may not be ok for you but it's nobody else's business
What goes on behind someone else's closed doors,
Is that about right?

  • Login to post comments

Homosexuality, yes.

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 7:23am.

Homosexuality, yes. Bestiality, no.

  • Login to post comments

Right, because that would

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:06am.

Right, because that would infringe on the rights of animals.

Just joking.

I gather, you are socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

  • Login to post comments

Close, but I wouldn't

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:17am.

Close, but I wouldn't characterize it as rights. No, I'm socially and fiscally conservative. You wish to infringe upon liberty, I do not.

  • Login to post comments

Socially conservative

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 10:41am.

Socially conservative huh?

The normalization of homosexuality a practice that was once universally understood to be abnormal is ok with you because they have liberty right?

You pride yourself for your tolerance no different than those who are socially liberal

"tolerance is for the man who has no convictions" -G.K. Chesterton

  • Login to post comments

A practice found in numerous

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:02am.

A practice found in numerous species. Just because one doesn't believe the government has no authority or business telling people what they can and can't do as long as no force or fraud is committed does not mean one tolerates the behavior or that one has no convictions. This is freedom. People are going to do things that you don't like, but in no way whatsoever threaten your life, liberty, or property or anyone else's.

  • Login to post comments

"no way threaten your life,

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:07am.

"no way threaten your life, liberty, or property or anyone else's"

You forgot moral convictions. Wether you like it or not this is a Christian nation with a strong Christian culture. As a Christian Pastor anything that pulls our country away from that strong foundation I do indeed believe it threatens all of which you mentioned.

  • Login to post comments

No, I haven't forgotten moral

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:20am.

No, I haven't forgotten moral convictions. If you are opposed to gambling, then don't gamble. If you are opposed to alcohol, then don't drink. If you are opposed to drugs, then don't do them. You keep trying to insert Christianity into this when it has nothing to do with Christianity. The topic is government and liberty, not religion.

  • Login to post comments

"while we zealously

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:39am.

"while we zealously Performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, We certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" -George Washington

"God who gave us life gave us liberty" -Thomas Jefferson

"continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your DEPENDENCE ON GOD" -John Hancock

"here is my creed. I believe in one God, nobly defend those RIGHTS, which HEAVEN gave, and no man ought to take from us."-Ben Franklin

  • Login to post comments

That's fantastic. What,

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:43am.

That's fantastic. What, exactly, is the point you think you're responding to?

  • Login to post comments

That government and faith are

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:53am.

That government and Christian faith are not intertwined

  • Login to post comments

So you were responding to

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:20pm.

So you were responding to something that was never said.

  • Login to post comments

Not said but insinuated. I

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:27pm.

Not said but insinuated.

I understand then you agree that the Christian faith and government are intertwined. Yes?

  • Login to post comments

Not even insinuated.

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:38pm.

Not even insinuated. I said that this discussion is about government and liberty and Christianity has nothing to do with this discussion.

  • Login to post comments

Didn't answer the

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:07pm.

Didn't answer the question

But just out of curiosity
Are you a Christian?

  • Login to post comments

Your question is off-topic,

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:27pm.

Your question is off-topic, but no, Christianity and government are not interwined, and no, I am not a Christian.

  • Login to post comments

Let's face it we just

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 11:48am.

Let's face it we just disagree on certain things but agree in smaller government.

I'm not changing your mind and you are not changing mine. I wish you well
And we will see if the majority agrees with your views

I'm claiming proverbs 29:9. Good bye

  • Login to post comments

I think it's very clear that

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:22pm.

I think it's very clear that we do not agree on smaller government. You haven't espoused one thing in favor of smaller government; you've argued the exact opposite.

  • Login to post comments

That simply is not true just

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:31pm.

That simply is not true just because I don't believe in legalizing drugs like yourself and believe that government is needed does not mean I don't support smaller government.

But since you have no recourse but to insult me to keep your argument alive is quite telling

  • Login to post comments

It most certainly is true.

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:39pm.

It most certainly is true. Name one thing you've said in this entire thread that shows you favor less government, and I mean a specific example or issue, not just calling yourself a conservative. Just one.

I haven't insulted you one bit. If you're going to call yourself a conservative or say you are in favor of smaller or limited government, yet continue to push beliefs that are the direct opposite, then I'm going to point it out.

  • Login to post comments

You can read other other

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:06pm.

You can read other other threads on other stories and see that I am supporter of small government.
The posters of newsbusters know so, no need to prove what is obvious to everyone but you.

Again we disagree on issues, I wish you well, let's leave this discussion alone

  • Login to post comments

Just above you said I didn't

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:31pm.

Just above you said I didn't answer a question you had asked, yet here you are dodging my request.

  • Login to post comments

R U SURE, The Vet will be showing up here in 3...2...1...

Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:48am.

Sad tho, just when the winds N' rainbows of future bubbyship, Shoulda Woulda Coulda ahh, been blow-in your way.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

As you were saying.....

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:02am.

As you were saying.....

  • Login to post comments

pre

Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:01am.

post, hot key er sumthum.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Oh, some fill in data may be needed?

Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:58am.

Scroll up and down in this here thread link H/T Blonde.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

Satchmo does think incest is A-OK.

Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:24am.

What's worse is his belief that fetuses are property that can be discarded wantonly right up to birth at 9 months.

  • Login to post comments

What makes you think he's a phony?

Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:18am.

What leads you to believe that Pawlenty's a phony? Do you have access to some statement that he made recently that would tend to negate his admission that his earlier policy positions were wrong; some sound bite, some interview comment, some document published somewhere that the rest of us are unaware of?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

I've already explained it

Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:33am.

I've already explained it more than once.

Here are some more of his conservative bona fides: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120373223052387643.html

  • Login to post comments

Tell me Where do you differ

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:09am.

Tell me

Where do you differ in your views with liberals?

  • Login to post comments

NO

Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:58pm.

Only Duh Won can walk back remarks. He moon back walks in fact with that fine swagger, BURP.

hbnolikeee
  • Login to post comments

Since the conservative position

Submitted by Samshile on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:47pm.

is to represent the individual, what percentage of conservative positions does one have to have to be part of the consenvative family? Black or white? 75%?

Samshile
  • Login to post comments

Arne Carlson is a RINO, he

Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:48pm.

Arne Carlson is a RINO, he voted for Obama. If you voted for Obama, are you really a Republican? Please don't trot him out as your token "Republican" LSM! Arne is as much a joke as having a professional wrestler as a governor.

We need another Reagan, but that will not happen because Reagan was one of a kind. We do need some one that will scare the crap out of LSM and Obama, someone as Reagan like as we can get. Pawlenty was a good governor, but he is not dynamic or charismatic, and we need that in our next Reb. Presidential candidate. That being said, I'd vote for Pawlenty in a heart beat over Obama, if it came to that.

Right is never wrong, Left is never right.
  • Login to post comments

So true

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:52pm.

Every person paying attention knew Obama was the biggest liberal to ever run for president. How can Matt honestly use Arne Carlson to impugn his candidacy. If anything this should be a check mark in the conservative box.

  • Login to post comments

No kidding!

Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:15pm.

"Arne Carlson is a RINO..."

No kidding! When he ran for office as the "Independent-Republican" (as it was known then) gubernatorial candidate, I actually voted for John Marty, who I considered the lesser of two evils.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

  • Login to post comments

Answer with a question

Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:56pm.

 

(My imaginary encounter)

 

Lauer: People often look at you and they say is there enough charisma there for Tim Pawlenty to beat Barack Obama? What's your answer to that?

Pawlenty: People often look at NBC and they say, "Is there enough objectivity there for me to believe anything its 'reporters' say or are they all just shills for President Obama and the democrats?" What's your answer to that?

  • Login to post comments

You know, we joke about it.

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:04pm.

You know, we joke about it. but wouldn't it be awesome if someone actually said that!?

  • Login to post comments

Rush does it every time the MSM interviews him.

Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:26pm.

Why else do you think they stopped asking him for interviews?

"I find that I am deeply offended by political correctness." IdahoAndy

IdahoJim

http://idahoandy.net

  • Login to post comments

True, Rush does call out the

Submitted by okie-pastor on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 5:32pm.

True, Rush does call out the Media pretty good. And Palin has come close.

  • Login to post comments

Andrew Breitbart is the champ

Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 6:04pm.

Love that guy.

And I love Palin's "outside" position which enables her to kick the snot out of the media for their bias.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

This crap is not live.

Submitted by hbnolikeee on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:00am.

Anything that they don't want aired will be edited out.

hbnolikeee
  • Login to post comments

If I was in the race I would

Submitted by okie-pastor on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:28am.

If I was in the race I would only do interviews if I had a personal cameraman or audio recorder of the same interview. If any remark or statement was edited out. You could run to FOX or Drudge and have the full unedited version just to show people that this is being done and I have no doubt that it is being done.

  • Login to post comments

Taxes

Submitted by ferv888 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 4:59pm.

enough of the BULLSHIT.

Whenever a liberal politician or a liberal media type ask about taxes the GOPer needs to respond,
Did you pay more than you owed this year??? Did you use the long form and take the deductions like GE did this year and paid little or no tax than you could have???

Gates, Buffet, Hanks, Howard, Streisand, Deutsch and the rest of you feeling guilty about what you make can sure as hell pay all you want, no law against it. Only the super rich, they can't spend it all in a year, or the super poor, who need the help, can afford to be liberal, the rest of us pay for the rich guilt. BS, we should not be.

FERV888

  • Login to post comments

@ferv

Submitted by Samshile on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:51pm.

I have a simple solution. Registered Democrats get a 10% tax hike. Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians get a 10% cut.

Samshile
  • Login to post comments

And none of those questions

Submitted by Icarus on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:00pm.

And none of those questions from the journalists (except for Lauer's charisma question) seem out of line or bad. As far as I can tell.

  • Login to post comments

And He survived*

Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 8:25pm.

It seems Icarus survived his foray into the sunlight except now he is blind.

  • Login to post comments

Blind, indeed, ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:01pm.

as a result of his rectal-cranial inversion.

That affliction befouls the outlook of all liberals.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Here ya' go Matthew*

Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:24pm.

Blind indeed

  • Login to post comments

That...

Submitted by Icarus on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 11:29pm.

...never stops being funny. My NewsBusters peeps are pretty awesome.

  • Login to post comments

Minnesota's financial

Submitted by mattm on Mon, 05/23/2011 - 10:35pm.

Minnesota's financial problems lie at the feet of the Democrats. They are the one who have made Minnesota a socialist state.

Pawlenty made several mistakes - ALL of which were the result of compromising with Democrats. The Dems controlled the legislature throughout Pawlenty's term as governor. During which time revenues went up. 

Revenues also went down after the 2007 crash (which was caused by Democrat policies at the federal level), but Minnesota revenues did not go down as much as the rest of the country... But why bother with facts when there's a republican to rake over the coals? 

(Regardless of this, I do not support Pawlenty for president.)

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
  • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
  • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
  • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
  • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
  • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
  • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
more cartoons
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
  • Leno: It’s Gotten So Bad for Obama Fox News Changed Its Slogan to ‘See, I Told You So!’
  • Romney: ‘I’m Not a Fan of the President’
  • The Guardian Glamorizes New ‘Assault on Wall Street’ Movie as Justice
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use