Skip to comments.Pawlenty Says ‘We’ll Know Soon Enough’
Posted on 08/08/2012 11:02:23 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
JACKSON, Mich. After a brief speech at the opening of a campaign office here, Tim Pawlenty was asked if he would return to Michigan when youre vice president.
Well know soon enough, Pawlenty, dressed in shirt sleeves, told the crowd with a chuckle.
The former Minnesota governor is believed to be on Mitt Romneys short list of running mates and there is speculation that the choice could be made any day.
Hank Choate, the chair of the Jackson County Republicans, asked the former Minnesota governor what his schedule is like Friday, asking a question many of the reporters in the room were trying to determine.
Pawlenty answered that he would be in New Hampshire. Pawlenty is doing four events in the state Saturday for the state party and the Romney campaign.
Choate then invited Pawlenty to a barbecue here on Sept. 23.
As the VP, we will welcome you with open arms, Choate said.
Pawlenty then told the crowd of about 30 that Romney cant make a bad pick.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
With the way Romney is headed (down in the polls, gaffe after gaffe), it only makes sense to pick a conservative.
That way they can blame them for the eventual loss - just like they did Palin. It couldn’t possibly be Romney McDole.
I was going to read this article about Pawlenty, but I got bored just thinking about it.
Nicky Haley, some of his points and mine...
* She is a Women
* Took on Corny Capitalism i.e. the Boeing mess.
* Shinning light on the American Experience and Immigrant Children that do well
* And last but not least needed in these budget cutting times, she is an Uber CPA, Washington would not like the likes of her their...
Brilliant pick IMHO...
You seemed to have omitted the quote from the Constitution...
You seemed to have omitted the quote from the Constitution...
Would be worse than Dan Quale. And that was pretty bad.
Since you posted that BOGUS statement, I guess it’s YOU.
You seemed to have omitted the quote from the Constitution that validates your position...
I am lukewarm on Pawlenty.
He neither excites me or alarms me that much.
I think he will in the general election give Romney more pluses than minuses, any gaffes along the way not withstanding.
The governor of Minnesota has no control over the counting of votes. Regarding Pawlenty’s gonads, he really did a job on Brian Sullivan during the 2002 primary, so I don’t think there’s anything missing in that department.
Not me. You must be talking about someone else. I didn't quote anything from the Constitution. In fact what I did say is that the Constitution has been thrown out the window by this pResident and if I believe that why in the heck would I quote something that's gone already?
He's boring (to those voters who would need to be excited over character in order to go out and vote).
I'd compare it to a McCain/Lieberman ticket
There is NO definition of NBC in the Constitution!
You’ve made it up!
Youve made it up!
I made NOTHING up. You're putting words in my mouth. I never even talk about Natural Born Citizen regarding Obama because I have not even seen proof of who his parents really are or proof he was born in the United States. There is nothing that proves his parents were American so unlike the NBC crowd that actually gives Obama the benefit of the doubt I do not go that far. Obama has provided nothing to prove he's a legal citizen of the United States. Nothing.
That means even George Soros is eligible now.
You go first. Post your quote from the Constitution that validates your statement and then I'll respond.
Natural Born Citizen means both Parents must be citizens at the childs birth.
Romney’s only smart pick would be to pick himself as VP and then name Palin as his running mate.
According to what?
Others have been slow to quote the Constitution...
The Constitution says The president must be a natural born citizen. Then we get........
The Minor case was held precedent in a number of supreme court definitions. Were there any doubt about the significance of this Soros’ Center For American Progress confirmed it by editing some twenty five Supreme Court decisions containing citations to Minor v. Happerset over the Summer of 2008. Cornell Law School did the same, again with oversight of Soros’ Center for Am. Progress’s CIO, Carl Malamud, edited out a whole paragraph of Re: Lockwood, because it cites to Minor has held law - precedent. (Obama almost appointed Carl Director of the US Govt Printing Office; there is no telling what might have become of our national archives had that happened).
No court has contested Minor v. Happersett. The weaseling of judges is something to behold. Federal judges are a disgrace. Oaths clearly mean nothing. Even the military is infected, as they showed with the Colonel Lakin hearing, not allowing a decorated officer to present evidence, and sending him to Leavenworth because Obamas citizenship papers could be embarrassing. They even blithly reordered the chain of military command, eliminating the Commander in Chief from responsibility for orders.
Until there is acknowledgment that the Constitution is no longer our foundation Obamas ineligibility will not be forgotten. Supreme Court cases and the documents of founders and framers are being scrubbed and edited, but there is still paper in some libraries. We can all guess at why - McCain’s entitlement as a former prisoner of war, the need for Rubio so that the crony capitalism which is so essential to the wealth of congressmen (read Schweizers Throw Them All Out), since Rubios ineligibility will insure that he is owned by those behind the curtain, .... the suppression of Article II Section 1 was deemed necessary. We know that at least twenty five attempts to amend it failed, right up to 2006, three by John Conyers between 2002 and 2007 afmed at Obama, one by Hatch for Scharzenegger, and four other attempts, not counting the Obama/McCaskill SB 2678, though it needed to be an amendment to have affect (and this writer might have supported SB 2678).
The only uncertainty about Obamas ineligibility is that there is no law that forces the Supreme Court to abide by precedent. They could make new precedent. But until they do, Obama is not a constitutional president, even if the press and public use that title. As Justice Thomas pointed out, the Court is evading the issue. We are presumably a nation of laws, and not men, though John Adams might judge that we have failed to protect, and thus lost, our constitutional protections.
This is NOT about Obama!
This is about Rubio.
NOTHING you provide says the Parents must be citizens.
As for your tin-foil hat, conspiracy theories regarding the management and control of Rubio...get a life!