St. Paul, Minn. — On a trip to Iowa last week, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty attracted attention not for his policy positions, but for the way he was speaking. Many people thought they heard him using a southern accent.
Back in Pawlenty's home state of Minnesota, an MPR News listener said when he heard a report on the Pawlenty speech on the radio, he couldn't believe who it was.
"I didn't understand where the accent came from," said Mike Supina, a St. Paul architect. "He sounded like he was from Arkansas."
Pawlenty, who lives in Eagan, is from the south — South St. Paul, that is. MPR News asked a few people at Pro Pharmacy in downtown South St. Paul to listen to part of Pawlenty's Iowa speech.
All but one had no idea it was their city's native son speaking.
"He didn't even talk like that when he was governor," Lois Simon said, adding that he sounded like George Bush.
A Washington Post writer also picked up on Pawlenty's accent.
Asked about it after a speech last weekend in New Hampshire, Pawlenty said he sometimes doesn't "use the exact king's English." But he added that he's not adopting an accent to project a folksy image.
"Anybody who actually follows me closely or has looked at these speeches over the years knows that from time-to-time I do that, and it wasn't some sort of strategic decision for that group," Pawlenty said. "I've done it in Minnesota. I've done it in other places."
But Supina, the architect who contacted MPR News about the way Pawlenty sounded, said he's followed Pawlenty closely for years, and never heard him speak like he did in Iowa.
Asked about it after a speech last weekend in New Hampshire, Pawlenty said he sometimes doesn't "use the exact king's English."
badhat wrote:bike solve all problems
Buzz Fledderjohn wrote:but really i think he gets it by process of elimination
“Why are you apologizing all the time?”
With that single sentence made to her Israeli hosts, Sarah Palin demonstrated a greater understanding of the problems confronting Israel than the collective wisdom of all the J.D.'s, Ph.D's, and Masters of International Affairs in the Obama administration combined.
The question was profound, as simple as it were, because it addressed the narrative of perpetual Palestinian victimization and grievance.
First, it goes to the heart of Israel's right to exist. The recent trend, including among American Jews, is to acquiesce in the leftist-academic and Islamist view of Israel as a mistake and an anomaly, something which deserves to exist -- if at all -- merely by reason of historical accident. Palin refuses to succumb to such a narrative, recognizing that the connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem and Israel goes back over 3000 years.
"Exercise a no-fly zone this evening," Gingrich said on March 7 when asked for his policy prescription, adding the administration was "inept" in its reponse. "This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with."
But Gingrich appears to have had a change of heart since then and is now aggressively going after Obama for getting involved in Libya at all, telling The Today Show that he specifically "would not have intervened" and not "have used American and European forces" based on America's commitments elsewhere and the danger of creating a broad humanitarian justification for war.
It is deeply troubling that there is so much confusion, lack of foresight, and little resolve coming from the President and his administration about what our mission and goals must be in the Libya engagement.
On March 3rd, President Obama said publicly that "it's time for Gadaffi to go."
Prior to this statement, there were options to be indirect and subtle to achieve this result without United States military forces. I made this point on The Today Show this morning, saying "I would not have intervened...there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi...I would not have used American and European forces."
The president, however, took those options off the table with his public statement. From the moment of the president's declaration, he put the prestige and authority of the United States on the line. After March 3, anything short of a successful, public campaign for regime change would have been seen as a defeat for the United States.
That's why during a March 7th Greta van Susteren interview, I asserted that the president should establish a no-fly zone "this evening." After March 3rd, the President should have moved immediately to consult with Congress to implement a no-fly zone, while also making it clear the US would welcome involvement from other nations.
Instead, he did the opposite. The President wasted weeks trying to get approval from the United Nations instead of Congress, the result of which was a weak mandate from the UN that changed the mission to one of humanitarian intervention.
Yet, by that standard we should also be using US forces in the Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Yemen and more countries.
Given the President's public statements and the multitude of other humanitarian crises throughout the world, the only rational purpose for an intervention with US forces in Libya is to replace Gaddafi.
Now that we have US forces engaged, any result less than the removal of Gadaffi from power will be considered a defeat.
For that reason, I believe we must support the mission and see it through.
Sarah Palin spoke Thursday at the Long Island Association, a business group in New York. The event was notable for the fact that Palin invited the press--something she does rarely. And it was newsworthy in that she gave another sign she might actually run for president: News reports say she hinted with a smile that someone who is good at multitasking ("a woman, a mom"), as well as someone who's already run for something ("a vice-presidential candidate?") would be most qualified for the job.
When the conversation turned to the escalating price of gas and groceries, Palin reportedly said, "It's no wonder Michelle Obama is telling everybody you better breastfeed your baby--yeah, you better--because the price of milk is so high right now!"
Adviser: Bachmann likely to enter WH race
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Tea party favorite and Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann is feeling pressure from the political calendar to rush a decision on a White House bid and may announce her intentions as early as May, one of her top advisers said Thursday.
Bachmann, a third-term congresswoman from Minnesota, could form a presidential exploratory committee before two televised Republican debates scheduled the first week of May, said Ed Brookover, a Bachmann adviser.
"I'm not sure the debate is what's going to make our final decision," he said. "Is it a factor? Yes."
Other Republicans familiar with Bachmann's thinking said all signs point to a White House run. They insisted on anonymity to discuss private conversations with Bachmann and her advisers.