TPMDC
Pawlenty Warning Against Threat of Death Panels -- Ten Years From Now
Eric Kleefeld | September 11, 2009, 12:45PM
Share
Send to a friend!
Just because President Obama set out to fully debunk the "death panel" smear in his speech to Congress last night, it doesn't mean for a moment that Republicans are actually going to stop playing that card, as Greg Sargent has noticed.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), a potential presidential candidate, appeared today on Morning Joe, and admitted that the health care bill does not create death panels -- but warned that people should be worried about it happening ten years from now, in order to lower costs:
"Joe, there is nothing int he legislation that directly says that," Pawlenty admitted. "It's the indirect concerns that I'm trying to articulate, that I think are at least worth raising."
Pawlenty need not worry about death panels hurting Minnesota, though. If it ever gets to that point, he could always run for governor again and then nullify them.
Mike Barnicle, describing himself as being in a "benevolent mood this morning," explicitly gave Pawlenty a chance to back away from this, and Pawlenty stuck to his Deatherist guns -- and also called for civility in this discussion.
"Now does the bill say there's death panels? No. Does the bill say that somebody's actually going to, you know, say you have to live or die? No," said Pawlenty. "But the indirect concerns that I'm raising, and others have raised, are not irrational. So we can have an informed, reasonable debate about that without one side or the other just calling each other names."
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Top 10 Things You Didn't Know Before Reading Plouffe's 'Audacity To Win'
- The Biggest Dem Scandal You've Never Heard Of
- Party Crashers: Who Are Michaele And Tareq Salahi?
- From Dollars To Death Panels: How Republicans Distorted Debates On Capitol Hill
- Friends In High Places: The Salahis And The Famous People They Take Pictures With
- Secret Service Director: We Are 'Deeply Concerned And Embarrassed' Over Party Crashers
- New Statement Out from Secret Service
- The Salahi-Obama Meeting
- Tareq Salahi Donated To Virginia Pols And Sold $25K Worth Of Wine For Kaine Inaugural
- Police chief: Woods' wife helped after accident
- From Dollars To Death Panels: How Republicans Distorted Debates On Capitol Hill
- CT Report: Green Party 'Picketing' Ralph Nader In Hopes He'll Run For Senate
- TPM Reader Challenge: The Sex-Scandal Haiku!
- The Biggest Dem Scandal You've Never Heard Of
- Why is Healthcare Reform Too Expensive, While the Sky is the Limit For War?
- Secret Service Investigates State Dinner Party Crashers
- The REAL Patriots were the Republicans who voted for Obama.
- FUN REPORTERS: Where the Hell IS Sam Kinison When We Need Him?
- Hey Prez! Do you feel lucky? (Army Study: Pashtun men's blood testosterone levels 3X U.S. Norm! Tom Ricks: "Afghans are Clint Eastwood with a turban..." )
- Secret Service Director: We Are 'Deeply Concerned And Embarrassed' Over Party Crashers
- Big Deal or No?
- New Statement Out from Secret Service
- Watch Out
- Does It All Fit Together?
- Let The Scrubbing Begin!
- Why is Healthcare Reform Too Expensive, While the Sky is the Limit For War?
- FUN REPORTERS: Where the Hell IS Sam Kinison When We Need Him?
- Haiku Contest?
- Bumps
- Democratic Party: Get Your Dumb War On
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Indie Pro
September 11, 2009 12:54 PM
10 years from now people may find Pawlenty a reasonable, honorable man.
But I doubt it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
September 11, 2009 6:42 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I doubt that many people now without health insurance will ever be happy that Pawlenty denied them an opportunity to have their children covered with insurance. Obviously Pawlenty has his insurance paid by the state so what the heck, why would he worry about just ordinary folks who have no medical care available for their children. You see, that is the problem our party has with this issue. Thousands of families now have no insurance and they need it disparately. I could respect Pawlanty if he also decided to go without insurance, but absent that, he seems grossly selfish in the face of all the unemployment. We are talking about our children and their need to have coverage for health problems they might have. Obviously, Pawlenty cares less about that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ogliberal
September 11, 2009 1:04 PM
Just about every "concern" the wingnuts bring up in this bill - outside of the cost - is a "what might happen" type scenario, even if the legislation specifically says it won't - ie, subsidies to illegal aliens, government takeover of healthcare, it will kill unborn babies. It's just ridiculous...all of the scare tactics are based on wacky hypotheticals and not on the language of the legislation itself. Should we have not ratified the 15th Amendment just because we thought that many states in the South would blow it off (and they did) and still prevent blacks from voting?
As for Pawlenty, one of the knocks on him re: GOP nomination chances, was that he wasn't crazy enough for the base. Seems like he's getting a head start on beefing up those creds. It's the Romney approach - convert yourself from a reasonable, seemingly sane conservative/moderate Republican into a wack-a-doodle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nancydenis
September 11, 2009 7:34 PM in reply to ogliberal
Where did you get the idea that Pawlenty was ever a moderate rational politician? He has always been a wacko dressed in a business suit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
September 11, 2009 1:19 PM
Minny needs to SECEDE NOW
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 11, 2009 1:47 PM in reply to johnmccsf
Would Favre have to go back to Green Bay? Or would he just play in the newly formed Texas/Minnesota/Alaska Secession League?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
September 11, 2009 1:22 PM
Tim Pawlenty may not be a child molester now, but he does like children and even has two of his own. So obviously there's an indirect concern that he may become a child molester ten years from now. Therefore, it's important to have an informed, reasonable debate about whether Tim Pawlenty should be allowed within 100 yards of a child.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
September 11, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to CN
Indeed! And who is to say whether Pawlenty MAY commit murder ten years hence? We must therefore voice our concerns now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
September 11, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to ttarleton
Do we have a Minority Report on Tim?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
September 11, 2009 1:25 PM
His appeal in Minnesota was his supposed moderation. He was always extreme in his ideology and legislators have complained throughout his administration that he refuses to negotiate in good faith, but instead pulls power plays and breaks his word. However, he is an effective communicator and speaks in a tone that seems moderate. Though actions are those of a bully, he always sounds eminently reasonable, and the national pres has always given him a pass on this. He has blown apart the state budget to keep a no-tax pledge, and that pledge turns out to be predictive of how he'll do anything to make the hard right base happy. Somehow, the national press hasn't noticed that he won two pluralities with a third part splitting many Democratic-leaning votes, that he survived 2006 by a whisker, and that his party has lost a lot of seats during his administration. He blew several by appointing cronies in the legislature to nice commission jobs and holding special elections at weird times, almost all of which the GOP lost. A slim DFL (Democratic) majority in the Senate is now veto-proof, and his big majority in the House is now nearly a veto-proof DFL majority. The GOP has also lost one US House seat and holds neither Senate seat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
September 11, 2009 1:32 PM
The only thing missing from this argument is "the slippery slope". Now that's a fave of the right that should crop up any day now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
September 11, 2009 1:37 PM
"Indirect concerns"?
Oh my, I have an 'indirect concern' that the new employee 2 cubes away from me may at some point wish to do me harm. Not that she has expressed any hostility yet, but one never knows, does one? Best to live in a state of fear and paranoia, and perhaps change my party affiliation to GOP, and join the NRA as well. Yes, that would be the best approach, certainly!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drv
September 11, 2009 1:41 PM
If you want to go all the way to bat-shit crazy, use the standard GOP logic--the fact that she has expressed no hostility is *evidence* that she truly does! See, it's easy to apply their pretzel logic and get the answer you wanted in the first place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
September 11, 2009 1:49 PM
Tips for Pawlenty on raising his popularity with the GOP base:
- Vocabulary update: "indirect concerns" is too weak - try "grave immediate threats to our freedom"
- Start carrying handgun in public
- Nice start with "death panels" - now proceed to "facism", "goverment takeover", "totalitarian state", and "internment camps"
- Proclaim obedience to biblical law above all else
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ttarleton
September 11, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to ttarleton
Pardon the misspellings - result of trying to identify with thought processes of GOP base, no doubt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
September 11, 2009 1:51 PM
I'm concerned that someday someone might note that I once thought Tim Pawlenty was reasonably sane and use that to decide my judgment shouldn't be trusted. Hasn't happened yet, but it probably should.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
September 11, 2009 3:10 PM
Timmy,
By "irrational", I assume you mean "not governed by or according to reason." Since you haven't actually articulated a reason to believe that there will be death panels ten years hence, I would have to say that they are indeed irrational concerns.
It's not surprising, though. You're a member of the Irrational Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
September 11, 2009 4:52 PM
Hwy, this kind of logic worked for invading Iraq, didn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?