…cognitive thought is just what your posts consistently lack. You seem to lie in wait for me to post–so that you can then post your personal attack. But just in case my argument’s really too complex for you to grasp easily–the GOP’s got is chock full of gentlemanly politicians. Pawlenty’s a gentlemanly politician. Ergo, he’s exactly what the Republican Party doesn’t need right now, though he’s precisely what the insiders want.

Yeah, I’m a Rudy man. I’ve never tried to hide it. Why should I? He’s the best man for what the country needs–a true reformer and a fighter. Besides he polls better against Obama than any of the other Washington-crowd GOP favorites. Not that you would appreciate this. Judging from your past posts, you’re pretty poorly informed about his record.

All three men–Trump, Rudy and Christie–have more impressive executive records than Pawlenty. Rudy ran a city (pop. 8,000,000) with a budget many times bigger than Pawlenty’s state (pop. 5, 200,000)–with a much bigger and far more diverse population–and with many more problems with crime and poverty. Yet he excelled on every front. He left the city far better than he found it, with a radically lower crime rate and much much lower taxes–and in the black for the first time in decades. And he did this the way Christie is doing it–by fighting the left tooth and nail. What’s Pawlenty’s record? It’s spotty and full of compromise with the left. He’s simply not a fighter. If he were, Senator Coleman would still be in the Senate.

Gingrich–where did that guy come from? I never had him on my list. I don’t cotton to the guy at all. How is he lumped together with Northeastern executive types? Why put him on my list when I have no use for the guy. He’s the ultimate insider–the opposite of do-ers like Giuliani or Christie or Trump. I wish you’d read my posts before you attempt to refute them. As it is you lack information. Start doing some research on these guys.

I support Rudy for good reason: he’s got a terrific record–and he’s a fighter. Pawlenty has a mediocre record–and he’s a wimp. Of course I realize part of the problem around here is that a lot of you are from parts of the country that benefit from the present primary system. But the nation doesn’t benefit if we support weak candidates–candidates preferred by redstaters only–but not by those Republicans from more critical parts of the country–places like PA, NJ, OH and FL–where my guys do just fine in the polls,

The fact that Pawlenty is the choice of GOP insiders tells me all I need to know about his problem as a candidate and as a conservative. He’s all words without the music. He TRIES to sound like a conservative–but it’s not instinctual, not second-nature. He doesn’t say or do things that are conservative–he only makes speeches appealing to conservatives in a very studied way.Listen to Trum or Christie or Rudy and the way they talk. Yeah, they’re blunt, they’re rude, but they’re relating to the way the masses feel and think. When Christie calls unions “thugs” or when Rudy hands back a 10 million dollar check to a Saudi prince after 9/11, they act and speak from the gut. Trump is going after Obama for his ties with Tony Rosko–would Pawlenty do this? Not in a million years. He’s too nice, too gentlemanly, too polite.

This country is IN DANGER. The guys some of you call fire-breathers, I call FIGHTERS. They fight the opposition. People like Pawlenty, to me, are part of the problem and have been for fifty years as far as the GOP is concerned. They’re too nice to make good leaders in precarious times like this. I want a warrior, not another nice guy.

by Rubio WILL go a long way wherever it plays Besides, just winning FL would get us half-way home.

Cognitive thought and reason are one and the same.

Sarah. Neither is Huckabee. Neither is Newt. Nobody’s running. They’re all testing the waters. So’s Rudy–he has said as much many times in the past few months. Only Quinnipiac put him in its polls, along with other potential candidates–and surprise! surprise! –he was the ONLY potential GOP candidate who beat Obama in a head-to-head poll of adults nationally, 51% to 48%.

but so’s the loyalty of most Republican tea partyers. People are fed up. Pawlenty’s the choice of party leaders, not the rank and file. As far as I’m concerned, he’s pressing the right buttons and making a stir. People are starting to wonder who this Obama guy is. He’s one of the few people around with the kind of media clout to break through the liberal wall of disinformation about Obama. He’s an important asset. I’m not sure I want him for president either–which is why I support Rudy. But I take him seriously–and like Rush, I like his boorish style. I despise the kind of polite discourse the Bushes and the Roves and the Pawlentys of the party favor. I’m sick of GOP wimpishness. I want a warrior heading the ticket. The country’s in tremendous danger–and we need somebody who can lead us away from ruin. We only get one shot at this. We need somebody tough–who will go for the jugular. That’s not Pawlenty.

But it’s the GOP’s own fault. It is too weak. It’s too irresolute to resolve the nation’s crisis It doensn’t have a clue as to how to make its case to the public or how to tame a biased press. It chooses to support mediocrities as candidates. It’s lost its ability to listen to the rank and file. So it brings this on itself to a great extent.

That said, it’s an indication of Trump’s strength that he knows how to put fear into the Republican establishment. This is another indication he understands how to play very very rough. If we harness that, he may be just the ticket. This is part of Trump’s strategy imo. But it’s a clear danger just the same. Anything can happen.

only to those who do not take into consideration

1. That we’re in a cold, but deadly, civil war.

and

2. That our country’s in terrific danger.

Given these two basic facts to ponder–is he the warrior we want leading us at this time in the nation’s history? Is his record impressive enough? Does he think and act and talk like a true conservative who will take the country back to its first principles?

He’s a nice enough guy. But nobody would argue he’s a strong leader. Yes, he appeals to a common denominator–but shouldn’t we be looking for stronger leadership? Is he really the right guy for the job at this time? Is he even tough enough for the fight? It’s doubtful, given his resume and his temperament.

We don’t get two shots at this. It’s now or never for four years–at the end of which the country could be in ruins. Shouldn’t we expect more when we choose a candidate?

Just the same, my doubts about Trump supercede my interest in still another bland candidate–whether it’s a Dole or a Bush or a McCain or a Pawlenty. I’m tired of Democrats lite, even if they’re pro-life. That’s no longer good enough. The country’s on the brink of disaster. After 2012 it may be too late to turn the nation back to first principles. I’m not sure about Trump–but I know one thing–he’d make a stronger candidate than Pawlenty.

At a time when the nation is hovering on the brink of ruin? How much sense does that make? Shouldn’t we be judging candidates in terms of strength of personality as leaders? Shouldn’t we be judging their records? This is not only incredibly stupid, it’s e repeat of what happened in 2008. McCain got the nod by default. We saw how that worked out.

Your standard for character in a leader is faulty. It’s nice if a man is faithful–if we’re asking him to take over a church ministry. But that’s not an appropriate standard for a world leader. I want to know if he’s brave. I want to know if he’s got nerves of steel. I want to know if he’s fiscally shrewd. I want to know if he’s decisive. I want to know if he inspires others. I want to know if he understands good management. A man faithful to his wife doesn’t guarantee having these virtues. Contrariwise, an unfaithful man can have them in spades.

Think of it this way: in a war, if the life of the nation is at stake, private morality like fidelity to one’s wife is not what we look for in a leader. It’s nice, it inspires admiration of a sort, but it’s irrelevant to our primary purpose–to save the nation. Well, we’re in a cold civil war right now. We’re on the brink of disaster. We can’t take another four years of Obama. Given that imperative for leadership, it doesn’t matter what Rudy’s private life looks like. I happen to believe his former wife was a shrew–but that’s neither here nor there. It’s all irrelevant.

by the NYTimes. It accused Rudy of using public funds–but it was a classic liberal hit piece. After the charges were disproved, the Times buried its retraction on the back pages–after the damage was done.

When the Democrats say Republicans want to kill old ladies and starve little kids, what’s the GOP response? –Nothing. When Christie calls union bosses “thugs”, what’s the Democrat response. –Loud and clear repudiation, expressions of outrage, etc.

Republicans need to start fighting fire with fire. The Bush nice-guy years left the party in a shambles. He never fought back, even when doing so would have been easy. He never used the Espionage Act to pummel the NYTimes, for instance, when it published secret documents that gave comfort to the enemy. He never fought back–ever. Neither will Pawlenty. It’s just not in them. They’re not raised to do this. They are trained to be well-mannered. The bullies never get a sock in the kisser.

Look at how permissively Walker let the protesters in WI trash the capitol building, block lawmakers’ movements, threaten lives, lawmakers’ families, businesses.Compare his lack of even a public rebuke to Cuomo’s forcefulness in NY. Cuomo arrested 17 protesters just for blocking access to the capitol building–and he did this only days after the protests began. Walker’s a typical mild-mannered GOP pol.

is our wimpishness.