June 1, 2012 | 4 comments
November 2, 2011 | 7 comments
December 16, 2010 | 5 comments
November 17, 2010 | 10 comments
November 3, 2010 | 4 comments
He’s only in office for a couple more weeks, but Governor Tim Pawlenty’s not sitting on his laurels. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, he talks about something with which Minnesota is all too familiar: The takeover of unionized public employees.
Over the last eight years in Minnesota, we have taken decisive action to prevent our problems from becoming a state crisis. Public employee unions fought us virtually every step of the way. Mass transit employees, for example, went on strike for 44 days in 2005—because we refused to grant them lifetime health-care benefits after working just 15 years. It was a tough fight, but in the end Minnesota taxpayers won.
Later he discusses his federal solutions, which sound like great ideas, but also seem impossible to accomplish. It will take a conservative President with some chutzpah and a posse of like-minded politicians behind him to implement anything close to what he’s suggesting.
As an outgoing Governor, it’s hard not to read anything by—or about—Tim Pawlenty at this point without looking at with him with national significance, especially in pieces like this when he spells out his state and federal ideas.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?