Pawlenty's "Willie Horton" moment coming soon to a TV commercial near you!

zappasguitar

Well-known member
Will this turn into Pawlenty's "Willie Horton"?

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said Wednesday that he is "heartsick" over news that Jeremy Giefer, the sex offender that he pardoned 15 years after he had finished his prison sentence for statutory rape of a 14-year-old, is facing new allegations that he had sexually abused his own daughter more than 250 times both before and after he was exonerated in 2008. He then proceeded to defend the original decision of the pardon board.

The Associated Press reported this week that the new charges had surfaced, and a later examination of the claims by the Twin Cities City Pages shows that the alleged victim was the daughter he conceived in 1993 with an under-age girl who later became his wife.

The City Pages has some lurid details on the matter, which they sum up by explaining:

In fact, the complaint alleges, Giefer had been raping his daughter for about six years when Pawlenty granted him his extraordinary pardon.

In retrospect, Pawlenty admitted Wednesday, the pardon was probably not a good idea.

"Had this new information been available to the Board at the time of the pardon request, the pardon should not and would not have been granted," said in a statement, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Despite the nature of the new information, however, the potential presidential candidate also took a moment to defend the pardon:

"We all have to keep in mind that this pardon was granted many years after he had served his sentence and been out of jail for many years. ... The granting or not granting of the pardon wouldn't have changed his availability to commit future crimes or the crimes that he's alleged to have committed. We didn't let him out of jail."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/tim-pawlenty-pardon-jeremy-giefer_n_791618.html
 
Will this turn into Pawlenty's "Willie Horton"?

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said Wednesday that he is "heartsick" over news that Jeremy Giefer, the sex offender that he pardoned 15 years after he had finished his prison sentence for statutory rape of a 14-year-old, is facing new allegations that he had sexually abused his own daughter more than 250 times both before and after he was exonerated in 2008. He then proceeded to defend the original decision of the pardon board.

The Associated Press reported this week that the new charges had surfaced, and a later examination of the claims by the Twin Cities City Pages shows that the alleged victim was the daughter he conceived in 1993 with an under-age girl who later became his wife.

The City Pages has some lurid details on the matter, which they sum up by explaining:

In fact, the complaint alleges, Giefer had been raping his daughter for about six years when Pawlenty granted him his extraordinary pardon.

In retrospect, Pawlenty admitted Wednesday, the pardon was probably not a good idea.

"Had this new information been available to the Board at the time of the pardon request, the pardon should not and would not have been granted," said in a statement, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Despite the nature of the new information, however, the potential presidential candidate also took a moment to defend the pardon:

"We all have to keep in mind that this pardon was granted many years after he had served his sentence and been out of jail for many years. ... The granting or not granting of the pardon wouldn't have changed his availability to commit future crimes or the crimes that he's alleged to have committed. We didn't let him out of jail."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/tim-pawlenty-pardon-jeremy-giefer_n_791618.html
In retrospect, Pawlenty admitted Wednesday, the pardon was probably not a good idea.

Thats #1...Pawlenty DID admit it wasn't a good move to pardon this guy...

You can't act on information you don't know about....don't you agree...?

And the article makes it clear, "He didn't defend the pardon" as you claim....
What he pointed out is that the pardon made no difference....this scumbag was abusing his daughter....with or without the pardon....the pardon played no role in this scums actions at all....

So he pointed out a simple truth and it was not meant to defend the pardon at all..he already made it clear, the pardon was a mistake.
 
In retrospect, Pawlenty admitted Wednesday, the pardon was probably not a good idea.

Thats #1...Pawlenty DID admit it wasn't a good move to pardon this guy...

You can't act on information you don't know about....don't you agree...?

And the article makes it clear, "He didn't defend the pardon" as you claim....
What he pointed out is that the pardon made no difference....this scumbag was abusing his daughter....with or without the pardon....the pardon played no role in this scums actions at all....

So he pointed out a simple truth and it was not meant to defend the pardon at all..he already made it clear, the pardon was a mistake.

I never claimed he did or didn't defend the pardon...

HOWEVER...

Right there at the bottom of the article, it says that Pawlenty took a moment "to defend the pardon"...those aren't my words, they are the author's and he obviously felt Pawlenty was "defending the pardon".
 
I never claimed he did or didn't defend the pardon...

HOWEVER...

Right there at the bottom of the article, it says that Pawlenty took a moment "to defend the pardon"...those aren't my words, they are the author's and he obviously felt Pawlenty was "defending the pardon".
OK...I didn't know if that was your comment or what...
So the guy that wrote the article is obviously trying to spin this for his own purposes....
coming from a left wing site like huffington, I should have know that...
 
In retrospect, Pawlenty admitted Wednesday, the pardon was probably not a good idea.

Thats #1...Pawlenty DID admit it wasn't a good move to pardon this guy...

You can't act on information you don't know about....don't you agree...?

And the article makes it clear, "He didn't defend the pardon" as you claim....
What he pointed out is that the pardon made no difference....this scumbag was abusing his daughter....with or without the pardon....the pardon played no role in this scums actions at all....

So he pointed out a simple truth and it was not meant to defend the pardon at all..he already made it clear, the pardon was a mistake.
If this were a liberal pinhead you would be foaming at the mouth like a werewolf with rabies!

I see right through you!
 
There is no doubt the Democrats, being the smear merchants that they are, will find some way to inject this crap into some political ad come election time.
 
There is no doubt the Democrats, being the smear merchants that they are, will find some way to inject this crap into some political ad come election time.

You mean like how those smear merchant REPUBLICANS did the very same thing to Dukakis back in 88?

Precedent was set way back then sorry to say and any future "smear" is the just payback for previous RightWing smears.
 
You mean like how those smear merchant REPUBLICANS did the very same thing to Dukakis back in 88?

Precedent was set way back then sorry to say and any future "smear" is the just payback for previous RightWing smears.
No,.. I mean how...

Democrats ran the James Byrd lynching ad accusing GWB of being complicit in that crime.

AND HOW

Democrats ran the “another black church burns when you vote republican” ad.

The Willy Horton ad was actually FACTUAL and TRUE.
Democrats are the masters of smearing, personal attacks, and character assassination....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top