Tim Pawlenty has his own Willie Horton

Pawlenty pardoned Jeremy Giefer. Clinton pardoned Mel Reynolds (see story below). Of course, Clinton wasn't running for president, he already was president. But, no one seemed to mind.

In August of 1994, Mel Reynolds, a Democratic United States congressman was indicted for having sex with a 16 year-old girl. Despite the charges, democratic leaders did not discourage Reynolds from running for re-election. In August 22 of 1995 Reynolds was convicted of 12 counts including: sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Later, Reynolds was convicted on 15 more charges of bank fraud and SEC violations.
In August of 2001, democratic President Bill Clinton pardoned Reynolds who then ran for office in 2004 under a democratic ticket. Democratic senators did not ask him to stop running. Reynolds currently works for Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition.

 

So what has ex President Clinton got to do with this? unless you are saying that because he did something stupid and rather repugnant it is therfore ok for this guy to pardon a pedophile?

 

I never cared for Clinton's pardons, they reeked of abuse of power ...but that doesn't excuse Pawlenty... it only remindss me that anyone can be a (deleted) hypocrite if they really want to be. Pawlenty is a bit more of a hypocrite though, since one of his biggest stances has been against pedophiles, demanding tougher sentencing for offenders.

 

What does this story have to do with Pawlenty? Is there a connection between the two guys?

 

Simply that they both pardoned pedophiles.

 

Yes indeed they are. But when I read the thread, I was repulsed that someone who stands against pedophilia would do such a thing. I didnt look to see if someone else had pardoned something so despicable. You do agree its shameful, no matter which party, yes?

 

Ahhhhh! The false equivalency argument coupled with a past irrelevant point as justification of a possible future outcome. How do you untwist yourself before going to bed at night?

 

Absolutely.

 

Do you believe it's OK to blast Pawlenty about his pardon, but not Clinton? I didn't hear any public outrage when Clinton did it. Isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander?

 

No it is not, what one does is not justification for another to do so

 

In the context of current events...ABSOLUTELY!! If this were a historical discussion then it would be wrong to omit Clinton or anyone else. It's not a historical discussion now is it?

 

Well, in a sense it is. After all, if someone is going to condemn and pass judgement on a person, don't you think it's wise to review what's been done before? Isn't that why American jurisprudence relies on case law? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to disparage one person, but not another for committing the same or similar offense?

 

No someone can condem and be disgusted at a person on what THEY have done without having to check back in the history books just to see if anyone else has been condemned for a similar occurence Here we are not talking about a court of law we are talking about condeming and been disgusted at the actions of a person elected to protect and serve the public, the law has nothing to do with how one feels. This is a person who professes to be against pedophilia and yet grants a pedophile amnesty and expunges his record! so his wife can open a daycare operation and you are saying that we should check back into the history books just to make sure it is ok to dislike this!!!!
Regardless of what was said (or who said what) at the time about President Clintons desicion it dont make it right to ignore what this guy has done 2 wrongs do not make a right

 

This isn't a court case either. What part of current event is confusing you? What Clinton did, what Hitler did, what King Henry VIII did, what Caesar did, has nothing to do with Pawlenty running for president in 2012. I know why you'd rather talk about the past instead of talking about what is currently at issue in this thread but the tactic of muddying the waters simply serves to distract rather than clarify. It's an old and tiresome tactic and no matter how you try to rationalize it to yourself, that dog just don't hunt with the rest of us. If you have something to say about the current topic, say it, if you just want to create a straw man argument, move along.

 

Let me ask you this and please simply answer on this case alone (it has nothing to do with President Clinton)

Do you condone the actions taken by Governor Pawlenty?

Do you think this is the kind of action that you want a prospective President of the United States of America to be involved with?

A simple yes or no to both will do

 

This... from the same guy who condemns Bush for invading Iraq, but nary a peep from him when Obama invades Libya.

 

Each answer deserves more than just a "yes" or a "no". I've already answered your first question. Your second question is certainly a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway by saying that I wouldn't want a prospective president nor a sitting president to engage in that action. Would you?

 

Thank you even if you found it to hard to stick to a yes or a no LOL And my second was not rhetorical
No I woudnt want a person like that to stand for President (or in my case Prime Minister) as for the President Clinton incident it occured at the end of his term and not before the primeries so in reality there was no way of opposing his run for the Presidency If he had been in a similar position to what we are talking about then I would say that no he shoudnt have been seen as fit to run (but it did not)

 

We're still in Iraq numb n***! Perhaps you should look up the meaning of "invades" before you use it.

U.S. Iraq war deaths = 4,454
U.S. Iraq war wounded = 33,041

U.S. Libya war deaths = 0
U.S. Libya war wounded = 0

Point made!