The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
So Tim Pawlenty's exit hasn't made much of a splash here at Ricochet. But -- as I claim at The Daily Caller -- you can't dismiss the candidate without calling his message into question. Even if T-Paw couldn't move the excitement needle, the failure of his policy platform to excite much of anyone ought to make some serious news.
Tim Pawlenty is the canary in the establishment coal mine. His message — that the Republican party doesn’t need to rethink any of its main policy propositions — no longer computes with a critical mass of Republican voters: not just in Ames, Iowa, but nationwide.
[...] Even Mitt Romney now knows better than to re-run his losing proto-Pawlentyist campaign from 2008, when his change-nothing play for the mushy conservative middle left him obliged to spend millions to avoid T-Paw’s glum fate.
[...] It’s not that Pawlenty’s brand of mainstream, fusionist conservatism is wrong. It’s that it misses the point. The principles are necessary, but the policies Pawlentyism derives from them are inadequate to the daunting task that Americans have — let’s face it — set before themselves.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
It appears to me that these are all bland descriptions of the same old stuff- other than legalizing pot (which doesn't strike me as the solution to economic stagnation) and adopting Ron Paul's foreign policy.
I see a lot of foreign policy wishful thinking out there. This statement doesn't impress me with regard to acknowledging reality: "increase our ability to poke hard with a sharp stick at key moments and help our cornerstone allies in Europe and Asia better assert a constant regional presence."
So, in a realist's world, we shut down most of our bases in Germany and that makes that "cornerstone all(y) in Europe" willing and able to assert a "constant regional presence? I'm not convinced that the world gets easier if we throw away the power projection capability and encourage our stalwart allies, backed up by nothing (look at their budgets), to talk more influentially in their regions. Poking hard with a sharp stick is what we did in 1991. Helped a lot. Not.
I do not see any difference in strategic substance- other than the proposed military disarmament- between what virtually all Republican candidates, including Pawlenty, proposed, and this list.
Jun '10
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
I think Pawlenty's problem was more about strategy, and less about message. The problem was, he didn't go with his strength. His big advantage is the wonkish knowledge base in his head, on budgets, on health, on trade, etc. But instead, he talked about personality and electability, and tried to man-up on all the conservative hot-button issues. On him it sounded phony, and it was phony. His normal personality is that of a friendly assistant pastor, but that's not what he was projecting. People saw through it. Lesson: don't try to be what you're not.
Dec '10
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
Pawlenty's exit was about Pawlenty.
He was a favorite until the first debate when he pointedly refused to call out Romney on "Oromneycare". Then, in order to counter that, he attacks...Bachmann, As etoiledunord points out, he isn't an attacker.
He is low on charisma and as soon as Perry made rumblings, there was no room for Pawlenty in the race.
Feb '11
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
From one perspective, a person might give Pawlenty credit for exercising a leadership and management presence by reading the handwriting on the wall and making an immediate decision to withdraw from the primary race. Many candidates would have hung around driven by ego alone. Hopefully, Pawlenty will learn that his message was the wrong one for the times and needs of America.
Pawlenty may better serve America, and Minnesota in particular, if he goes on to challenge Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), who is up for re-election in November 2012. The duo of Klobuchar and Franken leave a lot to be desired and Pawlenty, regardless of what some conservatives might believe, would make a far better addition to the Senate than either of the, less than dynamic, Democrat duo currently in place.
May '11
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
"Tim Pawlenty is the canary in the establishment coal mine." That is a great line and resonates with my sense of what is happening. I think the wave we saw in 2010 is still building. If Rick Perry is successful it will be because he can articulate basic conservative principles in a believable way. I don't believe Romney and so far I don't think Bachmann is able to get beyond soundbites.
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
Thanks, Duane -- let me address your points:
Duane Oyen: [...] all bland descriptions of the same old stuff- other than legalizing pot (which doesn't strike me as the solution to economic stagnation) and adopting Ron Paul's foreign policy.
[...] we shut down most of our bases in Germany and that makes that "cornerstone all(y) in Europe" willing and able to assert a "constant regional presence? [...] Poking hard with a sharp stick is what we did in 1991. Helped a lot. Not.
I do not see any difference in strategic substance- other than the proposed military disarmament- between what virtually all Republican candidates, including Pawlenty, proposed, and this list.
(1) Nope, pot isn't the solution to economic stagnation, nor anything else on that list. Those proposals aren't shiny & new. But they make more sense now that we're confronting a debt problem so vast that not even measurably stronger productivity can wipe it away.
(2) France, not Germany, is our cornerstone ally in Europe.
(3) The 1991 poke did help. Then we needed to poke again. Now again with Iran.
(4) My line about American support for wars hints further how this isn't disarmament or Paulism.
Jul '10
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
James Poulos: ...
(2) France, not Germany, is our cornerstone ally in Europe.
...
The politics and the people are more positive towards us in Germany than France, and Germany is in much better shape than France, which has started to show their own financial warning signs. Germans are being rewarded for their discipline and generosity by becoming the obvious candidate for "last well man of Europe."
We have backed Europe militarily while they shifted resources into their welfare programs to offset the drone of the masses for golden chains. They have driven their over-managed crony capitalist with socialist highlights economies with one ridiculous ponzi scheme after another and are now beginning to work their way back toward adulthood. Part of that must be Europe taking more responsibility for Europe. The Soviet Union only remained a threat into the later 20th Century because Europe played with pretend political pacifist positions while US troops and US missiles deterred the Finlandization of most countries other than Finland.
Europe cannot continue to be the red-headed step child at the dinner table of America forever.
Edited on Aug 15, 2011 at 10:09pmOct '10
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
1) I don't think charisma is Tpaw's problem. He's an acceptable alternative to Obama. I'd rather have somebody who is "boring" than a nutwing.
2) His downfall started with "Obamneycare". He compounded that mistake by going after tea party favorite Michele Bachmann. Those tea partiers sure showed him in Ames, eh?
3) in 2010, the tea party was more popular than the Republican brand. in 2012, the opposite.
Edited on Aug 17, 2011 at 12:08amJan '11
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
The cognitive dissonance of the establishment Republican is what is bringing their candidates, such as Timid Pawlenty, down.
"We're broke," they say to nods and applause
"We must remain the hegemon of the world," they say next, to stunned silence.
This is a sad congruence with the Democrat who knows we're on a unsustainable spending spree but wants more and more programs, and the Republican who knows we're bust but continues to insist we fund our military as if we are not.
One does it - ostensibly - for compassion; the other does it for stability.
Reality bites. What can't be won't last. What's unsustainable will end. Deal with it.
Feb '11
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
What's a "nutwing" in your opinion?
And how do you know this? Has there been a poll?
Feb '11
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
So far, whenever I've seen Bachmann interviewed or in debates, she's demonstrated a good command of the issues and produced more than soundbites (haven't seen much on foreign policy from her yet). Not so sure about Romney - I'm undecided.
With Perry I'll reserve judgment until I see him in debate with the other candidates. I think he's getting an artificial boost just because of the weak field. He'll have to perform if he expects it to continue.
May '10
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
James Poulos: Thanks, Duane -- let me address your points:
(1) ... pot isn't the solution ...... proposals aren't shiny & new. .... more sense now that we're confronting a debt problem so vast ........ I don't see any meaningful way that this affects debt. Even if you assume that 50% of police costs are for the drug war, and that there are no unintended consequences of legalization. A legitimate philosophical issue, not an economic one, in my view.
(2) France, not Germany, is our cornerstone ally in Europe. The comment was directed at the EU strategy of disarmament. Not sure that France is "cornerstone" except when Sark is there- don't see a lot of support from the Socialists, even though empire dreams and cultural arrogance makes France individualistic and nationalistic in a way that undercuts the EU.
May '10
Re: The Real Shock Behind Pawlenty's Not-So-Shocking Exit
Lousy 200 word limit shouldn't count the quote....
to continue:
(James) (3) The 1991 poke did help.... needed to poke again. Now again with Iran. You don't effectively poke if you disarm and do not modernize. And "pokes" have to be intense ("more rubble, less trouble") to be effective- and more and more, the perceived collateral damage to civilians makes intensity counterproductive.
(James) (4) My line about American support for wars hints.... isn't disarmament or Paulism. I don't challenge the intent, but practical reality; if defense spending is a large budget savings, "support for wars" becomes irrelevant.