Tim Pawlenty

Pawlenty is being criticized for the wrong reasons. The mainstream media, who LIVE for Repubians and conservatives attacking other Republicans and conservatives (often having to LIE about someone being a ellow "conservative" to try to artificially "enhance" their sotryline), wanted Pawlenty to CALL NAMES ("Obamneycare") in the debate last night. The CNN moderator virtally demanded that Pawlenty repeat that insulting descripting of Romney's Massachusetts health care program. And that was really the CNN/mainstream media "criticimsm" of Pawlenty. He let THEM (CNN and the mainstream media) down. They caled it a "missed opportunity" (for them).


Howgwash. Pawlenty is NOT going to win the Republican nomination by CALLING ROMNEY NAMES< or by calling his programs names. Yes, Pawllenty could have been more direct in comparing what he did/ould have done with Romney's Massachusetts health care plan and previous Massachusetts liberal positions Romney has now abandoned. But all Pawlnety can accomplish by tearing Romney down is to ELECT SOMEONE ELSE (not Pawlenty).


I agree with O'Reilly (unusual, recently) that the problem with Pawlenty is that he is VANILLA. No, that does NOT mean that you have to scrfeam and yell. Reagan didn't. It means you have to seem PASSIONATE about what you believe. You can even do that by the sheer force of your intetellect and phrasing. But Pawlenty says relatively uninspiring things DULLY (I say that as one who knows--as I tell people I ASPIRE to be dull, and generally get universal agreement that I am a success).


Thus, Pawlenty's problem is NOT last night's debate. Pawlenty's problem is the FIRST, Fox debate. Romney was not there. Bockman was not there. Even Gingrich was not there as a distraction. Pawlenty did not STAND OUT in that debate. He should have. Cain used that debate to go from nowwhere to AHEAD of Pawlenty, and that was an accurate evaluaton of relative perfromance. Pawlenty pretty much says the right things, even if his past does not convince you he has the same principles as Bockman. But he does not CONVINCE you he passinately believes what he says. As stated, this is not a matter of volume, but of convinction and the WAY you say things. As Katherine Hepburn once said: "Star quality is something you either have or you don't. I can't define it. It is some kind of energy or electircity. I just know I have it." Pawlenty does not APPEAR to have it.


Yes, I would vote for Pawlenty against Obama, if only because of abortion. But, even on abortion (where Pawlenty's RECORD is stellar), I don't see the PASSION. Again, I agree with O'Reilly. Unless Pawlenty somehow has a personality transplant, or "ability to communicate" transplant, he is not gong to be the Republican nominee. Yes, if everyone else implodes, maybe Pawlentycan win as the slow and steady tortoise. I just don't see it.


And no, I don't expect Pawlenty to be like this blog, and call Obama "Liar-in-Chief" (accurate as that descriptoing is). I jssut expect Pawlenty to show that he can TAKE IT TO OBAMA, and is willing to do it, even if he does it with a genteel stiletto rather than a meat ax. I actually saw an Obama operative criticizing Pawlenty on CNN for not "making Romney bleed". See aobve for my take on THAT criticism. But his shows the leftist/Obama attitude. Their approach to elections is to MAKE THEIR OPPOENTS BLEED--TO BRING A GUN TO A KNIFE FIGHT. Again, that does not mean being rue and strident. But it means ATTACKING, no matter how respectuflly you do it. No, this doees not mean attacking ROMNEY. It means attacking OBAMA in a way that shows you can effectively do it if you are the nominee.