Video: Pawlenty’s first presidential campaign ad
posted at 7:21 pm on July 29, 2010 by Allahpundit
He’ll deny that that’s what this is, of course, but … that’s what it is. He’s been pushing the idea of “Sam’s Club Republicans” for fully eight years now, so no surprise at the thrust of his message here: Blue-collar all the way, a guy who understands the plight of middle-class Americans in a way that certain “country club elitists” — ahem — never will. All of which is fine, although it feels like a message geared more towards a general election than to the Republican primary, where, I think, any overt class appeal will be viewed as suspiciously left-ish. (Huckabee went that route for awhile in the last primary and he remains a whipping boy for HA commenters to this day, albeit not for that reason alone, natch.) One obvious problem for T-Paw: How’s he going to position himself as the “authenticity” candidate among base voters if Palin and/or Huck are in the race? In fact, I’m not sure he’d necessarily be seen as more authentic than Thune or Daniels either, both of whom also come from working-class midwestern backgrounds. But then, no need to overthink this; his problem at the moment is getting people to find out who he is, so here’s step one on the path.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
lol
lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 7:22 PM
yawn
davek70 on July 29, 2010 at 7:25 PM
Good for T-Paw. Let the games begin.
You know, from this one video we know more about Pawlenty’s background than we’ll ever know about the mystery life of Obama.
rickyricardo on July 29, 2010 at 7:26 PM
nice guy, but ummmmm….i just don’t see it happening for him
cmsinaz on July 29, 2010 at 7:26 PM
never going to happen.
upinak on July 29, 2010 at 7:27 PM
Get back to me when he accomplishes this.
davek70 on July 29, 2010 at 7:27 PM
He seems to be a nice man, good father, and a decent person.
Good Luck Governor Pawlenty.
portlandon on July 29, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Dull, predictable, stock phrases, and wouldn’t it have been great if he had actually said something of substance?
Meaningless blather that comes from every cookie cutter politician.
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 7:28 PM
yawn
Amadeus on July 29, 2010 at 7:29 PM
I really like Pawlenty but I’m not sure he has a chance. We will see, I guess.
terryannonline on July 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM
OT:
nice linky Allah :)
cmsinaz on July 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM
He is going to make a great cabinet member.
portlandon on July 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Cabinet: yes
Oval Office: no
Khun Joe on July 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Shouldn`t he spend more time campaigning for
SarahCuda!!(sarc).
canopfor on July 29, 2010 at 7:31 PM
I like him a lot. The more solid contenders the better. The 2008 Republican primary field was atrocious. At least it’s looking like we’ll have some decent choices this time around, Pawlenty included.
therightwinger on July 29, 2010 at 7:32 PM
This ad just SCREAMS “nice guy.” I don’t think I want a “nice guy” for President. I want someone who will kick some lefties’ asses and take a freaking chainsaw and prune the hell out of our feckless-yet-tyrannical entitlement-choked overlapping-bureaucracy overgrown-kudzu federal government.
Aitch748 on July 29, 2010 at 7:33 PM
You know, TPaw has almost 54000 fans on FaceBook. Thats incredible!
Amadeus on July 29, 2010 at 7:34 PM
Not a bad Video to start-
hawkman on July 29, 2010 at 7:35 PM
When featuring the pictures of up and comming Republicans i noticed they forgot to include a snap shot of Palin./s
heshtesh on July 29, 2010 at 7:36 PM
I absolutely agree on this. The more the better, in my opinion. I like Mitt, Sarah, Newt and T-Paw….I would be happy to vote for any of them in the general. Much better than 2008. I don’t know if they can beat Obama but would be happy to vote for them.
terryannonline on July 29, 2010 at 7:36 PM
I like T-Paw, but I just don’t think it’s possible for him. He’s missing the ‘it’ factor, if you will.
Emily M. on July 29, 2010 at 7:36 PM
Jan BrewerGoddess has over 200,000!
*swoon~*
lansing quaker on July 29, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Yawn. Are there any YouTube videos of paint drying or grass growing that I could patch instead?
VidOmnia on July 29, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Uh, I don’t know, yeah, nice message if this was like 1999, 1996 or whatever.
But when the Barbarians are knocking down the gates and torching our fields I think the GOP response needs to sort of get kicked up a freaking notch or too!
JellyToast on July 29, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Get back to me when he accomplishes this.
davek70 on July 29, 2010 at 7:27 PM
Cool….
over 2,000,000
idesign on July 29, 2010 at 7:38 PM
Agreed. He seems very nice but I don’t know if he has “it.”
terryannonline on July 29, 2010 at 7:38 PM
BAM! ala Emeril :)
cmsinaz on July 29, 2010 at 7:40 PM
OT:
Obama Mocks Polls But Spends More On Them ($4.4M) Than Bush Did
nice linky Allah :)
cmsinaz on July 29, 2010 at 7:30 PM
cmsinaz: This is the only linky I can find!!:)
========================================================
Obama Mocks Polls But Spends More On Them ($4.4M) Than Bush Did
Yes,I know,its from HuffPuff!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/obama-mocks-polls-but-spe_n_663553.html
canopfor on July 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM
LOL – I’m sure you know this already, but a certain “irrelevant” and “polarizing” GOP figure just passed two million.
VidOmnia on July 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM
You guys know i was snarkin right?
and OT
Sarah’s latest post:
She just B!tch slapped MSNBC. lol. God I love her!
Amadeus on July 29, 2010 at 7:42 PM
that’s the one, saw it on the HA main page…
that it’s huffpo just makes it funnier
cmsinaz on July 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM
Yawn. Are there any YouTube videos of paint drying or grass growing that I could patch instead?
VidOmnia on July 29, 2010 at 7:37 PM
VidOmnia: How about Barney Franks,bang`n away,on his gavel!!
canopfor on July 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM
How long until the trolls and mobies turn this into a Palin thread and flame war?
thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 7:44 PM
TWO MILLION! Go Sarah!
dhunter on July 29, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Are you kidding me? You Palin cultist already turned into a Palin thread.
lowandslow on July 29, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Maybe that’s T-Paw’s entire point. Whoever the R candidate might be in 2012, they cannot…must not…let the true identity and life of Obama go unchallenged again. He needs to be hammered and hammered hard about the facts of his life.
IMHO, of course.
GrannyDee on July 29, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Oh, God, not you again! Please just go away!
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Yeah, he’s a really nice guy. But he just doesn’t seem to know the enemy very well. It’s like he’s living in a different decade or something.
It’s like, wake freaking up for crying out loud. Obama is not Fritz Mondale! You’re not going up against a guy like Jimmie Carter. This man is a freaking Marxist with terrorist friends who has plans on staying in power for at least 10 years, Obama thinks he’s freaking God for crying out loud and you think you are going to convince supporters you are prepared for the fight with just a “we need lower taxes and job growth” message? Obama will pick his teeth with you.
JellyToast on July 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM
I like P-Dawg. I’d keep an eye on him, I think he could be our dark horse for 2012. His background appears solid and despite the nice guy look, he’s dealt with plenty of liberals in his state.
El_Terrible on July 29, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Yawn. Sarah Palin he ain’t.
DB9 on July 29, 2010 at 7:50 PM
Wow — tough crowd. I thought it was a pretty good ad. Maybe not as good as the Mama Grizzlies video, but a solid B.
Callie C. on July 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM
I don’t know, but there’s just something really appealing about his low key manner and humility. I like him and I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 7:52 PM
True. He can put together a coherent answer to a pointed question during a live TV interview.
rickyricardo on July 29, 2010 at 7:53 PM
He really does come across as a nice guy…a regular guy…but yeah, I agree it’s a long shot for T-Paw.
JetBoy on July 29, 2010 at 7:54 PM
Then again, who is?
Please don’t get me wrong: I think Palin is terrific. Between her, Bachmann and Brewer, they have more intestinal fortitude than all the potential R candidates combined. But the question remains, can she win in 2012?
GrannyDee on July 29, 2010 at 7:54 PM
That’s a bad thing?
*ducks and hides*
JetBoy on July 29, 2010 at 7:54 PM
Yawn. Sarah Palin he ain’t.
That’s a bad thing?
*ducks and hides*
JetBoy on July 29, 2010 at 7:54 PM
JetBoy: Ya,PawlentyCuda ain`t gonna work,haha!!:)
canopfor on July 29, 2010 at 7:56 PM
The man is a creationist. Sorry folks, but that’s a firm deal-breaker. There is simply no way, no how that I would support somebody who is that ignorant about science for any public office.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 7:57 PM
I don’t mean to be dumping on Pawlenty. He’s obviously a decent guy who seems very honest and clean cut. The kind of guy you would want managing government but not the kind of guy you want leading a battle!
Anybody going up against Obama in 2012 is going to have the fight of their lives. We cannot afford a RINO nor can we afford somebody that will run away, fall on the floor and suck their thumb when the dirt starts to fly! Pawlenty would probably be a great pick if he had an honorable opponent. We need a Patton or a Gen. Grant. Somebody who can take being called names like racist while spit is flying towards their face and dogs are biting their extended open hand. He just doesn’t give us that impression. Nice guy, yeah, probably make a great neighbor or soccer coach, but a GOP candidate fighting to save America against a communist/Fascist takeover,, sorry, doesn’t do it for me.
JellyToast on July 29, 2010 at 8:00 PM
canopfor on July 29, 2010 at 7:41 PM
=================
that’s the one, saw it on the HA main page…
that it’s huffpo just makes it funnier
cmsinaz on July 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM
cmsinaz: Yup,in big black scary letters!!:)
canopfor on July 29, 2010 at 8:01 PM
Nice guy I am sure. Fine conservative…probably. But talk about warm milk and a good nap. . .
Dan Pet on July 29, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Huckabee is my first choice-he has the most executive experience as a governor 10 1/2 years. But if he does not run, then Pawlenty would be a good alternative.
We don’t need another charismatic leader like Obama. We need someone who can get the job done.
texasconserv on July 29, 2010 at 8:08 PM
True. He can put together a coherent answer to a pointed question during a live TV interview.
rickyricardo
Dan Pet on July 29, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Huck CAN And Palin can’t?? Yeah…..ok…I buy that because Huck is out there every day bravely talking issues and rattling cages, RIGHT? Maybe we can determine if he can do it if he comes out from under his desk or out from behind the camera of his talk show.
Dan Pet on July 29, 2010 at 8:13 PM
No coronations please. Let’s have a rough-and-tumble primary and let the best man or woman win.
slickwillie2001 on July 29, 2010 at 8:13 PM
There is no guarantee the Palin is running and her negatives are still high.
But T-Paw has one advantage people may be overlooking, and that is the GOP may be poised to make serious hay in the upper midwest.
Its not enough to just win the bare minimum Bush Red states. The GOP has to make inroads into traditonal electoral Blue state. WI and MN have 20 combined EVs and his he the idioms of someone who could play well in MI too.
Could make him a strong Veep candidate if the nominated POTUS candidate wants to make a play for MN and WI.
swamp_yankee on July 29, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Interesting how the 3 candidates being bandied about this thread are all Creationists. I am certain that to nominate anyone of these or anyone else who is that ignorant of science is a certain path to defeat. Nobody aside from a fellow religious zealot would take such a candidate seriously or consider one as being in any way qualified.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:16 PM
The man is a creationist. Sorry folks, but that’s a firm deal-breaker. There is simply no way, no how that I would support somebody who is that ignorant about science for any public office.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 7:57 PM
“There are many notable biologists, biochemists, physicists, and astronomers who support intelligent design, and their work continues to develop the young scientific theory.”
I consider myself to be a pretty educated person, I have a B.S and a J.D. and the older I get the more I realize how little I really do know or understand. Would you have the same prejudice against a Buddhist or a Hindu? What about a Muslim?
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:20 PM
No that is your bigoted opinion and nothing else.
I am an atheist and could care less what their religious beliefs are. Kennedy got elected despite being a Catholic, but I am sure guys just like you were darkly warning people about ‘papists’ in his day!
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Like others have said, T-Paw’s a solid conservative (I know, he’s been my governor the last 8 years) but he isn’t gonna get people too excited. We need someone with the ‘it’ factor.
Palin obviously has it. Christie has it. Whether you agree with him or not, Ron Paul has it.
T-Paw, Romney, Jindal, Thune, and Daniels do not.
Nelsen on July 29, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Do you have any new material… we’ve heard all these talking points for months now.
Besides, she doesn’t need the MSM hacks to get her message out.
davek70 on July 29, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Can you confess your ignorance more succinctly next time?
Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 8:25 PM
Yes, I am quite sure that you consider yourself knowledgeable. You’re not.
This is not a religious prejudice on my part. I am pointing out an enormous void in the intellect of creationists that render them unfit to hold office. To believe in creationism is to be ignorant of science.
This is not just my opinion, but that of most Americans who thankfully are better informed than yourself and the candidates we are discussing. Believe what want, but when you try to pretend that your religion is science you are declaring yourself unfit for office.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:25 PM
T-Paw at CPAC 2010.
Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Opinions vary but mine is that you are an arrogant asswipe.
thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Can’t wait to suffer under your boot Mr. Stalin.
Inanemergencydial on July 29, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Since Christians believe God is actually the creator of the universe, I guess they are unfit for office as well, huh?
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:28 PM
No, only if they pretend that such belief is a scientific conclusion.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM
Opinions vary but mine is that you are an arrogant colostomy bag.
thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 8:31 PM
South St Paul is still a great place to live. I am totally behind Pawlenty. For those outside the hockey community, Tim played hockey the old fashioned way. This man is tough, he just needs to communicate it on a national level.
You are “top shelf” Tim!
jbh45 on July 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Yes, I am quite sure that you consider yourself knowledgeable. You’re not.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:25 PM
One thing that I am vastly sure of is that you are an arrogant gasbag –you have made that more than obvious by your puffed up comments. A fanatical atheist is just as obnoxious as a fanatical religious person, perhaps more so, because their fanaticism is rooted solely in their conception of themselves, whereas the religious person’s beliefs are premised upon something beyond themselves. Now stop talking. Everyone who noticed your comment has condemned it. Because it is short-sighted and stupid.
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Also for the person who mentioned it, I definitely think the GOP has a very good chance of picking up states up here in the upper midwest if we have the right candidate. MN, WI, IA, and Michigan are all becoming increasingly tired of liberals and very well could go our way next time around. Pick someone like Chris Christie and all those states are very winnable and hell, even Illinois would definitely be in play. The key those is having the right candidate. Like it or not, a lot of people up here are quite skeptical of Southerners. Choose another Southern candidate and you can pretty much chalk up MN, WI, and MI in the dem column. Choose a brash, blue collar, rust-belt type (like Christie) that’s preferably Catholic and I’d say every state from Pennsylvania to Minnesota is the GOP’s to lose.
Nelsen on July 29, 2010 at 8:33 PM
So they can believe as long as they don’t really believe? Gee thanks for allowing that generous concession!
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:33 PM
thomasaur on July 29, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Putting aside the juvenile insult, I am not pretending that science is religion, nor am I pretending that religion is science. I leave those errors to you and your candidates of choice.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:34 PM
He’s not. If Palin runs, then her opponents’ line of attack will inevitably be “she’s unelectable damaged goods” and some variation of “pretty but dumb”. Like thousands of anti-Palin comments here.
ddrintn on July 29, 2010 at 8:34 PM
^ Oh, and “quitter”.
ddrintn on July 29, 2010 at 8:35 PM
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:32 PM
There is, of course nothing fanatical about calling science science and calling religion religion. It takes a fanatic to think so.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:36 PM
So you’re advocating an anti-religious Test Act.
ddrintn on July 29, 2010 at 8:37 PM
No offense to Tim, but he played one year of JV hockey. Granted JV at a school like South St Paul back in the 70′s and 80′s is better than varsity at pretty much every other non-Minnesotan school in the country, but for him to try and pull the ‘hockey stud’ card is about as laughable as Kerry pretending to be a hunter.
Nelsen on July 29, 2010 at 8:38 PM
I am not a particularly religious person, I understand (roughly) how evolution works. It’s not a question of “supporting” it, it’s just a mechanism, and part of the history of the world.
On the other hand, your relatively extreme presentation and narrow focus on the issue certainly presents the appearance of a religious belief.
Are you absolutely certain you hold no ideas that will be proven wrong, thus marking you as “unfit for office?”
Especially since the President’s job is not to determine whether humans evolved within an ecosystem or were the result of some outside action – unless you have some plans for the Presidency you haven’t mentioned yet.
Is this really your “single issue” or is this just a marker for it? I’m curious if this is a proxy for a more controversial issue or just a general obsession with scientific correctness.
It just strikes people as odd. Everyone has areas of ignorance, some brilliant scientists have been insanely idealistic when it comes to politics, most skilled lawyers are great at making money but IMHO blithering idiots when it comes to economics.
It’s easy for someone to hold a position that’s logical to them and nonsensical to you – in fact, that would seem to be the default position in human relations.
Merovign on July 29, 2010 at 8:39 PM
No. It’s a very simple concept really. Believe whatever you want. Just don’t call what you believe to be science unless what you believe is substantiated by the scientific process.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Yeah. Anyone who doesn’t accept string theory has shown himself to be unfit for office.
ddrintn on July 29, 2010 at 8:41 PM
Likewise, don’t make acceptance of scientific theory to be some standard by which you judge someone’s ability to balance a budget. Evolution isn’t some article of faith to be “believed” anyway.
ddrintn on July 29, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Really? And by what scientific process is Darwinian evolution substantiated?
See I think Creationists are wrong, just as I think Darwinian evolutionists are full of it.
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM
Merovign on July 29, 2010 at 8:39 PM
What renders these candidates unfit for office is not whether evolution is true or creationism is true. What renders them unfit is that each and every one of them believes that creationism is science.
The issue is significant because Presidents and Congress critters and the like have a duty to advance science. They also have a duty to not establish religion. When they cannot tell the two apart they cannot possibly be relied upon to perform these duties.
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM
Ohhh….never mind. Just clicked on MJBrutus’ link to his site. So, you’re what? a lapsed Marxist Jewish atheist, right? Let me guess, you live in Queens and you’re retired from some kind of union job? Oh, well, never mind. Sorry to bother you with my silly logic. Won’t happen again. Nice pictures of your animal ‘children,’ too, BTW. Nice site. Am I your first (and only) visitor?
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM
Opener:
Closer:
I *HATE* passive aggressive whiners. Don’t offend people and then call them out as being offensive, it marks you as a hypocrite and a whiner.
Whatever presumed great qualities and talents you have, you come across here as abrasive and spoiling for a fight. Oh, and the whining.
Merovign on July 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM
There’s creationism and then there’s the 6,000-year types. Politically they are night and day, and I agree that no 6,000-year believer will ever be elected president. Let’s distinguish between the two.
slickwillie2001 on July 29, 2010 at 8:45 PM
No need to be cruel.
ddrintn on July 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
Especially since the President’s job is not to determine whether humans evolved within an ecosystem or were the result of some outside action – unless you have some plans for the Presidency you haven’t mentioned yet.
Merovign on July 29, 2010 at 8:39 PM
LOL
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM
Glad you enjoyed it :-)
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
You go on with this nonsense blissfully unaware that much of science has historically been advanced by Christian priests and believers.
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Much of it has been. So?
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
For those who are “yawning”, we have a dynamic president, voted in because he was so dynamic, and “stirred the nation”…right now I would take boring over exciting, if boring does the right thing.
Loud mouths, great speakers, great movers of people don’t impress me…real people do, that get things done do.
right2bright on July 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
Phrenology!
It’s too bad, I was looking forward to some kind of discussion on the advancement of scientific knowledge or the responsibilities of government officials, but Brutus lost me with the passive-aggressive crap.
I don’t put up with that for a SECOND from my Godchildren, and I actually *care* about them. I ain’t gonna waste my time with that 7-year-old-temper-tantrum muck from a stranger.
Merovign on July 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM
No need to be cruel.
ddrintn on July 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
Really not being cruel. Check out the guy’s site — it’s very interesting. However, I know that type and there truly is no reasoning with them. Like trying to teach a pig to sing, you know — wastes your time and annoys the pig. Still, I’ll bet you a million bucks that despite having no children of his own, he constantly hassles his local schoolboard about not being ‘secular’ enough and about how they should ban the Pledge because it mentions ‘God.’
cynccook on July 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Yeah, or my passive aggressive tendencies may surface again, and we know how much that pisses off you-know-who :-)
MJBrutus on July 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM
A lesson in posting…good lesson.
right2bright on July 29, 2010 at 8:51 PM
By what scientific process is Darwinian evolution substantiated?
So a very religious President wouldn’t have any more problem advancing science than they did historically when they believed in a sense many today do not.
sharrukin on July 29, 2010 at 8:53 PM
The lesson was mine – read all of someone’s posts on a topic before opening a discussion. It’s embarrassing to open a door and then slam it before there’s an answer, even if the slam is justified.
Merovign on July 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »