My early endorsement of Tim Pawlenty gave the candidate a much-needed boost in name recognition, fundraising ability, and media credibility.* So it pains me to say that T-Paw may be blowing it.
The politics here are pretty simple. Pawlenty needs to establish himself as a mainstream alternative to Mitt Romney. Where is Romney vulnerable? Three areas: (1) Massachusetts health care reform; (2) his reputation for pandering; and (3) his generally stiff demeanor.
Let's take these in reverse order.
There's not much T-Paw can do with Romney's stiffness, other than this: "I may be boring, but at least it's a genuine boringness." That doesn't really inspire.
As for Romney's reputation for pandering, Pawlenty seemed to be on the right track here when he announced "truth telling" as a major theme of his campaign. But just a couple of weeks later he came out with an economic plan whose deficit projections are based on 5% annual growth. When confronted with the fact that we didn't even hit 5% in the go-go 80s and 90s, Pawlenty says, "I'm not gonna sit here while you badmouth America." Then critics say, "We're not badmouthing America, we're badmouthing you." Pawlenty says, "Well, the 5% is really just a goal." Then critics say, "Rather than building your economic plan around a fantasy--er, 'goal'--why not build it around a more realistic number? Then if it turns out we actually DO hit the goal, all the extra revenue is gravy!" T-Paw says, "I think we can hit the goal."
This is just Pawlenty telling us what he thinks we want to hear. We've already got Romney for that, so who needs T-Paw?
Finally, if Pawlenty really objects to what Romney did with health care in Massachusetts, he needs to stand up and make the case...not try to weasel out of it like Nathan Thurm.
So, T-Paw, if you want to keep my endorsement, no more unforced errors, okay?
*Not really.
Comments