The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza makes a
good point about Tim Pawlenty and the Republican presidential
race more generally:
Pawlenty isn’t likely to be the first choice of any of the GOP’s
disparate interest groups but there is also no group that is
adamantly opposed to the idea of him as the nominee. And, a look
back at the last two Republican presidential nominees - George W.
Bush and John McCain - reveals that the party tends to pick the
person who is able to appeal to the broadest number of
constituencies within the party rather than the person who embodies
the ideal pick of a single constituency group.
There are some conservatives concerned primarily with
environmental policy who do adamantly oppose Pawlenty, but I’m not
sure how large this group will be. But for right now, Pawlenty does
seem to be the nominee many conservatives could live with even
though very few are passionately in favor of him. That is one way
in which Pawlenty is in line with Republican nominating habits.
Steven Ertelt| 3.22.11 @ 5:20PM
Pawlenty will likely receive strong support from pro-life voters and groups. He has one of the strongest records on life issues.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/0.....president/
JPM| 3.22.11 @ 5:20PM
McCain didn't win because he had broad appeal. He was, in fact, broadly disliked in the Republican Party. The only thing he had going for him was the support of a single faction -- veterans. He won because nobody else had any significant base of support at all. A small base trumps no base every time.
Bush was a consensus choice and his example might provide a model for Pawlenty, if Obama's predecessor had been Pawlenty Sr. Bush had a network of ready-made support within the Party that Pawlenty cannot duplicate.
Pawlenty's candidacy is a nonstarter. It will serve no purpose other than to boost his book sales.
Floyd Looney | 3.22.11 @ 5:40PM
I am adamantly opposed to all of the potential candidates except for Palin and Bachmann at the moment
Occam's Tool| 3.22.11 @ 6:17PM
Hey, Floyd---what about the possibility of Allen West or John Bolton? But I would love Palin or Bachmann. For Bachmann I would definitely Turn her to Overdrive.
Michael L. Hauschild| 3.22.11 @ 6:21PM
You ain't seen nothin yet.................
Floyd Looney | 3.22.11 @ 6:51PM
Bolton just basically called for boots on the ground in Libya. I would have to say no, plus his mustache would scare women and children.
I think Allen West is to new to be considered for the White House.
I was wrong earlier, I would probably have to consider Herman Cain though.
Hook| 3.22.11 @ 11:36PM
The most important thing is to get this incompetent young man out of office who has the most incoherent foreign policy in history.
His medical program is a catastrophe already ie 1000 waivers granted!!!!
Actually we need to make the election about Obama and we need Palin and Bachmann to campaign and bring in their constituencies. Personally, they are too polarizing.
Daniels or Pawlenty will be the strongest. Romney's Mormonism will kill him with a portion of the electorate.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 3.23.11 @ 1:34AM
Daniels is a strident liberal who, luckily for America stands zero chance of getting elected.
Derek Leaberry| 3.23.11 @ 8:09AM
Pawlenty's chief virtues are that he is not Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul or Jeb Bush.