Trump’s Indy Bid?
The media is again devoting airtime to Donald Trump and the drama of his presidential conquest.
After soaking up weeks of coverage this spring with his prospective run for the GOP nomination, Trump receded from the limelight. Then, after he couldn’t get Romney to agree to join a debate he was slated to moderate, he took the opportunity to bolt. The move attracted news coverage of course, but no matter how blatant the move is as a ploy to attract attention, the media still consumes it in a frenzy.
Trump is not going to run for President. I wrote on this topic earlier this year and I think the reasons still hold. Maybe this time around, though, the coverage of the upcoming GOP caucuses and primaries will overshadow him.
You can read the article from Politico here.
Bachmann is actually going to run? It’s going to be fascinating to see how the GOP primary plays out.
On a different note, this is great news for the Democrats. Time to rev up the base!
Commentary on the Pawlenty Announcement
I’m not sure why the political universe isn’t giving Tim Pawlenty more attention.
Coming from my viewpoint as a stalwart Democrat, I think he’s been making strides that will make him the hardest GOP candidate to beat if he can make it to the general election. He is probably the most electable candidate in the GOP field so far.
Based on Pawlenty’s speech, he is definitely not positioning himself to be a champion of the right wing of the GOP establishment, and I think that’s a good move. The problem, of course, is that without the tea partiers and party activists he may not be able to make it through the primary. It’s going to be interesting to see how his campaign unfolds.
Here are some excerpts and my corresponding commentary from his twenty-minute announcement speech earlier today:
In my campaign I’m going to take a different approach, I’m going to tell you the truth. Washington D.C. is broken…President Obama doesn’t have an economic plan, he just has a campaign plan…We’ve tried President Obama’s way. And his way has failed…it’s time for a new approach.
This isn’t particularly noteworthy. As an outsider candidate running against an incumbent, he has to build an argument that he would be better than the status quo, better than the existing Administration. This is the point that is probably going to be the hardest to argue since, in my opinion at least, the Obama Administration has achieved many successes and done a decent job.
Later this week I’m going to New York City to tell Wall Street that the era of bailouts, handouts, and carve outs, are over. No more subsidies, special treatments, Fannie and Freddy, no more too big to fail.
This is a pretty appealing statement. The populist tone of this - and many of the other positions he established - will play well with virtually all voters. It’s particularly compelling because it seems to be in line with his outsider approach, which is distinct from some of the other potential candidates such as Gingrich or even Romney.
People getting paid by the taxpayers shouldn’t be getting a better deal than the taxpayers themselves…freezing federal salaries…downsizing federal workforce…pay for results…making public employees more accountable.
The way he is disguising this relatively conservative point is pretty attractive on paper. He’s not a firebrand conservative saying we need to eliminate large portions of the federal government, he’s coming across as a soft-spoken, practical, politician. This, of course, will be hard to argue in an election against the President seeing as the President already froze most federal salaries and has taken a relatively moderate position on the issue.
No card check, not now and not ever. No more taxpayer bailouts just because you made big campaign contributions to politicians.
He wants to weaken the unions. This isn’t particularly surprising.
America is facing a crushing debt crisis…we need to cut spending, and cut it big time…we need to phase out federal subsidies for ethanol…we need to change our approach to subsidies in all industries…we simply can’t afford them anymore.
This was probably the most surprising part of his speech - coming out against subsidies for ethanol, big agriculture, and other industries (although he did not mention the oil industry - I’m curious how his energy platform will shake out). I agree with the Governor that subsidies to big agriculture need to be reevaluated and I thought it was interesting that he would come out with this in a state that disproportionately relies on those subsidies - perhaps a risky political move. I was maybe even a little bit impressed.
Conventional wisdom says you can’t talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street…someone has to lead. I will…I’ll unite our Party and I’ll unite our nation.
I’m not from Washington. I grew up in Minnesota. I grew up in the hard working, blue collar town of St. Paul.
This is the outsider, straight-talk approach that I think will be an effective message for Pawlenty in the GOP primary. My bet - and his bet, too - is that this will be salient in a field of contenders that is relatively stale and closely associated with Washington in the eyes of the public.
During my eight years as governor I passed a budget that reduced state spending…I know how to do health care reform right. No mandates, no takeovers, and it’s the opposite of Obamacare…I took on the public employee unions before it was popular to do it…stood up to teacher’s unions…appointed new conservative justices…led a liberal state in a conservative direction.
He’s hitting all the notes necessary to be a realistic GOP contender - reducing spending, weakening unions, conservative SCOTUS justices. These are all litmus tests to becoming the GOP nominee, and he seems to be satisfying them here.
In 2008 President Obama told us he would change America, and he has. In 2012 we’ll change America again, and this time it will be for the better.
Pawlenty’s double-edged sword is his lack of charisma. If he wants to generate excitement and the army of volunteers and dollars that follows it, he’s going to have to improve on this front. On the other hand, however, it may prove to be a benefit because it limits his ability to polarize the electorate. His soft-spoken attitude and campaign revolving around “truth” is a good contrast to make in the GOP field (at this point).
The problem, of course, is I’m not sure the GOP electorate will buy it. I hope not, though, because I’d rather run a race against Palin, Huckabee, or Gingrich anyways.
Here’s the full video, if you want to watch.
Pawlenty is out with a pre-announcement video. Coming off the heels of the Mitch Daniels news, this is an interesting way to preempt his speech.
Finally, we see something of a campaign theme emerging for Pawlenty: truth. It’s certainly a step forward for him, although when he says lines like “empty promises” and “three years of speeches” it makes me think he’s going to continue the run-of-the-mill GOP campaign he’s been running thus far.
Also, I can’t help but feel odd and awkward when he says “We need a President who understands that our problems are deep and who has the courage to face them. President Obama doesn’t. I do.” Pawlenty as a courageous President? Really?
I - and I’m sure many others - don’t associate his name with courage and this innate ability to tackle the problems we face, which is one of his major vulnerabilities. Someone like Romney, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily suffer from the question of competency. At least in the mainstream psyche.
