Pawlenty Praises Obama's Positive Message

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:36:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Didn't Gov. Tim Pawlenty get the memo? Republicans aren't supposed to praise Barack Obama. They're supposed to mock him while misleading people about his positions.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, often mentioned as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, said Wednesday GOP candidates would do well to adopt a positive tone like that of McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama.
"Say what you will about Barack Obama," the Minnesota Republican told a conservative group, "people gravitate when you have something positive to say."

Why has Pawlenty gone off-message? Did John McCain tell him he won't be the VP candidate? Was he referring to McCain when he followed up with "They don't want to follow some negative, scornful person"?

< Why Obama Is A Shoo In, And How He Can Win A Landslide | Federal Judge Upholds Denver Convention Protest Zone >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pawlenty Praises Obama's Positive Message | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

That's pretty funny. (5.00 / 0) (#1)
by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:41:00 PM EST

McCain will select a woman (5.00 / 0) (#2)
by ChuckieTomato on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:55:39 PM EST

for VP.

I become more convinced every day.


Any prominent Republican named Hillary? (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:57:30 PM EST

: No. (none / 0) (#25)
by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:03:40 AM EST

I'm sure of it. (none / 0) (#38)
by nemo52 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST

and if Obama does not?


Ouch... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Platypus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST

The vengeance-for-not-being-chosen-as-VP theory seems plausible given the sheer bluntness of the quote...

OK that was really funny (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by waldenpond on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:14:35 PM EST

He praised Obama, dissed his party and made fun of age. I know that some possibles have been avoiding being VP, but I think this is the worst so far. ha!

Actually (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:42:27 PM EST

Strickland gave the best "I don't wanna be your VP" response EVAH!

Asked on NPR's "All Things Considered" if he is auditioning to be Obama's running mate, Strickland said, "Absolutely not. If drafted I will not run, nominated I will not accept and if elected I will not serve.

So, I don't know how more crystal clear I can be."


Not very original however (5.00 / 0) (#21)
by flyerhawk on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:31:59 AM EST

: Shermanesque (none / 0) (#23)
by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:00:40 AM EST

I know...but I can dig it.

Mo Udall (none / 0) (#29)
by DemForever on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 08:44:23 AM EST

If nominated I will flee to Mexico, if elected I will fight extradition


Actually it's on-message for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by stefystef on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:57:29 AM EST

McCain has been staying away from the race issue and sees his ads as "humorous", not attacks.

It is smart for the Republicans to start talking about positive campaigning, while hitting below the belt. You can say nice things about Obama without supporting him or voting for him.

That's what will happen in November. No one will say a bad thing about Obama, but they won't vote for him either. Too many Dems are too confident about Obama. If McCain keeps gaining speed, it is not going to be pretty in Nov.

: McCain isn't gaining speed. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by IndiDemGirl on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:03:42 AM EST

He's running in place.

: Allow me to paraphrase your line: (none / 0) (#28)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:23:45 AM EST

No one would say a bad thing about Obama, but they didn't vote for him either.
Put it in past tense and see if it's what is said in November. Very perceptive.

Up is down, down is up this election (none / 0) (#6)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:17:12 PM EST

cycle. You can't be sure of anything.

Upside Down (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:45:35 PM EST

hey you turn me, inside out, and round and round!
Sorry, having a Diana Ross moment and I couldn't resist!!!

How much of this kinda stuff are we going to be subjected to this election cycle? If neither party is happy with their nominee how the heck did it get to this place?

Oh yeah, the complicit media.


Up came down a year ago in his state (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:48:31 PM EST

with the bridge collapse. Just passed its anniversary. Lots of remembrance again -- including of Pawlenty's role in slashing state budgets for maintenance of infrastructure.

And the Twin Cities are Obaman. So this actually is Pawlenty saying not only that he's not gonna be the VP pick but that he wants a third term as governor. (It has been quite a topic there, and he has not committed yet. Until now, I think.)


I see....thanks for the insight. (none / 0) (#14)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:54:23 PM EST

: Yah, ya betcha, as dey say (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM EST

in Minnesuta dere -- and here, nearby, where many of us love the Twin Cities, too, and traveled that bridge often. And, of course, there were deaths from my state, too. So we followed it closely.
Sometimes we seem to forget that not everything is about national elections. None of these pols, none of the superdelegates, is running for a national election. They have to face us back home.
So I can hardly wait for my Congresswoman to come back up for re-election. I donated to her for years and worked hard for her even when I was not in her district, so as to get her to the level to run for Congress. I worked hard for her to get funding from EMILY's List and support from NARAL, both organizations to which I have donated even longer. Not any more. They went for the razzle dazzle instead of sticking to their issues -- and these are local issues greatly contested here.
So I hope that my Congresswoman is contested, too. Senator Clinton helped her along the way, too -- but as soon as a big-city guy from Chicago beckoned, my Congresswoman went south.

Hmmmm (none / 0) (#7)
by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST

I don't trust ANY politician out there. MN is a pretty solid Dem state in presidential elections. This is some kind of baiting. To what degree I dunno. Comments like this can't be taken at face value. There's something else afoot. Someone else who is more astute than me hazard to guess what that might be?

See above (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:51:40 PM EST

my comment #12. Context matters. Context in Minnesota, and especially the Twin Cities, is the bridge collapse.

Amazing local media website has had millions of hits and no abating yet -- actually an upswing with last week's anniversary. That reminded us that Republican tax cuts can cost many lives.


It bothers me (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:50:10 AM EST

that Democrats don't try to make more of arguments like that. I mean, on a national level. It's like, the GOP runs around saying that Democrats want the terrorists to win and that 9/11 was all Bill Clinton's fault, and we're afraid to point out that tax cuts make bridges fall down because, I dunno, it's rude or something.

One of these days Democrats will start actually making arguments for the stuff we believe in. One of these days...


I agree (none / 0) (#32)
by eric on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST

When our bridge collapsed, I thought, "finally, they are going to HAVE to do something about transportation funding - Pawlenty wouldn't DARE veto more funding now". Believe it or not, I was wrong.

Even after the collapse, Pawlenty refused to increase funding for transportation. In part, this was because people seemed to shy away from using the collapse against him. Fortunately, the veto was overridden.

I am not sure of the psychology behind it. Maybe it is the fear that we are using some kind of tragedy for political purposes. But republicans do it just fine. Why dems don't is a mystery.


: And his patronage appointment (none / 0) (#34)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST

for oversight of infrastructure haunts him, too.
Love your city/ies, Eric. Was there this summer, on the U of M campus, where the detritus of the bridge was taken for the ongoing investigation. Looking at the twisted steel . . . it brought back the horror.

As some of us here in Minnesota say (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by eric on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:07:11 AM EST

"No new taxes = bridge collapses".

People want to believe it was some flaw in the bridge, but the truth is, the republican governors of this state have starved the dept. of transportation. They don't maintain anything. And they knew that bridge was in trouble going back to at least 1993. Repair or replacement was delayed and delayed some more for lack of funds.


Or poor construction (none / 0) (#18)
by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:12:40 AM EST

of a bridge. NOT defending the r's Cream but it is what it is. I remember the horror of that on television playing out. A VERY dear friend had just moved back to Mpls/SP. I remember getting a text from her that she was okay but she did indeed cross that bridge daily for work.


See Eric from Minnesota above (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:52:56 AM EST

And I don't just pull this out of my chapeau. I've followed this quite closely in the Twin Cities press, and everything points to problems with maintenance. But if you have read otherwise, and in the local press that knows the story best -- and has shown what good journalistic investigation still can be, especially when combined with new technologies in what is now a model for the media online industry -- please feel free to share.


: Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by eric on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:15:19 AM EST

while the NTSB investigation isn't complete, it is very obvious that funding was a major factor in this collapse. Repair and replacement was continually delayed. There really is quite a sad story behind all of the shortcuts that the dept. of transportation had to take under these republican administrations in Minnesota.
Not that I expect anyone to read this whole thing, but a law firm here in Minneapolis was hired by the legislature to do an investigation of the dept. of transportation and the bridge collapse. It isn't a forensic investigation in the scientific sense, it is a report on how things were done (and not done) at MnDot and with regard to that bridge.
LINK There is a big PDF there, for anyone who want to read 84 pages + appendices.
Noteworthy is the section starting on page 63, "Funding consideration influenced decisions about the Bridge". In short, they delayed and delayed and even when they knew they had to do something, they decided to merely overlay the deck of the bridge in 2007. Ultimately, the 2007 work probably triggered the collapse. They weren't even going to think about replacing this bridge until 2022!

: Not only that (none / 0) (#39)
by reslez on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:19:45 PM EST

but two weeks ago we had a 6-foot chunk of concrete from the Maryland Ave bridge over I-35E fall and hit a car. It weight 1200 lbs. MNDOT says the salt we use on our roads degrades the concrete--it was known the bridge had problems with that--but it's still structurally sound.
I dunno. I feel like ducking whenever I drive over or under a bridge now. Thank goodness our state legislature overrode that veto.

One Theory... (none / 0) (#15)
by Pianobuff on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST

can be found

Good cop Bad cop (none / 0) (#10)
by dianem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:44:45 PM EST

Normally the VP is the hit guy and the Presidential candidate is the nice guy. Could they be trying something different?

Trying Again... (none / 0) (#16)
by Pianobuff on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:56:24 PM EST

Not used to formatting... Try this for one theory.

I wondered (none / 0) (#17)
by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:59:06 PM EST

why your comment/link was deleted (probably the URL was too long)

It was a GREAT find! I tiny url'd it for us.

http://tinyurl.com/6hok3w

FTR, this was a link responding to MY question about the motivation behind praising Barack Obama by a republican.


I like that theory! (none / 0) (#19)
by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:23:30 AM EST

It sure sounds like they are doing that exact thing.

I didn't see the Celeb ad or "the One" ad as being as "negative advertising." There was something different about them that actually served to promote Obama rather than knock him down. (Perhaps "over-promote" Obama would be a better way of putting it.)


: That (none / 0) (#20)
by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:31:42 AM EST

theory was mentioned on TL yesterday. Overexposure: kills celebrities dead.

His intended audience, I think (none / 0) (#24)
by Ben Masel on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:48:19 AM EST

was downballot Repoublicans. If so, the intent was simply good advice.

Hey TChris... (none / 0) (#26)
by JimWash08 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:01:16 AM EST

would it have been too much to finish quoting the whole paragraph?

``Say what you will about Barack Obama,'' the Minnesota Republican told a conservative group, ``people gravitate when you have something positive to say.'' He added that McCain has been positive as well.

But, I can see what was the newsy part of the story.

And after reading Cream City's theory, it makes the comment all the more clearer.

You think you've got problems? (none / 0) (#37)
by eric on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:47:26 AM EST

We've got Pawlenty!

That's another silly thing that people put on t-shirts here.