A couple of points ought to be made in response to this interview Tim Pawlenty had over the weekend with ABC News, particularly in regards to the 6:40-8:00 mark.
Pawlenty is growing as a candidate, and it’s evident here the kind of tone and storyline he’s going to take within this election.
The connection with the “congress which lectures us on how they’re for the poor” is well done, and not something others would’ve thought to make.
There’s also a storyline here which is really powerful and fits into complaints from moderate Democrats (and Bill Gates): teachers unions owning the president and his party, leaving people ill-prepared for the economy of the future, creating wards of the state. It fits into everything Mike Rowe has been saying about America’s shrinking skilled economy and lack of training. This criticism cuts across party lines.
What’s more, there’s a brief flash of frustration and anger in the leadup to Amanpour’s question about “passion” that is the first time we’ve seen his hockey player side. His biggest problem as a candidate is going to be overcompensating for his middle American niceness and smile with genuine toughness and not petulance. He needs to hit the right authentic note, and this seems like it.
If Pawlenty stands at a podium and says to Obama “Why did you do this to DC schoolchildren? What did they ever do to you? Or is it about what the teachers unions did for you?” then I think he wins. It’s an underrated skill in politics to be able to twist a knife with a smile. Other guys can do it with a scowl, a glower, or a smirk – Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney come to mind – but most people will dislike them even when they agree with the argument. Pawlenty has the opportunity, if he refines this tone and message, to win the argument and the voter.
