GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
The Wall Street Journal notes that the anticipated Obama VP announcement will probably not happen this week or even next…
Barack Obama and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh appeared at a campaign rally together Wednesday, stoking conjecture that the Hoosier senator may be asked to join the ticket as Obama’s running mate.
But with speculation nearing a fever pitch over who he will pick to round out the Democratic presidential ticket, campaign officials soaked the ground with cold water, at least regarding timing.
Obama won’t be tipping his hand for running mate this week, one campaign official said, and he won’t do it next week either, at least not while he’s vacationing with his family in Hawaii. That vacation ends Aug. 16, giving Obama about a week and a half to make a decision in advance of the Democratic convention.
There has been speculation for some time that this would be the week Obama would make his decision, on the theory that he wouldn’t want to risk being upstaged by the Olympic Games in Beijing. Among the lead proponents of this theory: employees of NBC, which is televising the games.
The soothing words from the campaign that a decision isn’t imminent didn’t placate edgy reporters, some of whom camped out late Tuesday in the lobby of the Elkhart motel where Obama was staying, on the off-chance that Bayh might show up in a black limousine.
Further stoking speculation that Bayh is the one: the film crew that routinely shoots video for Obama campaign ads were spotted at the Elkhart event.
So much for the pre-Olympic announcements.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
What did you expect? By pulling almost-stunts like these, he only builds anticipation.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
So, we can now re-speculate on who Obama will pick and Greg can start asking, “When will McCain announce?”
August 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
When you have the media pulling a Monica Lewinsky on you, you can pull as many of these stunts as you like and they’ll keep coming back for more.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
And “so if it’s [insert prospective Obama VP] here what will our vp be facing in the debate?”
August 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Actually, most likely question from greg:
“if i were walking through the slums of of bangkok what kind of weapon would i need to fend [bayh/kaine/sebelius/etc] off? are we talking knife or like some weird throwing star thing or what?”
August 6th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
It’s gonna be Clinton. He’s going to have a bunch of looooooong talks with his wife and closest allies while he’s on vacation. He’ll end up swallowing his pride and recognizing that he couldn’t pull away by himself.
Transform the nation with your enemy or keep your pride and fall just short? Where will the DFA branch of the party be when Obama loses with Kaine?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
A Clinton choice would be a scary prospect.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
People that I have been talking to over the past couple of weeks have been implying that McCain prefers a later announcement, consolidating the media blitz that he is going to get from the convention and not unlike the surge strategy, he intends to focus all of his energy on one specific time and place for maximum impact (code name: “concentration). This strategy also allows him to see who Obama chooses and to strategize accordingly.
Onto my plan (code name: “American Idol/Veep”)
One plan that I have advocated that would be innovative and exciting (but a plan that I see no enthusiasm for on the part of the campaign) would be for Sen. McCain to announce his final shortlist down to three or four names prior to the convention and have each choice “try out” as it were with a prime time speech at the convention and then have America vote on McCain’s Veep from these choices. I realize that on first glance that this idea may sound gimmicky and trite but think about how much excitement and involvement that such a rollout would generate - it would totally be an outside of the box way of reinvigorating an old, dying tradition of the modern day Convention. This would add suspense and get the country involved and discussing McCain’s campaign - you couldn’t buy advertising and media exposure like that.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I’ve been wondering why people have expected early announcements. Traditionally, the VP pick comes no more than a couple weeks before the convention, and occasionally at the convention.
The calendar is confused a bit by the Olympics, perhaps, but still, there’s no good argument I can think of for making a very early pick (and certainly no argument for McCain picking before Obama).
Now is an OK time for Obama to select, as is any time from now to the convention. I really don’t see the Olympics as being a stopper — I can’t imagine the media would pay more attention to Games being played twelve timezones away than to a VP pick.
(I liked the reference in the article to NBC’s feelings — NBC is rightly concerned that the VP pick would overshadow the Games, rather than the other way around).
August 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
McCain should announce Palin this week and discombobulate the entire Obama campaign.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I’ll have to agree it will be Hillary. I hope not, because imho, she will be the toughtest to beat.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
#10:
Absolutely not. McCain should wait until the very last minute. That way, he can be sure he thought it through
completely. Besides the extra time lets the campaign prepare for whatever dirty laundry a running mate might have.
The campaign also doesn’t want to show it’s cards too early. Obama has to pick first, and McCain can have a week
to take that into account.
My prediction: August 31st, the day before the GOP convention opens, McCain announces his running mate, generates some
excitement, and comes out of the convention having erased whatever bounce Obama might have gotten out of his.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I agree with Jonathan that McCain should wait until Aug 31st or even September 1st and open up the convention with a bang announcing Minnesota’s favorite son Tim Pawlenty VP, now that will generate buzz and reduce the Obama bounce!
And no way Obama chooses Clinton as his VP. For one his wife hates the life out of her and two Obama supporter’s will go crazy b/c he’s suppose to be the politician of the future, not the Clinton baggage past. So no way, mark my words it will definitely be Joe Biden so he can help Obama with his foreign policy lackness.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
if its hilary, dont be surprised if obama suffers a tragic and untimeley death in 2009….
August 6th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I’m interested in knowing what the rest of you think about Pawlenty’s and Palin’s praise for Obama!
August 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I hope you’re right Bryan, and its not Clinton, but I’m pretty positive she would be harder to beat than with Biden on the ticket.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I don’t think Obama is gonna pick Bayh because it would be an open seat in the senate that for sure republicans will win.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
insert ‘if’ its not Clinton on #16.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
#15:
It is crazy like a fox. By complementing him on taking the high road, they try to make him have a higher standard.
When he inevitably gets off that pedestal, they can go after him easier.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
My opinions aside folks, if it’s Obama - Hillary, don’t think you are going anywhere with McCain-Pawlenty
August 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I am not overly happy that Mr. Pawlenty praised Mr. Obama, but then again, Mr. McCain himself praise Mr. Obama. I guess they are going by the words are honey theory.
On another note, all things being equal, I’m not sure Mrs. Clinton is actually the best choice for VP_. Sh is not well liked west of the Mississippi.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I am interested as to why you say this Craig.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Ohio Joe,
Craig has previously articulated the belief that Vice Presidents must be ludicrously well-known before being selected. Like Dick Cheney, who was briefly a Defense Secretary a decade before his selection (pop quiz: without looking it up, name two of Clinton’s Defense Secretaries) and a former Congressman. Or Al Gore, an obscure Southern Senator, who’s claim to fame was a furtive run for President 4 years earlier. Or Dan Quayle, an obscure Indiana Senator. Or Walter Mondale, an obscure Minnesota Senator.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I am VERY irritated by the Pawlenty praise for Obama.
Since we have such a suck-up, milque-toast GOP Presidential nominee, shouldn’t we at least have an attack dog for the VP candidate, so we all don’t have to get drunk to vote for the McCain ticket?
August 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
24. Here’s a plausible explanation: http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2008/08/what-f-are-they-thinking.html
August 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Marybeth,
Pawlenty has also said things like “voting for Barack Obama is the political equivalent of bunjee jumping”, he’s jeered at his tire gauge proposal, even bringing a tire gauge along to heighten the effect, and he’s attacked Obama for refusing to lead on any issue of significance. All within the last week. Admitting that many Americans see Obama’s message as “hopeful”, when his entire campaign theme is “HOPE” and his best-selling biograsphy is called “The Audacity of Hope” is “praise” only in the most convoluted sense of the word. But, frankly, this is one of Pawlenty’s best traits; he can attack you, but offer enough “nice guy” meaningless comments, to avoid seeming like a jerk. Neither Romney or Clinton could manage this. Both severely damaged their opponents through attacks, but saw their negatives rise in the process. Reagan, in contrast, could attack, crack a joke or offer a bit of sincere sounding praise, and walk away unscathed. Huckabee also had this for most of primary; to the very end, most voters liked Huckabee personally, despite the increasingly negative campaign he ran.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
On the Republican side, Pawlenty praises Obama’s positive message now. What is he doing?
August 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Yikes, I’d rather see pawlenty praise Hillary Clinton.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I totally disagree that most voters liked Huckabee personally - most saw through his increasingly juvenile behavior, and he is a populist with liberal tendencies. In contrast, most voters liked Reagan personally; he articulate conservative principles with a smile on his face.
And no one saw Reagan as mean & petty - while many people see Huckabee that way.
However you want to spin this, most people will hear that Pawlenty praised Obama. Just what we all need.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
But it is a tad jarring to see potential VPs offering unsolicited praise.
I must admit I was also taken aback by Palin’s press release the other day on Obama’s energy plan. I know it was mainly geared towards his references to Alaska, but it seemed to be out of place.
I attribute it mainly to local politics in that case, though.
But once is probably enough.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Whether or not he can seem like a nice guy doesn’t matter - in a tight race, the LAST thing you do is admire traits of your opponent, and say that your party needs to act more like the person you disguise - and if you do do that, you don’t do it publically, where the press will pick it up.
Its just like Palin praising Obama’s rebate proposal.
Anyway, Its going to be a topic on my show tonight - if anyone wants to listen/call. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/act-cast
August 6th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
It would have been a great deal more helpful to McCain if Pawlenty offered this same praise to Hillary Clinton for bringing hope to women. He could have made the same point using Clinton which would probably benefit McCain by reaching out to Clinton supporters.
Say what you want, but I think this was a bad move.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I think that we need to develop some strong contrast ads knocking the tire gauge proposal.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
By the way, Governor Pawlenty - word to the wise: it’s not a good idea to praise Obama because he’ll use your words in his campaign commercials.
Same for McCain.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
#32,
“I think that we need to develop some strong contrast ads knocking the tire gauge proposal.”
Ann Coulter had a good one. She proposed fixing our health & medical crisis by asking everyone to eat an apple a day. I about busted a rib laughing at that one.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I just don’t see this playing Mr./Mrs. nice guy to the opponent. They are literally praising him for being such a nice guy when he is constantly changing positions and lieing.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
cwpete,
I missed that. Is Coulter back on board with Senator McCain? I know she got kind of down on him during the primary. I hope that she made ammends cause McCain could use her on the trail.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Palin also questioned obama on how he was going to pay for his plan.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
JA,
She’s not on board with Senator McCain 100%, she still is down on him. She is always good for a witty zinger..
August 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
And obama stole the rebate idea from palin, what was she supposed to say? The democrats threatened to veto her bill, so she is using obama against members of his own party in Alaska. Act, you should mention this on your show, so everyone knows there were politics behind her statement, as reading this site peopleDo not take the time to conduct research before typing.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Ohio Joe,
Simple. 20-30 % of Clinton’s supporters said they would not vote for Obama and they might/would vote for McCain. A Obama-hillary ticket would probably hold most of these making McCain’s task very difficult indeed. A down side of course would be that the voters might be “overwhelmed” by a Black and Female ticket.But I think Clinton would probably add 5-6 generic points to an Obama spread. So, out of the convention at 10-12 down means a bounce of + 15 %, maybe. Not necessarily a loss, just more difficult with too VERY media savvy politicians. Run that against McCain and n unknown and bland VP and you are at a huge disadvantage, I think.
Matthew,
I never said “ludicrously well known”. Ludicrous is humorous. Humorously well know is not the same as well vetted and well tempered in a national campaign. Dick Cheney was ” briefly ” well known? He was Defense Secretary during the first Gulf War when Colin Powell was directing the war. He was also WH Chief of Staff. Yes, Mondale was obscure. So was Jimmy Carter. Not such a great analogy for this year is it, since Carter won? Bill Cohen was one of Clinton’s Defense Secretaries, wasn’t he? Don’t remember the others. So what ?
My argument is that it takes time to introduce a less well know candidate to the voters. There is less time this year than there has ever been and it looks like the candidates will use an inordinate amount of time before they introduce their VP’s. That’s O.K. with Hillary. That’s NOT O.K. with Pawlenty or Cantor or Fiorina or Smith or Portman or Thune or, on and on and on. In a national campaign they may make mistakes dealing with the media or the voters or issues or logistics. It is a NATIONAL campaign. There is no time to correct. And no one knows HOW these folks would handle a national campaign. That is not Ludicrous, it is not even funny. It is risky .. and a Clinton will take that kind of mistake and drive it through your heart.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
LCR - Regardless of WHY she is doing it, for a Republican - particularly one thought to be a rising Conservative star, and a candidate for the Vice Presidency - to praise the nominee of the OTHER PARTY, is not good.
…as for the rebate idea - it was her Idea to throw a big tax on corporations? If it was, I don’t want anything to do with Palin. If it wasn’t, then she shouldn’t be praising the idea - because it is the tax that is the central idea to the plan - Obama gets to act like a Robbin Hood, taking from the big-bad oil companies.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Act, he plan was to use local revenue, surplus from high energy costs to pay for the plan. I figured you would defend her as many of the attacks against romney were based on similar reasons, looking out for your state first as governor? I am surprised by your response.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Act, palin was also was critical of obama for not paying for his rebate idea. You seem blinded by you support of romney to even consider logic.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
No, I am well aware that Palin criticized the tax idea. But if she thinks that it would EVER happen under Obama if he had to cut spending or something else…
The fact is, we have, in the last week, had two potential Veeps praise Obama. Palin on the rebate idea, Pawlenty on being “positive” - you can bet that if either get named as VP, their words would get taken out of context (or in T-Paw’s case, IN CONTEXT), and put in an ad. Think about it, “even the Republican VP supports Obama’s energy proposal” or “even the Republican VP praised Obama on his message of hope an change.”
I think T-Paw seriously damaged his chances. I think Palin’s chances ended when she landed in the middle of an investigation.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
This is all very cute, but also very wrong. It’s perhaps hard for rabid partisans like us to understand this, but casual voters judge a candidate in part by his authenticity, and they sense that there is something fundamentally inauthentic about an agenda or a posture that is fundamentally partisan. If a politician says “we have all the right answers, the opposition is the devil in all respects” the casual voter has a tendency to say “well, that seems a little simplistic, and that person seems like some sort of hack”. Fortunately, most politicians recognize this fact, and incorporate it into their campaigns. Thus the traditional opening “I respect Senator X, and he’s a great American in many respects, but he’s fundamentally wrong on…”. Thus, the persistence of rhetorical triangulation; Bill Clinton denouncing Sister Souljah, McCain denouncing Robertson et al in 2000, etc. It’s a way to project moderation, without actually conceding anything of substance, and it’s front and center in the handbook of every thinking politician. Obama has been a near master of this, with his tendency to say things like “there are strong passions on both sides, and some thoughtful people leading the debates” or any of his other artful, non-committal, sincere sounding dodges.
This tactic is something that columnists learn as well. Why do you suppose I was never given the “Romneybot” label here, despite supporting Romney since September 2006? Because, I recognized that there was persuasive value, on a site full of diverse commenters with varying passions, to acknowledging the positive traits of other candidates. I was careful to trumpet Rudy’s marvelous achievements in NYC, McCain’s political courage, etc.
By doing so, I made myself more credible to supporters of those candidates and to undecideds. But, I never conceded anything of significance. I never denied my stark opposition to Rudy’s support for abortion rights or McCain’s almost dizzying lack of ideological coherence. I conceded a few of their strengths, so that I wasn’t tuned out by every non-Romney supporter, and I chose to do battle on more vulnerable territory.
This is how you win arguments; this is the only way you win arguments, when you’re faced a diverse electorate, with a variety of interests, and reasonably loose principles. You make yourself credible by conceding a periphery strength of the opposition like, for instance, “Obama sounds positive”, whereupon every potential Obama supporter begins to view you with a bit of newfound respect, and then you precede to mine his real vulnerabilities.
Thus, McCain’s ongoing message, which has finally burgeoned into mockery, that Obama is “exciting, but not ready to lead”. Tenative Obama supporters largely accept the first premise, and are wavering on the second. Again, this is a fundamental principle of debate. Broaden the number of people willing to listen to you through conceding non-essential points, then try to reinforce doubts on essential points. Pawlenty’s move is far from stupid. He casts himself, to a public that barely knows him, as a reasonable figure, which then allows him to more credibly undermine Obama.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I posted part of this blog on another thread today, but here’s the whole blog by DJ Tablesauce at thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com (I would link it, but the post doesn’t show up):
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
What the f#%$&* are they thinking!?!?!?
“The past two days we’ve come across articles/stories about Republican Governors praising Sen. Obama. Why? The gut reaction would be that these Governors clearly are breaking from the McCain team and going off-message. Some surely will write that these Governors are hurting their chances to become VP and that they better play ball. Some will say that McCain’s campaign needs to get the GOP message under control.
The Governors? Sarah Palin of Alaska and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. These two also happen to be two of the top three favorites to get McCain’s VP nod on Intrade.com.
Here is what Palin had to say on Tuesday:
“I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska’s natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs,” Palin says in the release. “The steps taken by the Alaska State Legislature this past week demonstrate that we are ready, willing and able to supply the energy our nation needs.”
And an article about what Pawlenty had to say today:
“Pawlenty said that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan had ideas, but he added that in recent years, ‘The Republican idea factory has seen a little stagnant.’
Pawlenty offered positive comments about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, saying ‘people gravitate when you have something positive to say.’”
Now the question is, why do we have two serious candidates for the VP nomination saying good things about Obama at a point when McCain has had his opponent on the ropes?
McCain’s people know the celebrity ad worked (1,687,677 views on youtube can’t be wrong). A good chunk of swing voters clearly were getting sick of Obama and this strategy finally put them over the edge…but these few voters will only stay away from Obama if McCain pulls them to his side.
So what does the McCain campaign do? They show GOPers as the good guys willing to play ball with the other side. This is a message that hits home with swing voters. They are hitting a couple singles to test the message with higher profile Governors working the message as discussed above…and McCain will now hit the swing voters with ads focusing on his independence from the Party line.
In other words: These two speaking out at this specific time about Obama was completely coordinated by the McCain campaign.
Glad to see the campaign running on all cylinders and with momentum into the media slowdown that will be the Olympics.
Awesome.”
*****
I don’t know about all of you, but I don’t want my VP to be a “yes man/woman”.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
45. “This is how you win arguments; this is the only way you win arguments, when you’re faced a diverse electorate, with a variety of interests, and reasonably loose principles. You make yourself credible by conceding a periphery strength of the opposition like, for instance, “Obama sounds positive”, whereupon every potential Obama supporter begins to view you with a bit of newfound respect, and then you precede to mine his real vulnerabilities.”
Ding! Ding! Ding!
August 6th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
#45: You beat me to it. That’s exactly what I was taught in high school debate class (it’s that basic a concept): Start by conceding a point or two to the opponent, and then hit him on his core argument.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
BobH,
I’ve never taken a debate class, or a logic class, or rhetorics class, and it’s obvious to me. I had to a debate on health-care, defending a position I abhored, in college a few years ago, and I won nearly unanimously by applying this strategy.
And I’m always surprised when otherwise intelligent people believe that it’s somehow a persuasive strategy to say “X is the devil” to a group of people who aren’t at all sure how they feel about X, or who have mixed feelings. Something like 69% of Americans think Obama is more likeable then McCain. Something like 70% think he’s more likely to bring change.
And yet McCain’s still virtually tied, because a large portion of those voters- people who confess that Obama is exciting, likeable, and offering a different sort of course- also sense that this isn’t nearly enough. McCain can’t win them over by insisting that Obama isn’t exciting, or likable, or trying to project a hopeful image; it’s laughable to pretend that Obama isn’t exciting when he’s filling 75,000 seats in stadiums. But, he can win them by joining them in their sense of Obama’s strengths, while reinforcing their belief that these strengths aren’t nearly enough. To their everlasting credit, the McCain camp has finally realized this.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
And if you look at Palin’s statement, it’s pretty much a sop to local politics and Alaska issues, not really supportive in any real way.
Also, I think it’s a bit of a slap at McCain because for all his support of off shore drilling, he’s still stubbornly refuses to budge on his prostine wilderness of ANWR, or really mention Alaska.
But I agree that in general, it’s not a good idea for GOP governors to go out of their way to praise Obama.
Especially to put out a separate press release for it. It’s one thing if she was asked offhand or something, but to be deliberate and put out a thought out and planned release is puzzling, to say the least.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Palin’s statement can pretty be interpreted as “Well, it’s about time!” She couldn;t exactly ignore the fact that Obama had been plugging her gasline plan (while his supporters are launching withchunt against her in AK and he’s started using her old campaign slogan “New Energy for Alaska/America”…I know that might be a coincidence, but it’s still infuriating.)
And on the issue of the Dem veepstakes, I think Bayh is on the list, but not yet declared “The One”. I think that the list also includes Rep. Chet Edwards, Possibly Joe Biden, maybe Tim Kaine (though I think that ship has sailed), and at least one other left-field choice who we haven’t yet seen. Obama likes smoke and mirrors a lot, and I think he may be baiting us with traditional (meaning “bad”) choices fake McCain into picking someone safe and divert the media away from the real list. So, I’m thinking that Obama’s shortlist is Chet Edwards, The Invisible Man, and MAYBE Evan Bayh.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
On the idea of Obama supporting using Alaskan reserves, I don’t have such a problem with.
My real anger is at Pawlenty - he went into the Open, and gave a public remark that not only praised Obama, but seemed to tell the GOP it needs to act more like him.
Thats putting a gun in the hands of the enemy - and NOT something you do in a close Presidential election like this one.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
here is the statement from Palin that I take issue with:
“Governor Palin also acknowledged the Senator’s proposal to offer $1,000 rebates to those struggling with the high cost of energy.
“We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here at home,” Governor Palin said. “This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board.””
That comes from Politico - if she wants to commend Obama for coming around to a position already supported by the vast majority of people, and Republicans, thats fine, go right ahead. My problem is the praise for his rebate idea. Again, to go public and praise a part of his plan - YOU DON’T DO THAT IN PUBLIC.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Well, I think it’s safe to say we won’t be seing any further press releases about Obama from her.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
#50 - I agree, without mentioning McCain’s name she pretty much smacked him….probably not on purpose. That’s where the experience factor comes in.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
53: Your anger may be at Pawlenty, but in reality I think your anger is at the GOP because what
Pawlenty said is true.