More and more I read on Tim Pawlenty, the more and more I like him as a candidate.

 

He will be on Stewart tonight talking about his book and I am sure other things.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Pawlenty_defends_speech_scolds_Jon_Stewart_on_effenheimer.html

I'm anxious for it as well (it's DVRing as I write; have to watch Stewart day-after because my wife goes to bed early!). Pawlenty has become something of a rising stop in the GOP. I'm anxious to hear a little from him.

You did hear little from him. He was a polite guest and when he wouldn't answer the way Stewart wanted him to answer, Stewart just interrupted him and kept trying to herd him to giving the answer that Stewart wanted.

^ He played the interview like an experienced politician who wasn't going to get drawn into a debate. It was well done and it speaks to his excellence. Jon Stewart is a TV host who wants to draw a guest like Pawlenty down into a level of debate. I can't fault either person for the way they handled that yesterday.

 

But let's not confuse that unwillingness to engage in a pandering debate that is, quite frankly, beneath a guest of Pawlenty's stature, with simple resistance to Jon Stewart's bullying. On one occasion, Stewart was asking about the change in rhetoric about "tyranny" since the start of the Obama administration, wondering where that same rhetoric was during proposals for National ID cards, the Patriot Act and other things during the Bush years. It was clearly something Pawlenty didn't want to discuss, so he pulled the discussion back to far more general terms about the state of political discourse. It was well done and made me admire him as someone who is capable of adequately representing the Republican Party. But the general, amorphous nature of his responses are exactly why it didn't sound like he said much.

 

In the end, he handled Stewart's questioning very well and kept the discussion focused on what he came on to talk about, not what Stewart wanted to talk about. It's not something that's easy to do.

^ He played the interview like an experienced politician who wasn't going to get drawn into a debate. It was well done and it speaks to his excellence. Jon Stewart is a TV host who wants to draw a guest like Pawlenty down into a level of debate. I can't fault either person for the way they handled that yesterday.

 

But let's not confuse that unwillingness to engage in a pandering debate that is, quite frankly, beneath a guest of Pawlenty's stature, with simple resistance to Jon Stewart's bullying. On one occasion, Stewart was asking about the change in rhetoric about "tyranny" since the start of the Obama administration, wondering where that same rhetoric was during proposals for National ID cards, the Patriot Act and other things during the Bush years. It was clearly something Pawlenty didn't want to discuss, so he pulled the discussion back to far more general terms about the state of political discourse. It was well done and made me admire him as someone who is capable of adequately representing the Republican Party. But the general, amorphous nature of his responses are exactly why it didn't sound like he said much.

 

In the end, he handled Stewart's questioning very well and kept the discussion focused on what he came on to talk about, not what Stewart wanted to talk about. It's not something that's easy to do.

 

In my point on hearing little from him, it was more on the quantity of the comments not the quality. If someone timed it, I would bet that Stewart did the majority of talking with Pawlenty listening. When Pawlenty began to talk and it was not what Stewart wanted him to say, Stewart would interrupt him and rephrase his question again in a very long winded way.

I'm watching it now. Mr. Pawlenty either doesn't get the question (is the rhetoric worse now than it was with Mr Bush and why) or Mr Pawlenty simply doesn't want to answer it.

 

Now the campaign speech is coming out which is obviously why he's on the show and has the book.

I'm watching it now. Mr. Pawlenty either doesn't get the question (is the rhetoric worse now than it was with Mr Bush and why) or Mr Pawlenty simply doesn't want to answer it.

 

Now the campaign speech is coming out which is obviously why he's on the show and has the book.

 

It is not a question that serves any positive manner to answer it but rather continues the rhetoric that people are calling to move past.

 

Yes, and the right is wrong and putting more negative situations out there for Obama.

No, and he is just a conservative politician that doesn't want to admit that it is worse for Obama than Bush.

It is not a question that serves any positive manner to answer it but rather continues the rhetoric that people are calling to move past.

 

Yes, and the right is wrong and putting more negative situations out there for Obama.

No, and he is just a conservative politician that doesn't want to admit that it is worse for Obama than Bush.

 

Incorrect. Regardless of your belief into the validity of Stewart's point it's the question he is asking. He kept answering it as if Stewart asked "is there vitriol only on the right." That was not his point/question. He even gave specific examples of inconsistencies. Mr. Pawlenty kept saying "well the left does it too." That's a given but it wasn't remotely related to the question being posed.

 

I get that he didn't want to answer it it. That became painfully obvious. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he simply answered the question regardless of his agreeing or disagreeing with the premise. It was pure pol-speek.

It is not a question that serves any positive manner to answer it but rather continues the rhetoric that people are calling to move past.

 

Yes, and the right is wrong and putting more negative situations out there for Obama.

No, and he is just a conservative politician that doesn't want to admit that it is worse for Obama than Bush.

 

Agree on the bolded.

Agree on the bolded.

 

How do we move past this rhetoric if we do not examine it? How do we not ask the question that Stewart asked which was "why is it inconsistent?" It doesn't matter if you agree with his premise. What matters is that it's addressed.

 

The "let's not talk about it because it keeps us trapped" thnking is short-sighted IMO.

I wouldn't answer any questions that tool Stewart asked either. Guy is about as useless as they come.

I wouldn't answer any questions that tool Stewart asked either. Guy is about as useless as they come.

 

I would assume, though, that you wouldn't agree to appear on his show.

I would assume, though, that you wouldn't agree to appear on his show.

 

Fair point. However, if I were planning a run for the POTUS, I'd want to appear on any and all programs. Wouldn't give Stewart the satisfaction of answering any of his baiting questions though.

Incorrect. Regardless of your belief into the validity of Stewart's point it's the question he is asking. He kept answering it as if Stewart asked "is there vitriol only on the right." That was not his point/question. He even gave specific examples of inconsistencies. Mr. Pawlenty kept saying "well the left does it too." That's a given but it wasn't remotely related to the question being posed.

 

I get that he didn't want to answer it it. That became painfully obvious. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he simply answered the question regardless of his agreeing or disagreeing with the premise. It was pure pol-speek.

As it became painful obvious that Stewart's sole purpose of the interview was to try and "get him" with an answer that was going to do nothing positive for Pawlenty but paint him into a position that Stewart wanted to paint him.

Fair point. However, if I were planning a run for the POTUS, I'd want to appear on any and all programs. Wouldn't give Stewart the satisfaction of answering any of his baiting questions though.

 

If you were running for POTUS, you'd have tougher questions to answer from many others than Stewart.