Meh. He's not going to win. Pawlenty has the sort of profile that Republicans need in a candidate, but the coin of the GOP realm these days is identity and, frankly, he doesn't pass the "one of us" (i.e. Republicans) test.
I really wonder whether this is good strategy to begin with. It would make much more sense for Pawlenty to run as a solid conservative, but with an institutional/rhetorical reform strategy that seeks to elevate the discourse, provide real conservative solutions, etc., while denouncing the crazies. He's got the sort of resume to pull off that kind of attack. He won't win in 2012, but in 2016? He'll have staked out the sort of territory that might sound appealing after two terms of Obama*. I just wonder whether this is a good idea--the media already bends over backwards to try to make insane Republican complaints sound reasonable. Can you imagine the sort of coverage a powerful Republican would get if he (or she) stood up and said true, sensible things? Huckabee got great coverage before he decided that the independent/integrity route wasn't going to work. Hell, Bush actually got pretty good coverage in 2000, despite the intermittent fixation on his verbal incoherence off the cuff. This shit can work. Ah, well.
(*And yes, I am assuming two terms for Obama, and better than even money that he'll be succeeded by a Democrat. Not much better than even money, though.)
