The Best Campaign Ads Of The 2012 GOP Primary

Now that Mitt Romney has recently released the first campaign ad for the general 2012 election, lets look back at the best campaign ads of the primary 2012 election.

Mitt Romney made waves with Republicans with these two ads and really helped define his campaign both in the primary and general election:  

Although Tim Pawlenty's campaign was short lived, he made a really great ad both in terms of style and substance by making a point about Obama's empty podium: 

Herman Cain had a very interesting ads that was unusual which attempted to help him stand out of the crowd of Republican contenders vying for the Republican nomination: 

Another unusual ad from Herman Cain was odd and amusing to everyone which spawned a lot of YouTube spoof videos. A lot of people speculated that Cain was going for the X-File voters.

Ron Paul also had a great ad attacking Newt Gingrich and for unexplained reason, Newt Gingrich got angry at Mitt Romney's attack ad. I think Ron Paul did a better job taking down Newt than Mitt did. 

Mitt Romney produced some other great ads during the 2012 primary race. Here are my top three favorites below: 

Tim Pawlenty Bows Out

Four months ago, Tim Pawlenty announced his candidacy. Now he is the first candidate among the 2012 Republican candidates to drop out of the race. 

Tim Pawlenty, although he's a good conservative Republican, ran a weak campaign. He tried to portray himself as bold and strong candidate who can stand up and tell the unvarnished truth. However, during the New Hampshire CNN GOP debate, he refused to follow through with his "ObamneyCare" attack on Mitt Romney. As a result, he came across as a timid, weak, and irresolute candidate who couldn't own up to his own words when the time for truth was required. That is why it was no surprise that Mitt Romney won that debate.

T-Paw's refusal to attack Mitt Romney when given the opportunity was a mistake that he would never be able to recover from and marks the beginning of the end of his campaign. Its one of the biggest campaign debate flubs of all time. 

Of course, the fact that he he admitted that he should have stuck to his guns on his "ObamneyCare" statement after the New Hampshire debate and made a weak attempt to save face by attacking Romney's healthcare plan on Twitter didn't help him rebuild his image as a man who boldly spoke the unvarnished truth.

T-Paw's inability to step up to the plate destroyed his own campaign and personal image. It is almost impossible to rebuild that kind of image once its been damaged.

In fact, his attempts to resurrect that image only reinforced his image as as a timid, weak, uncertain candidate.  He looked weak when he debated with a liberal heckler in comparison to Romney's strong stand against a bunch of Marxist hecklers the day before. He also tried to take on Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney at the Iowa Debate but couldn't land a solid punch on either candidate. 

The man that T-Paw tried to portray himself to be was never present throughout the entire campaign. As a result, people didn't have the confidence that he would be the kind of man who would be strong in telling like it is.   

The other reason why Pawlenty's campaign fizzled out so quickly was the fact that he kept getting overshadowed by other candidates who jumped into the race after him. People were all talking about Jon Hunstman, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry and how their entrance to the 2012 race would shake things up.  Even smaller candidates like Thaddeus McCotter stole some of the spotlight from Pawlenty.

When T-Paw took a distant third at the Iowa Ames Straw poll, he realized he couldn't go on any further. He devoted all his resources to winning that poll and came up short. Despite the fact that Mike Huckabee has urged him to stay in the race, Tim Pawlenty has made a wise choice to bow out. He doesn't have the organizational or fundraising power to stay in the race.  He doesn't come out particularly strong in attacking his candidates and his lukewarm in his retail politics when compared to other 2012 candidates. 

Tim Pawlenty's campaign had so much potential. However, that potential was squandered because he could not become the person he advertised himself to be. 

Did Tim Pawlenty Play The Mormon Card Against Romney And Huntsman?

A lot of buzz has been generated over Tim Pawlenty's new campaign video in which he talks about his religious faith. Before we get into why his video has generated controversy, lets watch it first: 

Some people watch this video and think that T-Paw's new campaign ad was created to play the "Mormon card" against Mitt Romney and John Huntsman:

He makes clear early in the video that he thinks voters are due an explanation from him -- and from other candidates -- as to what exactly it is that they believe.

"When somebody is running for or holds high office, whether it's mayor, governor, or president of the United States, voters want to know, and deserve to know, 'Who is this person?' You know, 'What shaped their values? What are their values? Is this a person that's good to their word? Can we count on them?'" Pawlenty says in the video, aiming squarely at fellow candidates Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, who are both of the Mormon faith.

"And for me, my faith is very important to me. It influences all that I do and it informs people about what my values are. And of course that has a great bearing on how you conduct yourself in public office," he says.

Both Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, and Huntsman, a former Utah governor and ex-U.S. ambassador to China, have taken pro-life positions and spoken in favor of heterosexual marriage, yet they have generally tried to avoid making social issues a focus.

Pawlenty draws a sharp contrast between their faith and his, making an explicit confession of Christianity. Speaking of his Catholic upbringing and journey into evangelicalism after meeting his wife, he discusses the way in which his faith helped him cope after his mother died when he was 16 years old. "Our faith is not in these earthly things, but it's in Jesus Christ," he says.

Currently, Tim Pawlenty is polling third in Iowa with only 7% of support from Iowans. He really needs do something to raise his chances of wining Iowa to make him more competitive on the national stage because he's only got 3% of American supporting him right now.

The timing of this video comes shortly after Tim Pawlenty hired Mike Huckabee's daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, as Senior Advisor who will start helping Tim Pawlenty win Iowa. 

As we all know, Mike Huckabee won Iowa in the 2008 presidential primaries by focusing on his Christian faith. He released a campaign video that focused squarely on his faith that was specifically appealing to Christian voters in Iowa. This led many people like Marc Ambinder and Charles Kruathammer to believe that he was playing the Mormon card against Mitt in the Iowa Primaries. Lets review Mike Huckabee's controversial campaign video below: 

The claim that Mike Huckabee was playing the Mormon Card against Mitt Romney is not without merit. Mike Huckabee himself said that Romney's faith was valid criteria to use in selecting who would be the next President and that the contents of his religious faith should be a matter for scrutiny by the voters: 

You have declined in a couple of interviews to say whether or not you feel the Mormon religion is a legitimate type of Christianity, or a type of Christianity. I have spoken with a number of evangelicals, and one of them was talking about her concern [regarding Mitt Romney] of having a president who might not be praying to the God she believes in. The other concern I have heard is having a president who would lead people not to be saved in other Christian faiths by promoting another very evangelical religion. Do you share any of those concerns?

You know, I just don't think that's an appropriate issue for me to get into, the nuances of the Mormon faith. And it is not the sole criteria by which I think a person should be judged fit or unfit for the presidency, any more than I think people ought to necessarily make it the defining issue for me. I am very comfortable answering questions about my faith. I am probably the only candidate that has been subjected to this sort of detailed questioning about faith. I don't think Romney has even been. And my faith is a pretty mainstream view of the world and of the Bible. But I accept that as part of the whole process. I just think all of us should be prepared to answer questions regardless of what our views are, and let people sort that out. But that's why I don't feel comfortable in saying, "Let me tell you what this guy believes." You know what? I don't know what he believes. Even if I knew what his church believes, I don't know that I can say what he believes until he expresses it.

The claim that Tim Pawlenty is playing the Mormon Card against Romney and Huntsman is valid. Its no coincidence that this video was released shortly after Mike Huckabee's daughter was hired on the campaign. Its also no coincidence that shortly after she was hired, we see Tim Pawlenty using the same strategy that Mike Huckabee did by creating a campaign ad targeted towards Christian voters in Iowa. It appears that Tim Pawlenty is using a strategy from Mike Huckabee's campaign playbook. 

2012 Presidential candidate Rick Santorum thinks that Romney's faith will not be an issue in the 2012 election. Unless Tim Pawlenty wants to also adopt Mike Huckabee's strategy of playing passive agressive on Mitt Romney's faith, I'd like to know if he thinks the American voters should make Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman's faith an issue in 2012.

Tim Pawlenty: Candidate Not As Advertised

Tim Pawlenty attacked Mitt Romney's health care plan characterizing it as calling it "ObamaneyCare" during an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday on  the evening before the CNN Debate. However, when CNN debate moderator John King gave Tim Pawlenty to the opportunity call ObamaneyCare to Mitt Romney's face, he didn't have the guts to do it.

Here's the transcript of T-Paw's refusal to attack Mitt Romney: 

JOHN KING: "You don't want to address why you called Gov. Romney's Obamneycare?"

TIM PAWLENTY: "I just cited President Obama's own words that he looked to Massachusetts as a blueprint."

KING: "Why is it not Obamneycare standing here with the governor right now?"

PAWLENTY: "President Obama is the person I quoted ... Using the term 'Obamneycare' was a reflection of the president's comments."

In the eyes of many Americans, Tim Pawlenty revealed himself to be a weak, gutless and cowardly candidate. He can talk tough and come up with a clever zinger during a television interview but he lacked a spine to actually engage Romney in a debate when given the opportunity to do so. Alex Castellanos, a consultant to the Republican party explained to Politico how bad that response looked for Tim Pawlenty: 

“Debates are competitions – they are alpha dog battles,” explained longtime GOP ad man Alex Castellanos. “To win one, you have to create what I call an ‘MOS,’ a moment of strength. Tim Pawlenty had a chance to get in the ring tonight with the heavyweight champion and create such a moment. He refused to enter the ring. It was like LeBron refusing to take the big shot [Sunday] night.”

That is a mistake that will cost Tim Pawlenty. Its one of the biggest campaign debate flubs of all time. 

Yet, some commentators say that T-Paw's refusal to take on MItt Romney won't hurt him with the voters because many of them either were not watching the debate last night or didn't care to watch since the elections are so far away. However, its a moment that can be brought back and shown to the public later on in the campaign in the form of interviews and campaign commercials. It a mistake that that will haunt T-Paw for the rest of the campaign. 

Not only will that moment not play well with current and future voters, but T-Paw's unwillingness to take on Mitt Romney will have an impact on his campaign donations. There is a strong possibility that many of T-Paw's financial donors are considering taking their money somewhere else: 

Right now there is a fierce underground battle being waged over high dollar campaign donors. If you can’t raise money now, before the voters care, you will not have the resources you need to communicate with them when they do tune in. Organizing multiple states, waging straw polls, flying around raising money and running loads of TV and radio is all very expensive. Without constant fuel, a campaign locomotive grinds to a halt. For lesser known candidates like Tim Pawlenty this can create a cruel feedback loop; you need money to buy your way up in the polls, yet without good poll numbers it is very hard to raise money. Early debates are important because if you get good media reviews, you can aggressively peddle those to old and new donors to raise money.

Like weary troops or early investors in Broadway musicals, donors to candidates registering at 5% in the polls live on hope. Good early process reviews provide that hope. Donor phones come alive. “We’re staring to move up in… IA/NH/The North Barneyville straw poll!!” Sadly for Pawlenty, he did not get the clips he needed last night. Worse, his donor machine will get bad news instead of good. That’s a terror weapon for Huntsman and Romney. I’ll bet Mitt might be making a few calls to top Pawlenty donors today, thanking them for watching, expressing respect for their deep and touching loyalty to his good friend Tim and letting them he know he’d be happy to be their second choice… just in case things, well, don’t work out. We do need to unify, to beat Obama… Donors take those calls. Nearly every big donor has a plan B. Enthusiasm lags. Less pounding on the donor’s business contacts in Detroit or St. Paul for that extra check. The money wheels slow down and the bank account gets thin, just as the Iowa straw poll ramp-up costs start to mount.

As a result, this is a costly mistake that will have long lasting consequences for T-Paw. It may hurt him now or the pain may come much later in the campaign. As David Frum explains, this is the kind of mistake that cannot be undone now or in the future: 

Pawlenty’s failure is not the kind of stumble he can correct later. It goes to the core of the guy: offered the chance to confront Romney directly, he flinched. He did not look “nice.” He did not look like he was observing the 11th commandment. He looked uncertain and weak. He looked like a man fully aware that Romney would best him in a one-to-one discussion of healthcare policy…

After last night, Pawlenty’s fund-raising will sputter. He’s not exciting enough for ultra-base small donors. He does not look enough like a winner to mobilize big-dollar donors…

If [no one else gets in], I’d guess the future course of the race goes like this:

Bachmann wins Iowa. Romney wins New Hampshire. Absent Perry or Ryan, the field quickly empties out. The establishment rallies to Romney. The party follows just as it did in 1988, 1996 and 2000.

Perhaps the most important and potentially deadly consequence of Pawlenty's refusal to attack Mitt Romney was that it dealt a crushing blow to his image.

The man that Tim Pawlenty portrayed himself didn't match the T-Paw that voters saw at the debate. 

Rather than being the man who tells the hard truth like it is, he exposed himself as a timid, weak, uncertain candidate who is insecure about his own statements. Moreover, it made him look stupid since he couldn't even own up to his own clever zinger and claimed that he was merely recycling Obama's false claim that he used Mitt Romney's health care as a template for ObamaCare. It was a childlike excuse by blaming Obama for coming up with that zinger. 

The new image of Tim Pawlenty as a irresolute, hesitant and weak candidate who couldn't own up to his own words when the time for truth came is the kind of image that will stick in the mind of the American voter. Jason Miller, media consultant and former staffer on Rudy's failed election campaign, explained what probably went on in the voters mind when they saw that they didn't get candidate he advertised himself to be:

“Republican primary voters are looking for a presidential candidate who’s going to take the fight directly to President Obama,” Miller said. “If you’re not comfortable following through on a criticism of one of your primary opponents in person, why should voters think you’ll be able to man up and follow through on a criticism of the president when you face him in the general election?”

Americans desperately want a candidate who stands up for what they believe in and be willing to engage in a debate to promote his believe. He was trying to sell himself as a man who could fill that void that voters yearned for and the voters discovered that he wasn't the man he advertised himself to be. Steve Kornaki makes this same point over at Salon.com: 

But while he's tried hard (painfully hard), Pawlenty has yet to demonstrate that he's capable of filling this void, even though he's had ample opportunity to do so. His feeble performance at Monday night's debate in New Hampshire -- in which he awkwardly dodged a challenge to say to Romney's face what he'd been saying behind his back -- has been widely ridiculed, and rightly so. And while it's fair to note that this was just one debate (and a very early one at that) and that even successful candidates have bad debates, it should also be said that it wasn't anything new. Pawlenty has been leaving one audience after another underwhelmed for a long time now -- even though he tells every audience exactly what it wants to hear.

Tim Pawlenty portrayed himself as bold and strong candidate who can stand up and tell the unvarnished truth. He painted himself as a man who can say the hard things that people need to hear rather than the things that are pleasing to the voter's ear. Yet, that man was not present at the debates last night.

People are starting to see T-Paw in a new light and its an image that is going to hurt T-Paw's campaign image and his personal image as well. Its almost impossible to rebuild that kind of image once its been damaged.

Tim Pawlenty Courageously Flip Flopping On Ethanol Subsidies

Tim Pawlenty needs to do a better job of telling the truth if he is going to make "Time for Truth" his campaign slogan. He launched his presidential campaign by calling for a gradual phase out for ethanol subsidies:

America is facing a crushing debt crisis the likes of which we've never seen before. We need to cut spending, and we need to cut it...big time. The hard truth is that there are no longer any sacred programs.

The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out. We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.

Now, I'm not some out-of-touch politician. I served two terms as Governor of an ag state. I fully understand and respect the critical role farming plays in our economy and our society. I've strongly supported ethanol in various ways over the years, and I still believe in the promise of renewable fuels - both for our economy and our national security.

But even in Minnesota, when faced with fiscal challenges, we reduced ethanol subsidies. That's where we are now in Washington, but on a much, much larger scale.

It's not only ethanol. We need to change our approach to subsidies in all industries.

It can't be done overnight. The industry has made large investments, and it wouldn't be fair to pull the rug out from under it immediately. But we must face the truth that if we want to invite more competition, more investment, and more innovation into an industry - we need to get government out. We also need the government out of the business of handing out favors and special deals. The free market, not freebies from politicians, should decide a company's success. So, as part of a larger reform, we need to phase out subsidies across all sources of energy and all industries, including ethanol. We simply can't afford them anymore.

Some people will be upset by what I'm saying.

Conventional wisdom says you can't talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street. But someone has to say it. Someone has to finally stand up and level with the American people. Someone has to lead.

Tim Pawlenty is getting a lot of praise from many conservatives for beginning his campaign by being "tough" and "courageous" for taking a "risky" and "noble" position on a sensitive subject. He's bold for "speaking the truth to power" because Iowa is a state known for being a large recipient of federal ethanol subsidies and he went into the lions den by traveling to the state of Iowa and calling for a gradual phase out of government money for the ethanol industry.  

Even Tim Pawlenty is prasing himself on the back for his speech in Iowa. But as Michael Tomasky points out, "any time a politician feels the need to pat himself on the back that much, you should immediately raise your BS deflector shields."

Yet, if truth is the benchmark that Tim Pawlenty wants to be measured against and he makes truth his campaign theme, he falls short of his own standards by flip flopping on this issue. The real genuine truth is that 

Tim Pawlenty was a proponent of ethanol subsidies before he was "gusty" for speaking out against it:

In 2008, Alaska governor Sarah Palin got the vice presidential nod, much to the disappointment of one group: the Minnesota Corn Growers Association (MCGA). The group had been hoping that John McCain would pick Pawlenty, according to the trade magazine Ethanol Producer. Pawlenty, the MCGA said, had “more moderate views towards ethanol” than most Republicans. It was a telling endorsement, particularly when compared with the tongue-lashing the MCGA gave the GOP platform that year, which it considered anti-ethanol to the point of being “devastating” to the industry.

The endorsement was well deserved. Throughout his time as governor, Pawlenty has been a friend to ethanol. In 2004, Pawlenty created the JOBZ program, an innovative way to subsidize ethanol. While Minnesota was no longer approving producer payments (13 cents per gallon of ethanol) for new ethanol plants, the JOBZ program offered “a new incentive, one that many investors find nearly as alluring,” gushed Ethanol Producer. JOBZ, the magazine continued, “provides relief from corporate franchise tax, income tax for operators or investors, sales tax on business purchases and capital gains tax, and property taxes. It also provides an employment tax credit for high paying jobs.”

A year later, Pawlenty signed legislation mandating that all gas sold in Minnesota contain 20 percent ethanol by 2013, up from 10 percent. (Since the EPA has not yet approved the 20 percent blend, the mandate will most likely not go into effect in 2013.) In 2005, Pawlenty also urged other states, at a meeting of the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition (which had 31 member states at the time), to mandate that all gasoline contain 10 percent ethanol by 2010.

The “E85 Everywhere” program, which promoted the 85 percent–ethanol fuel, was launched in 2006. Pawlenty wanted there to be plenty of stations where consumers could purchase E85. He requested $12 million in subsidies for gas-station owners to encourage them to offer it. State legislators balked at the sum; instead, the state began offering $1.75 million in subsidies starting in 2007. But even with the subsidies, Minnesota did not achieve Pawlenty’s goal of 1,800 E85 stations by 2010. As of 2009, the state had 351 gas stations that sold E85.

What amazes me is that top notch conservative bloggers are falling for Tim Pawlenty's slick political move of getting people to buy in to his false portrayal of himself as a politician who is taking on issues that other politicians are afraid to address. For example, Allahpundit falls in love with the the deceptive propaganda of Tim Pawlenty as a speaker of truth:   

Pawlenty’s ethanol gambit forces them to rethink that by posing the following question: If he’s willing to confront Iowa voters about their little ethanol gravy train in the name of fiscal responsibility — even though his candidacy probably depends on winning the state — then who wouldn’t he be willing to confront? He’s got guts. I’m not so sure about his risk-assessment skills, but he’s playing to win.

Not only are well seasons conservatives buying into the false advertisement of Tim Pawlenty, but many conservatives will praise some candidates for boldly flip flopping and scorn others for doing so. It appears that conservatives like to cherry pick which flip flops they like and which they don't like. For example, the best example of this comes from Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com:

[Former Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty went to Iowa and told the truth — that the federal government’s subsidies of ethanol were bad policy that we can no longer afford.  Romney went to Iowa and pandered for big-government solutions in a market that should either be standing on its own two feet by now or putting resources into other solutions instead.  Which candidate showed political courage?

If Tim Pawlenty is going to be praised for anything, he should be praised for his political courage to flip flop so brazenly and openly while getting the masses to praise you for doing it. But the truth is that it doesn't take a lot of courage for a politician to flip flop:  

While endorsing its substance — as an advocate of smaller government should — I wonder how much “fortitude” this announcement actually took for him to make. Was it instead simply a well-calculated move in a chess game for Pawlenty? Had he already decided that he was willing to sacrifice the pawn of his Iowa Caucus votes for a better chance at winning the game of the Republican presidential nomination?

Did he see that, like his former support for cap-and-trade Legislation, another issue on which he reversed himself, his past endorsement of ethanol subsidies could become a roadblock for him in securing the sought-after support of his conservative base unless dealt with at the outset of his campaign? And was throwing Iowa farmers under the bus his way of dealing with it? Reasonable questions to ask, I think.

If conservatives are going to scorn candidates for flip flopping, then they ought to be consistent in meting out their condemnation. Here, T-Paw was pandering to voters by flip flopping on a key issue and lying to the Iowan voters and the rest of the nation about his false courage for taking on ethanol subsidies. Yet, Mitt Romney was being consistent in his support for ethanol. He supported ethanol subsidies during the 2008 Presidential campaign and he still supports it now.  Watch Mitt Romney give his position on ethanol back in 2007:

As I said earlier, if if truth is the benchmark that Tim Pawlenty wants to be measured against and he makes truth his campaign theme, then Tim Pawlenty is not a courageous man. And that is the pure and unvarnished truth.

Tim Pawlenty Announces He's Officially In For 2012

Today, Tim Pawlenty will be officially in the race for 2012 and he will be making his announcement from Iowa: 

As I predicted before, Tim Pawlenty announcement will be overshadowed by other candidates: It is already happening.

For example, Tim Pawlenty is making his announcement now before Michelle Bachman does because he doesn't want to be eclipsed by her but its already too late. Even though Michelle Bachmann hasn't made any decision about whether or not she will be running in 2012, people are talking about her rather than T-Paw:

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, another Minnesota Republican who is exploring a White House run, is believed to be ready to formally announce her candidacy soon, possibly within the next week. Bachmann could be expected to pull well among social conservatives in her native Iowa, overshadowing Pawlenty and complicating his hopes of doing well there. Like Pawlenty, she has been traveling extensively in the Hawkeye State, where she plans to spend Memorial Day weekend before heading to first primary state New Hampshire.

Some people will make a quick mention of his announcement and then move on to talk about other candidates like Jon Hunstman:

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty makes it official this morning. He’s jumping into the race for the 2012 Republican nomination for president. Not with a third installment of “The Bourne Candidacy” but with three network interviews that will almost assuredly go better than Newt Gingrich’s one disastrous turn on “Meet the Press” last Sunday. But since he’s got a whole week’s worth of I’m-running activities, my focus right now is not on Pawlenty. It’s on Jon Huntsman.

Tim Pawlenty is already getting lost in the news cycle just on the very day he has makes candidacy his candidacy official. That is not very good news for a first tier candidate with very little national name recognition.

Tim Pawlenty To Announce He Will Run In 2012

With Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour withdrawing from the 2012 Presidential elections, people are looking to see if other politicians will jump in to fill the vacuum left by the men who will not run. One of those men looking to fill that void is Tim Pawlenty. He was the first 2012 candidate to form an exploratory committee. Next Monday, he will be announcing that he is no longer exploring the idea of running and that he will officially be a candidate for 2012: 

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a laid-back Midwestern Republican who governed a Democratic-leaning state, is running for president and will declare his candidacy on Monday in the leadoff caucus state of Iowa, an adviser told The Associated Press.

The adviser, who disclosed the plans on the condition of anonymity in advance of next week's announcement, said Pawlenty will formally enter the race during a town hall-style event in Des Moines, Iowa.

He's choosing to make his long-expected bid official in a critical state in his path to the GOP nomination. Advisers acknowledge that Pawlenty, 50, must win or turn in a strong showing during next winter's caucuses in the neighboring state of Iowa to have any chance of becoming the Republican who will challenge President Barack Obama, a Democrat, next November.

After Monday's announcement, he will head to Florida, New Hampshire, New York and Washington, D.C.

However, Tim Pawlenty doesn't seem to be really excited about running: 

And when I ask Pawlenty, during a second interview in Des Moines, Iowa, exactly when he decided he was up to the grand challenge of the presidency, he answers in less than grandiose terms, explaining how he'd set up a political-action committee in 2009. I try again, saying I am curious about when he first imagined himself worthy of the history books, ready to send soldiers to their deaths and endure the national stage's harsh toll. "I don't know," he replies. "I wish I had a good answer for you on that." Pawlenty says it is not an idea that crossed his mind 15 or 20 years ago but that as he considered life as a relatively young ex-governor, he felt obliged not to take the easy path and "go make some money and play hockey and drink beer." He adds that he almost didn't run at all. "Mary and I talked about this at length, and many times, and it was a close call," he says, mentioning his wife of 24 years. He adds with a laugh, "It could have gone the other way for all the reasons you're suggesting."

Tim Pawlenty's announcement comes as no surprise. However, the buzz and hype surrounding his planned announcement on Monday will be short lived because he will most certainly be  be upstaged by other Republicans who have not thrown in their hat into the ring yet. We are still waiting to find out if Mitch Daniels, Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin will run or not. There's also speculation that Texas Govenor Rick Perry is also considering running in this upcoming presidential election. Rudy Giuliani is also thinking about running again for 2012.