Pawlenty – He’s Nationwide
posted at 1:01 pm on October 1, 2009 by Mitch Berg
Drudge, early this morning, reflected the first question of a fair chunk of whatever portion of the landed punditry follows these sorts of things, with a front-page photo of Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (often affectionately called “TPaw”) with the headline “CAN THIS MAN CONQUER OBAMA?”
The Minneapolis Star/Tribune noticed, and elaborates on the story:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty filed paperwork today with federal regulators to form the Freedom First PAC, a national fundraising committee he can use to aid GOP candidates in upcoming elections.
Simultaneously, he was featured — with a photo — at the top of the Drudge Report this morning with a headline asking, “CAN THIS MAN CONQUER OBAMA?”
The headline linked to a Politico.com story that reported Pawlenty “has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign even as he has stayed “under the radar of D.C.’s political community”
Now, Barack Obama is shaping up to be a pretty dismal president so far; many of us who on January 21 were resigned to eight years in the wilderness are making mental notes not to throw out the drape measurements, just in case.
But can TPaw do it?
Let’s go over the strengths and weaknesses of a Pawlenty bid for the White House:
Weakness: He’s from Minnesota. Minnesota’s salad days as an incubator of exciting politicians and interesting races are long behind it. Jesse Ventura, by the way, was more a “freak show” than “evidence of a vibrant culture”. Minnesota’s only real significance is its ten electoral votes; not chump change, not a kingmaker.
Strength: On the other hand, TPaw has been working diligently on raising that profile. If slow and steady wins the race, TPaw has got the first part down.
Weakness: His profile is very low among the conservative base. Pawlenty has a reputation, not so much as a “moderate” as as a “pragmatist”; he’s no movement conservative. His showing at the last CPAC – about 2% – showed that he’s not especially well-exposed to the conservative base. Some Minnesota conservatives call him (wrongly) a RINO.
Strength: But he’s right on the “conservative” issues that do matter to people outside the base – especially in a season where independents are getting serious buyer’s remorse over the neosocialist baggage that came with all the Hope and Change (TM). His Thermopylae-esque stand against a two-chamber press (the DFL, Minnesota’s Democrats, control the Senate and have a prohibitive supermajority in the House) on two successive state budgets, battling back against a spending-crazy DFL phalanx, should be getting conservatives’ attention nationwide. While TPaw does run to the center on the occasional issue – global warming, ethanol subsidies – these are “B” and “C” list issues, “nice to haves” compared to the bread-and-butter pocketbook issues.
A story, for those of you who don’t follow Minnesota GOP trivia: when Pawlenty sought the nomination to run for governor, he faced a very stern challenge from conservative businessman Brian Sullivan, who ran well to Pawlenty’s right. The state convention in 2002 came down to many, many ballots – and was finally clinched when Pawlenty broke down and took the Taxpayers’ League’s “No New Taxes” pledge. And for the past six years, come hell or high water, he has held to that pledge, at fearsome political risk, and against the kind of pressure that would have made a real RINO buckle and scamper for cover.
Weakness: I don’t know that the American conservative “base” knows the above. They should. Of course, the national media will follow the lead of the Twin Cities’ media to do their best to obscure this from the legions of moderates and independents who are bailing on the Democrats today.
Strength: Pawlenty is, in theory, the kind of “conservative” who should be able to reach out successfully to independents. For all the Minnesota left’s incessant whining, he’s not a dogmatic conservative. He’s focused less on conservative dogma, and more on results in his six years. His results, unless you’re employed by or addicted to the state bureaucracy, are excellent. If the American independent street knew the truth about Pawlenty – who’s branded his politics “Sam’s Club Republican” – they’d see there’s a lot to appreciate.
Weakness: Remember the last time we had a Republican that the media anointed as the “Republican who can reach out to Democrats?” Remember when Democrats would intone with straight faces that “McCain is the one Republican I’d ever consider voting for?” Of course, once McCain became a threat, that all changed; the knives came out; the media and left (pardon the redundancy) began finding a “radical conservative” John McCain (whose American Conservative Union lifetime rating is a point to the right of Jim Ramstad, and down there with Chuck Hagel) that had eluded even us on the center right for his entire career.
Strength: The media matters less than it used to. Not enough less, but we’re getting there.
Weakness: Of course, the main vehicle for the weakening and outflanking of the mainstream media – the conservative and center-right alternative media – is an area where Pawlenty has traditionally gone slower than a lot of other candidates. Along with the Minnesota GOP as a whole, Pawlenty’s been very much a traditionalist in dealing with both the major media (who will eventually turn on him) and the conservative alternative media, talk radio and the blogs.
Strength: The Minnesota GOP shows signs of being able to change that. We’ll see if they do, and if TPaw follows suit.
Weakness: He’s chasing some powerful frontrunners; Palin, Romney and Huckabee have big name recognition and established machines.
Strength: I’m not sure that a machine established in 2008 is all that much to brag about anymore. To be sure…
Weakness: …Pawlenty lacks the name recognition of a Sarah Palin or a Mitt Romney. But…
Strength: …he’s got some strengths, too. Since about 2001, I’ve called Pawlenty “the best stump speaker in Minnesota politics today” – and although Rep. Tom Emmer may have taken that title in-state, Pawlenty has formidable stage presence. He’s much more polished onstage than Sarah Palin – but can fairly be said to match her folksy bonhomie; he plays the “Son of a meat-packer” card with consistency but grace. As important, he exudes the same sense of gravitas and competency that Romney does – he has paid his dues with interest – without sounding like a CEO in the process.
I’m not saying Tim Pawlenty is the next “Great Communicator”. I am saying that enough raw material is there that you can’t rule it out out of hand.
It’s going to be a fun couple of years!
Cross-posted at Shot In The Dark and True North.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
You’ve mentioned many positives, but he still lacks one very important quality—charisma. Fair or not, those lacking it don’t hold our attention and, thus, are overtaken. I see him as a great vice-president.
texabama on October 1, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Maybe America will want steady re-assurance instead of excitement by 2012. Can’t be ruled out – and I believe that he can deliver non-excitation in spades.
In short, if Palin runs, TPaw could be a rallying point for anyone-but-Palin GOPers (of whom there will likely be many, and stubbornly) without ever having to going negative on Palin. He could emerge as everyone else’s second choice, often a winning position in a divided field – look no further than ’08. He’s scrupulously avoided saying anything negative about Palin, and in my observation has been more supportive than not, though he HAS been willing to take on Romney.
I like him, but my gut feeling is that a friendly Minnesotan may see more “gravitas” and “stage presence” in him than outsiders do. In terms of “it” factor, he comes across as more a Republican Mondale than another Reagan, or even than another Bush.
CK MacLeod on October 1, 2009 at 1:33 PM
CK,
I disagree. The guy’s got charisma. Not sure how you define it, but I see it.
He’s not “the one”, but he’s got some of the same thing Palin’s got; he’s your neighbor. Your very sharp neighbor.
If your neighbor singlehandledly stood off the entire Democrat tax ‘n spend machine, that is.
Mitch_Berg on October 1, 2009 at 2:40 PM
I would suggest we look to see who the msm thinks can win. They got dear john in, IMO. The msm gets their daily news alert for the day from the wh as to how they are to report. If the msm wants someone, you better be looking to someone else. We can not afford to have bho in for another four years in 2012!
L
letget on October 1, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Given the choices we have in the Governor Republican Primary here in CA, we’d take him in a minute!
But at the national stage, I agree that he may gain the acceptable 2nd place vote. A less belligerent more confident Dan Quayle, but with Executive experience.
The McCain-esque ‘Climate Change’ footsie leaves me looking elsewhere.
Right now, I’d still go with Romney even though his past choices have not been consistent with what I want. His healthcare maneuver in MA is somewhat suspect, and on par with the McCain / GW Bush ‘let’s compromise!’ tactics. His economics and his stand on radical Islamic terror negate a bit of his negatives. But only a bit.
Gov Palin, I think, still needs seasoning, and her choice to step down will be a focus point for the left and for those running against her in the primaries. It matters not that she is, down the middle, the most conservative candidate, she’s just too young, and bailed on the most serious elected position she’s held. President Obama’s example aside, she hasn’t accomplished enough.
Essentially, we have no bench, no farm system, and not much in the way of prospects.
Our strength? We’re not President Obama. That didn’t work too well for Kerry in 2004, but it might be the best thing we have going for our side in 2012.
juanito on October 1, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Being close to Iowa will probably help Pawlenty in the 2012 caucus, as will not having any carry-over baggage from the ’08 election season. But he’s going to have to go out during the 2010 midterms and start making some sort of national name for himself, since in terms of recognition he already lags well behind Palin (if she runs), Romney and Mitt (an entire Army division, Air Force squadron and combined NATO forces couldn’t keep those two from running).
jon1979 on October 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Romney and Mitt – that’s not nice (we know you meant Huck, but an interesting Freudian slip).
CK MacLeod on October 1, 2009 at 4:45 PM
To handicap the race even for fun, you need to have a picture of what shape the country will in and what it will be looking for in 2012. Even what seems to be the big issue in 2010-1 may hardly even count by Nov 12 (think about how “well” Iraq and the WOT, McCain’s main selling points, worked for him last Nov).
I agree that objectively Palin doesn’t make huge sense if you assume a “normal” election. If you assume deep problems, a thorough and visceral rejection of Obamaism on the part of a large segment of the population, and a desperate desire for national renewal, then a lot of un-normal things become thinkable – and necessary.
Right now, Palin is doing a better job of rallying opposition to statism and support for a consistently conservative and optimistic response to the times. She’s outlined a program and philosophy with which I agree. I also happen to like her and instinctively trust her. What anyone thinks about her personally or about her chances doesn’t interest me very much at this point: Without any malice toward TPaw, Mitt, Huck, or anyone else who turns up, I’ll support her until my reasons for supporting her have been shaken, until someone else does a better job, or until she either takes herself out of the running or the voters have spoken.
I’m not blood-committed to Palin herself – only one man I know of has a claim on that honor – but I guess I’m a Palinist. If TPaw or anyone else can advance a credible and attractive Palinism without Palin – as far as electoral politics are concerned – then I’ll pay attention, but it’ll be hard to take possession of that “space” without her permission.
CK MacLeod on October 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Yeah. I’d vote for TPaw if he were the candidate, and with less ambivalence than I voted for McCain. I’m not sure he’s got the mix of qualities to surge ahead nationally.
Standing firm on the budget is good. But I think people are really hankering for more than that. Merely standing in one place and not being dragged out with the leftist tide just isn’t good enough any more. What I see is that conservatives want a reverse: an identifiable march in the other direction. While we just stand here, the sand is receding from under our feet, and the toehold is weakening rapidly.
That’s where I don’t see TPaw as a mover and shaker. Maybe I’m wrong about that, and if so, TPaw has only to prove it to me. For what it’s worth, I don’t see Romney or Huckabee in this role either. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t vote for any of them (I’d still have a hard time voting for Huck), but it does mean I don’t have illusions about where they would lead us. I think the average conservative who knows anything about them sees both Mitt and TPaw as more “business as usual” than not. Huck’s a different story: populist, lacking gravitas.
J.E. Dyer on October 1, 2009 at 6:14 PM
This is the position that a lot of people have re: Sarah Palin.
Right now, she’s doing the work, and (in the midst of a media that only spins negatively on her) garnering a great deal of attention. That translates into money; if she can continue to articulate a cogent vision, she will do well.
Not off-topic, but we need to say this now:
We need closed primaries!
massrighty on October 1, 2009 at 6:48 PM
There’s a lot I like about Pawlenty, but you left out one BIG negative that is a game-changer for me – Tim has drunk the Global Warming Kool-aid.
If he would repudiate his position on that – hard to do, I know – then I could change my mind and support him wholeheartedly. Till then, however, I in good consience cannot.
WWS on October 1, 2009 at 7:00 PM
WWS — thanks, I had forgotten that. I’m not sure how much AGW Koolaid TPaw has imbibed, but a little is too much. There’s a whole religion you’re buying into when you take even a sip. If you don’t realize that, you’re even further behind the curve. Ignorance is no excuse on this one.
J.E. Dyer on October 1, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Idunno, JED, politishuns iz simple folk. What do they know about GW? Unless you’re going to narrow the circle to Inhofe… and Inhofe among national Republicans, it’s gonna be hard to find a candidate who didn’t at least take a sip of AGW. Even, it must be acknowledged, la Palin took a taste or two – gave the strong impression of, used certain verbal constructions implying, acceptance of the doctrine and dogma.
CK MacLeod on October 1, 2009 at 7:10 PM
CKM — I’d have to research the thing further to know what all concrete policies SPal embraced from the AGW laundry list. The main thing I remember is her refusal to see new building-code regulations imposed on Alaska from the C&T monstrosity, and determination not to take TARP money that came with AGW-agenda strings. I don’t know how all that turned out, didn’t keep following it, but she did take a public stand on it.
That doesn’t, of course, mean she’s ever made opposition to AGW religiosity a centerpiece of her political persona or appeal. I’m sure you’re right that she used verbal constructions and the blah-blah-blah. Presumably when in campaign mode with McCain?
And of course, there’s often a mush-brained mish-mash of concepts thrown out when people start talking about “energy independence” and “conservation” and so forth: folks on completely opposite sides of the question use the same buzzwords to justify, on the one hand, removing all the fossil fuels from our cold, dead fingers, and on the other, drilling, baby, drilling. I don’t tend to listen to the buzzwords so much, but listen instead for the policy implications. “Energy independence” is BS, but drilling ANWR isn’t. AGW is BS, but nuclear power isn’t. And so forth. I don’t recall SPal ever conveying hostility to the right policies.
J.E. Dyer on October 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Question for those of you who say TPaw drank too much AGW Koolaid: How much did that affectation add to Minnesota’s tax burden?
(I know the answer, but I thought I’d ask y’all).
And…Merely standing in one place and not being dragged out with the leftist tide just isn’t good enough any more.
I can see someone telling that to the 101st Airborne (and Combat Command B of 7th Armored) at Bastogne.
Standing his ground was not only the best TPaw could do – it was virtually impossible. And yet he did it.
He can’t stand still – but just as the 101st Airborne played a vital role in turning the tide, so did TPaw; in the first 100 days of the Obamascenscion, Pawlenty’s veto of the DFL’s porkfest budget was among the few bits of good news Republicans had.
That counts for a lot to me.
Mitch_Berg on October 1, 2009 at 8:05 PM
test (comment lost in the void)
CK MacLeod on October 1, 2009 at 8:38 PM
The site keeps on eating my attempts to make this contribution, so I’m going to try it without linking to Palin’s April testimony before Salazar in which she made statements interpreted by many as having stepped over the line. Should be easy to Bing up with that much info.
During the campaign, she repeatedly spoke of climate change as real and observable, but mainly took the “it doesn’t matter what causes it, we have to deal with it” position – and was of course reviled as a GW-denialist kook by members of the Church of St. Gore.
TPaw has been closer to McCain on this one, I’m afraid.
Personally, I’m willing to offer mainstream Rs, including Palin and the more egregious TPaw, a pass on this as long as their approach to the issue is conservative. In other words, the scientific validity of AGW theory shouldn’t in my view be a conservative or a liberal issue. What should matter is how one deals with the issue – leaping to top-down government-centric, state-aggrandizing pseudo-solutions or attempting to cope with the issue, including the issue of whether it really should be an issue, by other means.
CK MacLeod on October 1, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Since, as I understand it, TPaw has backed off his AGW stance of 2007-8, and few if any of the regulatory provisions passed in 2007 have even become effective yet, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that it hasn’t cost anything. I do note that “adding to the tax burden” is different from “adding to business and consumer costs,” and regulation generally does the latter. But only after it has become effective.
I’m not here to dump on TPaw. As I said, I could vote for him. A little online research just now showed that AGW believers are very disappointed in his recent about-face on climate change and regulation, and that’s a point in his favor, pragmatically speaking.
But as inspiring as the story of the 101st is, it’s not the holding action that won the war, it’s the offensive plan and the courage to go through with it, in spite of tough odds and the knowledge that there would be heartache and setbacks. Without the offensive intention, it’s impossible to win — and all defensive positions erode over time. All of them.
I’ll be watching TPaw with as much interest as I do anyone else to see if he shows signs of understanding the offense. It’s the offense we need now. The defensive position has been eroding under us for more than seven decades, and it’s time to establish a new position of strength.
J.E. Dyer on October 1, 2009 at 8:50 PM
CKM — I might almost agree with you on the scientific validity not being a partisan issue, except that the definition of the subject derives very much from characteristic partisan mindsets.
Say “global warming” and everyone understands this to mean “one-way warming of the earth in a manner that threatens the future.” There is heavy partisan freight in this formulation, first in the “one-way” descriptor, and second in the “threatens the future” clause.
There is literally no one who makes “global warming” an issue who consciously defines it differently. For those who use scientific observation and analysis to argue that warming and cooling occur in cycles, and that this long-term terrestrial trend is non-threatening, “global warming” is not even an issue. It’s an observably reversible phenomenon without eschatological portent.
This isn’t to say the latter type of person expects no human-life effects whatsoever from global warming, or assumes that we can predict the next cooling cycle with precision. The proposition is, rather, that nothing going on with the climate today justifies cataclysmic conclusions about the future of man or the earth.
In my view, the data themselves do not drive us inexorably to either conclusion: that we’re doomed, or that a cycle’s a cycle, and we’ve lived through them before. The data tend to support the latter proposition, since we have, in fact, lived through climate cycles before. But the data don’t make that conclusion imperative.
The difference between left and right is beautifully captured in the space between the non-imperativeness of that conclusion, a quality the right is characteristically comfortable with, and the imperative the left characteristically defines “global warming” to be. The right doesn’t need a counter-imperative for every imperative of the left. The right sees man and the cosmos differently, in a much less either-or, one-zero fashion.
So: the right can accept inequality of estate among humans and not call it threatening, catastrophic, or tragic. The left must define inequality as threatening, catastrophic, and tragic. Global warming is a similar concept in many ways. The right does not approach it with imperative assumptions, or read imperatives into. The left does.
And the left has defined “global warming” (and its follow-on “climate change”), with an inherent implication of imperative that the right can’t accept, if it is to remain the right. The very idea of these apocalytic imperatives, to be met through the corporate coercion of man, is antithetical to the ideas of liberty and minimal government held by American conservatives.
J.E. Dyer on October 1, 2009 at 9:23 PM
That would be an interesting subject for a debate, JED: You could take the negative on something like “Resolved: The existence of AGW should be primarily a scientific, not a political question.” Or maybe you could find a way to put it better. I’ll just say here that, though I would frame the issue slightly differently, and though I see much merit in the “even if I accept everything you say…” approach to the issue, I agree with much of your explication. I think we’d have to hijack Mitch’s thread rather massively to pursue it further here. (Maybe we could try it in another mode or venue – as a GR debate, say!)
CK MacLeod on October 2, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Weakness: He is NOT Sarah Palin.
Sapwolf on October 5, 2009 at 3:18 AM