Tim Pawlenty

 Today's Washington Times has a story by Ralph Hallow about NY-23. One of the things Ralph discussed was Newt Gingrich's struggles with the race. He quotes Newt:

He said Mr. Hoffman's "rise is a result of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, the Club for Growth, Gov. [Sarah] Palin and [Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and virtually the entire national conservative movement joining with Mike Long, whose Conservative Party, a very established organization, which won its first big race 39 years ago."

It is striking to me that Tim Pawlenty is the only presumptive 2012 candidate in that list, unless Sarah Palin really gets in, but there are no indications that she is. After a Presidential primary in which Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee fought out for the conservative mantle (to a stalemate, I might add), they both were absent from this battle.

You see, NY-23 is the first big fight of the 21st century for the conservative movement. It is important to remember that this movement is about moving the to the right by moving its governing coalition to the right. That means, by definition, the Republican Party because it is the vehicle of the center-right coalition in American politics. There can be no doubt that, whatever the result on Tuesday or afterwards, that the leadership of the GOP has been chastened. Marc Ambinder's analyzes the race and concludes that Scozzafava's social liberalism was necessary to create the conditions on the ground for the Conservative Party to reach out to national groups. However, ultimately, the Club for Growth, responding to her positions on card-check, the stimulus, etc., funded Hoffman and really made this happen. In other words, the two key components of the conservative movement came together in perfect complimentarity.

So we have the definitional fight for the conservative movement, post-Bush. And only Pawlenty shows up at the fight? But for the movement, the question is as much "are you with us on the fight" as it is "are you with us on issues". Let's consider how this impacts Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, both of whom declined being in the fight over the last several weeks.

Let's take Huckabee first. Mike Huckabee not only didn't endorse Doug Hoffman, Huckabee took $20,000 away from Hoffman's GOTV effort (which tells me that he isn't running, but ...):

Huckabee, who according to Upstate Committee sources is receiving a five-figure fee in excess of $20,000 for his appearance, has refused to personally endorse Hoffman, who is pro-life and signed the "no-tax" pledge in August before his announced candidacy, and has informed Hoffman that HuckPAC will not support him either. Some Conservative Party officials believe Huckabee's fee is intended for his PAC. Ironically, the dinner is held to honor conservatives who exemplify conservative principles.

This offers a(nother) critique of Huckabee from the movement perspective. Huckabee is particularly vulnerable here. In 2008, no electorally significant critique damaged Huckabee within his base of evangelical voters. Why? I think that Ramesh Ponnuru nailed it in a discussion of Romney's campaign:

Romney’s problem was not that he is a Mormon. It was that he is not an evangelical. A strong plurality of evangelicals “would have backed Huckabee against anybody — Mormon, Buddhist, or Catholic,” says another former Romney adviser. “They were voting for one of their own.” To attribute Romney’s loss in Iowa to anti-Mormon prejudice from evangelicals, he says, is like attributing Romney’s victories in Utah and Nevada to Mormons’ hostility to people from all other faiths. But this adviser reaches the same conclusion as his colleagues who blamed anti-Mormonism: Romney should not spend as much time and resources on Iowa next time. 

In other words, the options for Huckabee voters were to go to Romney. Not going to happen. But guess what? Tim Pawlenty is an evangelical. Indeed, during the VP speculation in 2008, the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody argued, "Pawlenty may be the one guy to help McCain with working class moderates AND socially conservative Evangelicals." So he can genuinely compete with Huckabee or someone similar to his right.

Ramesh notes that Romney ran as the candidate of the conservative movement (and I would point out that Fred Thompson's candidacy was about the fundamental mismatch of Romney the man and Romney the candidate of the movement):

All these advisers may, however, be looking at Romney’s options too narrowly. Romney’s strategy in the last campaign was not to run as the social conservatives’ candidate. It was to run as the movement-conservative candidate. Throughout the primary he claimed that he best represented what he called “the three legs of the stool” holding up conservatism, with the legs representing conservative positions on social issues, economics, and foreign policy. The attempt to rally his party’s right made a certain strategic sense. Giuliani and John McCain started the primary season with higher profiles than Romney and, in different ways, represented the party’s left wing. Running to the right thus presented Romney with an opportunity.

Romney, in not playing in NY-23 has, in some important sense, laid the groundwork for a(nother) criticism of him as the candidate of the conservative movement. How can he be the candidate of the movement but duck out on the first major fight of the movement. (2nd, if you count healthcare, which doesn't cut nicely for Mitt...) Can he really run from the same location that he had earlier? No. This suggests that he is taking the route that Ramesh almost recommends by moving to the left end of the party and/or the establishment. (I distinguish between these)

This time Romney could follow a different path. There are no prospective McCains or Giulianis, no heavyweights from the left or even the center of the party. Instead of running as the movement conservative in the race, Romney could run as a party-establishment candidate who is acceptable to the Right. That strategy wouldn’t require him to move left on the issues. But it would entail, among other things, taking fewer jabs at the other candidates for not being conservative enough (jabbing them for having bad ideas would still be in season). It would entail advertising Romney’s conservatism less. The policies could still be conservative — but he would promote them as good ideas more than as conservative ones. 

 I don't know how this plays out. Romney running from establishment/left of the party, and Pawlenty running to the right? Perhaps. There's another angle that Ramesh notes:

To be a strong candidate, finally, Romney has to address one weakness that has not gotten much attention: his lack of appeal to middle-income and low-income voters. The exit polls from the primaries tell a consistent story. In Iowa and Florida, he won pluralities only among those voters who made more than $100,000 a year. In New Hampshire, voters had to make more than $150,000 before they started favoring him. Michigan, where Romney’s father was governor, was the great exception: Romney won among every income group above $30,000 a year. If Romney can’t find an economic message and a way of making it that appeals to middle-class voters, he may as well save his money and not bother running.

Again, we have Pawlenty's strong suit: reaching out to the middle class and working class.

The field is set. A working-to-middle class Midwestern candidate with strong evangelical roots running against a white-shoe Northeast wealthy candidate with strong western roots. This will be an interesting battle.

The left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities released a report discussing tax increases. (H/T Derek Thompson at the Atlantic)  They found that 36 states either have or are considering tax increases. Here's the picture:

Several observations on the list.

California and Florida budget fights have gotten national attention. For California, it was a bunch of ballot initiatives failing. In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist broke tax pledge by signing a number of tax increases, and this has become a rallying cry in the Senate primary. 

Six states with Republican governors who are looking at their future are on the list of states that have done nothing. In Minnesota, Governor Tim Pawlenty is clearly looking at running for President. As are South Carolina's Mark Sanford and Alaska's Sarah Palin. Indiana's Mitch Daniels has been put out there and is being considered by some. And Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Texas's Rick Perry (looking at a primary)

But what I want to know about is the state legislators that are fighting this stuff. Who are the articulate state legislators who are going on the radio and local TV, rallying against these tax increases. Those leaders are redefining the Republican party. They are rebranding the Republican Party by their actions. And they may be winning some of these fights.

Let's hear about them.

To echo and build on Patrick's post.

When a few of us channeled our efforts to RebuildtheParty.com, we intended to jumpstart the conversation about what the Party must do from a tactical standpoint to rebuild.  We did not intend to provide an all-encompassing manifesto that will guarantee a renewed Republican majority.

Our philosophy: rather than sit around and meet behind closed doors or wait for the perfect plan, let’s get started right away making changes within the party infrastructure. 

Let’s impact the conversations about what the Party must do to rebuild.  Let’s ensure, as a start, that the next Republican National Committee Chairman sets the right tone from a tactical perspective.  Most importantly, let’s open up the process so that we, the Republican people, have a say in electing our next Party Chairman.

If we, or anyone, had a precise, complete roadmap for what the Party must do from an ideological or policy perspective, what would we have left to talk about on sites like this one? 

The direction the Party heads is up to you, it’s up to me, it’s up to anyone who cares to participate in the process.  It’s certainly also up to Obama and the Left as their actions will often drive our reactions. 

The political roadmap for the Right is a perpetual work in progress, but one that must be based on the core principles of limited government and individual liberty.  As Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty have suggested recently, we must harmonize conservative principles and fresh solutions when confronting today's challenges.

That’s easier said than done.  In fact, it’s a gargantuan challenge, and one that should not be left in the hands of the entrenched consultant class of the last decade, the conservative movement dead wood (as Erick Erickson calls them) and purely self-promotional politicians. 

If the RNC -- and up and down-ballot campaigns and the grassroots activists they depend on -- adopts the principles as outlined on RebuildtheParty.com, we can build a more active coalition of right-leaning Americans who want to make a difference.  We will have the opportunity to reclaim the “party of ideas” and “party of the people” mantles, and create a culture of competition.

This is what the Republican Party is based on.  RebuildtheParty.com is not the answer.  It’s a step, one could argue a baby one at that.

Yet, when a baby takes their first step, we celebrate.  Why?  Not because they are an Olympic-level walker, but because they’re making progress.

I just got back from the RGA conference in Miami. And though most of the learning and listening for me happened in sideline conversations, Tim Pawlenty put his finger on why the "traditionalists vs. modernizers" debate David Brooks is trying to foist on us is the wrong one. Pawlenty argues we need to return to our core principles and apply them to 21st century issues. This is essentially Newt's argument too. And 21st century issues doesn't just mean taxestaxestaxes. It means we need to be for broad, sweeping, dramatic free-market solutions to issues like health care and the environment that don't let us get painted as any less visionary or aggressive on those issues.

Let me lay down a few propositions here for discussion and debate.

For the foreseeable future, the GOP will continue to be the party of the Reaganite triumvirate of a strong national defense, free markets, and traditional values. Any effort to displace any part of the coalition will be met by fierce and automatic resistance. When Bush tried to transplant free markets with "buying good policy" on Medicare and education, the patient nearly died on the table from blood type mismatch. With the GOP in the minority, now is not a good time to be throwing parts of our coalition over the side -- but to keep everybody in the fold and add new people.

American elections are by and large not referendums on ideologies. They are contests of personality, optics, and performance in office. This goes the same for when they win or we win -- whether it's 1980, 1994, or 2006/2008. The Democrats did not have to change their ideology to win; they needed to change the charisma level of their standardbearer and needed an economic crisis and a prolonged unpopular war.

Because ideology doesn't matter in elections, and so much of politics depends on ephemeral characteristics like personality and who was in when the economy cycled south, the parties paradoxically have relatively wide latitude to govern ideologically without fear of public backlash once they get in. This is why cries of "socialism" were so ineffective during the campaign, and likewise why Bush got most of what he wanted in his early Presidency, even before 9/11. If Barack Obama is able to adopt far-left policies and make it look like he's making the trains run on time, the country will enter a new liberal era not by virtue of public opinion, but by acquiesence to what appears to be competent governance. In 1993-94, the Clintons tried to move the country to the left and looked incompetent in the process. It was the latter more than the former that opened a door for conservatives in 1994.

There is a relationship between ideology and competence in that ideological governance makes the other side fight harder, while middle of the road policies usually stymie effective opposition (but don't move the ball ideologically). This means that Mitch McConnell must obstruct to increase the likelihood of Obama being seen as ineffective or incompetent (independent of his ideology), but we have to lead with our positive alternatives to inoculate against the inevitable charge that the GOP is too negative.

What does this mean for the current party debate?

It means that the GOP will stick to its traditional principles, while distancing itself from examples of Bush's botched execution. It also means that modernization will happen in other, more useful contexts  -- be it in the aggressiveness with which we apply conservatism to a nontraditional issues, revamping how we use technology and modernizing our grassroots efforts, and most crucially, by fielding younger, more inspiring candidates who can transcend petty battles between the "so-cons" and the "fis-cons" by providing a better hope of winning elections and restoring both factions to power.

This is not the United Kingdom, where there is a center-left majority in the population and the party as currently constituted could not possibly have won. In an ideologically flexible America, the political tenor of the times will be determined by the respective positions of the two major parties. If the GOP moves to the center and Democrats stay the left, America will be a center-left country. If the GOP represents the right and Democrats the left, America will be in the center. But if we can continue representing the right, and goad the Democrats into the center, as happened in the '90s, America will be a center-right nation again.

The prevailing wind in the McCain veepstakes seems to be blowing from the north tonight From NRO's "Campaign Spot"

RedState seems awfully secure in saying that McCain's pick is Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. I wouldn't bet a lot against

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDI5NzUzMGJiMmZmOGNiNjc2YTIzMjZjOGEyMDNiYjE=

RedState is busy running a dossier dump on the Minnesota Governor. I'm not going to try and match that, rather I'll try and add some perspective here.

From a marketing standpoint, Tim Pawlenty fills a void in the electorate, both geographically and demographically.

The geography is pretty clear--this is a pick aimed at the Big Ten states.  http://www.thenextright.com/chris-palko/the-big-ten-strategy.  Once the GOP national stronghold, the Upper Midwest moved to the Democrats in the late 20th century and post-Clinton has been very bright purple.  Richard Nixon's old "southern strategy" has worked so well that now the GOP must execute a "northern strategy".  A Governor from MN implements this.

The demography is a bit less clear, but I'll explain.

I was born in 1959 and have been labeled a "baby boomer" in spite of missing Martin Luther King, Jr., Vietnam, Beatlemania and just barely catching Watergate.  The war over 1968 which echoed into presidential campaigns decades later ( Clinton's draft dodging; Quayle and Bush serving in the National Guard;  swift boats, Jane Fonda and Rathergate) all occurred before people my age were even active observers. 

So when I hear people talke about Bill Clinton and George W. Bush being "baby boomers" I think:; not like me. These were the folks who already had the Saab and the socially correct attitude when I was a young guy trying to scratch out a way in the world.

My experiences were gas lines, Iranian hostages, stagflation and cities falling apart. Wishful liberal thinking didn't address this at all.

So, I and millions of others seemed stuck between the haughtiness of "Baby Boomers" and the mulletness of "Generation X". And then I found  someone had described my age cohort, and of course, gave it a really lame name. 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones

Generation Jones is a term that describes people born between the years 1954 and 1965. U.S. social commentator Jonathan Pontell identified the existence of this generation and coined the term “Generation Jones” for it

A rather cursory look at fortysomethings would indicate that the are disproportionately in suburbia, having long ago outgrown trendy urban neighborhoods and far too young to relocate in rural retirement  areas with limited job opportunities.  They are the parents of the Gen Y's,. many of whom are probably Obama first voters.  We are mostly talking people who shop at Target, not Whole Foods.  And we are talking a whole lot of Ronald Reagan first voters.

Tim Pawlenty was born in 1960 to a family in blue collar close-in suburban South St. Paul MN.  We're pretty close to the geographic and demographic wheelhouse of the 2008 electorate here.  

Of course, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. But Michael Barone pretty convincingly points out that "Barack Obama missed the 1980s" due to his unconventional biography and career path.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/missing_a_generation.html

As a community organizer in Chicago and a student at Harvard Law School, he inhabited a part of the nation where it did not seem like, in the words of the 1984 Reagan ad, "Morning in America."

Liberals who think an old ACORN foot soldier is going to appeal to his age cohorts who had more practical things to do out of college are likely to be rather disappointed. Barone points out that Obama's appeal seems far more attuned to the more idealistic younger voter.  

On the other hand, Pawlenty's career path coincides with his peers. He had the same sort of decade most of us had . 

Pawlenty earned his undergraduate degree in Political Science at the University of Minnesota College of Liberal Arts in 1983.^[5] He later graduated in 1986 with a law degree at the University of Minnesota Law School.^[6] In law school, he met fellow student Mary Anderson and one year later they married, settling in Eagan, Minnesota.

As a practicing attorney, his first job was as a labor law attorney at Rider Bennett, where he had interned during school.^[7] Later he was Vice President for the internet company Wizmo Consulting Group.^[8]  

There has not been a previous Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate  born in the 1950's and 1960's. The difference between the Obama biography and the Pawlenty biography is stark, telling, and explains the wide gulf between the world views of the two parties---one based on practicality and conventional lifestyles, the other led by a cosmopolitan who rejected "riding the commuter train"    http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjkwNjQxNjc2NGExZTE2ZDIyNjIzZjljZjlkNzVlN2Q= in favor of some more esoteric life goal.

There also hasn't been a President elected who was born in the years between 1924 and 1946. This group, dubbed the "silent generation"  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation were the folks who manned the fort (literally) between WWII and Vietnam, and much like the "Generation Jones" people, worked to improve their lives within the system, rather than protesting against it.  John McCain's "Country First" http://news.yahoo.com/page/parade/patriotism/mccain meme is very much an echo of the bipartisanship of the Eisenhower era, when a national consensus on foreign policy governed the debate.  

I think there's a market out there for poltical candidates offering brass tacks solutions to an age cohort disappointed with the poor performance of the Bush team but painfully underwhelmed with Obama's lack of direction, lack of experience, and general demeanor.    Picking prototypical Baby Boomer/DC windbag Joe Biden was a complete wiff on Team Obama's part trying to reach this group (you don't invest your hard earned coin with the "garrulous uncle"    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110007800)

Tim Pawlenty may need to keep expectations low http://www.redstate.com/diaries/swamp_yankee/2008/aug/28/being-honest-about-pawlenty-now-helps-pawle/ but I think we will get the better of this exchange once the dust clears.

Update: Looks like it is not Pawlenty. Oh well. I would be happy about Sarah Palin, Meg Whitman, or Eric Cantor too.

There are lots of things that you can say about Tim Pawlenty. My sense is that he represents the future of the Republican Party in many ways. This is, in many ways, the hypothesis of the Sams Club Republicans.

More broadly, we can see Tim Pawlenty as more of a populist than many of the first-tier Vice Presidential picks. In many ways, he is closer to Mike Huckabee than any of the rest of them.

It seems to me that he also represents a generational shift in the Evangelical tradition. He is known as a Republican who embraces even more green positions than John McCain. While I have not seen him speak about poverty, I suspect that he is as articulate as John McCain, Sam Brownback, Rick Warren, and other people of the right who have moved this issue.  In this way, he seems to be embracing the future of the American evangelical tradition.

He also seems to represent a rejection of the donor class which was highly invested in Mitt Romney. Now, this was a rejection by John McCain. If McCain were to win,  that would seal some of that effect. If McCain were to lose, Pawlenty's elevation would likely lay out a conflict between Romney and the donor class and Pawlenty who has a much more mainstream, within the Republican Party, evangelical constituency than Mike Huckabee.

This is an interesting point. Much will happen over the next couple of days and 69 days. We will learn a lot about America and the Republican Party. I am excited that Pawlenty will be one of our leaders in this period.

Just some random thoughts that I have had watching this. I have been too busy to focus on blow-by-blow, which may or may not help for clarity.

First, the Republicans:

• It really feels like the pro-choice thing is a hip-fake. One option is that it is a hip-fake for Mitt Romney. Another is that it is a way of telling moderates that McCain is thinking about them even if he is not capable of giving them something.
• It sure feels like the Romney campaign is back in full gear. I mean, why today, of all days, does Mark Halperin have a link to something about Romney's healthcare plan? This is exactly the sort of tactic that the Romney campaign excelled at in the primary. Romney's problem is like Obama's. All the great tactics, etc., will only get you so far. In the end, "the dogs won't eat the darn stuff."
• Thinking back to the 3 subgroups (see the POS presentation after the jump on these groups) that the McCain campaign thinks that they need to move, I wonder who helps. This feels like a list for Tim Pawlenty or Carli Fiorina, except for the 3rd:
  
  • Rehab Republicans. I think that they are mostly back. Mostly "the Mac" being "back" was enough to move the dial on them. Someone too convention probably is mildly repelling.
  • "Walmart Women" Who would do that?
  • Facebook Independents.
• Wouldn't Joe Lieberman put the exclamation point on "old"?

Really only one thought on the Dems:

• Perhaps Patrick was right. A very good source is telling me that multiple DNC members have told him that Hillary is the person. While not immediately intuitive, Clinton is the candidate who one can easily imagine helping with Barack Obama's numbers. Which seem to be ... in bad shape? Who else would fundamentally shift the numbers? You could see her bringing Democrats back home, etc., in a way that none of the other candidates could.
• By the way, she would probably school most Republican VP candidates in the debates. And she and Bill know how to attack attack attack.

But what do I know?

Former PA Senator Rick Santorum outlined for the Philadelphia Inquirer his idea of a successful John McCain vice presidential pick

Here is a quick screen his team should apply: Does the potential running mate have a connection to President Bush? Is he or she not ready for prime time, because that's the GOP's main charge against Obama?

Does the man or woman have meaningful government experience - long-serving governor or member of Congress, because the public understands that running a company and knowing how to govern are not the same thing? Is the potential running mate a lightning-rod conservative or, conversely, a selection that threatens to turn off the GOP's conservative base?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/veep_watch/2008/08/santorum_says.html

Now one caveat should be made here. This comes from a purple state incumbent who just lost a re-election by 20 points. Much as folks here shoot the messenger, the base alone is just not enough.

But let's run through this screen. Santorum's former Governor Tom Ridge has two dings---he's going to irritate conservatives and he worked for Bush.  Lieberman clearly is even more problematic on those grounds than Ridge.

Mitt Romney probably passes this screen, on the other hand Mike Huckabee might be the sort of "lightning rod" Santorum (perhaps in belated self-assessment) fears would cost votes.

Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal may not be "long serving governors" as neither has completed term one.

Tim Pawlenty seems to fill all these boxes, as would someone who's running off the radar screen in recent weeks , South Carolina's Mark Sanford (I don;t think a southern male VP is very strategic in this environment, but he passes this test).  

I do need to remind folks of one dark horse who passes the Santorum test with ease.

RI's Don Carcieri

http://thenextright.com/ironman/the-case-for-carcieri