Pawlenty's Choice: Governor or President

I don't know, because (0.00 / 0)

--this is geologic time we're talking about, here.

If the people of this state manage to hold on to their homes, jobs, and property through a world-wide recession, it will be because the national and state governments adopt an ideology that Tim Pawlenty has adamantly opposed throughout his political career: big government liberalism and intervention in the economy at the expense of the private sector.

So what does that mean for Pawlenty's career prospects? My answer to that is basically "who cares," because I've come to consider Pawlenty as a miserable little careerist irrelevancy like Coleman: contributing nothing, slowing down what may be good and necessary, only in politics because they attract votes by mouthing conservatism; these guys are nothing, really, in themselves.

Pawlenty doesn't matter for what he does or achieves, which is basically nothing. He only matters if he keeps winning--which he has been doing--because that keeps his office out of the hands of a politician who would actually "do something, achieve something."

For example, if the auto bailout fails to go through, Minnesota may lose another two per cent of its jobs in the coming year--in auto sales, auto servicing, etc. That will have a disastrous ripple effect on the state's economy: more home foreclosures, failure to keep up with rent, collapse in saving tied up in housing, more people collecting unemployment, less consumer spending that creates other jobs. Does anyone anywhere believe that Tim Pawlenty, governor and presidential aspirant, can or will show leadership under a scenario like that? There's no indication of that kind of capability or leadership in his record; he's a leap-frogger in the GOP, and that's all he is.

If Pawlenty prospers politically in the future, it will be because he surfs on the back of a successful national recovery from recession and war. If the national Obama/Dem response is competent, the MN economy and mood improves by osmosis and Pawlenty's numbers here in MN improve by osmosis.

On the other hand, what if the Obama/Democratic government is perceived as incompetent? Ironically, Pawlenty's position improves anyway, if he's still holding office at that time. Like Palin and other non-achiever candidates, Pawlenty can only become attractive if the incumbents are perceived as worse.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 15:08:46 PM CST

He'll run (0.00 / 0)

for president. Not re-election, beacuse he can't do them both.

Why?

Taking the positions needed to win a Republican primary nationally will kill him against all but the weakest Democratic candidates in a GE in Minnesota. If he's not running for reelection he can do a Mitt Romney and move further to the right.

-If he loses he's done with. He barely won both times and no one has ever one three straight in MN. George Allen was extremely popular in Virgina and had won many elections and he still lost and his future ended, Pawlenty would have a lot higher risk.

-It's hard to run for President and be governor. He would lose  about 6 months of the campaign due to the legislative sessions and would have to continue to run our state. It's a lot easier to be a former governor or senator beacuse you are not needed to make decisions every single day. He would face better funded candidates and would need every last bit of time to run around Iowa.

If he decides not to run for re-election, moves to the hard right and starts traveling the nation then when he enters the field for 2012 he'll be in the top tier with Palin, Romney and Huckabee.  

---

by: Populista @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 15:16:26 PM CST

Mormons (0.00 / 0)

Grace --

I agree that if T-Paw wants to be president or vice-president, he would be stupid to run for a third term, partly because of the risk of getting beaten, and partly because although a senator can take enough time away from his or her job to run for president, a governor who spent 3/4's of the time out of the state for two years wouldn't fly.  

As far as the Mormon thing goes, yes Mormons are strange.  They come to the door and bother you.  They vote super conservative, organized the opposition to gay marriage in California, wear strange underwear, won't drink Coke, and have to keep a bunch of food in their basements.

The thing about marrying the dead: although that sounds strange it refers to Mormon's belief that dead people can still be saved, so Morman's spend a lot of time looking up the names of their ancestors (and other dead people too) and hold ceremonies so they can go to heaven. This includes baptism and marrying them to their (usually dead as well) spouses in a temple ceremony since those two ceremonies are required for salvation in the Mormon belief system. Mormons make a point of saying that this does not force dead people to become Mormon, it only allows the dead the choice of becoming Mormon if they choose to in the afterlife.  It IS odd, but I think it actually beats the heck out of thinking that grandma and grandpa are frying in hell because they were Catholics instead of born-again Baptists.

But the mainstream Mormon church DOES NOT condone polygamy and hasn't for years, and does not approve of child marriages.  Only tiny breakaway sects still practice that, and there are bizarre breakaway splinter groups in most religions and a lot of other belief systems -- just look at the New Democrat Coalition ;-) Saying that Mormons practice polygamy is about the same as saying Quakers are strange because they all dress in odd clothes and say "thee" and "thou" all the time.  Or saying that Obama is an Arab.

-- Patronius

---

by: Patronius @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 15:36:48 PM CST

You raise some good points (0.00 / 0)

I have questioned Mormons about polygamy, and I get the sense that while official policy says one thing, actually the policy is more of "don't ask, don't tell, don't look and don't notice". So to me this just more of a marketing deception game. However I would love to hear compelling evidence that I am wrong.  

---

by: Grace Kelly @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 15:57:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You sounded just like (0.00 / 0)

some of the right wingers who couldn't back up their "Obama is a Muslim" claims.

---

by: TonyAngelo @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 21:29:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mormons (0.00 / 0)

Please Grace, don't keep going down this path.

It may be that many Mormons are hesitant to totally condemn polygamy per se, since all of their early leaders were polygamists.  But the Mormons I have known -- and I have known a bunch -- are all highly devoted family men with one wife.  Their divorce rate is much lower than the US average, so they don't even practice the serial polygamy common to many Americans.

The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) -- the main Mormon church -- outlaws polygamy specifically and excommunicates anyone who practices or endorses polygamy (a serious penalty for Mormons.  In heavily Mormon towns in the mountain west this can mean you are cut off from friendship and business associations.) You can look it up on their web site.  They have outlawed it for years.  Mitt Romney's grandfather was one of the last mainstream Mormon polygamists and he had to move to Mexico in order to not have to divorce his wives, since polygamy was outlawed in Utah and by the LDS after he married.  There are no prominant Mormons who are polygamists today, and there haven't been for years.  The polygamists you read about in the paper have no connection with the LDS.  They are splinter groups, and you cannot judge Mormons by them any more than you could judge Catholics by some of the ultraconservative splinter groups like the one Mel Gibson belongs to.

Many religions have a history of behaviors that would not be tolerated today, but we don't discriminate against Catholics because of the Inquisition, the Congregationalists because of the Salem Witch Trials, the Church of England because of the burnings and torture of Catholics, or the Lutherans and the Baptists because of the Thirty Years' War.

This is not to say that the role of the Mormons in Prop 8 and in other far right issues -- including ideas about women -- is not cause for being disturbed with the church.  But disturbed in the same way you might be disturbed with other right wing churches, not based on scare stories and urban legends.

I will also agree with you that being a Mormon is a definite disadvantage for Mitt Romney, since many fundamentalist Christians are antagonistic toward Mormons and believe a lot of the prejudices you have repeated.  

I am hoping that progressives do not share those prejudices.

As a side note, perhaps there is something useful about Mormons' history of polygamy after all -- without the past history of polygamy we might not have all those Senator Udall's who are winning all those mountain state and southwest Senate seats for Democrats ;-)  As they said in the senate races this year, vote for the Udall nearest you.

-- Patronius

---

by: Patronius @ Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 18:52:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

He Will Wait (0.00 / 0)

As long as possible to make any decision. If it looks like Obama is in decline at this point next year he will probably go for it and not run for reelection. If it looks like Obama is doing OK and that he has a real chance to be reelected he will probably opt for that. If it looks like Obama is doing OK and he will be in a tough place for reelection he will probably shoot for the Republican VP nod.

---

by: Judeling @ Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 23:32:44 PM CST