Something happened? Yes, Pawlenty started running for President

by: The Big E

Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 17:42:57 PM CDT

Minnesota's Republican governor used to make soaring speeches about defusing climate change. Now he's making jokes, and some environmentalists are wondering whether his gone-missing support amounts to "bait and switch" politics.

Pawlenty signed legislation in 2007 to put MN on a course to significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.  The bill set goals of reductions of "15 percent by 2015 and 80 percent by 2050."  MN was a leader in addressing the issue.  Until Pawlenty became a roadblock inside the last year or so.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is stoking frustration among Democratic state lawmakers and prominent climate thinkers for becoming "totally silent" on two major efforts to stem greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota and in a strip of states stretching from Canada to Kansas.

Sometimes he says one thing to one group (like rural voters) then something different to another group (urban/suburban voters).  Other times he'll say one thing to his base then the opposite to the media.  

At the beginning of a legislative session he'll talk about the importance of bipartisanship and working together to get things done for the good of the state.  Then he'll refuse to negotiate on anything at the end of the session.

The reporter, Evan Lehman, sums it all up ... and so succinctly:

Then something happened.

Ya think?  Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, I know, I know ...

Would the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Glenn Beck, Fox News and Michele Bachmann allow a candidate to become their nominee who acknowledges that global climate change is real?

How will Pawlenty attempt to woo the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathers that compromise the Republican party base with his record of supporting pro-environmental legislation?  This could be difficult, but his only defense might be "I didn't mean it when I said it."  And this would fit perfectly with his political personality.

Maybe he'll try to play it off as something that wouldn't hurt the industries doing the most damage to the earth, but then realized it would harm their ability to make their profits by polluting and reconsidered his support for the bill.

Personally, I think he's going to have a tough time selling it to the base who all believe that global climate change is a hoax.

The New York Times isn't helping.