Expanding on his brief comment in yesterday’s Evans & Novak Political Report, Bob Novak devotes an entire column on why Tim Pawlenty would be a disastrous pick for McCain.
Minnesota’s Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty carefully prepared his plan for controlling greenhouse gas emissions to present it at the annual Washington winter meeting of governors. That effort coincided with Pawlenty’s fast-rising prospects to become Sen. John McCain’s choice for vice president. But behind closed doors, his fellow governors from energy-producing states complained so vigorously that the scheme was buried.
Pawlenty’s position as chairman of the National Governors Association may prove his undoing. While party insiders sing his praises as ideal to be McCain’s running mate, leading conservative Republican governors have been less than pleased with him. Pawlenty has collaborated with the association’s vice chairman, Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, in a fat economic stimulus package, as well as the energy proposal.
Hours after Pawlenty’s energy plan was derailed, McCain was urged in private by GOP governors not to appear to be anti-coal or anti-oil. The upshot of a busy event was that Pawlenty came over as somebody considerably different from what McCain needs to calm conservatives.
[...]
As co-chairman of the group’s energy committee, Pawlenty proposed statewide goals of reduced CO2 emissions. But Pawlenty encountered adamant opposition. Barbour led the way for governors from energy-producing states, including Republican Rick Perry of Texas and Democrat Steve Beshear of Kentucky. The issue of greenhouse gases was ”set aside,” Pawlenty told me, ”because we realized there was no consensus.”
McCain, who has co-sponsored a global warming bill with his friend and supporter Independent Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman, got more of the same over dinner with Republican governors that night. They made clear that energy was a major issue and that they hoped McCain would be sensitive to energy producers. By all accounts, McCain was receptive.
Captain Ed agrees.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Well, again, I like Pawlenty. McCain is awful on global warming, so I don’t concern myself terribly about Pawlenty’s position. And frankly, I don’t quite understand why people are so eager to nix him as a possibility. Has anyone heard the inane names being floated as possible McCain VP’s? Tom Ridge? Charlie Crist? Joe Lieberman? Pawlenty’s leagues better then those folks, and probably fits in the upper half, in terms of conservatism, of plausible VP picks. And he does quite a bit more for the ticket and McCain’s image then admittedly more conservative possibilities like Rob Portman. Find me a truckload of young conservative/semi-conservative executives with some charisma, and I’ll agree to Ixnay Pawlenty. Until then, I’m going to continue taking a close look at this deeply personable young man, who’s only flaw is that he’s only moderately more conservative then McCain.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Matthew, the reason I am so doggone dogmatic on the ideology of Climatism is that it literally has the potential to negate every other conservative initiative.
Climatism has the potential to diminish national sovereignty, extinguish economic growth, add impetus to the zero population growth crowd and the accompanying sterilization and forced abortion efforts in the developing world, etc.
Being green is a luxury we have as an affluent nation for whom scarcity is not the chief concern. We can become more fuel-efficient, we can change our lightbulbs, we can drive more eco-friendly hybrid cars. The reason I am so fearful of the GOP becoming Gore-lite on these issues is that very smart, attractive guys like Pawlenty seem determined to embrace statist, command-and-control mechanisms instead of innovative market-based solutions.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Gary Matthew Miller,
I agree, but my point is this; how does having Tim Pawlenty on the bottom of the ticket make McCain, who already favors extreme solutions to global warming hysteria, more likely to push bad proposals? Anyone who doesn’t understand the sheer idiocy of a unilateral cap and trade system isn’t capable of being tutored, but if anything, I’d expect that Pawlenty’s presence would make McCain less likely to run hard on extreme global warming solutions. If he picks Tom Coburn, he’ll be free to run towards the center, because conservatives will be slightly mollified. He’ll almost have to run to the center if wants to retain his Maverick image after pandering to the radical right (as it’ll be portrayed 24/7). If he picks Pawlenty, he’ll have shored up his center, mollified evangelicals, and he’ll be free to run on platform that’s more broadly acceptable to economic conservatives; we might actually see him proposing some of those “market based” global warming reforms.
It seems to me that alot folks are making a fairly clear mistake when they consider McCain’s VP choices; McCain simply cannot afford to toss away the detachment he’s built from movement from conservatism and the radical right. He needs to remain a maverick, or we lose. He can’t appear to be kow-towing to conservatives. He tried that last year and in 2006, with the widely publicized Liberty University speeches, and various shifts in position. It failed miserably, and much of his popularity had cratered even before he decided to return to the Maverick image with immigration reform. He simply wasn’t credible and the media and some conservatives made this abundantly clear. He only regained his popularity when he began to run a campaign that was more authentically John McCain and more in keeping with the Maverick image he’d spent nearly a decade building. So people ought to jettison some of their hopes here; McCain simply can’t pick an old white guy who doesn’t differ from conservative orthodoxy anywhere. Ideally, he needs to pick a “McCain conservative” that conservatives can live with. And ultimately, our options are remarkably thin on that front.
Pawlenty’s one of them, because on balance, he’s more conservative then McCain, but retains an image as an independent. Also, he’s charismatic enough to charm conservatives that aren’t intimately familiar with his occasional deviations from orthodoxy. Simply from a practical perspective, he makes too much sense to dismiss because he holds a poor position that McCain also holds.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
McCain is trying to pretend he is a conservative. Picking a liberal VP would only confirm the fact that he is one, himself.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Pawlenty isn’t a liberal Joe. Don’t let folks fools you. He got exactly the same rating by CATO institute as Romney. On economics, global warming, aside, their records are indistinguishable. And he’s fantastic on social issues, signing a conceal and carry law, fighting for a gay marriage ban, and increasing abortion restrictions through a waiting period law; he’s quite consistent as well. Something has gone horribly awry when we call a guy who was rated the best blue state Governor in America, and who is objectively the most conservative Governor Minnesota has ever had, a “liberal”.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
The best economic blue state Governor in America that is.
February 28th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Here are 26 good reasons why Mitt Romney should be our VP nominee posted over at the New Republican blog site, a pro-elect McCain for the Presidency site. I would sincerely appreciate it if some of you naysayers would spend a few minutes to review them. Thanks!
http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/huckabee-wins-kansas-mccain-needs-romney-as-vp-pick-now/
By the way, wasn’t Huckabee hilarious the other night on Saturday Night Live. If I didn’t dislike him so much, I would have laughed harder… he really is funny when self depricating.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Here is a constitutional explanation of why McCain does qualify to be a natural born citizen of the United States.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
“Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
Anyone born inside the United States
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”
This all seems extremely cut and dried to me, like third grade stuff.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
[...] of heft. In fact, the Governor is an extremely well-spoken and highly intelligent. Despite my misgivings about his environmental policy, Pawlenty is impossible to [...]