Pawlenty To Support McCain

By California Yankee Posted in Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Buried in this New York Times article about the Republican Governors Association meeting in Miami was this paragraph:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota drove to the evening reception with Mr. McCain and later said in an interview he intended to support Mr. McCain if he ran for president.

Is Pawlenty campaigning to be McCain's running mate?

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Falling for FalwellComments (17) »
Pawlenty To Support McCain 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

was on my 3 person shortlist for President with Jeb Bush and Mark Sanford. Bush isn't running and Sanford said he isn't running (although not as convincingly). With this announcement, I'm stuck with the McCain/Romney/Guiliani/Thompson/Gingrich choice. They are all a step a below those up top. I'm leaning towards Thompson or McCain right now.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I hope he somehow finds his way into the party spotlight and onto the 2008 ticket (at a minimum the RNC keynote).

Tim is exactly what the party needs right now.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

I am puzzled by your priorities among your second tier. It seems you are leaning towards the two I regard as unacceptable.

Although I frequently change my mind on this, depending on a range of factors, including the balance between my own preferences and my judgement of the electorate's feelings, my current order of preference would be:

1. Giuliani
2. Romney
3. Gingrich
4. Thompson
5. McCain

Quentin Langley
Editor of

I don't believe McCain passes on Barbour to pick Pawlenty, if he gets the nomination.

Remember the electoral math. McCain is more than capable of winning every state Bush won in 2004. Putting Pawlenty on the ticket, along with the convention being in St. Paul, could move some of those close midwest states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan for the GOP.

McCain/Pawlenty would be the strongest ticket we could field except for McCain/Jeb.

"As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this."
- George Mason

I am rather frightened that Ohio is going to be hardcore blue from here on in, at least for the next 10 years. We need to think fast to win in 2008.

Because Giuliani, assuming he doesn't move right enough on abortion, gun rights and gay rights, would need help in shoring up the South, particularly in taking swing states or areas that are in swing states, like Arkansas and the Florida Panhandle. It also only adds to the leadership theme, noting Barbour's leadership during Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, especially in contrast with Kathleen Blanco.

With McCain, he's had his moments, but he's still so far as we know basically conservative on those three main issues. He doesn't necessarily need to the same help in the South, which should open the door to a Tim Pawlenty

I think Barbour is one of the smartest guys alive in politics plus he's got executive experience in MS.
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Haley Barbour and maybe Jim Talent both come to my mind as being somewhere on the radar screen if too many of the GOP front runners turn out to be buffoons.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

As much as I like Pawlenty, I think McCain picked up a more important endorsement today from the Iowa Right to Life Chair Marlys Popma.

Popma served as political director for Rep. Jim Nussle's (R) 2006 gubernatorial race, but will join the staff of McCain's exploratory effort full-time. She has also previously served as the head of Iowa Right to Life and the Republican Party of Iowa. In the 2000 presidential race, Popma was actively involved in Republican Gary Bauer's campaign.

McCain and his political team had been courting Popma for months. When McCain visited Iowa back in April he made time for a meeting with her, after which Popma reportedly declared that "conservatives don't know him at all."

McCain allies say Popma was courted by a number of potential candidates and argue that her decision to join them represents a major step forward in McCain's Iowa caucus candidacy.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Whoever ends up winning the Republican nomination, picking Pawlentry as VP would be genius. He's Presidential material in his own right, a solid conservative, and is a successful governor for a state Democrats "have" to win in order to get to the White House.

If Republicans have a lock on Minnesota, the Democrats have to bat a thousand to win the Presidency.

My personal dream ticket: Giuliani/Pawlentry.

This ticket would be absolutely unbeatable.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

I am from SC. There is nothing I would like better than to share the view of Sanford as a true believing conservative icon even though he seems a bit of a flake to me. Many I respect here have spoken well of Pawlenty. Even my own neo-con icon, Bill Kristol backed McCain.

How true can they be if they back an anti-tax cut, anti-rights of the "rich" to pass on their wealth to their progeny, anti-free speech, pro amnesty open borders, betrayer of judges with the gang of 14, pro terrorists rights, cares more about himself than country prima donna suck up to the left, under miner of the president at war, stutterer on anti-gay marriage maverick?

I'm sorry, given how McCain has behaved in the Senate as in not playing and working well with others that have an "R" after their name, his 24/7 armchair CINC as long as he trashed Bush co-star on MSM appeasement leftists shows that get low ratings, and his gross and unattractive temper, I lose a lot of respect for these true believers that continue to back him despite his lies and bad character after the 2000 SC primary and after the past 6 years.

McCain calls himself a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. TR was the biggest of the big government conservatives. He will not be a Sanford.

I can't see straight. later

One more thing. McCain seems more intent on being able to say I told you so after a defeat in Iraq than in doing what needs to be done to win. Because what has been needed and is needed now, is for McCain and the other 434 to show unity behind the CINC we have, and shut their da*n mouths.

vent over
Its just that I had so much hope for this Paw character, and now...

Plus, we must put a Black man on the ticket in 2008. That is a must. Watts or Steele or Blackwell.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

If you think every Republican or conservative who supports McCain is a sell-out, then you are tossing a large amount of the part overboard. Govs. Sanford and Pawlenty are good conservatives and they seem to think McCain is the best Republican candidate for President. I bet both know he isn't perfect, but no candidate is.

If you think calling someone pro-amnesty and pro-terrorist rights matters to anyone outside the fringe who listen to that bile, you're wrong. I dislike CFR and McCain's position on some issues, but on the vast majority of issues (including abortion, judges, national security, and anti-porking) he is right in the middle of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, he still has the ability to win over many independent and moderate voters that have been abandoning Republicans in recent years.

I would go through all of your over-wrought accusations against the Senator, but it would not matter to you. So I'll just point out one of them. McCain was not anti-tax cut, he believed that if we were going to cut taxes we should cut spending as well to keep the budget in balance. That's a very different position and one I agreed with at the time. It would be nice to have more Republicans who believed in cutting spending as well as taxes.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

From MPR:

It's true that Pawlenty's no-new-taxes pledge didn't include fees, tuition or property taxes, which are set at the local level. Pawlenty vetoed a gas tax increase during his term, and he pushed for a 75-cent-a-pack cigarette fee which critics viewed as a tax.

Pushing for a 75 cents per pack cigarette tax does not make you a good conservative. I like Pawlenty, and I like Mitch Daniels, but their support for tobacco taxes renders them "pragmatic politicians," not good conservatives.

between state and federal tax policy and quit denouncing republicans, and for that matter even democrats, as betraying conservative principles when they support revenue increasing measures at the state level. There is a fundamental difference between the macro-supply side effect of tax rates at the federal level and the state level. Plus, states cannot print money.

Plus, on a more fundamental level, conservatives that favor devolving power to the states must recognize that at the state level they are more accountable, etc for their policies. This is what we are for, so if we want the states to do more for good conservative reasons, we have to recognize they have to pay for it.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

"...between state and federal tax policy and quit denouncing republicans, and for that matter even democrats, as betraying conservative principles when they support revenue increasing measures at the state level. There is a fundamental difference between the macro-supply side effect of tax rates at the federal level and the state level. Plus, states cannot print money."

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I would much prefer for the country to go back to the days when 3/4ths of government spending was done by the states. I'd support state tax increases in exchange for cuts at the national level. And in some ways that happened with the Bush tax cuts. If we could abolish all federal aid to certain things (education, welfare, health care, etc) and let states do their thing, it would be much more efficient. Also, NY could have their large Euro-style welfare state and OK would not have to.

I don't fault state and local taxation if the government is relatively efficient which MN seems to be. NJ or LA would be a different story. Federal taxes, however, are far too high.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

And to be honest, their are very few politicians I admire given how the job effects most of them. So, I guess, that yes, I consider most politicians to have sold out speaking the truth and standing for anything lest they permanently alienate a potential voter that could make sure they keep their job.

Moreover, as you may know, I was a Dem Party activist for 20 yrs, during which time, I was a county official, delegate, etc. Over time I came to resent the lies the Dem Party sells to gain power and I came to be ashamed of my part in it.

I converted to conservatism intellectually in 6/2001 in an epiphany in which I came to see that they were right on most issues going back 40+ years. And so, to see members of my new party that I joined as a true believer in conservative principles, and watching those principles win all those years over the false liberal policies I was advocating, and seeing those principles fix the economy, seek to fix the courts, and peace thru strength, I am repelled to see republicans compromise on what works with morally bankrupt democrats and liberals who I see as leading this country that I love to destruction.

Moreover, while a Dem, I was in SC during the SC GOP primary, and watched as objective observer, still a Clintonite, as McCain lied, showed poor character and temper, insult Christians and Southerners, and say and do anything to win. He proved to be the antithesis of the straight talk express, especially compared the Bush. I was a Dem that actually was biased against Bush, but he showed me he was an honest man of great character in 200, even though I still held my nose and yellow dawged for Gore.

McCain strikes me as loving himself far more than America. I don't trust him. I fear his temperament in that office.

And it disappoints me that conservatives seem to care more for being on a presumed winning side than for Reagan principles that win.

But, as I say, I am disappointed in almost all politicians, and will settle for what we get and will vote GOP, PERIOD. And will pray for McCain and stand by him as I have Bush. And I also do admire him at times.

I do not use the shorthand words amnesty, etc to be snarky. Its just a shorthand way of expressing disagreement. And Bush is also wring on many of the same issues, but at least I trust he really believes in what he says.

And McCain does on many things too. Adam, you have actually made me feel a bit guilty as per the 11th commandment. I'll think about what you said. But as a convert to the party, and not to any man, I am in it for what's best for America. That may mean to be less harsh towards McCain.

we pray


Your attempt to defend McCain on taxes actually makes my point, when you say:

"...he believed that if we were going to cut taxes we should cut spending as well to keep the budget in balance."

This statement shows colossal ignorance or the very duplicity of the left that McCain claims to loathe. The term "cut taxes" is meaningless. 40 years of history shows that cutting tax RATES raises more revenue, not less. This rhetoric plays into the Dems main game plan to maintain control of more of our money and freedom.

more later
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

I appreciate you listend to my comments. I know sometimes we all get set in our views and don't really listen on some issues. To be clear, I very much understand why people are wary of McCain. I totally understand why many will not support him in the primary. I hope that those who are campaigning for others will realize that McCain may still win and in that case will be the best hope for conservatives in the general election. And he won't be much worse than the average Republican has been for years. Furthermore, he will do things people on the right actually like becuase he is on the right on many issues. I do think he will "compromise" a lot and give up things that will not make the right happy. But if the other option is President Hillary Clinton with a D SEN and D House, a McCain landslide may be very helpful.

On the tangent about tax rates and revenues: I agree that cutting tax rates does not lower revenue by as much as static models predict. However, there is not real evidence that revenues go up compared to what they would have been if the rate had stayed constant unless the rates are in the 70%+ range (the peak of the Laffer Curve). The dynamic models of taxation generally show that the Bush tax rate cuts have recoved about 1/3rd of the revenue lost. We need to be using the dynamic models, but as an economist I must say that I think cutting rates now does lead to less revenue compared to leaving them higher. Note: I still support cutting taxes because I believe in smaller government.

Finally, I just wanted to note that you are one of the best commenters/diarists we have. And we are lucky to have had you come over to "the dark side" in 2001. Whoever your horse is in 2008, best of luck campaigning in SC for them.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I would still think it a very, very long shot that I would even consider tossing Johnny Mac a vote in the general - to say nothing of the primary.

But that said, Gov. Pawlenty's endorsement tells me it might be time to give that line of thought a second (and perhaps a third after that) look.


"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

I'm a tax attorney and long-time student of economics, but we need to be candid that the argument that we are still above the Laffer Curve--i.e., that lowering taxes increases revenue, rests on shaky ground. At a high level like 70% in 1980, sure, it's almost sure that lowering taxes increased revenue. But there is a point at which that changes to lowering taxes lowering revenue.

No one knows where that tax rate is, and anyone that says otherwise simply does not know the economic research on the point. However, it is entirely reasonable for McCain and others to believe that we are well below that threshold, so lowering taxes without lowering spending just creates chronic deficits. One cand disagree but understand that it is all speculation. McCain does have a strong record of combating pork barrel spending. In the long run, the amount the government spends is the drag on the economy, not necessarily the tax rate--because the spending is what creates the debt backed by the full faith and credit of the government. Eventually, that must be paid off. Spending is the root of the problem.

Romney may be the best choice for some superficial reasons. He is tall, good looking, and has a full head of hair.

Yes, that might be absurd criteria to have for a president, but no bald guy has won since Ike (sorry McCain, Giuliani).

Romney could also put the Northeast back on the map, including NH, VT, CT, and ME.

The Mormon thing might hurt him in the South, however.

Just lettin' you know, prolly half the GOP is Right of me, and I ain't giving any votes at all to the likes of McCain - and now Pawlenty - Giuliani, Newt, Romney, and a host of other like-minded RINOS.

I voted for George Bush Sr, and for Jr, all of their races - but NOT for Robert Dole or for Perot, or for Ford, either.

If I won't, you can bet that those on the right side of me will make sure that those men couldn't win an election for Dog Catcher.

McCain's last Senate race depended SOLELY of DEMOCRATS who crossed over to vote for him while the Arizona GOP caucussed to CENSURE him and demand that the National GOP also censure him.

The rest of you guys can vote for him or any of these RINOS you want to - but don't imagine to yourselves that you can BLACKMAIL the rest of us to vote against our conscience!

You have to get someone to at least run far right enough to show the Right side of the base SOME SHRED OF DIFFERENCE between the GOP and the Dim candidates - and as far as McCain and Newt and Giuliani are concerned, you cannot name a Dim politician that I consider Left of those RINOS.

And I am keeping a list of RINO supporters like Pawlenty - they won't get my vote, either!

And also, the entire field (Newt?!?) are flaming RINOS! Out of curiosity, what is your definition of a Republican, or of conservatism, that no one under the sun seems to satisfy?

doesn't grow a majority. If you really think all the pro-life, small government people you just listed are RINOs then you are placing yourself to the right of 90% of the population. That's fine, I have no problem with people being on the right. But if you think a mainstream conservative like Newt or McCain is a RINO, then your intolerance is showing through.

Enjoy your very small tent. We'll be over here trying to grow the Republican one back in to the majority.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

While there is much about McCain I do not like, I don't think it is fair to call him a RINO.

Newt absolutely isn't a RINO-I think he is one of the better spokesmen for conservative ideas right now.

I also don't think Romney is a RINO-he doesn't come across as being uber conservative, but he isn't anything close to a Lincoln Chaffee or Olympia Snow.

Although I do agree with your contention that RINOs are most likely not going to be a winning ticket, I just object to your definition of who is a RINO.

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service