Redstate

By Bluey Posted in 2008 | Featured Stories — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was elected to a second term last November, becoming one of the few Republicans who managed to survive the Democrat wave that swept the country. These days, he’s part of a new campaign -- trying to convince voters that Sen. John McCain is the right man for the presidency in 2008.

Pawlenty recently spoke to me about the issues likely to take center stage over the next two years. As someone with no favorite in this race, I donned my reporter’s cap and peppered him with questions about why he believes McCain is the right man for the job and what it will take for a conservative to win in Minnesota and if he would be McCain’s vice president if it was offered to him.

Read on ...

Jonathan Perkins assisted with the research and transcription of this interview.

Can you explain why you’re supporting Senator McCain in 2008 and some of the issues that went into that and why you came out with the decision now?

Well, first of all, I’m serving as the co-chair of the exploratory committee, the national co-chair of the exploratory committee, so he hasn’t yet announced, but we are hoping on the exploratory committee that he will announce and run for president. He looks like he’s interested in that and obviously taking all the steps to potentially get ready for that.

In terms of reasons why, there are several, but maybe I’ll give you three or four of the big reasons. First of all, I think the times both for our nation and for the Republican Party and the conservative movement are calling out for a certain type of leader, and we have a nation that is prosperous and hopeful but faces a lot of challenges, and we need somebody at this point in time in our history that has deep international affairs and national security experience and perspective and background. And Senator McCain uniquely, in the presidential field on the Republican side, possesses that experience. On the party side obviously we just went through an election where we just got our cans kicked, and it requires us to re-evaluate, I think, a little bit, not our values or our issue positions, but making sure that we not only have a candidate who reflects our values and principles, but also can win the election.

Senator McCain has broad appeal not just with Republicans, but he also has a demonstrated ability to appeal to independents, and therefore increase the likelihood we’ll win. And secondly, beyond kind of the times calling him out from a national and party perspective. On the personal level, and somebody I’ve known for quite some time, he’s an individual of immense character. I think he’s a once in a generation leader. His strength and his steadfast qualities are inspiring. You know all the stories. This is an individual who was a war hero; he was shot down in Vietnam; he was treated very brutally by his captors; his character shone through in those years of captivity to his fellow prisoners of war. He never took the easy path, he always took the hard path and endured it, and his character has shone through that. That’s an epic story, it’s a legendary story, but that alone I think is a measurement of his courage and his strength and his character. And then since then, his life of public service and his other aspects of life have continued that, he is fearless and he is strong and he is courageous and he is steadfast.

Then lastly, but also importantly, he is a person who conveys Republican and conservative messages and perspectives very effectively. I know there’s always some whispering or some concern you know well, McCain isn’t conservative enough, but I really have to rebut that, and say if you look at the issues, a few for an example, he’s been solidly pro-life. I don’t think anyone seriously debates or questions his pro-life credentials. Number two, he has been in favor of traditional marriage; he co-chaired the state initiative in Arizona to protect and protect traditional marriage, I should say. On the national level, again I don’t agree with him on everything, but on the national level he didn’t support the national constitutional amendment for traditional marriage, but he took that position because he felt it was a state’s rights issue, which you know, in the eyes of at least many conservative legal scholars, is the more conservative position; in other words let the states do it rather than to federalize it, you know I would have supported it myself the federal approach and I also support the state approach. His views on that are conservative; he does support and want to protect traditional marriage.

On the spending issues on the fiscal side, most reputable and credible people who rate members of Congress on the spending side rate him as one of the most fiscally aggressive or fiscally hawkish conservatives in Congress. He regularly rates at or near the top of people who are most aggressive at trying to keep down and hold down federal government spending, and he’s been a leader on things like trying to abolish earmarks and he’s been a very loud and consistent voice against government spending. People have said, “Yeah, but he didn’t support the original Bush tax cuts.” He did support tax cuts -- he wanted a different configuration of tax cuts, he wanted them to go more to the middle class than the configuration the president had composed and then ultimately passed and he has been a supporter of extending those tax cuts and obviously other tax cuts throughout his career.

There’s always some … you know anybody whose been in public life for as long as he has been or anybody else, there’s always some issues that we’re not going to all agree on you know and I don’t agree even agree with him on everything obviously, but he is I think the strongest candidate in terms of personal character, strength, the timing for him in terms of his appeal more broadly to the Republicans plus the independents to give him the ability to win the election. And if you fairly look at his record, I think most reasonable people would conclude he is a bona fide conservative.

Again we’re not going to agree on every issue, but if the rule or the test is going to be we’re going to eliminate candidates who have a time or two deviated from what our litmus tests are, then we will have no candidates -- every leading candidate for the republican presidential nomination will be eliminated. So I ask conservatives who may concerned about Senator McCain to use the same test then on everybody, as to the leading candidates anyhow. None of them would meet the ultimate test in the eyes of some commentators or people who are critics of Senator McCain, so I just ask people to be fair and if you are fair-minded, but if people are fair-minded about it he is easily as conservative or more conservative than any of the other leading candidates in the field.

I think that raises an important point at least for my next question. There are obviously flaws with all of the top contenders and even with some of the minor contenders. You have Rudy Giuliani, who faces criticism on social issues. You have Mitt Romney, who has gone from one position on abortion to another. You have Sam Brownback, who people disagree with his position on immigration. So you have all these troubling issues, but now with Senator McCain, one issue you didn’t mention was his support for campaign finance reform and also his support for the president’s comprehensive immigration reform. I just want to tackle each of those independently. The Supreme Court recently announced it was going to review the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and evaluate its constitutionality. Do you support that law as it is currently written or do you think it needs to be revised?

To be just very brief about it, the McCain-Feingold legislation in my view is flawed and I don’t agree with aspects of it and I think that are potential serious constitutional issues relating to it -- that’s why the Supreme Court has reviewed the case. Again though, whether it’s this issue or one or two other issues, if conservatives are going to eliminate Senator McCain on any one of these issues, then all of the other candidates would be eliminated as well on one or more issues of equal weight. I just want people to be fair as they evaluate him relative to the field.

On immigration, you’ve made cracking down on illegal immigration a priority of your administration. How do you feel about the president’s desire to institute a guest-worker program that he again mentioned last Tuesday in his State of the Union?

Well I think my approach would be tougher than the president’s, but I think it would be unrealistic to identify, round up and throw out an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, so we have to find a way without amnesty and without granting citizenship to people who have knowingly broken our laws to have some temporary legal status because it is not realistic to round up and throw out 12 million people out of the country. Even if we wanted to it would be a daunting if not impossible task, so I don’t support amnesty and I don’t support citizenship for those who knowingly violate or continue to violate our laws. But some temporary worker status for jobs that go unfilled I think is a reasonable goal. So there are aspects of what the president is saying that I agree with, but I don’t agree with how far it goes and how lenient it is with respect to knowing law-breakers.

Just like Senator McCain, you live in a border state, you’re the governor of a border state -- obviously a different border than the southern border where we have most of our problems -- but what do you think about the idea of a fence?

I support it. The Canadian border is obviously different in character and magnitude than the Mexican border. The volume of illegal immigration activity is not the same, but I strongly support the idea of border security, including a fence, and ultimately significant upgrades in the technology capabilities as well for monitoring and enforcing our border security.

You stood out in 2006 among Republicans as an incumbent who managed to win in a very Democratic year in a state that’s often referred to as a swing state, at least recently. Whereas two other people, Mark Kennedy lost by 20 points and Gil Gutknecht lost his House seat. I’m just wondering, how were you able to win and what does the future hold for Minnesota and Republicans in general there.

Well, I might just digress. I’ll answer that question if I may digress back to Senator McCain for the moment, because I think your question goes right to the heart of why McCain…

And that was my follow up, by the way. Could John McCain carry Minnesota in the general election?

If 2008 is anything close to 2006 -- and again, the pendulum swings and each cycle is different for different reasons. I ran first in 2002, it was a more Republican year, the president was more popular and there was more momentum on the Republican side. Obviously, 2006 was not that way, and 2008, at least if we had to guess right now, it doesn’t look like a particularly promising year or a year that is likely to have a high watermark for Republicans. We hope its not as bad as 2006, that’s a backdrop to saying this: in a state like Minnesota and in most swing states, if all you get is just the Republicans, in a normal year, you’ll get about 35% of the vote. This past year at times, the Republican generic ballot for governor or U.S. senator was in the high 20s, so you can be the best Republican or conservative candidate that there is and if you’re in a swing district or a swing state in a year that’s challenging for Republicans, more likely than not you’re going to get your tail kicked, and that’s what happened in part in Minnesota.

You now have a situation where if you look at a national map, if you assume in years that aren’t favorable to the Republicans that the Democrats own the Northeast and the Eastern seaboard till you get to the Carolinas, and that they own the West Coast for the most part and what some call the “Rust Belt” -- I put that in quotes -- with the exception of Indiana, I’m the only Republican governor left between Vermont and the Dakotas. Mitch Daniels is the only other one in Indiana, and so the entire Great Lakes region is held by Democrats in terms of governorships. The entire upper Midwest -- I count South Dakota, North Dakota as western -- has gone Democrat with the exception of me. If the Republicans are competitive in Florida -- you know it could go either way; hopefully we still have a little advantage there -- and we have Texas and we don’t have Ohio, you have to win some chunk of the Northeast or some chunk of the Upper Midwest. That’s a long-winded way of providing background to this reality: If 2008 isn’t a great Republican year, then we better have a candidate who not only satisfies and excites Republicans, but also can reach out to get our share and more of the independent vote. Senator McCain can do that. Every candidate always says he can do that, but [McCain] has demonstrated he can do that and the polls have reflected that.

As you know, these things always come down, nominations for president or endorsements on a state level, they always come down to two basic factors: one is purity and one is electability. Depending on the year, people might want to weight one more heavily than the other. Purity is very important, and we deserve a candidate who reflects Republican and conservative philosophies and principles and values. Senator McCain does that and I recognize like all of us, including all the other presidential candidates, he hasn’t done everything perfectly. But we’re never going to find an electable candidate in all likelihood who has. And if you look back, frankly, on everybody’s record, including Ronald Reagan’s record, I mean if the test was absolute purity, Reagan would have never gotten endorsed based on his past record as a governor of California and other things. I love Reagan, don’t get me wrong, so you have to balance in a thoughtful way finding somebody who’s both acceptable on the purity meter.

Having said that, one of the things McCain could certainly do in Minnesota is picking you for vice president. Is that something you’d consider?

Well, I said I’d serve out my term as governor of Minnesota. I really like being there. I’m going to help Senator McCain as a volunteer and put my volunteer time into it and I’ll do whatever he wants. I’ll pass out brochures, I’ll hold signs at rallies or give speeches or raise money … I really believe in him as a person, and again I don’t even agree with him on everything, but I’ve seen him up close and personal. I’ve been to Iraq with him I’ve been in other situations with him over the years. The man is absolutely fearless, and again, I look at that and I say, that courage is great, that attitude is great. Sometimes when you disagree you go, oh boy, that’s strong. But he’s a person of once in a generation character, I think, for a leader. So, I’m not trying to dance around your question. There’ll be many, many good people to choose from to be vice president. I’m not thinking about that. I’m focused on being governor. But to get back to your original question, he is also the kind of Republican that has at least a chance at winning in places like the Upper Midwest and at least parts of the Northeast. And if you don’t have Ohio and you have a tough year, you need to have a candidate like that.

You mentioned Iraq and since that’s such a dominant issue today and Senator McCain has taken such a lead on that, how do you feel about the surge? As I understand it you’ve been somewhat skeptical about that.

Well, I think it’s belated. You know, I wish the surge would have occurred two or three years ago before the situation degenerated more toward sectarian strife and sliding toward civil war, particularly in Baghdad. So I wish the president would have heeded the call for more troops earlier. That being said, the decision has been made and I, I think now we need to rally behind the troops and try to make it work.

Do you think that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq?

I’ve been there twice, and so you know, I try to follow this as closely as I can. I have to rely on the assessment of those who are most familiar with it, our military leaders. Their position is we’re not winning, but we haven’t lost it either and so, I think that’s probably a fair characterization of it at present.

One of the things that McCain’s rivals, both Romney and Brownback have tried to do it seems, is try to capitalize on the social issues and to appeal to social conservatives. How big of a role do you think those will play in the ’08 campaign. As you saw, the president hardly made any reference to them even in the State of the Union address.

I think they’ll play a significant role, particularly for the Republican candidates, because those are very important issues to our base voters and I think as a matter of personal values are important to the candidates who are running, or at least most of the candidates who are running. I think Senator McCain is going to do well in that comparison because again, he’s been rock solid as a pro-life candidate and he’s been supportive, very supportive of traditional marriage. I don’t want to say, and I won’t say anything bad about any other candidates, but I think Senator McCain, but again, if people are going to apply these disqualifying tests on an issue or two, then we’re not going to have any candidates left.

Give us a preview of what you have in store in your coming administration. What are the hot issues in Minnesota and the good things conservatives can expect from you?

We have a number of exciting things going on and I won’t bore you with all the details but, in short, we’re going to maintain fiscal discipline in Minnesota. That doesn’t sound very glamorous to other parts of the country that may be red states. But in Minnesota, that’s a big deal. We have a state that has a tradition of lots of government spending, so we’re trying to slow that down. I just proposed the fourth smallest increase in the state’s budget in 40 years, and one of the other three smaller one’s was mine. We’re trying to maintain fiscal discipline, so we’re going to draw a line on no new taxes and making sure the spending levels are reasonable and sustainable.

We have a big effort for education reform. We’re moving toward performance funding for our schools, so instead of just paying for good intentions and seniority, we’re going to pay for results. We’re doing a significant overhaul of the high schools. We’re trying to do some pretty significant market-based healthcare reforms while expanding some coverage as well. And we’re moving into energy. You know, Minnesota is a big renewable energy state, and I know that’s sometimes a point of contention within the Republican Party, but it’s been a real success story in Minnesota from a national security standpoint. Unhooking ourselves from foreign oil is a good idea. And we have some tax relief, too. We’re pushing some property tax cuts and tax exemptions for veterans and some income tax deductions for various things as well, so we’ll have a tax cut package also.