Tim Pawlenty jumps ship

By Richard K. Barry 

Yeah, ha-ha. It should've been me.

I don't know if this will get a lot of play, but it sure is a strange item. Here we are, 46 days to the election, and Mitt Romney's campaign co-chair Tim Pawlenty has decided now would be a good time to resign that position to take a job as a bank lobbyist.

According to The New York Times:

Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, is resigning as a national co-chairman of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign to take a job in Washington as a top lobbyist for a group representing banks and financial companies.

Mr. Palwenty's new role as President and chief executive of the Financial Services Roundtable was announced by the organization Thursday morning. In a statement, the group said that Mr. Pawlenty would step down from his role at Mr. Romney's campaign because the organization is bipartisan.

This really is odd. Is it that things are so tense within Team Romney that Pawlenty couldn't wait to get away? Is it that any thought of being rewarded with a cabinet post in a Romney administration is pretty much a lost cause? Or is it just too hard for poor Tim to hang on thinking that if he had only stuck it out, he couldn't be doing any worse than his party's nominee?

Don't forget, he probably was the only credible candidate who could have appealed to the Tea Party right as well as the party establishment and maybe attract enough swing votes. As dull as he would have been as a candidate, it's possible, with the economy in the shape it's in, dull would have worked.

I'll bet he really is shaking his head at the bone-headed decision he made to quit his bid for the nomination when he did.

I almost feel sorry for him. Then again, as a lobbyist for the banks, he'll be making bucket loads of money.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Foreign policy is so 1980s

By Mustang Bobby

That was then, this is now:

The same Republicans who criticized President Obama for lacking foreign policy experience in 2008 are now stepping in to defend the dismal international relations record of Romney-Ryan ticket.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) on Sunday argued that Romney and Ryan are actually better equipped to lead on international relations than Obama and Biden:

GINGRICH: I think it's an advantage that they're not part of the current mess... Mitt Romney has the same amount of foreign policy experience as Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet empire decisively in 8 years. I would rather have Romney and Ryan rethinking everything than have the current team continue.

PAWLENTY: Romney and Ryan have a terrific national security policy team around them... Governor Romney spent his entire career in global business arrangements, transactions and traveling and understanding different countries, cultures and geography.

Based on Mr. Romney's recent trip overseas, do we really want to "re-think everything"?

Oh, and not for nothing, but if Barack Obama had had the nerve to use a Navy ship as a backdrop to introduce his running mate who never served a day in uniform, the hawks and the veterans groups -- not to mention the brave forces of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists like Rush Limbaugh and Jonah Goldberg -- would be on the rampage.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A bunch is more than two

By Mustang Bobby

The mystery of Mitt Romney's tax returns got a bit of a bump when it was disclosed that Paul Ryan and all the other entrants in the veepstakes had to submit more than just two years of tax returns to the Romney campaign for vetting:

In a briefing with reporters in Virginia Saturday, senior adviser Beth Myers, who was charged with headed the vice president selection process, declined to specify exactly how many years of tax returns were required, saying only that "several" were requested.

Several, by definition, implies more than two years.

Tim Pawlenty told George Stephanopoulos on "This Week" [Sunday] morning that he gave "several" years of tax returns to Mitt Romney during the vice presidential vetting process. Pawlenty said he didn't remember the exact number of years. He later said he gave Romney a "bunch" of tax returns.

When pressed about what "several" meant, Pawlenty said "We don't get into the details of the vetting process."

More than two, less than twelve? Bigger than a breadbox?

Mr. Romney says he's reluctant to release his own returns because of what the Obama campaign will do to them: he is sure that they will lie and distort what's in them. (Get me Dr. Freud, stat.) That's not a subtle indicator that there is something in those returns to note without even resorting to the kind of lying and distortion that Mr. Romney would undoubtedly do with the information if the tables were turned.

The tax return issue is more than just knowing a candidate's financial history. In American politics, it's become a metaphor for how we live and tells what's important to us: charitable giving tells who we look out for outside of our family, investments tell us both fiscal prudence and ideological support of corporate interests. In our capitalist nature, the tax return is the window into the soul.

Mr. Romney is asking America to trust him with, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor by electing him president. The least he can do is trust us with knowing him a little better than just "Trust me." 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

With writing all over the wall, Pawlenty drops out of GOP presidential race

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It wasn't so long ago that Tim "T-Paw" Pawlenty was the darling of conservative and generally David Broderesque pundits on the inside, heralded as the sort of appealing "bridge" candidate with executive experience who could unite the GOP's corporatist establishment and Tea Party / theocratic extreme. He looked the part, presidential but also populist, and George Will et al. just couldn't get enough of him -- sufficiently conservative, unlike Mitt Romney, but not crazy, unlike Michele Bachmann. (In this way, he was presented and promoted, with the same punditocratic swooning, just as Mitch Daniels was, it's just that Daniels never jumped in.)

Well, the shine faded pretty quickly as Pawlenty proved to be a terrible candidate -- not charismatic, not arousing of the base -- and, while doing terribly in the polls, proved to be a desperate one as well, trying everything he could to catch on, passing himself off, despite a fairly technocratic record in Minnesota (where he was anything but an ideologue), as both a devout social conservative (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.) and a hardline fiscal one (anti-tax, anti-spending, etc.).

Quickly, the punditocracy jumped ship, with even Will beginning to say nice things about Bachmann. And, really, it was only a matter of time before the inevitable dropping out. Even his wife was saying implicitly disparaging things about his chances.

Basically, if he couldn't do well in the Ames Straw Poll -- that is, in Iowa, close to home, where once upon a time (pre-Bachmann) it looked like he had a shot -- that was it. The writing was going to be on the wall for everyone to see.

And he didn't, finishing third behind Bachmann and Ron Paul in a contest that didn't feature Romney and Rick Perry (or at least for which they didn't actively campaign). Which isn't all that bad, perhaps, but he needed to do a lot better, particularly after sinking so much energy into it.

But it wasn't just Ames. Pawlenty never once caught fire, never once looked like a serious contender. And while there may still be room for a "bridge" candidate to emerge between Romney and Bachmann/Perry, it was clear that he wasn't going to be it.

And why? Who knows? Maybe he didn't want it enough. Maybe there isn't much of a constituency for someone like him in today's Republican Party. Maybe he's just too small for the national stage. Maybe he never really found himself, hence his desperate struggle for attention. Whatever the case, he seemed to wither and shrivel up as the campaign went along, hanging on at the very bottom of a weak and embarrassing field with the likes of Rick Santorum. That's sad company, to be sure.

And now it's over. We won't have T-Paw to kick around anymore. Not that anyone was paying much attention anyway.

(photo)

World comes to a halt as Republicans take to the stage in Iowa to debate future of humanity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ah, yes, there was a Republican debate last night in Ames. Good times. Maybe if I weren't on vacation I would have cared. (I was too busy watching The Makioka Sisters -- a stunningly beautiful film.)

Or maybe not.

No, no, let me be serious for a moment.

Did last night's debate mean anything? Well, not as much as Saturday's straw poll -- which won't really mean anything either, though it will clarify both public and insider GOP perceptions and possibly even help separate the wheat from the chaff, as they say.

Not that we don't already know what's wheat and what's chaff.

Romney is wheat. He's the national frontrunner -- though doubts remain on the right (if not venomous opposition from conservatives and other Tea Party types, and he may have a fairly low support ceiling.

Bachmann is also wheat, or at least what passes for wheat these days in the GOP (and on the far right generally). She's a serious contender, craziness notwithstanding.

Other than that?

It's amusing to see Santorum and Gingrich try to convince us we should take them seriously. Do they take themselves seriously? Of course. Do they know they've become joke candidates without a hope of winning anything other than the political equivalent of a Razzie? Maybe -- if they're being honest with themselves, but one doubts either one is capable of such self-effacing honesty.

It's also amusing to see more of the Bachmann-Pawlenty spat. T-Paw, lagging far behind in the polls (not even doing well in Iowa, so close to his Minnesota home), is still so desperate for attention that he's taking the gloves off, as they say, hopeful of emerging as the compromise candidate (particularly liked by the Beltway punditocracy) between the establishmentarian, business-oriented Romney and whoever ends up leading the charge from the radical right, either Bachmann or Perry (or both). Yes, I suppose he still has a shot. Yes, it's a long, long one. And he doesn't stand a chance against Bachmann in their little ongoing feud.

Pawlenty death watch: He'll "reassess" matters if he does poorly in Ames. Now there's a nice, lovely euphemism for "make up some self-aggrandizing excuses and get the hell out."

Perry life watch: It looks like he'll take the leap on Saturday. Not that he's trying to upstage the Ames straw poll or anything. No, of course not.

Cain? Yes, he took time out of his busy schedule scapegoating Muslims to grace us with his presence.

Paul? Hey, did you know he really hates government and much, much prefers the Hobbesian state of nature?

Huntsman? Oh, yes, Huntsman the Formidable, as I've dubbed him. He remains to me and impressive figure, an old-school, Reagan sort of conservative who in other, saner times would have been the clear GOP pick. Now? Not so much.

Wait, you want substance? Come on, you all know how it went. Obama is the satanic incarnation of anti-American evil. And taxes are bad, so very, very bad!

(But if you want some helpful fact-checking, check here. Needless to say, there was some fastness and looseness going on last night. What else is new?)

Besides, that spat is what seems to have gotten the most attention.

And, overall, it does now seem that civility in this Republican field is a thing of the past. As Slate's John Dickerson explained:

The debate had the makings of a serious discussion about leadership, what form it should take, whether the candidates have demonstrated it, and how it should be applied in Washington. However, this discussion took place in a roller derby where that underlying theme was obscured by people trying to bruise and batter each other. Criticisms and veiled critiques broke out into the open among candidates desperate to avoid being eliminated from consideration. In the end, there was a lot of arm flailing. Everyone went round and round, and the lot of them wound up where they had stood before the debate began.

Fight, fight, fight! Isn't that what we all crave -- what really gets us going? Who cares that the global economy is imploding or that our civilization is crumbling? Or that it's this right-wing ideology, so much on display last night, that is one of the main causes of our present (and future) crises?

Politics is a bloodsport.

And now, on that note, I'm going to go sit out on the deck and read (about something that has nothing to do with American politics circa 2011).

(photo)

The Michele Bachmann Phenomenon -- crazy, extreme, formidable

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm still on vacation, and enjoying it immensely (and trying not to pay too much attention to the news, even as the world economy crumbles yet further, day after disastrous day), but I can't resist posting on yet another fantastic political profile by Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker, this one on Michele Bachmann.

It's long but deserving of your time and attention.

We all need to understand better the phenomenon that is Bachmann, not least because she may win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mitt Romney remains the fairly clear frontrunner, but he may very well have a low ceiling of potential support, and, if Rick Perry isn't included (and he may or may not run), Bachmann is currently running a strong second. What's more, given Tim Pawlenty's weakness, she'll likely win this Saturday's Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, an influential barometer (at least for the media, but also for donors and, generally, for party undecideds), particularly if she does well, which she likely will (she is, after all, charismatic and engaging), in Thursday's GOP debate.

If Perry runs, she'll have a hard time securing the right-wing vote, assuming that Perry actually runs an effective campaign. Indeed, if she and Perry end up competing for that vote, Romney's path is made so much easier -- the nomination could then be his by default, with the right-wing vote split.

But if he doesn't, and if Sarah Palin stays out as well (as expected), and if the race turns into a Romney vs. Bachmann slugfest (as opposed to, say, a Pawlenty vs. Bachmann spat, which she crushes), who's to say that Bachmann wouldn't win? (She's got the right-wing bona fides, he doesn't. It might just be as simple as that.)

Anyway, enough horse-race speculation. Read Lizza's piece.

Here are the two high-level takeaways:

1. Bachmann is a crazy conservative ideologue and conspiracy theorist.

2. Bachmann has formidable political skills, has an impressive campaign operation, and is a serious contender for the nomination.

Crazy, extreme, and formidable.

Formidable because she's crazy and extreme.

Because being crazy and extreme is what makes you formidable on the right.

Which says all you need to know about today's Republican Party.

Tim Pawlenty's wife's qualified enthusiasm for his chances

By Richard K. Barry

More news on the Tim Pawlenty presidential campaign "death watch," and this one is just plain funny.

It seems that poor Tim can't even catch a break from his own wife. CNN reports recent comments by Mary Pawlenty that she was "cautiously optimistic" about her husband's chances and that: 

He needs to move from where he's been and show significant progress, but I'm reasonably confident we're going to see that good progress.

Ouch. When the best your own wife can do is say that she is "reasonably confident" that your campaign won't flatline in the near future, that's not good.

The comments were made with the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa in mind, which is a key event in the Republican presidential nomination race calendar that takes place on August 13th.

There was a time when Pawlenty was hoping for a big showing in Iowa. It now seems that he's simply hoping not to embarrass himself. Judging from the relative lack of enthusiasm from Mary, what do we think the chances are that Tim will show "good progress" any time soon and, more to the point, how long do we think it will be before he decides to pack it in?

Hard to say.

And, by the way, here's another little piece. The New York Times reports that:

Al Hubbard, a former Bush administration official who two months ago became a top policy advisor to Tim Pawlenty, has stepped down from Mr. Pawlenty's presidential campaign.

When he came on board in June after a close ally, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, decided not to get in the race, it was considered a big coup in the competition among GOP candidates to recruit people with connections to W's network of donors.

Not surprisingly, the Pawlenty campaign suggests we not read anything into his departure, stating that Mr. Hubbard "became busy with work and is not operating in a policy role."

Or maybe the stench of defeat coming from the Palwenty campaign drove him away.

It could be that.

But to hedge my bets just a little, T-Paw is putting in a huge effort to do well in Ames and knows as well as anyone that a poor showing would be disastrous, as much as his campaign is trying to play down expectations, apparently with the help of his wife.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

What is the Ames Straw Poll and why do we care?

By Richard K. Barry

Sometimes it's good to take a step back and do a little self-education about an apparently significant event in the current election cycle. Experts and other pundits talk about some of these things like we all know exactly what they are and how they work, which is frequently not the case.

Recently, as I have been trying to figure out how things are going in Iowa for the crop of Republicans seeking their party's nomination for the presidency, I've been hearing a lot about the Ames Straw Poll.

So, what is it?

Near as I can tell, it's a non-binding vote that takes place at a fundraising dinner in Ames, Iowa benefitting the Iowa Republican Party. Obviously, its purpose is to determine voters' preferences for GOP presidential candidates. Although there are a number of pre-Iowa Caucus "straw polls" in the state, it seems that Ames is by far the most important based on the fact that it is centrally located and draws voters from all over Iowa. This is the reason it's called the "Iowa Straw Poll."

The next one will take place on Saturday, August 13, 2011 at the Hilton Coliseum on the campus or Iowa State University.

As for voter eligibility, non-Republicans are allowed to vote. Voters have to be 18 years of age on or before the presidential election date, which, if I understand correctly, means a voter could be as young as 16 and 3/4 years old, or thereabouts. A voter must be a legal resident of Iowa or a student attending an Iowa university or college, which is really interesting given efforts by some Republican run states to disenfranchise college students. And, finally, a voter has to have bought a ticket to the fundraiser.

It also appears that the integrity of the vote is taken seriously as hands are stamped or dipped in ink to ensure that no one can vote twice, although in past years integrity may have been an issue.

Again, the vote is non-binding and has no official effect on the presidential primaries, but it is considered, whether fair or not, an indicator of the strength of a given campaign and treated as such by the media and others who pay attention.

Just to give a sense of the magnitude of the event, here are some results from 2007: Mitt Romney (4,516/31.6%); Mike Huckabee (2,587/18.1%); Sam Brownback (2,192/15.3%); Tom Tancredo (1,961/13.7%); Ron Paul (1,305/9.1%); Rudy Giuliani (183/1.3%); and John McCain (101/.7%).

I should note that neither Giuliani nor McCain attended the event in 2007, which obviously had an impact on their performance and the usefulness of the straw vote that year. Clearly, decisions to attend or not to attend are influenced by one's assessment of chances for success.

As for the August 13th vote, the following names will appear on the ballot: Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Thad McCotter, all of whom are aggressively campaigning in the straw vote.

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich will also be on the ballot, though these three are not expected to attend.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Sarah Palin will not be on the ballot.

Bizarre as it may be, the Ames Straw Poll is considered the first major organizational test of the 2012 season. I guess any electoral contest is as important as the chattering classes deem it to be (whether it is or not).

All I can say is that Tim Pawlenty, thus far failing in all attempts to gain traction, probably has an awful lot riding on a bunch of people attending a fundraiser in the middle of Iowa in the middle of August. I'm sure he'll be sweating for all sorts of reasons.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Elephant Dung #36: The Bachmann-Pawlenty spat

Tracking the GOP Civil War 

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.) 

Sorry, haven't done one of these in ages...

Not that there haven't been many, many instances of Republicans attacking fellow Republicans...

For example, as you may have heard, Tim Pawlenty, running well back in the GOP presidential race (and seeming more and more desperate), recently used the news of Michele Bachmann's migraine problem to suggest that the Minnesota congresswoman might not be up to the job of president. It was a cheap shot.

Bachmann quickly put concerns about her health to rest -- yes, I'll take her at her (and her doctor's word), and migraines, even serious ones, shouldn't be a disqualifier -- and, to her credit (even if one disagrees with her views), has fought back, slamming Pawlenty's record as governor of their state (criticizing him from the extreme right). She just wasn't going to take his shit lying down.

Now, I'd take Pawlenty over Bachmann any day. As her statement suggests, he's not nearly the right-wing conservative he's been trying to make himself out to be, while she's the real deal, a bona fide nut. And he's fighting back as well, with a spokesman noting that while he was "scoring conservative victories" as governor she was "giving speeches and offering failed amendments, all while struggling mightily to hold onto the most Republican house seat in the state." Ouch.

Pawlenty is so far back at this point that this hardly seems like a meaningful fight. Bachmann has emerged as the clear #2 behind Romney while Pawlenty has failed to generate much support at all. I suppose he still has a shot at emerging as the compromise candidate between Romney and Bachmann, but there may yet be Perry to contend with, and, thus far, he has done nothing to suggest that he could actually pull off a victory.

Still, with most of the Republican candidates falling all over themselves to prove their conservative bona fides and casually trying to outdo one another in their extremism, all while remaining mostly civil and directing their fire at President Obama, this little Bachmann-Pawlenty spat is about as interesting as it gets.

This day in history - July 21, 1925: High school teacher John T. Scopes is found guilty of teaching evolution

By Richard K. Barry

In Dayton, Tennessee on this date a high school teacher was found guilty of teaching evolution. Yes, John T. Scopes was found guilty of teaching science. (That's Darwin to the left, by the way, not Scopes).

So, where do the current crop of declared and potential GOP presidential hopefuls stand on teaching science in our schools?

Michele Bachmann has said that evolution is a theory that has never been proven one way or the other and that schools should teach intelligent design as an alternate explanation for the origins of life.

Tim Pawlenty thinks that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, which is Sarah Palin's view.

Rick Perry supports teaching creationism in Texas public schools.

Rick Santorum is a creationist, obviously.

To his credit, Newt Gingrich seems to have a more nuanced view (hell, let's give him credit for something).

Mitt Romney, also to his credit, once said that while he "believed that God designed the universe and created the universe," he also believed that "evolution is most likely the process he used to create human beings."

Even those who want to support science see the need to equivocate in order to keep a large segment of the conservative base happy.

All in all, things really haven't changed that much.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The GOP: True believers, dissemblers, and keeping score

By Richard K. Barry

I was watching Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty on Face the Nation today. I've written before about how much I believe Pawlenty exudes weakness and how poorly I think he will continue to do in the race. Much of my assessment comes from my sense that he is a pandering fool. And, even at that, he just seems bad at pandering, which is not a good thing for a politician.

ThinkProgress had a piece up today in which they quote Pawlenty as saying that science is split on whether or not sexual orientation is a matter of biology. Whatever. We know that Pawlenty has called into question the science of climate change after having previously accepted it. Clearly science in any form is not the man's strong suit, so I would tend to ignore whatever he might say about it. It's just that whatever he says about anything sounds like an opinion of convenience. Hence the ick factor.

All of this has led me to think about constructing a scale to gauge the extent to which prominent Republican politicians actually believe the stuff they keep saying.

We have been seeing many stories about the power of the hard right flank of the conservative movement, its energy and enthusiasm, and how terrified GOP pols are that they will find themselves on a hit list of one of the more vocal Tea Party groups or media outlets that seem to be calling the shots for the entire Republican party.

As for the scale, a "one" would be a Republican who actually believes all of what he or she says publicly. A "ten" would be someone who believes none of it.

Let's call it the GOP Liar's Index.

Now, since I don't think perfection is possible in this life time, I'm going to say that there are no "ones" and no "tens."

Back to Pawlenty. Maybe he's a "five," stuck in the middle and not sure of anything he has to say, which is what makes him look weak - half believing the conservative orthodoxy and half disbelieving it. Not sure.

Bachmann would have been a "two" a few months ago, but my sense is that she is starting to moderate her public opinions away from what she actually believes. Ironically, in her case, the duplicity isn't to placate the Tea Party but to sell herself to more mainstream Americans. She might be a "four" now.

Romney could be a "seven" as he sits very uncomfortably within a hyper-conservative Republican Party, knowing that he has to sell himself to a lot of people on the right who just don't like him.

I don't know about Huntsman. He might be a "two" or a "three." Not to lionize the man, but he does seem to come across as someone who believes the things he says.

If there are people in the GOP who seem to believe everything they say, I suspect that they both have the last name Paul. Yep, these guys are scary in that way.

Palin? I swear that she is too stupid to really believe anything she says but simply mouths the lines that will get her the biggest applause in front of Tea Party crowds or at Fox News and not, inconsequently, the biggest pay check. I just refuse to care any more about Sarah Palin.

John Boehner? I think this poor SOB could be a "nine." He's a Washington insider. The last thing he wants to do is shut down the federal government or play silly right-wing extremist games on the Hill, but that seems to be the way he has to talk about it all if he intends to keep Eric Cantor from taking his job.

Paul Ryan has to be a "two." Another true believer, as I've written.

I'm only having some fun here. Feel free to tell me who you think is being truest to their own values. But I don't think I've ever seen a group of politicians treading so lightly so as not to alienate a movement within their own party that is simply crazy. I'm just saying that some of them, particularly those Republicans in the Senate and House who might be facing Tea Party challenges from the right, are going to be forced to take positions that don't naturally sit well with them. I'm thinking here of the Hatches and Lugares and Snowes.

I don't want to say that politics is too much about who can lie the best, but in 2012 the GOP is sure going to test that theory.

The bottom line may be that for a Republican to be successful electorally, they would have to be either true believers, i.e, totally out of their freakin' minds, or really good liars about being totally out of their freakin' minds.

You will note that I have studiously avoided giving my scale a top or a bottom. Either way we're screwed.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Pawlenty, desperate for attention as ever, says science "in dispute" over homsexuality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Back at the end of May, I wrote about the desperation of Tim Pawlenty. While he had been seen as a possible "bridge" candidate linking the somewhat moderate GOP establishment with the party's more right-wing grassroots base (both Tea Party and "social conservative"), he just wasn't catching on.

He was, and remains, fairly well-liked by pundits (including influential conservatives like George Will) and other political and media insiders, but his numbers, reflecting not just a lack of name-recognition but a lack of support broadly, have been consistently poor. The latest RCP national average has him at just 4.5%, eighth in the race behind Romney (the clear frontrunner at 25%), Perry (who may not run), Palin (who almost certainly isn't running), Bachmann (who has emerged as a strong second to Romney), Cain, Paul, and, yes, even Gingrich (who is running a joke of a campaign). He's sixth in Iowa (with Perry not included), close to his homestate of Minnesota and somewhere he should be doing well (or where he must do well to have any shot at the nomination), at just 6.7%, ahead of Paul but behind the others and well back of Romney (19.3%) and Bachmann (12.7%). And he's even further back in New Hampshire, in seventh (if you include Giuliani, who may jump in but likely won't do well) and a long, long way back fro Romney (34.5%).

It's not for lack of trying, though. Pawlenty has, thus far, proven to be a lackluster and often embarrassing candidate unwilling to take on Romney face-to-face, but he's done a great deal to try to appeal to the base, including coming out as a social conservative (i.e., theocrat, bigot) on issues like same-sex marriage and DADT and proposing a ridiculous trickle-down tax/budget plan designed to suck up to Grover Norquist, the Tea Party, and other anti-government movers and shakers on the Republican right.

It's just that nothing seems to be working, and so he's still pathetically grasping for attention, trying to emerge possibly as a third option to Romney and Bachmann. And he's doing that by continuing his "social conservative" assault of homosexuality, asserting on Meet the Press this morning that science is "in dispute" over whether being gay is genetic or a choice:

GREGORY: Is being gay a choice?

PAWLENTY: Well, the science in that regard is in dispute. I mean, scientists work on that and try to figure out if it's behavioral or if it's partly genetic –

GREGORY: What do you think?

PAWLENTY: Well, I defer to the scientists in that regard.

GREGORY: So you think it's not a choice? That you are, as Lady Gaga says, you're born that way.

PAWLENTY: There's no scientific conclusion that it's genetic. We don't know that.

Of course, you can always find one or two scientists, perhaps paid by some right-wing institute, to dispute what the (non-partisan) scientific community has come to accept as established fact, based on all the available research, and thereby to cast doubt on consensus (and to suggest that there's "no scientific conclusion." (This is how conservatives, including Pawlenty himself, dismiss climate change, for example.) As Think Progress notes in this case:

In fact, there is no dispute among health professionals. All major medical professional organizations agree that sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed, from gay to straight or otherwise. The American Psychological Association, the world's largest association of psychological professionals, describes sexual orientation as "a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors." There is considerable evidence to suggest that biology, "including genetic or inborn hormonal factors," plays a significant role in a person's sexuality.

Is the evidence conclusive to the point of absolute certainty? No, but science rejects absolutism and is never certain about anything. That's the point of science, completely ignored by those on the anti-science right. Is there any "dispute." Yes, if, as with climate change, it comes from those on the right who, largely for partisan/ideological reasons, disagree with the vast majority of the scientific community and reject the overwhelming amount of evidence against them. But there is certainly no dispute among reputable scientists that genetics plays an essential role in determining sexual orientation and that being gay is not a matter of choice.

Of course, none of that matters to Pawlenty, who's really just trying to score some political points by situating himself as an ignorant bigot worthy of support from the GOP base. Will it work? No. His ship has sailed -- if there ever was a ship at all. I, like many others, thought he had a good shot at the nomination if only as a suitable second choice for many across the Republican spectrum. But there's no denying just how bad a candidate he's been, nor just how uninteresting and uninspiring he is. He can push his fiscal/economic bona fides all he wants, but he'll never be Romney, who in Republican circles has extensive credibility in that area. He can push his social conservatism, faux or otherwise, all he wants, but he'll never be Bachmann, who has a long record of advocating extremist right-wing positions on hot-button social issues. And while he could still hang around in a Romney-vs.-Bachmann race, he just doesn't seem like a suitable compromise candidate anymore.

Okay, he's still got a shot, given how weak the Republican field is, but it's longer than ever now. Which may only exacerbate his desperation and push him to say more and more extremist and ridiculous things.

Into the abyss

By Greg Prince 

And so the shutdown begins. The GOP controlling the Minnesota legislature has demanded complete capitulation to their agenda and if they don’t get it they’re perfectly willing to drive off the cliff. This should be viewed as educational given current goings on in Washington D.C. as things portend badly both for the ongoing debt limit discussions, and the next budgetary cycle in general.

Yesterday, Monica Davey wrote in The New York Times about how Minnesota may be ungovernable. University of Minnesota political scientist Lawrence Jacobs is quoted:

It’s a very sad day for Minnesota. It’s a state that had a well-earned reputation for being well governed where, at the end of the day, politics were done in a fair and efficient manner. And it’s now on the cusp of ungovernability. There’s a new ethic here that compromise is weakness.

Well… let’s be clear about a few things. The GOP has not come to govern, they have come to burn down the house. With billions of dollars separating the legislature from the governor in final budgetary negotiations, they offer $200 million in adjustments as a compromise while demanding it be deducted elsewhere, and pretend they have given up the keys to the ranch. Meanwhile Governor Dayton has reduced his budgetary request by over $2 billion and wisely refuses to go any lower.

MNPublius has a good graphic which shows what’s really going in with the respective negotiating positions and how much each side in the debate has offered. The Minnesota GOP refuses to allow even the smallest tax increase even upon those making over $1 million a year – despite the fact that the wealthiest pay a significantly smaller share of their income in state taxes than do the poor and middle class.

As it became apparent a compromise would not be reached the “cone of silence” over negotiations collapsed and the details of competing offers are not pretty. The Star Tribune reports part of the GOP offerings included over $700 million in deferred payments to Minnesota school districts – this on top of the roughly $1.5 billion in “deferred” payments we know the schools will never see, and issuing “tobacco bonds”, adding to the state’s debt without clear benefit as with infrastructure, etc.

Talks also broke down because of Republican insistence on inserting policy provisions – voter ID requirements, abortion restrictions, etc. – into what should be clean budgetary bills.

Presidential wannabe Tim “hard times in the land of” Pawlenty presided over Minnesota’s desperate race to the bottom. He kicked the can down the road time and time again, unwilling to demonstrate the leadership and political courage necessary to undo the damage he initiated as majority leader in the Minnesota House. Minnesota used to be a national leader in health, education, job creation, innovation – now we’re middle of the pack, and only because the GOP hasn’t turned us into Mississippi. Yet. But they’re still trying.

Kudos to Governor Mark Dayton, who’s turning out to be a lot stronger and smarter than any of us anticipated, on standing firm and protecting Minnesota’s heritage of effective, responsible government.

The state government is now running with a skeleton crew – just a few essential services such as prisons and the state patrol are operating. It will be interesting to see how long this lasts, but let there be no confusion. Negotiation and compromise require two parties EQUALLY willing to participate. Thus far the GOP proposals have been a joke. They must do better. Minnesota demands no less.

(Cross-posted at Greg Prince's Blog.)

My problem with Tim Pawlenty, besides everything he stands for

By Richard K. Barry

I recently saw Tim Pawlenty's new ad to run in Iowa. I just don't know.

When you've been around politics a long time, you like to think you can consider things objectively and not let your own views get in the way of good analysis. That may not be possible, but some of us do try.

Well before Pawlenty crashed and burned in his "moment" during the CNN candidates' debate in which he famously failed to take on Mitt Romney on health care reform, having previously coined the silly term "Obamneycare," T-Paw, at least for me, always exuded a whimpering weakness. Franky, he makes me cringe.

So, now he's got an ad to run in Iowa in which he talks about the fact that his health care reform in Minnesota didn't involve an individual mandate, as Romney's did in Massachusetts. I know this may sound strange, but after the debate, any time Pawlenty takes a swipe at Romney, it's going to feel like he's talking trash behind Romney's back when he won't stand up to him, up close and personal, given the chance. I'm fairly sure most people frown on that sort of behavior.

But, beside all of that, the man just bothers me.

It's not about policy. It's not about where he stands on the issues. It's about how he comes across. And, objectively speaking, in this ad (below), he just comes across as "weak," like if you looked at him the wrong way, he'd dissolve. And, to be clear, I'm not saying it's true, only that in politics appearance is the largest part of reality.

Come to think of it, he kind of reminds me of Jon Cryer's character on Two and Half Men, Charlie's pathetic brother.

Anyway, decide for yourself.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)