Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) won't run for re-election in 2010, a signal that the Republican governor, who has acquired a national profile in recent years, is thinking about a 2012 presidential bid. Pawlenty will make the announcement today in a news conference scheduled for 3:00 pm ET. A source in Washington who spoke with Pawlenty said that the governor had "made up his mind a while back." Pawlenty's 2012 path mirrors the model that then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took in 2006, when he decided that he'd rather go up -- to the presidency -- or out -- meaning that he would retire from political life rather than run for re-election. MORE....
Pawlenty has remained a relatively popular chief executive of a state that is trending blue. But his "my-way-or-the-highway" stance on tax hikes may diminish his standing by the end of his term. His unflinching opposition has earned him
plaudits from conservatives, but it has frustrated his Democratic state legislature. Pawlenty's name is now attached to $3 billion in budget cuts, resulting in praise from the Wall Street Journal and Americans for Tax Reform. Without re-election pressure, he's free to experiment even more.
57% of Minnesotans say they'd be open to someone else as
governor, a sign that Pawlenty, although still personally liked by the
voters, has worn out his welcome. Fairly conservative on most issues, Pawlenty has taken centrist stands on environmental
legislation and health care; he is very frustrated with the tone his party has adopted; if, at some point before 2012, he decides to retire from
politics altogether, I wouldn't be surprised.
He has played more than a bit role in the Coleman-Franken spat by
refusing to seat Al Franken until Norm Coleman has exercised all of his legal options. The effect this has had on voters is unclear.
Though Pawlenty won't embrace the "moderate" label, if he enters the 2012 field, he'd be well-positioned to earn himself a good look from Republican primary voters who are dissatisfied with the direction of the party. The governor prefers the term "modern" conservative. He supports government intervention to reduce global warming and wants his party to focus on the material needs of middle class voters. He's pro-life and opposes gay rights, but he recently signed a bill that gives unmarried couples property rights. He opposes federal or state funding for embryonic stem cell research. He is an evangelical protestant.
Pawlenty's biggest asset is his personal charm; he's a nice guy, a good schmoozer with reporters (still a vital part of the pre-primary process). He's a little goofy, too, having only recently ditched his famous mullet haircut for a more conservative do.
Hmmm... wonder what this means re the Coleman / Franken election and Pawlenty's decision, upcoming soon, to sign or not sign a certificate of election. I tend toward optimism & hope that Pawlenty understands he has zero chance for POTUS if he doesn't sign the certificate.
On the other hand, the hard place is that he of course has to win Repub primaries. So he might not sign for very short-term political gain. But that truly would be disaster for him in a general election.
Wouldn't it be refreshing if he just did the right thing? He's not generally a fanatic so perhaps he might.
I assume this means he can now refuse to sign the election certificate when the MN Supreme Court rules in Franken's favor because he does not have to worry about backlash from the outraged people of MN. He can then stand atop the Republican Party as the one who stopped the Democrats from reaching a veto-proof majority in the Senate.
Pawlenty cannot legally sign the election certificate until the courts rule. If the MN Supreme Court directs him to do so, as Franken requested, then that takes him out of an uncomfortable position.
I hear whispers that there's no love lost between Pawlenty and Coleman, anyway.
How Pawlenty's national ambitions affected his stewardship of the State of Minnesota (particularly in the most recent legislative session) is discussed in the following commentary:
http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2009/05/19/8906/pawlenty_pup-tent_republican
To summarize: he's been a disaster as Governor and he doesn't have a chance to be the Republican Presidential nominee. I basically agree with this appraisal and would add that at that big conservative confab this winter (the one where Limbaugh where dressed like an eastern European gangster) Pawlenty got something like three percent in the straw poll.
He's neither moderate enough or conservative enough. He's just a lousy Republican governor in a field crowded of lousy governors. But unlike the other lousys, nothing is that distinctive about Pawlenty. To quote the departed Paul Harvey, he's the best of lousiest and the lousiest of the best.
As for Pawlenty's role in the MN Senate appeal, I'm not sure it will be that easy for Coleman to appeal his case to the Federal level and for Pawlenty to refuse to sign the election certificate. First, there's no assurance that a federal court would hear Coleman's appeal. Despite Gore v. Bush, federal courts have historically been reluctant to take up state election cases. And if Pawlenty refused to sign a court ordered certificate, his popularity would plummet in Minnesota and he would be seen as a candidate who wouldn't even be able to carry his own state.
With the extended campaign seasons, announcing and campaigning for the 2012 nomination will begin in early 2011, which makes it awkward to run for re-election in 2010, start a new term in January 2011 and immediately announce for a new post (and probably even more awkward to lose then announce).
Which makes me wonder (a) if Sarah Palin could run for re-election in 2010, then announce for president? Alaska's geography makes campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire even more complicated for an incumbent governor. (b) If she could not, when would she make her own decision about whether to seek re-election?