Pawlenty 2012

[paul718]

Pawlenty seems to be coming off awful strong as the Republican scolder-in-chief at the governors' festival.  He going to run?  Could he take the mantle of "moderate Republican candidate"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP6wH761QLc
Not that it disqualifies him, but if he's ever on a national ticket, be prepared to see a lot of this.  Fast forward to about 2:20.

Phil, if I correctly guessed who your #1 choice is, would you say it?

[paul718]

He ran as a Social Conservative in 1988, but governed as a Moderate. Bob Dole wasn't a strong Social Conservative.

I agree with you that Bush 41 was a moderate.  Dole was a moderate but ran as a hard Fiscal Conservative in 1996 so as to draw a distinction between he and a moderate Clinton. 

But what do youmean by this?

Baby Bush ran on a platform APPEALING to the Religious Right, which he really didn't keep.

[paul718]

Baby Bush said he was Socially Conservative, but I have seem him idle on most Social Issues, except Iraq.

He did get 2 conservative justices on the Supreme Court.  And I believe his ONLY veto in the first term was on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (I could be wrong).  And how is Iraq a social issue? 

I think he's been a pretty consistent social conservative.  That's about the only thing he has been consistent on.

[paul718]

True, but I think he only did those things not to lose election and stay cool with the South. The recent 2008 election shows a Social Moderate with Fiscal Conservatism loses if they are Republican.

I think Bush was pretty genuine.  He wears his faith on his sleeve, and has never budged on a social issue.  As for McCain, he's pro-life, against gay marriage, and against creating new embryos for stem-cell research.  The only problem he has with social conservatism is the practice of injecting religion into the argument.  So I think he still qualifies as a social conservative, just not a "religious conservative".  I personally believe that under different circumstances (less Bush backlash, no credit crisis, no GOP corruption), McCain is a winner.  But then again, under different circumstances he might've lost the nomination.   

But I might agree with the idea that a social moderate, fiscal conservative is a losing combination.  I am a believer in the "stool theory" of the Reagan Coalition ("3 legs" = fiscal conservatives + social conservatives + nat'l security conservatives).  Without those 3 legs, the stool won't stand up. 

[paul718]

Neither Sarah Palin nor Tim Pawlenty will win the nomination.

[paul718]

After the fiasco with Palin, I think any presidential nominee would be reluctant to pick any running mate who has never had to pontificate on national issues (as opposed to state issues) before.  Hence, I think Pawlenty would be a viable contender for VP only if he first runs for president in 2012 (which, yeah, he probably will).  If he doesn't, then you'd really be rolling the dice as to how he performs on the national stage.

I'm not a big Pawlenty fan, but I think he has a decent grasp of nat'l issues.  Much better than Palin, at least.  As co-chair of the McCain campaign, he was almost a weekly regular on the Sunday morning TV circuit, defending policy and debating opposing viewpoints.