Tim Pawlenty throws his hat, or whatever, in

[Sue U]

Wait, who?

Nice: the St. Paul Pioneer Press runs his announcement on the Obituary page.

[The Hen]

Ouch.

There is an omen for you, if you believe in such signs.

[Gimcrack]

Mr. Mashed Potatoes
Mr. Limp Dishrag
Mr. Whatshisface

Gah. TPaw has as much chance of winning the presidency as our other local loon Bachmann does. I just hope once is all said and done neither return to Minnesota.

[Gob]

Another fascinating* thing about American politics. Instead of the party leader making his case for PM/Presidency, you have these beauty pageants where these people come out of the woodwork/from under a stone, people who I have never heard of before, and suddenly they are potential party Pres candidates. Tim who?

This seems to be based on the amount of cash they can cobble together at the right time, how good their hair and teeth are, and if they are male Christians, married, with photogenic kids (apparently straight too.)



* in a rubbernecking the car crash sort of way...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Well we do have 50 states and every state has a governor, two senators and at least two representatives (not to mention the state senators and reps). So that means there are about 250 people that might have some qualifications and could possibly run for president. Factor in the nut jobs and the also rans and the "unknowns even to their neighbors" and it's over 500.

[Crackpot]

Actually only one Rep is guaranteed.

[Lord Jim]

Another fascinating* thing about American politics. Instead of the party leader making his case for PM/Presidency

Oh yes, a system where "party leaders" who have never had to demonstrate any voter appeal or support beyond their own small constituencies, and who are selected to head their parties by a small group of their party cronies based on backroom political deals and interpersonal intrigues (based largely on their having risen methodically through the ranks by knowing who's backside to kiss and when to kiss it) is vastly superior....

[Sean]

Exactly! Well said Jim.

[Sue U]

Instead of the party leader making his case for PM/Presidency, you have these beauty pageants where these people come out of the woodwork/from under a stone, people who I have never heard of before, and suddenly they are potential party Pres candidates.

This is both the strength and weakness of the American model of democracy. Candidates can "come from nowhere" and generate sufficient support among the public to get elected, making the possibility of holding office much more open to anyone who wishes to try (see Obama, Barack). This results in a structural weakness of the political parties in terms of formulating effective policies and programs based on an actual coherent philosophy of government (see Obama, Barack). As a consequence, government is much more susceptible to lobbying of special pleaders and the influence of moneyed interests.

[dgs49]

Governor Pawlenty has much to commend him (although I admit I don't have any detailed knowledge myself). As for his prospects for the Presidency at this time - certainly they are remote. Republicans have an irritating habit of nominating the candidate who "has paid his dues" rather than the best one for the position (e.g., Dole, McCain, Bush41), thus making Mr. Mitt a rather strong favorite at this time.

Still, as George Will noted in his most recent column, the perfect slogan for the Republicans in the next presidential election would be, "Is this the best we can do?" Sounds like a winner to me.

About Tim:

Tim Pawlenty grew up in South St. Paul, Minnesota. The only child in his family to graduate from college, he attended the University of Minnesota (B.A., J.D.) and practiced law in the private sector. His public service career includes serving as a city council member and ten-year member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, including four years as House Majority Leader.


As Governor, he has balanced Minnesota's budget three times without raising taxes, despite facing record budget deficits. Governor Pawlenty's most notable accomplishments include proposing and signing into law significant new benefits for veterans and members of the military; enacting a property tax cap, eliminating the marriage penalty and cutting taxes; toughening the state's education standards; reforming the way teachers are paid through a nation-leading performance pay plan; instituting free-market health care reforms that increase accountability and provide tax credits to encourage the use of health savings accounts; and implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25% of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2025.


Under Governor Pawlenty's leadership, Minnesota leads the nation in a variety of measures. Minnesota ranks first among states in Fortune 500 companies per capita, first in overall quality of life, first in homeownership, first in percentage of residents with a high school diploma, and first in residents over 25 with a bachelors degree. Minnesota has the highest average ACT scores in the nation and was recently named the "Healthiest State in America."

[Sue U]

Pawlenty, for instance, brags about his success as Minnesota governor closing the state’s budget deficit. Crowley took a closer look:

Critics say Pawlenty used accounting shortcuts, like postponing spending and accelerating revenue collection, to balance budgets. Today, Minnesota is struggling with a projected budget deficit of $5 billion, which some blame on Pawlenty. “I don’t think any governor has left behind a worse financial mess than he has,” says Arne Carlson, a Republican who was Minnesota’s governor from 1991 to 1999. Not my fault, Pawlenty replies, blaming the recession, Democratic spending habits and a state supreme court ruling that restored $2.7 billion he’d slashed from the budget by fiat in 2009. (The ruling, written by a chief justice whom Pawlenty appointed, found that the unilateral cut had exceeded the governor’s authority.) But he tends not to mention the help he got from nonconservative sources — including more than $2 billion from an Obama stimulus bill that he has trashed as “largely wasted” and a 75 cents cigarette-tax hike he swallowed to end that 2005 budget shutdown.

When you read this next paragraph, keep in mind that Pawlenty titled his autobiography “The Courage to Stand”:

Pawlenty will also have to explain to conservatives his stint of activism on global warming, which in 2007 he called “one of the most important [issues] of our time.” He signed bills promoting clean energy and a cap-and-trade system of carbon limits similar to the model envisioned by Obama. He toured the state with the Minnesota-based Arctic explorer Will Steger to “convince the skeptics,” as he put it, and even considered visiting the Arctic. He made a 2008 radio ad urging Congress to “cap greenhouse-gas pollution now!” But he now takes it all back, saying the human impact on climate change is unproven. “It was a mistake, and I’m sorry,” Pawlenty said in a May 6 Fox News debate, leaving it to others to judge whether his mind was changed by the science or by growing skepticism among Republicans.

Courageous!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... _blog.html

[Guinevere]

So Pawlenty now regrets his position on climate change, Mittens regrets his health insurance mandate, and Newtie regrets anything. Lets put them in a group home and call it "The Waffle House."

(and save the guest room for Scott Brown, who has already waffled more in 15 months in the Senate than even Mittens did in 4 years in the governatorship)

[Sue U]

Oh, Newt doesn't regret everything, apparently:

Newt Gingrich defiant over Tiffany's account.

Talk about your deficit spending! What I don't get is how Newt could spend a fortune on jewelry for the most recent Mrs. Gingrich, but nothing on rhinoplasty.

[Lord Jim]

Mittens regrets his health insurance mandate

Where did you see this Guin? I was under the impression that Romney has steadfastly stood by his plan as Governor...

My impression is that he opposes the Obama plan on the principle that the states are the ones who should devise their own plans, and not have them imposed by the federal government...

Whether or not you agree with this, it seems to me like a perfectly defensible position to take....

And not at all contradictory, despite the attempts of his opponents on both the left and the right to portray it as being so. It's a position based on his interpretation of the parameters of federalism. One can easily defend a program devised at the state level while opposing a similar program being imposed by the feds on that basis without being contradictory or "hypocritical".

[dgs49]

Which points up the greatest challenge to any politician who is not a complete whore (assuming there are such persons):

If the People are stupid, do you still give them what they want? Or do you attempt to give them what you think is best - recognizing that the elected official is more intelligent than the masses, and has much better information on which to make decisions, and knowing that "what is best" may be politically unpopular?

Let's say hypothetically that the people and legislature of MA dearly wanted the healthcare/insurance reform that Mitt signed as governor. Maybe it went against his grain as a quasi-conservative politician, but it was what they wanted. Maybe he even "sold" it once he knew that it was more or less inevitable, and he didn't want to be seen as obstructionist in the unlikely event that it turned out well.

Now, he is excoriated by the republican base for doing what the people of Massachusetts wanted him to do. Was he wrong to give them what they wanted?

A more poignant example is the current debate about Medicare. It MUST change and it WILL change, because it has been shown to incentivize wasteful conduct on the part of doctors and hospitals, thus driving up the cost to unsustainable levels.

But old people like it. As well they should. Just like the old people who only paid pennies in Social Security taxes while they worked just LOVE IT now, and wouldn't want to see it "threatened." They really don't give a shit about how their grandchildren will have to pay for it through a 30% payroll tax. Fuck 'em.

So a courageous politician comes out with a proposal to make Medicare sustainable, and his political opponents make hay by accusing him of being insensitive to the wants and needs of Old Folks - while proposing NOTHING in the way of resolving the fatal flaws of the current Medicare system. It is understandable that the Dems may reject Ryan's market-based approach; if so, then they should honestly say that it must be saved by HIGHER TAXES. But they dare not do that because it would be honest and it would play into the hands of the R's next year in the 2012 elections.

Let's not forget some other "regrets" by politicians. Slick Willie admitted that his tax increases were too great, and he only signed welfare reform when it was shoved down his throat on the eve of the 1996 election. Bush41 promised "no new taxes," but agreed to them after he was promised spending cuts - that never materialized. Does Barry regret voting against The Surge, now that it has been proven "successful"?

[rubato]

"...
A more poignant example is the current debate about Medicare. It MUST change and it WILL change, because it has been shown to incentivize wasteful conduct on the part of doctors and hospitals, thus driving up the cost to unsustainable levels.

But old people like it. As well they should. Just like the old people who only paid pennies in Social Security taxes while they worked just LOVE IT now, and wouldn't want to see it "threatened." They really don't give a shit about how their grandchildren will have to pay for it through a 30% payroll tax. Fuck 'em.
... "

Medicare is already the cheapest large-scale healthcare system in the US. Far cheaper than the private sector.

Only Republicans are stupid enough to gut the one system that actually works and apply the model of the system which is by far worse.

_________________
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/ ... gle+Reader

"...
It’s difficult to “prove” anything in public policy, but the world has a lot of examples of health care systems that are more statist than Americans. What you see in Canada, and in basically every European country, is that the statist approach does in fact succeed in pushing costs down lower than what we experience in the United States. What you also see is that relatively non-statist approaches like the one they use in Switzerland lead to higher than normal costs for Europe. You also see that the super-statist approach of the United Kingdom leads to extremely low costs. Last, right inside the United States of America we conveniently have a single-payer health insurance system for senior citizens, and a more market-oriented one for non-seniors. And guess what? Medicare is cheaper. The administrative overhead is lower, and the unit cost of services rendered is also lower.

The argument against a statist approach that needs to be taken at least somewhat seriously is the idea that statist approaches make health spending too low. The sky-high costs of the US system generate giant profits that encourage capital to flow into the health care sector. A cheaper system would presumably end up with less equipment, or less R&D or less of something. But if the goal is to spend less money there’s tons of evidence on the side of big government.
... "
_______________________________

The only models in the world of HC systems which have better outcomes and lower costs then ours are all 'statist'. All of them. Only a moron tried to pretend that 'market forces' and other fearie dust approaches work better.

yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

"fearie dust"??... I don't know if that was a typo, but if not (or even if it was) it's a brilliant invention, and a great addition to our political vocabulary!