In this mornings Strib it was reported that Tim Pawlenty is in talks with Minnesota born explorer and environmentalist Will Steger to go to the arctic next spring to see first hand the effects of global warming.
Steger said that after months of meetings and discussion, he and Pawlenty are close to finalizing arrangements for the governor to join the expedition to see the melting ice caps and increasingly fragile Arctic environment.
Pawlenty said Saturday that nothing has been confirmed but that he is discussing the possibility of meeting up with Steger for several days in May.
Environmentalism wasn’t particularly novel in the Republican party — well that was until they kicked out all of the Northeastern liberals in their party. Pawlenty’s concern and interest in this issue is noteworthy because of the potential that other Republicans will follow suit, and that he is regularly named as a Vice Presidential candidate.
I’ll refrain from speculating on the motives of Pawlenty’s interest in global warming. I’ll just have to content myself with shivers of terror at the thought of Governor Molenau.
Goo.
it saddens me that Pawlenty has bought into the phony science and lies of the global warming crowd.
While bringing attention to global warming is a good thing, I think Governor Pawlenty has more important things to do back here. I’m sure an extended photo-op with eco-tourist-in-chief Will Steger would help his vice-presidential ambitions, but fixing infrastructure at home would be of more help to the people of Minnesota right now.
“Pawlenty has long put energy and environmental issues — traditionally identified with liberal politicians — at the top of his political agenda.”
…and…
“When he took the helm of NGA this year, Pawlenty said clean energy would be his signature issue, and when the Legislature reconvenes in February, he is hoping to shepherd through a proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state 80 percent by 2050”
Michele Bachmann and Jason Lewis say environmentalists are to blame for the California wildfires. In that same interview, Bachmann and Lewis say global warming is bogus.
Will Pawlenty endorse Bachmann in 2008?
john the most certainly lowercase-
What I find most interesting is how faithful you all are to candidates who have realized that appealing to people like you in the general is no longer a way to get re-elected.
Anyway, I think this article just confirms something about Pawlenty - any and all actions by him until the conclusion of the ‘12 nomination process should be viewed in the light of how he thinks they help him win that process. I think this is Pawlenty, a man of fixed convictions but chameleon-like image, trying to tap into the fact that global warming is sexy right now. He might want to be someone’s VP, but I think he is smart enough to realize that ‘08 would be a tough, tough fight as a Republican, and is position for ‘12.
Because Randy, until something even bigger and bloodier fails, the people of Minnesota will go with the fact that Pawlenty has kept a soothing voice and said nothing is wrong, and thus nothing more will be asked of them. He’s gambling nothing more fails before the end of his term, and he goes into ‘12 with shining conservative credentials - but a user-friendly moderate gloss gained, from trips like this one.
It’s amazing how closely Stephen Colbert’s fake rightie and actual right wing trolls sound almost exactly the same.
It is also equally as hilarious. The difference is Stephen knows he’s a joke.
Ironically it is the trolls who are getting “left behind”. Too funny.
It seems strange that instead of applauding the fact that Pawlenty, a Republican, has accepted that the environment is an important issue many Democrats are upset. Would you rather have the environment as a political issue than be successful in gaining some Republican support because you disagree with them on other unrelated policies?
Exactly, Hat,
It’s time for Democrats to seek out some of the things we all have in common, rather than 100% politics of division on both sides. Unfortunately, if one political party relies too heavily on division, it is difficult for the other party to rise above all that crap. It will rise, however, eventually….and another party will be taking a hard fall.
Either be the uniter or the divider, it will be all about that someday. Who is a big enough man (or woman) to do just that and win? I don’t see too many candidates on either side who are.
I am not ready to applaud Pawlenty until he’s back and we hear what he has to say, frankly. He has been all about dividing people up to this point in my opinion, Approval rating or not, I think he’s got a credibility problem.
And, I certainly haven’t forgotten his speeches during his campaign.
For now I think he’s taking a step in the right direction.
I, for one, am happy to see Pawlenty taking this seriously.
Good to see that the angry liberals have now taken 100% control of the Democrat party. The author of this blog tries to be reasonable and the angry liberals will have none of it.
This should help speed up the rebuilding of the Republican party.
The angry liberal….the answer to the Republican Party’s problems.
Not surprising that right-wingers are commenting here… I just took a quick look and couldn’t find any right-wing blogs talking about Pawlenty’s new environmental outlook.
Are there no carnival rides in Right Wing FantasyLand -
that all the right wingers have to come here to OPINE?
LOL. Don’t know about anyone else here:
I’m pretty enamored of good science. Well, at least until the first reply post in this thread! I once was blind, but now I see:
Yeah, littlejohn has convinced me all right!
It is probably a good thing that Paw Lenty has a sense of climate change. Possibly phony interest, & a ride to the arctic to put on his re-election resume, but still a good thing for Paw Lenty to be concerned about climate science!
Compelling arguments like
“it saddens me”
are hard to come by.
I’m usually glad about Republicans seeing the light. But I’ve followed the gap between what Pawlenty thinks and does and how he sells it, and the glossy package he puts on it. He’s not Jim Ramsted, he’s not Arne Carlson - he’s a Grover Norquist with communications skills.
Remember, this is a man who won’t spend an extra dime to repair the roads and bridges the people who elected him use to get to work. But yeah, he’ll raise the revenue to do something beyond a photo-op on the environmental front.
So yeah, I may be angry - I don’t want Pawlenty to get mondo credit for something thats the big budget equivalent of sliding a rubber bracelet on. The man is Bush with better PR instincts. If he actually does something, great! But Pawlenty’s record demand that we be sure that this is actual concern, not just Pawlenty leading the press around by the nose.
Anybody who supports ethanol subsidies is nothing but a “fair-weather” environmentalist anyway. Pawlenty has a lot of company on the state and national levels in that regard. The question is, is “fair-weather” environmental concern better than no concern at all?
And yes, I understand the irony of using the term “fair-weather”.
Pawlenty is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t on this arctic trip. Either way, someone is going to see a flaw, or accuse him of doing it (or not doing it) for purely political reasons.
I saw go for it, TPaw. Unlike so many other Republicans, you’re actually try to learn about global warming so you can make up your own mind on what the policy reaction should be — and that is a GOOD THING.
I don’t mind someone doing something for the wrong reasons - as long as they actually do something. Pawlenty, sometimes even more than his roll model in the White House, is good at doing next to nothing and spinning himself as the hero. My worry is he views himself as already knowing what he thinks to be everything about global warming (thats its all a socialist plot, etc., I mean really, lower-case john probably has the rhetoric better) and all this is empty calories from the master of it.
And I know thats not much of a response, but just I’m sick of Pawlenty’s flim-flam. A fake surplus, fake work on infrastructure repair, and now a fake concern for global warming? There is a solid group of Republicans in the Minnesota House, with a real concern for global warming(whatever their reasons may be), who’ve been there for years. Pawlenty has ignored them all this time. But now Al Gore’s shown being green gets you on TV - and now Pawlenty shows up.
Oh please - Pawlenty signs on to a Renewable Energy Standard for Minnesota and then turns around and works out deal that promotes another coal-fired power plant…not in Minnesota mind you but in South Dakota on the Minnesota border. Yee haa!! Go Big Stone II!! We get more CO2, mercury emissions, and competition against turbines. Then there is the reality that this governor is not going to do anything to improve transit - so more people sit with their engines idling cranking out climate warming gases and other toxins. Fair-weather…nah that’s too generous - Pawlenty’s more of an exhaust…er smoke and mirrors enviro
Who eliminated the Environmental Quality Board? Eh? Who then handed over the power to determine transmission line placement to the Commerce Department? Is anyone paying attention?
yea cheap affordable energy is a bad thing..build more useless wind mills.. you idiots have fallen for the chicken littles of the world who say the sky is falling (Algore) “global warming” will be proven to be bogus in 10 years..just like “global cooling” was sexy in the 70s… Arne Carlson was a total empty suit BTW .dont let facts get in the way of your opinions
I agree with other posters that Pawlenty really can’t win with this whole thing. On one hand, he has a constituency that is pretty in tune with global warming and feels it requires research (based on Strib polls I’ve seen), so he wants to respond to them. On the other hand, he is from a party that has nationally been anti-green and locally pro-car, so any turnabout looks like he is comprimising.
I think it is great he is taking this trip, for the record. And I also think comprimise is a noble trait in a public servant, not a bad one.
It seems to me that people are upset that the Current Occupant in DC will not change his mind, even when presented with data suggesting his constituents believe he should. So why is it that when the Current Occupant in St. Paul changes his tune based on a strong sentiment from his constituents, those same people have a problem with it?
most constituents are complete morons who do not know facts.. being uncompromising is a noble trait… who is not ‘pro car”?
I don’t think any “angry liberals” would have criticized Governor Pawlenty for not announcing a trip to the Arctic to raise awareness of global warming. I just think that, as Governor of a state with a crumbling infrastructure, he has more important things to do than fly north, especially when the trip will come at or near the end of the legislative session.
It is easy to be cynical about his motives, but the cynicism is justified. He is losing ground in the race to be number two, so he needs something — anything — to raise his national profile. After the bridge collapse, fiscal conservatism isn’t going to get his name in David Brooks’s column anymore, so he will try environmentalism. Of course, how this will play to the base is another matter. The Republicans abandoned their strong tradition of environmentalism during the Reagan presidency, and — as Avidor noted — global warming is not an idea that the loud wing of the GOP has taken up.
BTW, will the crowd that snipes at Al Gore for flying in a jet etc. levy the same criticisms against one of their own? Or is Governor Pawlenty going to Canada by dogsled?
If I or any progressives actually thought for a second that Tim gave a rat’s butt about Climate Change we would be genuinely happy for this trip. But, alas, Tim does not give a rat’s butt about anything but starving the Beast and should not be congratulated for taking a taxpayer paid trip to benefit his future campaign.
While I agree Pawlenty’s grip on the environment is tenuous at best but I still think it better to use both positive and negative reinforcement. Give him credit for trying and then hold to to his own standard. The same goes true for the support by Pawlenty and others of both parties of policies like ethanol, mining and farm subsidies which all have a huge negative environmental impacts.
And P-pen, climate change is not a proper noun and trying to make it one just gives credit to the idea that some have made it a religion rather than a science.
P-pen, that is an interesting point - not an extra dime for transportation, but a tax-payer funded PR trip to the arctic. Its similar to the whole ‘Starve the Beast…. and give me a working man’s salary in perks.’ Pity the DFL doesn’t seem to have anyone who can spin worth a damn.
I love the use of the word “might” in the headine in the Trib.
Is this Pawlenty testing the political winds?
Is he *gasp* “triangulating?”
Perhaps he’s just seeing what the reaction the local Mallard Fillmores have to his proposal to go there.
T-Paws so so nervous, for some reason. I wonder why?
Seriously guys — there is only one way that T-Paw will with with the DFL. By somehow raising taxes. Right? Anything short of that and you will find fault with what he is doing.
And even if he said “I am going to raise taxes to help fund the state infrastructure” you would all claim that he is only doing so for political gain, to appear moderate, because he is opportunistic.
P pen..no such thing as climate change….just more lies spewed forth by the haters…where did the glaciers go 20000 years ago??.. how many cars were there then?..coal plants??
Why aren’t Michael Brodkorb and friends at the Party of Pawlenty blog covering this?
Kerosene.
You are correct that the carrot and stick works better and that we need to employ those techniques more often with all of our Congress Critters. I guess my thinking at the time was just that the left will wield the stick, while the right has the carrot, and the opposite true when a DFL’er is in the crosshairs. This has been the case most often in the past and you know us progressives, we love to keep the status quo.
As for the “Climate Change” term, now I’m confused. “Global Warming” was a bust for whatever reason, so the term switched to “Global Climate Change”, which apparently offends someone somewhere. What is the next term du jour? “Global Tropical Paradise”? They all are euphemisms for the same thing.
The term thing is more of a pet peeve than anything. Science isn’t marketing and I get nervous when they start to blend. Ether global warming or climate change is fine by me but I think they carry more weight when used as scientific terms in lower case than apparently trade marked terms with upper case.
“Climate change” is the term preferred by the anti-crowd. It is supposed to connote that the increase in the earth’s temperature may or may not be real, or that it is caused naturally, or that it’s a good thing. It depends on who’s talking. The spin has evolved in a remarkably short time.
DantheMan-
Please. Pawlenty has raised taxes. On cigarettes, on driver’s licences, what people in Hennepin County buy. You call taxes fees, and think that means those revenue raises aren’t taxes? The problem with you conservatives is that you won’t take responsibility for your actions, and its why the MN House GOP got its tail kicked.
No, he’ll win with the DFL when he treats being governor as a job, and not a stepping-stone to higher office. When he decides to repair the roads they drive on, stop the slow slide of their children’s schools into ruin, and actually fund the programs that would make this state an industry-leader in renewable energy, then he’ll win our respect.
In other words, when he takes responsibility and does things, we might respect him. But when he poses for photo-ops, with veto stamps or icebergs, and then expects to be praised? No thank you.
Kerosene.
I can relate to that, and agree. I think I will be looking for that a little more now.
Thank you much, sir.
Whose paying for Pawlenty’s excursion to the Arctic?
If it we taxpayers, I say he should keep his ass in Minnesota and come up with a workable solution to the Roads and Transportation issue instead of seeing the vanishing habitat of Polar Bears.
“Pawlenty rejects invitation to study global warming”
I can only imagine what the headlines would have been had he made a different choice
The headlines would have been quite praise-worthy - if the choice had been to make a hard commit, as opposed to ‘I may take a tax-payer funded sight-seeing trip, but I might not…’
So you have just reduced studying global warming to sightseeing? Maybe it isn’t such a big deal after all.
No, I’m reducing Pawlenty’s trip to site-seeing. There are people who’ve done more, who didn’t need a photo-op worthy arctic trip to tell them that.