Tim Pawlenty

I know I not voting for the man in the primary, I've already started doing some volunteer work for Sue Jeffers (I'm not a competent volunteer, so I'm not sure I'm helping much). I was still weighing whether I would vote for him or someone else (or just skip the race altogether) in the general election.

After this though, I'm not sure I will consider voting for Pawlenty as an option:

Since late last month, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has repeatedly made himself a nuisance to major industries that frequently back Republicans.
He has:

-Called on Congress to enact a two-year ban on advertising for prescription drugs;

-Urged federal regulators to clear the way for generic insulin products;

-Proposed restrictions on oil companies whose contracts with gas stations obstruct the spread of ethanol,

-And pressed federal officials to approve devices that convert cars for ethanol use.

I don't mind him deregulating generic drugs (as long as the ownership of the drug has expired), but the rest of the above mentioned actions are indefensible. The scariest part of the article was this quote:

"The era of small government is over," Pawlenty said in an interview with the Star Tribune

You cannot be serious.

David Strom, on his radio program, made the connection that resonated with me; Tim Pawlenty is the Republican version of Bill Clinton. Clinton made the infamous statement that "The era of big government is over." The similarity between Clinton's statement and TPaw's is eery and probably purposeful.

I invite anyone to make the case for me to vote for Pawlenty in the general election. I have strived in my life to find the balance between my ideology and the necessity of winning elections. A party is useless if it has no principles and principles are useless without political influence. As far as I'm concerned right now, the positions Pawlenty has been advocating for lately are contrary to my principles. In fact, Pawlenty calls into question all of my beliefs regarding size and role of government in the economy.

Please try to do better than "Pawlenty is bad but Hatch is worse." Such arguments do have some merit. However, I have considered this argument and I'm not convinced by it right now. I would rather regain some of my principles and face a Hatch governorship then lose all I have come to believe as a fiscal conservative.

This is probably the last opportunity to send me back to the Pawlenty camp (not to add anymore pressure).

Update

Strom has more in this post, where he gives this gem:

All I can say is, if that is where the Republican Party is going, or for that matter where our young, hip, and politically skilled Governor wants to take us, I’m not on board! Basically, the version of politics Pawlenty is hawking is one of competing interests trying to wrestle control over the power of the state to distribute the goodies. The Democrats give the goodies to the unions and public employees, the Republicans to the farmers and through new middle class entitlements like free college tuition.

In other words, the Republican Party becomes a mirror to the Democrat party: a shill for a particular group of interests, just different ones. Republicans don’t believe in limited government, but rather using government power for OUR aims, not theirs.

That’s not a political movement I can belong to. Freedom, free markets, opportunity, equal rights, limited government, constitutional rights., equality under the law. Those aren’t empty words, but the guiding lights of the conservative movement.