In a recent column, I discussed Governor Pawlenty's impending veto of a domestic partner benefit bill affecting state employees in same-sex relationships and its effect on Pawlenty's national aspirations. In response, Eric Ostermeier of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute has imparted some very good, and very debatable, points. Let's have at it.
Ostermeier's argument stands on two principles: One, that Tim Pawlenty is actually in line with a near-majority of Minnesotans on this issue, so should not be worried about a loss of political capital over it; two, that my analysis of Pawlenty's addition to a McCain presidential ticket should not be seen as an effort to pull Minnesota into the red column in 2008, because such analysis has no empirical grounding.
[S]uch a veto would only be a hard-right political move if you buy into the premise that signing this bill is an act of centrism, and not 'hard-left.'
The truth is Minnesotans are nearly split in their attitudes toward this legislation — with support for such partnerships only just edging out opposition to it. A poll conducted by SurveyUSA last month found a bare majority (52%) supported allowing public agencies to grant health benefits to the "domestic partners of their employees." (Note: the polling question did not use the term "same-sex partners" to describe the bill's beneficiaries; had it done so it is likely the level of support would have dipped below the 50 percent mark).
With at least 40 odd percent of Minnesotans in opposition to the state providing these same-sex benefits, it is difficult to sustain the characterization of a bill veto as a "hard right" tactic or that it panders to the "radical conservative fringe" as Bodell writes.
As a somewhat-educated observer of governmental processes, I do buy into the premise that this bill's passage would be an act of centrism.
Unfortunately, a huge part of a poll's results are due to the way the question is asked. Would that theoretical 12% who support heterosexual but not homosexual domestic partner benefits respond the same way if the question were worded thusly: "Would you support domestic partnership benefits for opposite-sex couples who have lived together for a short time and are not married?" This is an extreme example and SurveyUSA is a solid polling outfit, but let's be honest — issue polls are designed to be spun.
Based solely on a measurable change in results from adding "same-sex" into the question, it's tempting to chalk the change up to right-leaning bias on issues of gay rights. This does not make that 12% a bunch of redneck bigots — I support gay rights, but my more liberal colleagues may be shocked to hear that I find some rationales for opposition to gay marriage quite compelling. However, I think it can safely be said that such a bias feeds the reactionary right wing's political agenda better than it does that of the left.
In this sense, Pawlenty's veto will, perhaps indirectly, feed a beast that doesn't need any more attention cast on its reactionary anti-civil-rights crusade. An act of centrism would be to sign the bill, and stand with DFL legislative leaders to declare that all Minnesotans are entitled to equal protection under the law as it is written. Such a statement, if worded properly, would satisfy both the boosters of this bill and those worried about what it means for the institution of marriage — after all, the law as it is written says nothing about gay marriage being allowed. Simply put, there's no slippery slope on which to lose our vaunted cultural balance, regardless of whether the Minnesota Family Council or other violently extremist organizations scream bloody murder about it.
The second issue Ostermeier raises is that of Pawlenty's national profile, specifically his role on John McCain's presidential campaign.
Bodell makes the mistake of suggesting a) the Governor's narrow electoral victories are indicative of his having low political currency statewide and b) that the Governor might be added to a John McCain presidential ticket in part to deliver the state in the General Election.
Bodell confuses Pawlenty's two plurality victories in 2002 and 2006 (44 and 47 percent respectively) with the popularity of the Governor among the electorate. The fact is a majority of Minnesotans have consistently approved of Pawlenty's job performance. In 17 of the last 19 monthly public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA dating back to September 2005, Pawlenty's approval rating has been at 50 percent or higher — frequently flirting with 60 percent (these ratings have been replicated in 2006 surveys by the Humphrey Institute and Minnesota Poll). Pawlenty's favorability ratings also outnumbered his unfavorable numbers in two MPR / Pioneer Press polls during Election 2006. The fact that third parties thrive in the Gopher state in gubernatorial elections — making it difficult for a winner to reach 50 percent of the vote — should not lead us to believe that Pawlenty himself is actually unpopular or his views out of touch with his constituency.
I have been known to make mistakes, but I don't think I'm wrong on this one. Job approval ratings are great — they give officials a good general idea of where they stand with their constituents. But they don't win elections. The only number, the only poll that really matters is that which occurs on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. And on election day, Tim Pawlenty has never once managed to unite a majority of Minnesotans around a vision of him as the best leader the state has to offer.
And yet, regardless of the empirical evidence refuting the claim of geographic strategy in Vice Presidential picks, such analyses still hold sway over conventional wisdom. In the summer of 2004, John Edwards rose to the top of the prognosticators' lists because a northerner like Tom Vilsack or Dick Durbin would have represented John Kerry ignoring the South. In 2000, some went so far as to assume Al Gore chose Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman to rally the Boca Raton vote in Florida (it almost worked, too). In 1996, New Yorker Jack Kemp was Kansan Bob Dole's running mate. Indiana native Dan Quayle served as George H.W. Bush's Vice President. Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen accompanied Massachusetts' Governor Michael Dukakis on the 1988 campaign trail. Whether it has a measurable effect on the outcome of an election is unclear; what is clear is that geographic balance still plays a role in VP picks.
So Mr. Ostermeier may be correct that a hypothetical McCain-Pawlenty ticket might not be chosen solely to push Minnesota (and the entire upper midwest) into the Republican column. But with the 2008 Republican National Convention coming to the Twin Cities, is it really safe to think such an analysis hasn't at least crossed the Republicans' minds?