Speed Gibson

I am voting for Peter Hutchinson for Governor, admittedly a protest vote, admittedly by a process of elimination.

First, I excluded the statistically invisible candidacies of Davis (American Party) and Brown (Quit Raising Taxes party). The Green Party's candidate Ken Pentel will get a few thousand votes, but his positions are at best poorly reasoned from many a flawed premise. That leaves incumbent Tim Pawlenty (GOP), his major party opponent Mike Hatch (DFL), and third party candidate Peter Hutchinson.

Mike Hatch is unacceptable on many fronts, including those that surfaced again this past week. His candidacy is borne of ambition, even obsession at times, not of any great urge to work for a better Minnesota. So while I actually agree with a few of his stated positions, his approach will always be to dictate and then argue, not suggest and then build consensus.

Whatever the shortcomings I expect of a Hatch administration for Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty is not the answer. I say this not because he isn't conservative enough, but because I ultimately have no idea what the man truly stands for.

Yes, Tim Pawlenty's record has been the most conservative, well, that I can remember. But let's be more specific here. The Tim Pawlenty of 2003/2004 had his hands largely tied by "mega-honkin'" budget deficit. And he did a great job, no question, in dealing with it. But the Tim Pawlenty of 2005/2006, more cautious with DFL gains in the Legislature and with a little extra money rattling in the coffers was markedly different, talking glibly of the need for "fun stuff" in the budget. And when the extra money proved insufficient in liberal eyes, he quickly blinked and proposed raising taxes to garner still more money.

Now substitute Roger Moe, whom Pawlenty defeated in 2002. Moe wouldn't and couldn't have done much differently in responding to the Ventura deficit in 2003. The priorities would have shifted some money, but the large GOP margin in the House would have effectively blocked anything but perhaps a small tax increase. In 2005, yes, he would have raised spending, probably a little higher than Pawlenty. But an increase in income taxes would still have been a tough sell; even some Democrats said as much. Financially, at least, I think we'd be in about the same position with Roger Moe as Governor.

Now Moe would probably not have signed the Conceal Carry bill nor some other legislation. Pawlenty was therefore still the better choice in 2002, given the promises Pawlenty made to secure the GOP nomination and the results obtained. But now it's 2006, and we must acknowledge that Tim Pawlenty broke several of those promises, chief among them to not raise taxes.

I'm not talking about that DFL BS about Pawlenty raising property taxes. And forget about the fee increases; those would have occured under any administration. No, Pawlenty has raised taxes significantly on tobacco users, a claim he adolescently denies to this day.

He also signed the Twins stadium bill, a clear case of taxation without representation. He said he did this reluctantly lest we lose the Twins (uh, we don't know that!), but had no reluctance in donning a Twins jersey as he signed the bill before a cheering Metrodome crowd.

The Racino proposal that bordered on extortion was all about raising revenues, too. Oh, but it was just on a small segment of the population, one that supposedly wasn't paying its fair share, only they were per law and treaty. But paraphrasing Donne, each man's tax increases my own, literally and figuratively. As with the smokers, sooner or later tax increasers find their way to your door.

Ethanol is more than just policy. With subsidies and prohibition of non-ethanol blends, it is effectively a tax as well. The hard truth is that we would be paying less for gasoline and be less dependent on foreign oil if these subsidies and mandates were abolished. Pawlenty is a smart educated fellow. He knows this. He should fold, yet he's not just calling, he's raising the bet to 20 percent ethanol, seemingly unaware of the limits that both Hatch and Hutchinson discussed in Friday's "Almanac" debate.

Many of us grudgingly admire Democrats for being more consistent, having certain tenets that are virtually non-negotiable like abortion and K-12 spending increases. We wish Republicans would at least honor what is should be their prime directive: holding the line on taxes.

Lacking this quality, and in view of several other unforced errors like Canadian drug imports and free college tuition for the top high school students, the real Tim Pawlenty doesn't seem very conservative at all. I dropped a hint that I see nothing but liberals on the ballot. Said another way, I cannot conceive of a bill that under the right political circumstances that Pawlenty won't sign.

Short of writing in Learned Foot, that leaves me with Peter Hutchinson. I am under no delusion here. I've even read his "The Price of Government" book (co-written with David Osborne). Peter Hutchinson is a liberal, one who claims that liberal policies can be competently administered. He does at least acknowledge that there are diminishing returns with larger government. He argues that government would work better doing fewer important things well than everything as time and budgets permit.

Hutchinson's management and related experience could be helpful, too, especially when dealing with the likes of Senate Majority Liar Dean Johnson. But further analysis is pointless, as Hutchinson clearly isn't going to get the chance to govern.

Chad the Elder says we'll never get a perfect conservative in a Governor, that Pawlenty is about as close as we'll likely ever get. I contend that while Pawlenty's early record was conservative, his later record and current campaign are much less convincing. In Pawlenty I see a man who likes spending and regulating as much as the next candidate, just on different programs. I argue that as long as we keep electing Pawlenty's, we never will do any better.

That all said, I expect Pawlenty will win narrowly. I truly hope he does as opposed to Hatch, but he will have to do it without my vote.