Lori Sturdevant: Still in a Minnesota state of mind?

National ambition is a desirable trait in Minnesota politicians -- or so I've said on these pages. A pol who wants a call to the Show will play a better game here in the minors -- or so I used to think. But covering Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the lawmaking season that just ended raised some doubts about the home-state utility of national ambition. Was it because Pawlenty wants to be vice president that he vetoed a much-needed gas tax increase, or Central Corridor funding? Did he appear to change his tune on Real ID because he wants to cozy up to the Department of Homeland Security? Was he minding the store while on all those weekend trips for John McCain? And were DFLers intent on making him look bad in the eyes of GOP kingmakers? Did they succeed? Over a morning-after-adjournment cup of coffee (we needed the caffeine), I put those questions to two legislators sure to have divergent answers, Republican Sen. Geoff Michel of Edina and DFL Rep. Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis. Here's how they spun, er, called it:

Michel: This is a continuation of a Minnesota tradition, going back to Humphrey, Freeman and Mondale. And Stassen! We have overachieved on the national political stage. For a lightly populated Midwestern state, we have provided a lot to the national stage. Tim Pawlenty is just the next in line.

Hornstein: I agree that there's a tradition in Minnesota. But I think Pawlenty is radically different from the tradition defined by Humphrey, Mondale and McCarthy. Where I've seen his national profile manifest itself most is in his adherence to this rigid no-tax orthodoxy, which I would argue is not Minnesotan. Particularly on the issue that I work on most, transportation, it has not benefited the state.

Michel: I think there are some transportation examples where I see this as a net plus. There clearly is a benefit to Minnesota when the president of the United States will return your phone call.

I won't give the governor the entire credit, but the fact that we have a 35W bridge going up in record time is due in part to his relationships in Washington, D.C. The fact that we had a helpful and fast federal response to the floods last fall shows that FEMA will move more quickly to a state whose governor has a national presence.

Minnesota has sent strong Democrats to Washington -- Vento, Sabo, Oberstar. Pawlenty is providing some of that heavy lifting on the Republican side. It balances out a little bit. If there's a transportation issue today -- Northwest Airlines may be an example -- between Pawlenty and Oberstar, we can get a lot done for Minnesota.

Hornstein: But in transportation, we've seen the governor's rigidity on no-taxes. There was a glimmer of a change on that following the bridge collapse, but within a couple of weeks, he rescinded that, or conditioned that on unrealistic conditions.

Two things happened. The Grover Norquist letter got a lot of press [Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, issued a letter eight days after the Minneapolis bridge fell, advising that not even such disasters justify deviating from no-new-taxes promises]. There was also pressure from the House Republicans. That's a constituency he's very concerned about as well.

If we're looking at infrastructure investment, that rigid philosophy moves us backwards. It prevents us from being able to access federal funds. The way the transportation issue has played out, it's been a matter of political philosophy rather than moving forward bipartisanly.

Michel: But that's not necessarily national ambition. He's been pretty consistent. The Tim Pawlenty of the House of Representatives was a pretty conservative guy. I don't sense more rigidity during his time in the spotlight, as the media have grabbed on to his prospects.

I'll confess that the attention he's getting can be a distraction. It takes on a little bit of melodrama at the Capitol, instead of policy and substance. But both parties are guilty of that.

Hornstein: I'd point to the Real ID issue as one where the governor was not consistent. This is an issue where there was some consensus across party lines. Some of the factors we were concerned about -- unfunded mandates, federal meddling in states' rights -- would have been consistent with his political philosophy.

Yet when it came to taking a position that may have been counter to the Department of Homeland Security, or counter to John McCain, he wouldn't do it. It became a concern suddenly this year, even though this was in an omnibus policy bill for over a year. His position differed from one he'd taken as the head of the National Governors Association [NGA]. The fact that it only became an issue now -- I'm convinced that at least on this one, there's national politics playing out.

Michel: Real ID is this incredible mix of issues. It includes homeland security, federal funds, racial profiling, immigration. It's hard to judge motives on that one.

Frank mentioned the NGA. The fact we have a governor who's a leader at NGA is a benefit for Minnesota. We now have a group of Midwestern governors talking about climate change together. That's good for Minnesota.

You could argue that Tim Pawlenty has done himself some harm within Republican circles because "he's green!"

Hornstein: But notice: While he talks about climate change, his administration is not standing in the way of Big Stone II [a proposed coal-based power plant on the Minnesota-South Dakota border]. We have the climate change advisory commission that came up with some good recommendations, yet we were lucky to get a study of cap-and-trade [on carbon emissions].

Many of us are asking, where's the substance to the policy? Where's the political risk? Do you avoid taking risks when you're running for higher office?

Michel: But instead of focusing on the policy and the substance, we're focused on the pop psychology of politics. It's fun, and we engage in it all the time, but when it's the story, we're not talking about education or health care. We're not really listening to what the governor says.

Hornstein: This was a good week, and I want to emphasize that. The governor had a trip planned to Washington on Wednesday [May 14] and he canceled that to continue negotiating. That was what he should have done, and he did that.

The governor has racked up a lot of frequent-flier miles this year. But I give him credit: What happened at the end of this session is what good government is about.

• • •

There you have it: a DFLer speaking of Pawlenty and "good government" in the same sentence. It's amazing what an all-smiles, all-around agreement on the last day of the legislative session can do.

Had no budget deal been reached, Pawlenty would be preparing a list of unilateral budget cuts this week. And every DFLer, and not a few Republicans, would be judging every move for its tie to his chances for landing on the national GOP ticket. Those hurt when the budget ax fell would howl that they'd been run over by a governor blindly racing to Washington.

The deal spared Pawlenty from all that unpleasantness. It grants him as much as six months of grace, during which even editorial writers will be maximally inclined to see his national flirtation in a benevolent light. Why six months? Pawlenty's crafty predecessors long ago arranged the state's fiscal calendar so that new budget crises don't arise until after Election Day.

Lori Sturdevant is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. She is at lsturdevant@startribune.com.