TAI spent two afternoons with Karger last week when he was in Washington, D.C., for the Victory Fund’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference. While Karger’s chances of gaining the 2012 nomination may be slim, he could play an outsized role during the nomination cycle. Much in the way that Ron Paul challenged doctrinaire Republican views during the 2008 Republican campaign, Karger could serve as the alternative voice during debates that forces other candidates to face issues they may rather avoid.

Karger is a long shot candidate by any definition of the term. He holds low name recognition, does not fundraise at the same level as other potential candidates and will face difficulty winning over any socially conservative voters. His qualifying experience comes not from elected office but from his career as a political consultant; he has worked on numerous campaigns, including Ronald Reagan’s presidential bids, and he was a senior executive at The Dolphin Group, a consulting firm most famous for creating the Willie Horton ads in the 1988 presidential campaign.

He may not stand much of a chance of winning, but Karger is the closest thing to an official candidate in the field at this point. He has a presidential exploratory committee, and made headlines recently when he began airing ads in Iowa — a full 14 months before caucus day. He is making his tenth visit to New Hampshire this week and has been to Iowa five times throughout the year, only trailing Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich in Iowa appearances.

Karger’s current ambitions are focused solely on proving his initial viability as a candidate in order to qualify for the nomination debates next year. “I’ll do whatever it takes to put pressure on these debate organizers, and I’ll pick my battles,” Karger said.

“I had two goals for this year: one was to satisfy the leadership,” he said, discussing the leaders of the LGBT rights movement who he hopes will support his campaign. “I had to prove that I was serious because everybody said, ‘oh it’s a stunt’, which is a natural assumption with my personality and background, but it’s not. And number two, [to show] that I am credible. A lot harder to prove, but I think I’ve accomplished it with the kind of attention I’ve gotten and the devotion [to traveling to Iowa and New Hampshire].”

No matter what Karger says about — or how others perceive — his presidential run, he is aware of the reality that his candidacy would largely revolve around forcing other Republicans to address gay rights. “If I do nothing else, to kind of make this issue, to put a face on this issue as opposed to what happened in previous elections like 2004 where the gay community was getting used as a political tool to strengthen the president’s reelection,” he said. “If I can do that I’ll have done quite a bit.”

He hopes his candidacy can help other generations of LGBT individuals feel comfortable with their identity. Karger largely stayed in the closet throughout his consulting career. He lived a double life, spending his days organizing campaigns for conservative politicians, but in his personal life, supporting gay rights activism.

He recounted one incident early in his career that taught him the importance of keeping his identity hidden in his professional life. In 1978, he made a political contribution to the No on Prop 6 campaign, a measure which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools.

“I took it upon myself, I’m 28 years old, I’m working for the Republican conservative running for attorney general by day, and by night, I’m helping the Republican’s opposition,” Karger said. “And I wrote a check for $100 … to this campaign. It was to get the sponsorship of the Los Angles County Young Republicans.”

He did not disclose that donation to his Republican employers at the time, but the contribution became public through campaign finance disclosures after the campaign. Two years later, that contribution came back to haunt Karger when he was working on the Senate primary for a conservative Republican candidate Ray Hanzlik.

“Ray got a letter from one of my detractors from the Young Republicans, saying ‘how can you have someone like this working for you who supports the homosexual agenda,’ and had a copy of the campaign [donation] page that had my name in there, and then a couple newspaper stories about the event and the Young Republicans,” Karger said. “He [Hanzlik] just throws this down on my desk and says ‘you should know who your enemy is, this doesn’t affect me one iota, but I want you to have it.’ And I still have it. It really sent a chilling effect on me and kept me — I never gave another contribution of $100 or more, since that’s the [reporting] threshold, for many years. It kept me more in the closet I think. It scared the hell out of me, because I could easily be fired. It’s difficult situation in Republican politics to this day.”

Karger did not come out to the general political world until after he retired from his position at The Dolphin Group in 2004, fully investing his time to gay rights activism. Through Californians Against Hate — the group he founded to work against Proposition 8 — Karger has been at the forefront of opposing the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and linking anti-gay funding to the Mormon Church. He has organized boycotts of businesses that contributed to anti-same-sex marriage campaigns and filed frequent complaints to force these campaigns to disclose their sources of funding.

As he has switched from an activist into a potential candidate, Karger has turned his attention to pushing for the repeal of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which bans openly gay citizens from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

“This is kind of a political football that people’s lives are being tossed around, 14,000 people have already been discharged under “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” it costs $355 million for the government, so it’s ridiculous. It’s discriminatory, the president should have done it with a stroke of the pen and not be enforcing it,” he said. “I fault Republicans in the Senate because I think there was a breakthrough with some of the moderates who were willing to do the right thing and they’re unfortunately tied to the leadership.”

The focus of his potential campaign may be primarily directed at LGBT civil liberties, but Karger would challenge the other presidential candidates on a host of other issues if he qualifies for the nomination debates.

He could create headaches for current frontrunner Mitt Romney. “I fully embrace his Romneycare for Massachusetts,” Karger said when asked if he agrees with the former Massachusetts governor on any issues. Karger opposed the federal health-care reform bill but said he supports state-based systems such as the measure Romney shepherded through as governor, which was substantively the same as the national bill.

His policy views are certainly unique among Republican ideology. Karger, a longtime member of Republican Majority for Choice, is staunchly pro-choice.

“There are no moderate voices out there; there are no other possible potential candidates who are even pro-choice. Even some of the libertarians are not,” Karger said. “I think that is extremely important, a major Republican issue. To me keeping government out of people’s private lives, that’s a basic tenet of the Republican Party.”

Karger breaks ranks from the party platform on a number of other issues as well. He gives lip service to the general conservative principles of smaller government and a strong national defense, but when he is forced to discuss specifics, there are few moments where he would agree with the rest of the field’s stated positions. He opposes Obama’s troop expansion in Afghanistan and advocates for removing soldiers from the ground while using advance military technology from a distance instead.

If he were in the White House today, Karger would extend the Bush tax cuts for one year, but he is unsure what he would prefer in the long term (these comments were made prior to the deal reached between the Obama administration and Senate Republicans Monday night). However, he does not share the zeal of his fellow Republicans for tax cuts for the rich. “I’m not for giving tax relief to the super rich,” he says. As to Republican claims that the $250,000 annual income marker is too low to describe a family as rich, Karger said, “it’s not exactly middle class.”

As for what Karger would do to help stimulate the economy and restart jobs he only offers vague comments about being an optimistic figure in the White House who would encourage consumers to get out and spend money again. He would like to cut down on government bureaucracy, but is unable to name anything specific. “The issue area is newer to me,” he said, but explains that he has been meeting with experts in various fields to bolster his credentials while he is still in the “exploratory” phase of the campaign.

Karger’s willingness to admit when he does not have enough information is notably refreshing in a landscape where politicians are prepared to spin any question lobbed their way. But this very attribute that is charming in a one-on-one situation would damage any possible sense of legitimacy if it continued through presidential debate appearances. He could run circles around people speaking on LGBT civil rights issues, but the seasoned campaign veterans he would face have honed messages on any major policy points.

Beyond expanding his ability to respond to the issues of the day, Karger faces a number of challenges in order to be seen as a viable presidential candidate. However, his consulting experience may give him an edge in conducting a headline-grabbing campaign necessary to boost name recognition as an underdog candidate.

“I need to be creative and I need to do things very differently,” he said. Different is definitely one way to describe his strategy to date. His campaign hands out swag — including frisbees — that is covered with “Fred Who?” a direct acknowledgment of the fact that he is currently unrecognizable to voters. He has already begun running ads in New Hampshire and Iowa, likely far before any other candidate will enter the airwaves

“Normally, you’ve got to be a little cautious in a campaign, but when you’re a longshot you generally throw caution out the window; what do you have to lose?

“I got a lot of my inspiration on a lot of what I’ve done, like announcing [his possible candidacy] in New Orleans, like this [ad] from David Plouffe, because in that book he said we have nothing to lose so we took chances,” Karger said. Plouffe served as Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, and his book “The Audacity to Win” has been described by many as an instructive manual on how to wage an insurgent campaign (even Newt Gingrich gave the book credit recently).

Fundraising will be the largest hurdle to overcome for a Karger campaign to gain any traction. “That’s languishing, and I’ve not really asked, I’ve not done what I’m about to do. I wanted to wait until the midterms were over and now the holidays,” he sayid. “After the first of the year is when I’m going to start doing that. It’s my least favorite part of it. Again, I have to prove that I’m serious, because why would people contribute to what looks like Fred going around and riding in parades and doing all this.”

He has set his sights significantly below the figures other candidates are likely to spend, but his preliminary budget still requires a high sum. “It’s a modest budget by presidential candidates, but it is a hell of a lot of money, $5 or $6 million. But I can do my two state strategy initially and I can make a big impact.”

Senator Jim DeMint has proposed that all Republican Senators commit to a moratorium on all federal earmarks. The issue is set to be decided early next week, during a special meeting that Senate Republicans have scheduled, but some are already balking at the proposal.

To you and me, last week’s elections were a clear message that the culture of bloated federal spending and business-as-usual Washington politics will no longer stand.

Unfortunately, some Republicans in the Senate don’t seem to be getting the message…at least not yet.

We need to TAKE ACTION NOW — if you are represented by a Republican Senator CLICK HERE to use FreedomWorks interactive call center that will directly connect you with your Senator’s office. Call them, and find out whether they intend to support Mr. DeMint’s conference-wide moratorium on earmarked spending. Then encourage your friends and family to do likewise.

Odds right now still indicate that it will be an uphill battle to get enough votes, but the more attention Tea Partiers bring to the rather symbolic, nonbinding vote, the greater the chances they’ll pressure enough GOP senators into voting for it.

Who are some of the senators who are still wavering? Raju collects some of their comments:

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the vice chairman of the Senate Republican Conference who voted for the ban in March, said he’s “going to go at every angle possible to cut spending and limit the debt.”

Asked if that meant he’d vote for the DeMint proposal, Barrasso told POLITICO: “I want to see everything that comes up. I don’t know how many different proposals we’re going to have.”

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 GOP senator in leadership, won’t make any earmark requests this year and didn’t last year. But his spokesman said the senator would wait until next week to view all the ideas on the table before taking a position on the moratorium.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a prospective 2012 presidential candidate and No. 4 in GOP leadership, has “supported in the past and continues to support an earmark moratorium,” a spokesman said. But it’s unclear if that means he’ll back DeMint’s plan on Tuesday.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who voted for the ban in March, said through a spokeswoman that he had just received the plan and was still reviewing it.

It’s clear from the quotes above and a review of the senators’ past records that their stance on requesting earmarks is only one part of the equation in their decision-making process about whether to speak their mind before Tuesday’s vote. Kyl, for instance, is no friend of earmarks, but he’s also a part of Republican leadership. A number of senators are clearly weighing the cost of openly defying McConnell against the cost of appearing to disavow the desires of the Tea Party.

According to the AP, two of the four incoming members ([Adam] Kinzinger and [Tim] Scott) are Tea Party favorites, but they were most likely chosen for their previous legislative experience, which many of their fellow representatives-elect lack. Of the 18 current House members on the transition team, only two—Rob Bishop and Pete Sessions—are part of the Tea Party caucus. And Sessions is already more closely associated with the old guard, having served as NRCC chair.

Well-known Tea Partiers such as Michele Bachmann, Steve King, and Joe Wilson have been left out, and the transition team includes Jeb Hensarling, whom Eric Cantor and others are backing against Bachmann. Finally, transition chairman Greg Walden (who called the team “a nice cross-section of our Republican conference”) is himself relatively moderate; he even refused to say he would include a Tea Party member in the leadership when interviewed on MSNBC.

It’s pretty clear at this point that the Republican leadership is trying to keep its rowdier, Tea Party brethren at arms length. Whether new Tea Party members of Congress defer to the established pecking order or openly challenge such an affront remains to be seen.

If the recount process and subsequent litigation drag out through the beginning of 2011, current Gov. Tim Pawlenty will remain in office until a winner is certified. After Republicans gained control of both the state House and Senate on Tuesday, a prolonged recount battle and continual lawsuits could play to the GOP’s favor, allowing the legislature to pass conservative bills with a friendly face in the governor’s mansion before Dayton could possibly take the seat.

Pawlenty’s office did not return requests for comment on the article, but the governor addressed questions from the state press corps late Thursday afternoon. He once again affirmed he will not abdicate his role if no winner is declared by Jan. 3 — the date when the next governor is currently scheduled to assume office — but stayed mostly mum on the details of how he would operate if that situation occurs.

“In the event that it goes beyond Jan. 3, and again I hope it does not, then I will address matters as they arise and as they need to be addressed but obviously we will just be addressing those things as they need to be addressed and as they arise,” Pawlenty said in his opening remarks at the press conference. He continued to use the same language in response to most of the questions posed to him. He continually hedged and never satisfyingly defined what he meant with his most frequently used term, “arise.”

“If an emergency were to take place for example and I needed to call in the national guard I would certainly do that, or respond to an emergency. If something were presented to me that required action or lack of action or a signature or a decision, I would certainly undertake that,” Pawlenty said.

So Pawlenty himself might not push new legislation — at least not publicly — during this potential period of limbo, but a newly empowered Republican majority might not hold the same reservations. Based on Pawlenty’s statement on signatures and decisions, it seems he has not ruled out signing new bills that come across his desk. The conservative legislature could become proactive, passing numerous conservative bills that a Gov. Dayton would be inclined to veto.

Even if the House and Senate decide to wait until the recount concludes to begin crafting their legislation, Pawlenty would quickly face key decisions if his stay in the governor’s mansion continues through January. The governor must present a budget in early February, and as part of a deal between Republicans and Democrats during the last legislative session, there is a Jan. 15 deadline for the next governor to decide whether to opt-in to an early Medicaid enrollment program with the federal government. That choice would fall to Pawlenty if litigation prolongs the recount.

At the press conference, the governor reasserted his opposition to the program, indicating that the state would not accept the funds if he remains in office. “I’ve already made that decision as for me and my administration and as long as I’m here that will remain,” Pawlenty said. He pointed out that despite the current deadline, the legislative body has the option of changing it.

“It’s in the hands of the next legislature and the next governor to alter that in any way that they want,” he said. However, a Republican controlled House and Senate would be unlikely to allow any governor to have that choice again.

While Pawlenty was less than clear about how he will act if his tenure is extend, the governor did clearly state his preference for the recount situation to be resolved by the beginning of 2011. “I earnestly, genuinely, sincerely hope this is resolved by Jan. 3. It is not in anyone’s best interest to have this spill over and have a holdover situation. I hope that doesn’t happen, but in the unlikely event that it does, I will fulfill the responsibilities as required by the constitution. Not because I want to, but because I am required to,” Pawlenty said.

Prolonging his stay in office may be beneficial to implementing policies favored by state Republicans, but it could also interfere with the timing of Pawlenty’s probable 2012 presidential bid.

Whether Pawlenty gets his wish of leaving office in two months will be decided by the state parties, and whether they choose to file lawsuits challenging the results of the recount. On Friday, the secretary of state released a proposed time line for any possible recount. The process would begin on Nov. 29, and results would be settled by Dec. 14. That would leave little time for a gubernatorial transition, but would still allow Pawlenty to leave office on schedule. But with such high stakes in the race, either party is likely to extend the recount process through litigation, dragging the ordeal into 2011.

MPR captured video of the whole press conference:

Pawlenty preser on transition from tommy scheck on Vimeo.

Patrick Caldwell is a reporter for The American Independent.

“It’s my view that Americans are no more interested in a Republican platform for using government to re-engineer society than they were in the Democratic plan to do so,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in a speech to the Heritage Foundation yesterday. “Republicans will focus on doing a few things and doing them well.”

Apart from job creation, reducing the deficit and repealing health care reform, it’s hard to discern much else in the way of an agenda from the Republican brass — but even those items don’t hint at much legislative action. Republicans have consistently argued that, apart from cutting taxes, there’s little else government can or should do to promote job growth. Repealing health reform will be limited to a large, symbolic vote to undo the whole thing and several minor scuffles over funding for implementation.

The likely second-in-command in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), hinted at a similarly light legislative approach in a 16-page document he released yesterday called “Delivering On Our Commitment: A Majority to Limit Government and Create Jobs.”

“I believe we need to return to a committee-driven legislature that investigates problems, listens intently to the citizenry, and proposes well thought-out solutions when necessary,” the proposal reads. “Just because we’re in session, does not mean the House floor needs to be utilized. Repetitive floor votes and filling time with half-baked legislative proposals – as is currently done by the Democrat majority – is not a suitable answer.”

On the surface, a proposal to do next to nothing might seem like a risky strategy. The Congress that’s wrapping up had one of the most productive legislative sessions in the last several decades, yet most Americans still believed that it was either lazy, mired in partisan gridlock or ineffectual. But as The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait points out, if any cooperation with President Obama on policy issues will inevitably boost his stature, the GOP’s strategy makes sense as the most logical — albeit cynical — approach:

It’s probably always been true that the fundamental role of the minority is to oppose the majority and pave the way to winning reelection. America’s long history of ideologically amorphous parties, a relic of Southern Apartheid policies, created a tradition of cross-party cooperation. Those social norms persist, and both Washington elites and many Americans expect the two parties to work together as if they aren’t engaged in zero-sum political conflict.

But the truth is that, when the minority party cooperates with the majority party president, it generally makes the president and his policies more popular. The difference is that the Republican Party of 2009-10 is probably the first opposition party to fully recognize the dynamic and make this the core of its legislative strategy from the very outset. [...]

In the media you’re seeing a lot of familiar claims that the two parties need to work together. There is no incentive for the Republicans to do so. Even on issues where they can get a pure win, handing a win to Obama reduces their ability to gain the presidency in 2012. So why would they pursue an ancillary part of their agenda and reduce the chance to achieve the core elements of that agenda?

The trouble, of course, is that our political system isn’t set up to handle this reality. It was not designed with parties in mind. That’s another reason we have strong social norms dictating that elected officials ignore their political interests, at least for some period after elections. But that norm is dead. Meanwhile, we’re left with a political system that doesn’t work.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) campaigns for Tom Emmer on Oct. 30 in Anoka, Minn. (Minneapolis Star Tribune/ZUMApress.com)

Haunted by memories of the 2008 Senate election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken, Minnesota is bracing for yet another contentious recount, this time to determine the state’s next governor.

Just as the drawn-out recount in 2008 had national implications — for months, Franken was prevented from becoming the key 60th Democratic vote in the Senate — a delayed decision on the 2010 gubernatorial race would have wide repercussions at both the local and national levels. The state legislature, which flipped to the GOP on Tuesday, could quickly pass conservative bills while the likely Democratic governor, Mark Dayton, waits in limbo. All the while, Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty finds himself in a unique posturing position before his probable bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

[Congress1] After all precincts reported their totals on Wednesday, Dayton, a former U.S. senator, held a narrow 43.63 percent to 43.21 percent lead over his Republican opponent, state Rep. Tom Emmer. Tom Horner, a third-party candidate running for the Independence Party, drew 12 percent.

With only 8,856 votes separating Dayton and Emmer, media outlets have held off on calling the race, and so far neither candidate has declared victory or conceded defeat. Vote tallies are unofficial until the State Canvassing Board meets on Nov. 23. Counties will examine their vote totals, and the final numbers could still shift before that date, but as long as Dayton and Emmer remain within 0.5 percent of each other, the state will automatically conduct a recount, likely starting on Nov. 29.

The term for the next governor is scheduled to begin on Jan. 3. If the recount drags on past that date, the constitution calls for the current executive to remain in office. Pawlenty issued a press release Wednesday affirming that he will stay in the governor’s office until a new governor is sworn in. “My administration is fully committed and prepared to accomplish the swift and orderly transition to the next governor as soon as a final determination is made,” the release said. “As required by Article V of the Minnesota Constitution, I will continue to serve as Governor until a new governor takes the oath.”

While the gubernatorial election remains in limbo, Republicans took over both sides of the state legislature this week. Pawlenty faced a hostile Democratic legislature during the entirety of his eight years in office. At times, Democrats held veto-proof majorities, forcing Pawlenty to settle for a limited form of his ideological goals during his tenure. If the final decision on certifying the next governor drags into 2011, Pawlenty and state Republicans could rush through numerous pieces of conservative legislation, allowing the governor to add accomplishments he can tout to the Republican base when he hits the campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire next year.

*****

It is unclear exactly how long a recount could last, but the Coleman-Franken scenario from 2008 offers insight into the process. The state declared Franken the initial winner after a hand recount of votes lasted seven weeks. Reforms to the election process and lower turnout in the midterm contest should make for a quicker recount in 2010, likely three to four weeks, according David Schultz, a professor at the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul.

If that’s the case, the outcome should, theoretically, be known before the end of the year, just in time for the next governor to take the oath on schedule. However, as in 2008, it is not the recount itself but rather subsequent lawsuits that could drag out the final result for months. If the losing candidate chooses to file a lawsuit challenging those results, the state Supreme Court chief justice appoints a three-judge panel to review the complaints. That decision can then be appealed to the state Supreme Court, the highest point it could reach in a state-level election.

Following the 2008 recount, Coleman continued filing lawsuits up the ladder challenging Franken’s victory. The three-judge panel did not make its decision until April 2009, and the Supreme Court’s final ruling did not come down until the end of June, when Franken was finally allowed to assume his seat in the U.S. Senate.

Differences between the current gubernatorial results and 2008 may shorten that judicial window. Unlike the few hundred votes that separated Franken and Coleman, Dayton’s nearly 9,000-vote lead should prove difficult for Emmer to overcome in the recount.

On Wednesday, Jay Weiner, journalist and author of “This Is Not Florida: How Al Franken Won the Minnesota Senate Recount,” detailed changes in Minnesota election law since 2008 that should streamline the process in 2010. “Key among the changes: Absentee ballots this time ’round were viewed and accepted by centralized absentee ballot boards in each county,” Weiner wrote. “No longer did tired poll workers late at night have to quickly determine if absentee ballots followed the various guidelines. Also, signature mismatches, an element in the Senate recounts election contest trial, have been eliminated.”

*****

Even if continuing the recount through lawsuits would be unlikely to change the results this time around, the Republican Party has every reason to extend the process for as long as possible if Dayton appears likely to win. The state party has already taken an aggressive public posture on the recount that indicates it is willing to see the race through.

“The stakes are enormously high in this one, much in the same way they were enormously high with Franken and Coleman,” said Schultz. “I see the same political motives for filing the challenge.”

At a GOP news conference on Wednesday, state GOP Chairman Mark Sutton pushed back against claims that Dayton’s substantial lead constituted a victory. “We’re going to pursue this until we’re absolutely certain that all the votes were counted correctly,” he said.

The state party has hired Washington lawyer Michael Toner, who was the general counsel for the 2000 Bush campaign, an indication that it may already be eying a post-recount lawsuit. “It looks like it’s recount part two,” Sutton said. “And this time it’s personal.” (Toner directed questions to the communications director for the Minnesota Republican Party, who did not return an email seeking comment.)

“This is the exact same rhetoric they were using two years ago,” said Schultz. “They’re starting off with similar strategy … which is to claim voter fraud.” Republican claims of voter fraud were bolstered on election night when Hennepin County, which houses Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs, made a tabulation error and reported too many votes. That mistake was corrected and accounted for, bringing Emmer’s results closer to Dayton’s, but state Republicans have continued to point to it as an indication that Emmer could further close the vote gap.

*****

Would Pawlenty be willing to push conservative bills through a Republican legislature during litigation even if Dayton continues to hold a solid lead in the vote totals? The governor’s communications director did not respond to requests for comment, but in a press release from Pawlenty’s Freedom First PAC, the governor praised the Republican state victories.

“The historic nature of this victory cannot be overstated,” Pawlenty wrote. “For the first time since legislative races were partisan, Republicans will now have majorities in both the state House and Senate. This is a great validation of our work over the last eight years to cut spending and keep a lid on taxes.”

Pawlenty’s statement is in line with other Republican attempts to frame the legislative victories as a governing mandate granted by voters even if the party loses the gubernatorial race. If party officials truly view the results in those terms, they would likely feel justified pushing their agenda while they still have a friendly face in the governor’s office.

“There may be powerful incentive for the Republicans to want to enact and do things very, very quickly during that time period,” Schultz said. “Get a budget passed, do all kinds of stuff when they’re guaranteed of having a Republican majority and a Republican governor.”

Pawlenty has said he will make a decision on his presidential campaign sometime during the first quarter of 2011; he chose not to seek a third term so that he could begin building his campaign infrastructure and spend more time in early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. An extended recount would delay his ability to implement those plans, but it would also allow Pawlenty to build his conservative legislative credentials in ways previously blocked by a Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Traditional Republican priorities of lower taxes and conservative social policies would likely be among the first issues addressed. Pawlenty often touts his record of not raising taxes in a liberal state when he visits national media outlets. The opportunity to enact a major tax cut — especially corporate rates that a Gov. Dayton would be unlikely to lower — may be too tempting for Pawlenty to pass up. One idea floated in the past that may surface again is a taxpayer bill of rights, which would essentially only allow Minnesota taxes to be raised if they are put to a popular vote.

Pawlenty and the legislature may also seek to codify a ban on same-sex marriage. Such a move would play well among the base in Iowa, one of the states Pawlenty has invested in most heavily as he eyes 2012. Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost retention votes on Tuesday after state and national conservatives campaigned against them for their votes in ruling bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Pawlenty praised Iowa’s ouster of the judges, and passing legislation against same-sex marriage in his own state would add credibility to his statements when he speaks to the Republican base.

One issue that would immediately confront Pawlenty if he stays in office past his scheduled exit date would be an opt-in to a federal Medicaid assistance program. As part of the national health care reform legislation, Minnesota has the option of gaining extra federal Medicaid aid by increasing state enrollment. That would require the state to spend an extra $188 million, but the state would be expected to gain $1.4 billion of federal assistance in return. Democrats support the opt-in, while Republicans are opposed. During the budget session last year, the two sides struck a deal: Pawlenty had the option of opting-in last year –- which he declined -– and the next governor would be presented with the same choice when he or she assumed office. Dayton campaigned on taking part in that federal program, but the next governor would have to make that decision by Jan. 15, leaving the choice in Pawlenty’s hands if lawsuits prolong the election.

Patrick Caldwell is a reporter for The American Independent.

Rep. Mark Kirk, who could become the next senator from Illinois, said at a recent debate, “I think all of the groups entering Illinois to support my opponent and the ones trying to support me should reveal their donors and be fully transparent.” Likewise, Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck: “I think it is important that people know who is paying for the ads.”

So do we. If Mr. Kirk or Mr. Buck end up in the Senate, we hope that they – and other colleagues will cut off the flow of secret money before even more gushes forth in 2012.

You could make a case for adding Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul to the list, too, at least when it comes to the issue of barring federal contractors from lobbying or contributing to congressional campaigns.

“What I would do is that for every federal contract, if you sign a federal contract and we pay you, the taxpayer pays you a million dollars, I would put a clause in the contract that you voluntarily accept that you won’t lobby or give contributions,” he told Rush Limbaugh, “because I think it galls the American people that taxpayer money is paid to contractors who take that taxpayer money and immediately lobby for more money.”

And even Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller has been up in arms about a new Super PAC, Alaskans Standing Together, which is spending loads of corporate money from the parent companies of federal contractors to back his opponent Sen. Lisa Murkowski. He’s even gone so far as to file a complaint about the issue to the otherwise loathed Federal Elections Commission.

Does this mean that any of these candidates would back legislation like the DISCLOSE Act in its present form? Probably not, but it shows that while conservative candidates who possess Paul’s libertarian streak might be all for free corporate spending, they’re not for cozy corporatist arrangements either. To the extent that these interests overlap with those of campaign finance reformers, you might yet see some cooperation after all.

The poll finds Republicans in an unusual position: on the brink of making political gains while the party and its policies are unpopular. Likely voters are evenly divided on the Republican Party, with 47 percent holding a positive opinion. [...]

Republicans have said they want to cut $100 billion from the federal budget as early as January. That would amount to 21 percent of the government’s so-called discretionary spending and target programs such as college loans for low-income students or medical research at the National Institutes of Health.

Less than one-third of poll respondents — 31 percent — say they support cutting federal spending in areas such as education and health care, excluding Social Security, Medicare and defense.

Of course, these numbers won’t by any means stop a new Republican Congress from claiming a wide mandate to enact its agenda. Besides the obvious numerical calculus entailed in controlling the Senate, this is one of the reasons that the Senate races coming down to the wire in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wisconsin and Nevada are so important.

The candidates representing the GOP in these races are all true believers in deeply conservative causes, and a victory for them would certainly seem like a sign that the nation has moved significantly to the right. If they loose, however, writes E. J. Dionne, it’ll make Republican claims of a sea change that much harder to justify:

So far, being righter-than-right has been anything but helpful. O’Donnell’s nomination virtually sealed a victory for Democrat Chris Coons. In Colorado, Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, after spending the summer under assault from anonymously funded conservative groups, has been closing in on tea party favorite Ken Buck. In Wisconsin, Sen. Russ Feingold has narrowed Republican Ron Johnson’s once substantial lead.

In Alaska, the tea party’s Joe Miller faces a formidable write-in challenge from Sen. Lisa Murkowski, whom he defeated in the Republican primary, even as Democrat Scott McAdams battles to sneak through on the GOP split.

Republican Rand Paul has clung to a lead over Democrat Jack Conway in Kentucky, a very red state where a Republican should not be having so much trouble. As for Nevada, nobody knows if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will prevail over marquee tea party candidate Sharron Angle, but Angle’s bizarre brand of conservatism is the one thing giving Reid a fighting chance.

A quick glance at the data yields a few observations, including the most obvious one: While the media follow former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s travel schedule and endorsements like a hawk, SarahPAC’s total receipts of $4.94 million, while impressive, pale in comparison the $8.4 million raised by former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-Mass.) Free and Strong America PAC. Also of note is the fact that despite her massive haul, Palin’s PAC has only donated $135,500 to federal candidates. Romney, on the other hand, has given more than $470,000 during the same time frame.

Direct donations to candidates are only one function of the work that PACs affiliated with presidential hopefuls tend to do, of course. The PACs also spend money on travel and other activities to assist political allies campaigning for office. But SarahPAC’s relative stinginess with candidates might also have to do with the fact that it’s using up a relatively large percentage of its expenditures — more than $670,000 — to fund media and political consultants and other forms of media.

Instead of giving lots of money directly, in other words, she’s spending to boost her own profile. It could pay off by making her endorsements carry that much more weight, or it could backfire by leaving some candidates feeling snubbed when it comes to direct donations to their campaigns.