okay, this sounds pretty reasonable.
"In a December 2010 column in the Wall Street Journal, Pawlenty argued in favor of the historical benefits of "private sector"
labor unions and strongly against "public sector" labor unions, whose collective bargaining rights he would like to see curbed: "The rise of the labor movement in the early 20th century was a triumph for America’s working class. In an era of deep economic anxiety, unions stood up for hard-working but vulnerable families, protecting them from physical and economic exploitation." He also criticized modern unions: "The moral case for unions—protecting working families from exploitation—does not apply to public employment... Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt."
[52]
but then it seems like his social views are pretty extreme right. now that's fine for him and all, but... again, it's electability...
they really do need a candidate that is a severe economic disciplinarian, but who could give a fuck about the moral agenda. jesus is really making your party dumb, man. and i mean that just as a observation of obvious patterns.