With just over 14 months remaining before the Iowa Caucus, National Journal’s The Hotline has released its Presidential Power Rankings Tuesday morning, assessing the viability of 15 Republicans who might mount bids to become their party’s representative in the race against President Barack Obama.

The list ranks Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty as the second leading contender, far above his placement in most early 2012 opinion polls. Hotline cites his “executive experience and conservative credentials,” as reasons to believe Pawlenty is the real deal, but wonders if the stereotype of Minnesota nice might be true in this case, harming his ability to appear aggressive enough to run an effective presidential primary campaign.

The Hotline breaks the potential candidates down into four tiers that, rather than revealing the strength of each candidate, indicate what sections of the Republican base Hotline believes will play the most prominent role in the selecting the nominee.

The publication essentially dismisses the 2010 uprising of the tea party movement as a force in Republican primaries, with “The Tea Party Tier” at the bottom of the list. Hotline gives most weight to the traditional-style candidates, known as “The A-List Tier.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sits atop this pack, followed by Pawlenty, U.S. Sen. John Thune (N.D.) and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. In explaining its high rating of Romney, Hotline points to his strengths in context of previous primary elections:

The GOP has a history of nominating the person who has stood in line, and after finishing second behind John McCain in 2008, Romney is now that person. He’s got the necessary infrastructure, fundraising ability, and intangibles to be the undisputed front-runner, but how convincingly he answers nagging questions about his individual mandate in Commonwealth Care will determine how long he keeps the top spot.

That last point is not just a distraction Romney can brush off on the campaign trail. His passage of health-care reform during his tenure in Massachusetts has already become a lightning rod for his potential opponents. The legislation is remarkably similar to the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010, with the individual mandate especially toxic among today’s Republican base voters.

On Fox News last night, Texas Gov. Rick Perry — himself ranked 11th on Hotline’s list — said that Romney would need to repudiate the Massachusetts plan if he is going to enter the 2012 field. And President Obama — likely viewing Romney as one of his greatest threats toward reelection for a second term — has frequently targeted Romney in public remarks on the health-care reform bill as a way of defusing his vulnerability in a Republican primary.

Similar problems face the remaining A-Tier candidates in Hotline’s list. Thune voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008,  a decision Hotline says Thune has “an explanation for which he’s already rehearsing.” But TARP is up there alongside health care in the conservative base’s litmus test for vetting candidates. Support for the banking bill toppled Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah during his primary and has drawn conservatives’ ire for numerous other Republicans. And few politicians carry the establishment label quite like Barbour, a former lobbyist and chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Though they’re termed the “The Fox News Tier,” the second class of candidates in Hotline’s rankings really represent the standard bearers of the tea party movement. Ranking from fourth to eighth are former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Indiana Rep. Mike Pence.

While Hotline ranks its first four candidates primarily on their similarities to past primary winners, everyone in the second tier is described in the terms that truly matter in running primary campaigns: the way voters receive them. Huckabee is a “charismatic man in the field.” Gingrich is “greeted like a rock star at every GOP rally he attends.” They note but do not give much weight to Pence’s victory in the Value Voters Summit straw poll, a key indication that the Indiana representative draws significant support from an important element of the Republican base.

As the name for this tier implies, all four are major figures appear regularly on Fox News, which has become one of the prime avenues for Republicans to reach the base. And though many tea party favorites such as Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck ended up losing their general election campaigns, one of the main lessons of the 2010 cycle was the outsized power held by conservative activists in Republican primaries, a role likely to continue during the presidential nomination selection process. Increased enthusiasm for a candidate in the grassroots leads to excessive media coverage (see the endless discussion for any of Sarah Palin’s endorsements) and significant infusions of campaign funds (tea party favorite Sharron Angle’s $21 million haul).

As Slate’s Dave Weigel noted today, Romney may perform well in the early primary polls, but he largely serves as a placeholder, or traditional candidate, with significantly lower enthusiasm and loyalty than the candidates popular among the party’s base. The level of support for him or Pawlenty will likely vary significantly between now and February 2012, but the die-hard supporters of Sarah Palin are unlikely to waver in their allegiance.

With over a year to go until the first actual election in the nomination process, there is still plenty of time for political dynamics to shift. At this point 14 months ago, the tea party was still a nascent concept with little organizational power. But the current direction of political dynamics after the 2010 elections indicate that these voters will play a prominent role in selecting the Republicans’ 2012 candidate.

Read Hotline’s post for their rankings of candidates 9-15 and a description of each candidates strengths and weaknesses.

“You know, again, we are entitled to our own opinions; we’re not entitled to our own facts,” Franken said to Thune. “If you’re going to hold up a chart that says when taxes kick in and when benefits kick in, you say 1,800 days, you better include the benefits that do kick in right away.”

Thune responded, “Did the senator from Minnesota, when I was pointing out the chart, understand the point I was making – that the tax increases start 18 days from now, and that the benefits, the spending benefits under the bill which are the premium tax credits and the exchanges that are designed to provide the benefit that’s delivered under this bill don’t start until 2014?”

Franken shot back, “Does the senator understand that spending benefits start right away?”

Thune’s retort: “If the senator missed the point, I can get the chart out again.”

Franken demanded, “I asked a question, senator. I yield to you for a question. I’m asking a question.”

Eventually Thune continued to argue and then walked out on the exchange. Here’s the video courtesy of Think Progress:

The U.S. Senate took an hour out of its time Thursday to honor former Sen. Norm Coleman. Here are video clips with the complete tributes to Coleman from 10 senators (seven of Coleman’s fellow Republicans and three Democrats, including Amy Klobuchar), as well as transcribed highlights of their remarks — with particular attention to what they had to say about their former colleague’s future.

In the order in which they spoke, listed below are the 10 senators who gave Senate-floor testimonials to Norm Coleman on Thursday. After each name is an text excerpt from and full video of the senator’s speech. Click on the senator’s name to see the full transcription of his or her remarks.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.):

Today we honor our colleague and friend for that long career that we hope is far from over. And we punctuate an incredibly hard fought campaign that some people thought might never end. In the end, it didn’t turn out the way many of us had hoped it would. … And I have no doubt that this is not the last we will hear from Norm Coleman.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.):

I enjoyed serving with Norm … I wish Senator Coleman the very best in his future endeavors …

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.):

If Norm Coleman could have found some way to make the 2000 Presidential election Bush v. Gore v. Coleman, Norm would have been a participant in every single one of the most spectacular political races of the last decade. … He proved to be determined and courageous and, in the Minnesota tradition, a happy warrior in attempting to make sure that every Minnesota vote counted in the race, which was decided by just a few votes.

Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.):

Norm and Laurie are my friends. I wish them the very best as they go forward in their lives. I know they will find other opportunities to be of service to the people of Minnesota and to the people of the United States, and I might daresay also to the people of Florida because Norm has a great affection for my State, where he has spent a lot of his time.

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah):

I simply add my voice of gratitude for the opportunity of serving with Norm Coleman and my best wishes for him in his future activities. He is a young and vigorous enough man that I think we will hear far more from him in the years ahead.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.):

So to Norm Coleman I simply say we will miss you in the Senate. We are not going to let him go away, though. I still talk to him on a regular basis and will continue to do so and will seek his advice …

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.):

I had the opportunity to talk with Norm right after the supreme court in Minnesota ruled against him. I was struck, once again, by his determination to do what he felt was best for his state, even though it was not best for him. I was also touched by his commitment, once again, to his constituents and to moving on and ensuring that they had two Senators representing them.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.):

He was always very courteous and always a gentleman with me. I never heard him say a negative word about me. I cannot ever recall saying anything negative about him. … [H]e is a relatively young man, and I am sure with his educational background and his notoriety in Minnesota, he will have a bright future.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.):

Second only to his family has been his dedication to public service. It has literally defined his adult life. Maybe it was sheer destiny that he found his way to the Senate. After all, he is a graduate of James Madison High School in Brooklyn, which is also the alma mater of two of our Senate colleagues — Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders. Norm hit the ground running in politics, and he has not stopped.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.):

If he were here, I think he would tell you that in coming to the Senate–and I would tell you the same thing — he can now look back on some of the things he was involved in getting done, such as being involved in the big debates over the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Sam Alito — these were big debates in which we were all involved in seeing good people put on the Supreme Court of this country.

Chris Cillizza’s latest analysis of the VP sweepstakes has Gov. Tim Pawlenty as the No. 1 contender. Here’s the Washington Post scribe’s take on T-Paw’s chances:

1.Tim Pawlenty: So Tpaw and McCain had something of a disagreement over the cause of last year’s bridge collapse in Minnesota. The Minnesota governor remains the candidate in the Republican vice presidential field who fits best with what McCain wants and needs in a VP. Pawlenty has been elected twice in a Democratic-leaning state that is almost certain to be a battleground in the fall. He is liked and respected by both conservatives and moderates and gets rave reviews for his political instincts. He has also known McCain for nearly three decades and has been a supporter since the early days of the contest.

Others still on Cillizza’s GOP short list: Charlie Crist, Rob Portman, John Thune and Mitt Romney.

Now that the Federal Railroad Administration has told the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern railroad that it is not going to give it the hoped-for $2.3 billion loan to expand into the Powder River Basin, is that the end of a decade-long dream for the DM&E’s CEO Kevin Schieffer?

The answer is: No one knows. Schieffer at least in public has said he’s not throwing in the towel. The Surface Transportation Board and the FRA have approved the project, just not the massive loan. The Mayo Clinic and other opponents along the route haven’t scheduled any victory parties. And freshman Congressman Tim Walz, whose upset victory last fall came partially because of his opposition to the loan, is holding out an olive branch saying, yes, we want the railroad to upgrade and succeed, but no, we’re not crazy about the coal.

Ten years ago when Kevin Schieffer set off on his quest to turn the Class II DM&E into a Class I railroad, he thought he had a surefire solution: Extend his fledgling regional operation into the coal-rich PRB and begin shipping America’s last remaining supplies of relatively cheap fossil fuel to coal hungry power plants in America’s heartland. Though there were already two railroad lines servicing the area, his new route would be shorter and more direct to points east. It sounded like a can’t-fail plan.

more insideYet he didn’t anticipate the opposition that would arise along the way from a vast and diverse myriad of interests. Despite this opposition he kept pushing forward, but partially because of the opposition the project grew more expensive. Would-be investors started to get nervous. So Schieffer turned to his old friend John Thune, a newly elected senator from South Dakota, for help. Thune obliged by adding a last-minute provision into the massive 2005 Transportation Bill that would all but assure the DM&E of a low-interest, taxpayer guaranteed federal loan that would cover about 35% of the cost. It seemed like a slam dunk.

Citizens, the media and all but a handful of legislators didn’t find out about this provision until after the behemoth bill was passed. Soon the media were trumpeting the DM&E PRB expansion project as a done deal: You can’t fight both the railroad and Congress.

But they forgot to ask a few folks along the way. While the environmental opposition had faded away after a series of Surface Transportation Board decisions favoring the railroad that were upheld in court, there was still strong opposition from ranchers in Wyoming, citizens in Brookings, S.D., and above all, the Mayo Clinic and the City of Rochester, Minn. The latter two, which had been fighting the expansion quietly for years, suddenly swung into full combat mode, pulling out all the stops

• the DM&E’s current highly leveraged financial position,
• the size of the loan relative to the limited scale of existing DM&E operations,
• the possibility that the railroad may not be able to ship the projected amounts of coal needed to generate enough revenue to pay back the loan, and
• concerns that the application did not sufficiently address how the railroad would handle potential cost overruns and schedule delays with the Powder River Basin construction project (“FRA Administrator Denies DM&E Powder River Basin Loan Application Citing Unacceptable Risk to Federal Taxpayers“).

The DM&E has steadfastly refused to make its financial records public, prompting the Mayo Clinic and the Rochester Coalition to file a Freedom of Information Act request with the FRA in April of 2006. That request has yet to be honored, which prompted attorneys acting on behalf of the Clinic and the Coalition to recently file suit with the FRA forcing the FOIA request compliance. At the moment the Clinic and the Coalition have not indicated as to whether they will continue the lawsuit.

Despite the DM&E’s penchant for secrecy, there was still ample enough public information to cause the loan to be questioned by members of Congress and organizations championing government fiscal restraint. Much of this was contained in a Bearing Point study commissioned by the Mayo Clinic and Rochester Coalition.

Yet the FRA’s decision caught at least some members of the Mayo Clinic/Rochester Coalition team by surprise. “This was not expected,” said Patrick Connolly, a coordinator for the team’s effort. “We’re still in utter shock.”

Many in the press too must have been surprised, as the underlying theme in many media reports was that “you can’t stop the railroad.” At least some local government officials, particularly in Mankato, voiced the same opinion. They were opposed to coal trains coming through their city, yet decided they needed to negotiate with the DM&E because they felt the railroad’s expansion project was inevitable.

Rep. Walz indicated on Monday, however, that he expected this outcome from the FRA. “The citizens of this district demanded close scrutiny of this loan and they got it,” he said. “This loan proposal brought people from all walks of life together to insist that members of Congress better monitor taxpayer funds. I believe that today’s decision is a direct result of congressional and citizen inquiry and oversight.”

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the former DM&E lobbyist who at the last minute had inserted the DM&E friendly loan provision into the 2005 Transportation Bill, offered a different take. “Simply put, there was a huge amount of money spent to sabotage this project by powerful special interests and their hired guns,” he said. “This is a case of special interests beating the little guy.”

One would think that it would be a cold day in hell or a consistently 70º Minnesota winter to see newly elected Minnesota Reps. Tim Walz and Michele Bachmann cosponsoring the same piece of legislation. The same is true with veteran Minnesota Reps. Betty McCollum and John Kline, as arguably the four names represent the broadest possible spread of political perspective among Minnesota’s House delegation.

But wait. There’s more! Minnesota’s Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and his Democratic counterpart, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, are introducing companion legislation in the upper house of Congress.

more insideAh, you think, it’s gotta be one of those non-controversial bills calling for some monument or honoring a famous Minnesotan’s birthday, legislation that would pass by unanimous consent. Those slip through Congress like prunes through a toddler all the time.

But there’s more! Two other sponsors of the House bill are Democrat Mark Udall and Republican Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, veterans like Kline and McCollum and politically as opposite. What gives?

Three letters: DM&E.

All eight, plus five more members of the House, are cosponsoring legislation aimed at derailing one of the largest proposed pork deals in the country’s history, a $2.3 billion taxpayer-guaranteed, collateral-free loan for the DM&E, a small Midwestern railroad, so that it can compete as a coal hauler with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads. This is ten times the cost of the ill-fated bridge-to-nowhere in Alaska.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a former lobbyist for the railroad, slipped the $2.3 billion loan provision into the Transportation Bill at the last minute nearly two years ago.

Since much has been written about this sweetheart legislative deal, I’m not going into detail here. But more information, including internal documents from the DM&E, can be found at Minnesota Monitor and Vox Verax, as well as at A Bluestem Prairie and I Don’t Hate America.

Further, private financing for the expansion has disappeared from the horizon, engineering problems have multiplied, opposition from Rochester is stronger than ever, and the railroad’s competitors, the Union Pacific (UP) and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF), have shown no desire to cooperate.

The bottom line is that Washington and DM&E insiders now agree independently that the project has only a 50-50 chance of going forward. And that may be optimistic.

Here are the reasons why:

more insideLack of competitor cooperation

Just this week, the BNSF released its comment on the proposed DM&E upgrade and how increased traffic could jeopardize BNSF operations. The BNSF report specifically referred to the former I & M Rail Link (IMRL) trackage that the DM&E acquired in 2003. DM&E CEO Kevin Schieffer has characteristically dismissed the BNSF report as being “a desire to keep competition out of the marketplace.”

The DM&E hopes that the IMRL tracks will provide a possible alternate route to going through Rochester, Minnesota, where dogged opposition from the city, Olmsted County and the Mayo Clinic has proven to be a political nightmare both for the DM&E and politicians in Minnesota who have supported the expansion.

The other major carrier of Powder River coal, the Union Pacific, has remained steadfastly mum on the issue, possibly because it’s caught between two alternative outcomes, both profitable for the larger railroad.

On the one hand, if the DM&E expansion does not go through, the UP will continue to share the lucrative business of hauling Powder River coal with just one competitor, the BNSF. On the other hand, if the DM&E receives its loan and goes ahead with the project, the UP, with first right of refusal on any sale of the DM&E, will be in the perfect spot to acquire the smaller railroad and assume its taxpayer-subsidized loan, possibly at fire sale prices.

The UP is also a key player in the DM&E’s route selection in Mankato and Blue Earth County. The DM&E’s first-choice route is through this city of about 35,000, but the DM&E doesn’t own the right-of-way; the UP does. In order to accommodate the projected increase in DM&E traffic, the route would have to be upgraded, increasing trackage, expanding sidings, and adding millions of dollars of mitigation to the nearly five miles of neighborhoods it winds through.

While the DM&E would pick up the tab, the UP has shown no interest in coming to the table, either with the DM&E or the City of Mankato. Consequently, the DM&E is considering a so-called “southern bypass” through rural Blue Earth County. Both the city and the county have stated their preference to be the “in-town” route, but engineering obstacles to the south route make that option environmentally and economically nearly impossible.

Prof. Bryce Hoppie of Minnesota State University Mankato did a geological study of the proposed route in 2000 when it was first put forward. He states:

In summary, my preliminary results indicate that expansion along the existing railroad corridor west of downtown Mankato (Ml and M3) or along the western end of the southern bypass (M2) have substantial negative impacts on the local environment. I believe the extent of the negative impacts I have identified herein may be as great as any found along the entire line of the expanded DM&E railway. [Italics mine.]

Specifically, Prof. Hoppie points to two problems: First, the railroad will not be able to achieve a greater than 3% grade in order to haul coal. With the route going from existing DM&E tracks alongside the Minnesota River, across the parallel UP right-of-way, across the Blue Earth River, and finally up to the plateau south of Mankato, there will be need for grading and at least one trestle as much as a mile long and up to 80 feet high. Since the soil in the Blue Earth River Valley is soft, organic material on top of clay, pilings perhaps as long as 100 feet may have to be driven into the substrate in order to support the weight of the coal trains and their specialized locomotives.

Prof. Hoppie says that while there is no project too difficult for any engineer, laying a railroad line capable of supporting mile-long coal trains would be cost prohibitive. Further, extensive environmental mitigation would need to be made, adding to the cost and the construction timeline.

Thus, the DM&E plan for Mankato seems to be stuck between a lack of cooperation from the UP for the in-town route and the near impracticality of the southern bypass.

The changing climate in Washington

The success of the Democratic Party victories in southern Minnesota in the last election did not bode well for the DM&E’s plans. Many observers (including this one) attribute Tim Walz’s stunning victory over 12-year incumbent Gil Gutknecht for the House seat in District 1 to the DM&E issue. Gutknecht was a firm expansion supporter despite the fierce opposition from his hometown of Rochester. Walz did not oppose the expansion per se, but condemned the proposed $2.3 billion loan and stood firmly on the side of Rochester and the Mayo Clinic in defense of their interests.

Since the election, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and Gov. Tim Pawlenty, both Republicans, have shown more interest in the Rochester-Mayo point of view after standing mostly on the sidelines up till Nov. 7. Further, the incoming Chair of the powerful House Transportation Committee will be Minnesota’s Jim Oberstar, and while Oberstar is known as a railroad supporter, it is unlikely he will approve any legislation damaging to Walz or his constituents.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the former DM&E lobbyist responsible for slipping the $2.3 billion loan into the 2006 Transportation Bill, is still in Congress but holds less sway due to the upcoming turnover. Also, the process by which he added the loan provision without any hearing in the House has suffered attack from both the right and the left.

The other two members of the South Dakota Capitol Hill contingent, Rep. Stephanie Herseth and Sen. Tim Johnson, both Democrats, have been supportive of the project. But Johnson is temporarily incapacitated due to a brain hemorrhage, and Herseth may be backtracking a bit in deference to Walz’s win and the lack of enthusiasm in Minnesota for the DM&E’s plans.

While the loan was in the Transportation Bill, the appropriations bill funding it was never voted on and instead passed onto the new Democrat controlled Congress that convenes in 2007. Like the infamous proposed wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, it was approved but never funded.

Stuck in the station?

The lack of cooperation of the BNSF and the UP for advancing the project and the Democratic takeover of Congress are just two of the obstacles the DM&E faces. There are many more: from ranchers in Wyoming to Indian tribes in South Dakota, and from the tiny Village of Skyline, Minnesota, one of the smallest cities along the DM&E’s route, to Rochester, the largest and economically most powerful. All have reasons to oppose the railroad’s expansion plans.

What keeps the project going is the determination of the DM&E’s Schieffer, his connections in Washington

Minnesota Public Radio filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Railroad Authority for detail on DM&E’s loan application. That agency responded that the information is proprietary and can only be released with the railroad’s permission.

Kevin Schieffer, DM&E CEO, says only government loan processors should see some of the information, not the public. “There are some things we don’t have the authority to disclose because they’re subject to confidentiality agreements,” says Schieffer. “That’s very typical in the business world. This is an area where people can get hurt by information. People being utility customers and others. They’re subject to serious retribution if they’re found out to be working on agreements with us,” he says.

Now let’s see if I got this straight:

We taxpayers are stockholders in a bank called The United States Government. The United States Government Bank is considering giving out a loan for $2,300,000,000. This loan will be unsecured, meaning the company that is borrowing the money is putting up no assets as collateral. This is unlike, for instance, a home mortgage, where if the mortgage payments are not made, the house defaults to the lender. No such thing with this proposed $2,300,000,000 loan. If the loan recipient can’t pay the loan back, we taxpayers are SOL.

Now a few of us are saying, “Whoa, let’s look at this more carefully. What happens if this company defaults on the loan? That means we’re left holding the bag. Perhaps it would help us a little if you let us look at your financial statements and balance sheets. Then we could make a better judgment if this loan will be viable or not.”

The company says, “Nope. That information is secret. You have to give us the loan based on trust. We’re good guys. Don’t you trust us?”

Hey, I got an email about a deal like this awhile back. Some fellow in Nigeria wanted to give me a whole bunch of money if I let him transfer some of his money into my bank account for a short period of time. Now, what did I do with that email? It must be somewhere on my computer….