Photo: The UpTake

Gov. Tim Pawlenty was at odds with his own communications office on a couple points at his press conference yesterday — including the topic of his talk.

Here’s how Pawlenty’s communications director, Brian McClung, billed the event:

Governor Pawlenty will hold a press conference today regarding his future plans.

Never mind that the phrase “future plans” is a notorious redundancy deserving of its own line-item veto. Pawlenty played off all questions on the topic like a rock star who refuses to perform the hit that the promoter promised:

I don’t know what my plans are. I don’t have any plan …

I do not know what my future plans are. I really don’t. …

I’ll just reiterate: I. Don’t. Know. What. My. Future. Plans. Are.

Then there was the answer that the governor’s office had to scramble to take back. Two hours after Pawlenty’s press conference ended, McClung issued this statement:

At today’s press conference, Governor Pawlenty misspoke when he said that our administration considers unallotments as permanent cuts to programs.  The Governor thought he was addressing a question regarding the impacts of line-item vetoes rather than unallotments.  While line-item vetoes are counted as permanent funding reductions, an unallotment only impacts funding for that specific biennium.  The reduction does not carry forward into future years.

Politics in Minnesota’s Steve Perry, who asked the question, wonders whether Pawlenty really thought he was talking about line-item vetoes. Here’s Perry’s transcription:

PIM: Regarding the question of unallotments, I know your administration has studied closely the House Research paper on unallotments, and it points to ambiguities in the law–one of which is that it’s not clear whether unalloting a sector of the budget reduces the base budget going forward. In your view, does it reduce the base budget, or is it a temporary reduction?

Pawlenty: You’re talking about in terms of the forecast beyond the current biennium? Well, I think it’s our position and the Department of Finance’s position that that’s a permanent reduction. But I’ll defer that to the Department of Finance.

Maybe Pawlenty did mix up line-item vetoes with unallotment, lost in the emotion of a moment that some media labeled his retirement from politics (though that seems a mislabeling, and the event was, as Pawlenty reminded reporters, “not a wake”).

But this is a man who ordinarily watches his words. He rarely, for example, flings “Democrat” as a partisan pejorative in place of the more proper adjective “Democratic.” So it was surprising to hear him at the press conference deliver this line in his fed-up, scolding tone:

We need leaders and visionaries and change-agents, not whiners and defenders of the status quo.

You’d think Pawlenty would have excised the word “whiner” from his vocab list last summer, after the man he nearly joined on the national Republican ticket, Sen. John McCain, dispatched former Sen. Phil Gramm from a campaign post for making comments about a “nation of whiners.”

Dick Durbin is the senior senator from Illinois and is currently seeking a third term in office. He’s being challenged by Republican Steve Sauerberg, but polls have consistently shown the incumbent with a commanding lead. Durbin was an early supporter of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and introduced him at the Democratic National Convention in August. Today he was in Minnesota stumping for his fellow Illinois legislator. I spoke to him by phone. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Minnesota Independent: You are in the midst of a re-election campaign, so what are you doing in Minnesota?

Dick Durbin: I try to sneak away a few days a week to help Barack Obama. I was part of the group that talked him into this race and I’ve kept my word that I’d stand by him all the way. I’m trying to have that dual responsibility of running for re-election in my state and helping him win.

MI: What’s your big picture assessment of the presidential race at this time?

DD: I think there was a real shift in this election campaign just within the last two or three weeks. When the economy became such a dominant issue, it really pushed aside a lot of the minor and superficial things that had been talked about. We spent two or three days debating what Barack meant when he said “lipstick on a pig.” I don’t think the American people would tolerate that conversation in light of the serious economic problems we face today.

MI: In recent days we’ve heard a lot about Bill Ayers from the McCain campaign. What do you make of those attacks?

DD: It doesn’t have legs. What it boils down to is Bill Ayers’ wrongdoing occurred when Barack Obama was 8 years old and was a kid in grade school. To any way associate Barack with Ayers, besides a few meetings on a charitable board, is an exaggeration. As Rahm Emmanuel said recently, if you’re going to hold Barack Obama accountable for what happened when he was 8 years old, you should hold Sen. McCain accountable for what happened when he was 58 years old, which happens to be the Keating Five scandal.

MI: You’ve had similar attacks waged against you by your Republican opponent, accusing you of actions that “embolden the enemy.” What impact do you think those have had on your own contest?

DD: I was kind of surprised that my opponent went to that level, first saying that he thought I was unpatriotic and then saying that somehow I endangered our troops. We had a debate over it last night in Galesburg. I said to him, I just don’t think this is gonna work, doctor. I don’t think the American people are going to buy this. They’re more interested in what we’re going to do to end this war and bring our troops home safely. They’re more interested in what we’re going to do to get this economy back on its feet. This kind of name calling I think is for the bottom feeders of the American political scene.

MI: You’ve been a frequent critic of Guantanamo Bay. We’ve heard very little about that facility in the presidential campaign. If Obama is elected, what do you expect to happen with Guantanamo Bay?

DD: I expect Guantanamo to be closed. I think Barack Obama understands, as I do, that it has become a blight on America’s image around the world. We need to bring those prisoners to justice if they have committed crimes or in any way endanger our nation. We need to be honest. If we’ve held them for years without any evidence of wrongdoing they need to be released.

MI: Do you have in mind a time frame for how long it would take to shut that facility down after Jan. 20?

DD: I don’t have one. But I can tell you that even President Bush was talking about closing Guantanamo over a year ago. I think it’s long overdue.

MI: You supported the $700 billion bailout package. Why?

DD: I’m afraid it was the only game in town. I hate to say that. This mess that we have with our economy was a creation of the deregulators, high priest Phil Gramm and his acolyte John McCain. This notion that if we just stepped aside dynamic capitalism would create wealth and growth — well, we’re paying our comeuppance, and sadly a lot of people are suffering. People have lost their savings. Investors are getting the bad news on a regular basis. We’ve got to have central regulation. We can’t exempt any portion of our economy from the kind of oversight that protects basic American families.

MI: This bailout package was intended to calm the financial sector. Clearly that has not happened. Why do you think that is?

DD: We hoped that the passage of the legislation would be a confidence builder. It didn’t work. Perhaps when we start actually buying these illiquid assets and strengthening some of the institutions it will work. But there’s a chance as well that it won’t work at all. Our alternative was to do nothing. I just couldn’t bring myself to reach that point. Neither could Barack.

MI: Race — what role do you think it is playing in this election so far?

DD: It would be naive to believe that race is not a factor in this election. It is. There will be people who will vote based on race. I’ve run into some who’ve told me in Chicago that they’re good strong Democrats, but they’re still struggling with the notion of voting for a black man. They’ve been candid with me about it. The thing that I think has happened is over time people have come to know Barack Obama. They’ve watched and seen him during the course of his campaign. It’s been 16 years or so since he published his autobiography. Obama’s story is out there in detail for America. There is still a chasm between races in our country. Most of us don’t feel that we completely understand black families because we don’t associate as much as we should. But I think at the end of this campaign there will be a much smaller percentage of voters that are troubled by that. I think that Barack is going to overcome it.

Gramm has been one of John McCain’s primary advisers on economic issues. Fortune dubbed him “McCain’s econ brain.”

In a March speech addressing the mortgage-foreclosure crisis, McCain offered few concrete ideas for fixing the mess other than convening a panel of accounting professionals to study what went wrong. Notably the GOP presidential aspirant failed to endorse more pro-active policy proposals such as freezing mortgage rates. “I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers,” McCain said at the time.

Gramm was de-registered as a lobbyist for UBS on April 18, roughly a month after the speech. He remains the bank’s vice chairman.