Cato's Michael Tanner isn't thrilled about the possibility of a McCain/Pawlenty ticket. In fact, he writes that choosing Pawlenty "would be a clear slap in the face to small-government conservatives." Cato of course is a libertarian outfit, but some of the reasons Tanner lists would likely cause concern among conservatives:

* Supported government subsidized health care for all children as the first step toward universal health insurance, and opposed President Bush's veto of a Democratic bill that would have expanded the State Children's Health Insurance program (SCHIP) to families earning as much as $83,000 per year;
* Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform, including a "health care exchange" and an individual mandate;
* Has called for banning all prescription drug advertizing, and seeks government imposed price controls for drugs offered through Medicare;
* Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children;
* Pushed a statewide smoking ban smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars;
* Increased the state's minimum wage;
* Imposed some of the most aggressive and expensive renewable energy mandates in the country;
* Was an ardent supporter of the farm bill;
* Received only a "C" ranking on Cato's 2006 Governor's Report Card, finishing below such Democrats as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and tied with Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

Pawlenty surely has his detractors and he surely isn't the most fiscally conservative candidate out there. But to play devil's advocate for a second, Pawlenty's record, like McCain's, shows a clear willingness to compromise, which is something that Obama has yet to really prove. If McCain's strongest argument against Obama is that, contrary to what Obama says, he's just another left-wing liberal, choosing Pawlenty wouldn't hurt.

But again, as Tanner notes, one of McCain's problem is with his base right now. They need to feel inspired or else many probably won't come out.