Coleman Ad Backfiring

by Matt Martin | 40 Comments
September 26, 2007, 12:12 pm | Category: MN 2008: Senate | Tags: , .

40 Responses to “Coleman Ad Backfiring”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • st paul sage
    September 26, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    i wrote a letter too - which wasn’t published. and it was funny - the letter practically wrote itself - pretty much the same sentiments as everyone else. but it got me to thinking…did coleman purposely “groove a pitch” right down the middle for al franken to hit out of the park to make it more likely that al is his opponent?

    i still think it’s kind of dumb since his approval rating is stuck at 46%, but al franken is his preferred opponent.

  • Eva
    September 26, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    sometimes, life is good.

  • John S
    September 26, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Given the sensibilities of large segments of the base in the Twin Cities, Al’s anti-war credentials need all the burnishing they can get. Attacked for speaking out in favor of MoveOn.org doesn’t help you many places, but one of the places where it does sends a lot of delegates to the state convention.

    Heck, it would seem like something Franken could turn to his advantage. He’s jumped around a lot on Iraq, and getting dumped on for supporting a withdrawal might make him look more like a statesmen and less of an entertainer.

    Of course, I’m more inclined this shows disgust with Coleman more than support of Franken.

  • gopgal
    September 26, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    Yeah, I am sure none of those came from form letters from the DFL or team Franken.

    This actually warranted a post?

  • Richard
    September 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    It evidently warranted a Senate bill. Why not a post?

  • bajonimi
    September 26, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    You go, Richard!!

  • Nitro
    September 26, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    gopgal,

    There is a majority of Minnesotans who don’t need a form letter to state their opposition to the war. That alone is quite newsworthy.

  • Josh
    September 26, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    and Franken got a piece on the commentary page today, which he wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.

    Doesn’t look like a win for Coleman.

  • Sean
    September 26, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    Richard gets the prize!

    Sean

  • Noah Kunin
    September 26, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Strib apparently also overcharged Franken for his ad of 2 months ago..now refunding him $12k

    http://www.blanked-out.com/2007/09/26/star-tribune-gave-sen-coleman-soft-money-refunds-franken-12000/

    same day they publish a George F Will editorial that states (accurately) that the NY Times almost made a soft money contrib to Move On.

  • Eva
    September 26, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Nice, Richard.

  • John S
    September 26, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Definite hit there, Richard.

  • Chris
    September 26, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    Matt,

    How do you know that a stream of letters came in from only one side? Do you open the letters at the Star Tribune or something? It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Strib would print 1000 letters against Coleman or any Republican. That is, after all, their practice. For every one Republican letter, they print 30 DFL letters. It’s been like that for years. I don’t know what your point is other than admitting that the Star Tribune is a liberal newspaper.

  • attilla
    September 26, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    Wow, what clown is advising Coleman to make such bonehead moves?

    Oh, wait, never mind …

  • John S
    September 26, 2007 at 8:50 pm

    Ah yes, Chris, if it differs from what the Leader said, it is a result of nefarious forces plotting against him. One of the letters Sean put up described what that’s called. Begins with a ‘t’.

  • Nitro
    September 26, 2007 at 9:19 pm

    Chris,

    You make it sound like Republicans are in the minority now.

  • Mockingbird
    September 27, 2007 at 5:22 am

    I can’t verify this, but I understand that Coleman hired the people who trashed Max Cleland with lying SwiftBoat tactics.

    Can anyone know more about that & confirm this?

    If my information is correct in this:
    Why in the world would Coleman hire anyone
    as despicable as those who went right to the bottom of the barrel to trash a war hero & triple amputee - who left limbs in Vietnam?

    I can see Mitt Romney hiring the guy who was Bush’s attack dog & implied racist things about John McCain & lied about his wife in order for Bush to defeat McCain…

    But here? Is this kind of crap going to work in Minnesota for Norm?

    Norm who is trying to convince us he’s a thoughtful & caring Minnesotan? Will both those fly? Doesn’t look like it.

  • wtm
    September 27, 2007 at 5:55 am

    Why is the fact that the Star Tribune printed letters from DFL activists notable? Anyone who reads the LTE section could have told you this is a common occurrence.

  • Swiftee
    September 27, 2007 at 7:49 am

    Uh oh.

    Today’s Star & Sickle has two scathing rebukes of Angry Al and his Moron.com nutrootz pals…and not one word of support.

    Guess this means that the worm has turned. Next post gonna say “Colman ad finding traction”?

  • wtm
    September 27, 2007 at 8:28 am

    Darn that fickle public, Swiftee. It’s mind is always changing!

  • Richard
    September 27, 2007 at 9:17 am

    It’s amusing that the outrage is about the criticism of a General’s report and the accuracy of that report while there is no outrage about the tremendous waste of lives with the situation that the report was about. There’s no outrage about the defeat of the Webb amendment which would’ve given soldiers equal time back from deployment to heal and to reconnect to normal society. There’s no outrage about another 200 billion dollars being requested today by Secretary Gates. There’s no outrage about Halliburton serving spoiled meat to the troops. But there’s a suggestion that Petraus might being lieing to congress the same way that Powell lied to the UN and the GOP’s get’s a touch of the vapors. “Oh my stars and garters, they’ve called a general a bad name. Whatever will we do?” It’s amusing and very typical. That’s just what fascists do.

  • Eva
    September 27, 2007 at 9:58 am

    Distract, distract, distract. Might be time for another gay marriage ban! Or maybe immigrants. Can we keep the immigrants from marrying the gays?

  • Chris
    September 27, 2007 at 10:00 am

    Richard,

    I’m sorry you hate your country this much that everyone is a liar and a fascist. You must carry a very heavy burden going through your life on a daily basis thinking this about your country.

  • Nitro
    September 27, 2007 at 10:16 am

    Chris,

    FYI: The liars and fascists are a minority now.

  • Richard
    September 27, 2007 at 10:19 am

    We’re being taken over by gay immigrants who call our generals bad names. Oh, whatever will we do?

  • Nitro
    September 27, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Chris

    We love America because of patriotic Americans who live here who are not like you.

  • Richard
    September 27, 2007 at 11:12 am

    I’m sorry you hate your country this much that everyone is a liar and a fascist. You must carry a very heavy burden going through your life on a daily basis thinking this about your country.

    Hideous sentence structure not withstanding, Chris, this is about the war and the credibility of this administration and it’s spokespeople. Bush and his ilk have no credibility left. We have been lied to repeatedly about Iraq so when Petraus gives a report in front of Congress, of course he’s going to be met with a great deal of scepticism. If you want to try and distract from that by questioning my patriotism or love of country, fine. Have that debate all by yourself. Of course that begs the question of whether or not you’re really a master debater.

  • gopgal
    September 27, 2007 at 11:14 am

    If this actually warranted a post, then where is the post talking about all of the anti-Franken lte’s that are in the paper today?

    Silly liberals with their foot in mouth disease…again…

  • Nitro
    September 27, 2007 at 11:15 am

    LOLOLS

    Chris might just be a master debater, within the privacy of his own home.

  • wtm
    September 27, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    So, liberals have no problem denouncing political attacks on their own politicians, such as Kerry and Cleland, but desperately cling to any and every tenuous reason not to denounce a political attack on a military general, which, incidentally, members of their party approved. Brilliant. Keep digging…

  • Richard
    September 27, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Republicans seem to have a problem staying on topic. Instead of wanting to talking about the war and the impact or lack of impact of the surge, the GOP wants to talk about some criticism of general Petraus. Should the left rush to his defense? Sure, as soon as we hear from the right that the Swift boat jackasses were wrong for diminishing Kerry’s service, we’ll be all over Move-On. And while you’re at it. You might as well admit you elected a deserter to the office of President.

  • wtm
    September 27, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Richard,

    What don’t you understand about not making political attacks on a general as opposed to a politician? Do you not understand that very evident, basic distinction? Here’s a hint: one is elected, one is not. (I’ll let you figure out the rest.)

  • wtm
    September 27, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    Also, the advertisement IS the topic — you are the one who wants to conflate the Iraq War with the advertisement to avoid denouncing the ad.

  • Richard
    September 27, 2007 at 4:41 pm

    So generals are above criticism. They are not to be questioned or their motives questioned. That would be:

    4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

    That’s point number 4 of the 14 points of fascism. I’m glad we’ve nailed down your particular political leanings. I prefer vigorous debate and if sometimes it get’s a little rough, especially for generals who insist on sending our youth to war, so be it. Denounce the ad or not, I don’t really care. It doesn’t really matter in the big scheme of things. Now, if we can get our troops home for Christmas and not lose any more. That’s important. The right’s phoney outrage over this is just so much political posturing, it’s hard to take you seriously.

  • wtm
    September 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Richard,

    Your arguments are really weak. If the advertisement didn’t “matter in the big scheme,” why did the group pay for the ad at all? Are you telling me the group is simply wasting money to waste money? Nah. MoveOn ran the ad in the hope of undermining the general’s testminoy by questioning his loyalty to his country.

    The military is not beyond reproach, which is why the Congressional hearings occurred in the first place. I would hope, however, that accusing our military of treason is beyond reproach, which you seem unwilling to do. And that’s why when you and other liberals claim you “support the troops” it is totally dismissed.

  • Randy
    September 27, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    wtm — If accusing the military of treason is so despicable, does the same apply to applying that label to civilians who disagree with governmental policies?

    General Petraeus is not an elected politician, but he was thrust into a political role (and if he didn’t see it coming, that’s his own fault). It was not his conduct on the battlefield that is being criticized, it is his conduct as spokesperson for the White House. The MoveOn ad was over the top, has been dismissed as serious criticism due to its rhetoric, and can therefore be considered something that doesn’t matter. Perhaps, however, we should look beyond the juvenile pun on the General’s name, and look at the substance of the ad. On the other hand, it is easier to use MoveOn’s name-calling as a smokescreen to avoid discussion of the real issues.

    Incidentally, I don’t think you really meant that you hope that “accusing our military of treason is beyond reproach.”

  • Chris
    September 27, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    Richard and Nitro,

    If Petraeus is a liar, why didn’t Clinton, Obama and Edwards commit to having all our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009??? Hell, they said they couldn’t commit to having all of the troops out of Iraq by the end of their first TERM, which is January 20, 2013.

  • rick
    September 28, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    FYI, a Flag Officer (i.e.:general, admiral etc) is a quasi political position. While usually rubber stamped, their appointments and promotions are subject to Congressional review. The position by it’s very nature is political, inside and outside the military. Read your history, do you think that MacArthur, Nimitz, or Eisenhower were without criticism, hardly. I believe McClellan caused some trouble for Lincoln if I’m not mistaken.

  • Chris
    September 28, 2007 at 11:49 pm

    Rick,

    You are correct. But I don’t recall any of them being confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and called traitors less than 6 months later.

  • Chris
    September 28, 2007 at 11:50 pm

    And while they are still commanding troops in the battlefield.

    (Sorry - I bumped the submit button before I finished my thought.)

Leave a Reply