Senator Coleman launched his campaign blog and has put up several posts. Funny thing is, the Senator (or rather the Senator’s employees) can’t think of anything to say about himself, his issue stances, his record, or, really, anything having to do with why you might want to vote for him. Instead, he’s decided to showcase his obsession with Al Franken. The first three posts, which right now are the only posts, are all about Al Franken.
While this is mildly amusing in of itself, I think it points to a larger issue with Senator Coleman and his campaign as a whole: the guy doesn’t know what to run on. He seems to be afraid of putting issues center stage or, god forbid, his record as a US Senator. I mean, we elect this guy for a 6 year term and after 5 this is what he has to show for it? It’s still early, but if Senator Coleman wants to get Minnesotans to vote for him again he’s going to have to show them what he’s done for them over the past 5 years first. I know it’s a bit of a nightmare for the Coleman campaign, but sooner or later he’s going to have to start talking about his record.
Loading ...
You guys are finally starting to figure this out.
Coleman’s record sucks, so he can’t talk about it. But with Al Franken as his opponent, he doesn’t have to. The whole campaign will be about Al Franken, and that will be enough for Coleman to win.
It’s hard to put forward a platform and express your thoughts on policy if you have no principles to back it up. Norm’s position is whatever is most popular at the time. It’s too early to stake out any ground on anything, because he might be wrong (or it might be less popular) in 6 months.
He also knows that no one really likes him, so talking about himself isn’t going to do anything for him. What’s there to tell?
The Franken obsession actually helps Franken. Franken gets to say, “Look all he can do is talk about me! He’s got nothing of his own!” all the while the chattering classes start muttering about Coleman being scared of Franken.
The problem with that, Josh, is that its not Coleman talking about Franken. Coleman’s ads will just show Franken talking about himself. In effect, Norm Coleman will be almost completely irrelevant to this race.
So let me get this straight -
You are against guys who refuse to change their minds (W)
and
You are against guys who change their minds (Norm). ??
We just have to get DeltaDental’s record out to our family, friends and neighbors. Here are a few of Norm’s Minnesota Values votes; 1)For FISA 2) For the Iraq War 7 Times 3) For the Patriot Act 4) For Bush’s Tax cuts for the Wealthiest 1% 5) For Torture 6) For Oil Company Tax Breaks 7) Against Health care for Active Troops and Vets
Against Stem Cell Research 9) Against a Withdrawal Plan for Iraq 10) Against Health care for children (S-Chip). I could go on, talk about his 76% party line votes, his loyalty to Bush and his disconnect with the average Minnesotan, but I though, now is a good time to call some neighborhood voters and share Norm’s record with them. I hope you all do the same.
The S-Chip vote alone will do him in for ‘08
sooner or later he’s going to have to start talking about his record.
But that’d leave 28 seconds of dead air time on his TV ads.
SCHIP is an interesting political football. The Dems played it perfectly.
It was a terribly flawed bill. A vote against it was a vote against that bureaucracy morphing into something out of control. A vote against it wasn’t a vote against children’s healthcare.
The Dems can now say “The Republicans would not even support expanding our health care for poor kids… what kind of heartless people are they? How can they justify it”
The Republicans should say “Before we expand what is supposed to be a children’s safety net program to middle-income adults, lets fix the real problem of covering the children who need to be covered. We could cover more kids by doing a better job within the agencies of identifying them under the existing program — this bill doesn’t even fix that more basic problem!”
But they will be too shy. They don’t want to even take this one on, and the Dems can have a field day with it.
You are all wrong. Coleman will never talk about his record. If Al Franken is the nominee, all he will talk about is Al Franken, and that will be enough. Norm Coleman was toast, and then Al Franken moved here to save him.
Dan,
I asked this before who do you support and why? Coleman doesn’t have to talk about his record, we do.
DantheMan,
Fix the system, the RoadBlock Republicans were in control for how many years, why didn’t they fix it when they had the chance? A person’s health, i.e. life or death should not be based on their ability to pay. Face it, the Republican Party believes that the money needed to pay for Bush’s war is more important than a healthy America. I guess this is why GOP stands for “Greed Over People”.
Republicans should be ashamed.
HCDFL said “A person’s health, i.e. life or death should not be based on their ability to pay.”
It is amazing how seamlessly the Democrats’ argument for SCHIP funding just seems to bleed into single payer. It is just one half-step on the way to single payer. It is also amazing that when the Democrats believe there is a problem with an existing program, the response is always to throw more money at it.
I can see the party campaign slogan now: “Throwing Good Money After Bad…. But at least we’re getting it out of the pockets of the successful.”
DantheMan:
Please enlighten me as to why, when the Republicans had 6 years of total control they did nothing to “fix” the basic problem. It’s only now,when they have lost control that the RoadBlock Republican suddenly have all answers. Medicare is a single payer system, it has the lowest administrative costs per claim in the industry, and it serves every American over 65 equally. Sometimes the Free Market is not always the answer or the way to lower costs,in some cases it drives up the price and insurance/health care is one of them. America should be #1 in the world when it comes to the health and well being of it’s citizens, not somewhere in the teens.
Is health care a right or a privilege?
As far as “Throwing Good Money After Bad…. kind of sounds like Bush’s Iraqi policy”.
Healthcare is a limited privilege. Everyone should have access to basic healthcare. I don’t disagree with that.
“Medicare is a single payer system, it has the lowest administrative costs per claim in the industry, and it serves every American over 65 equally.”
And Medicare reimburses our healthcare providers at less than their cost to provide the care. If it wasn’t for private payers, they wouldn’t even cover basic costs, much less pay them for their talent and skills. So tell me, then, what would be the next step if you couldn’t incent people to go into medicine? Force them to?
Starting to sound like Cold War Russia.
Right…. I meant limited right. Not limited privilege. I’m not that Draconian.
DantheMan;
Would I force people to change their coverage, No. If you want to continue to pay for the “skills and talent” of insurance company CEO’s like McGuire($1.1 billion severance package)go ahead. I just know I can not continue to pay the for the rising cost of insurance. I have not seen a raise in 4 years because of these costs. Where is my pay for my “skills and talent”?
If it costs a doctor, a nurse, and a lab technician $100 to treat your illness, and Medicare reimburses 98 cents, what in the world is the incentive to provide that service?
This isn’t about McGuire. This is about Medicare, which is the largest payer in the healthcare market, not even covering the cost of a Doctors office, dental practice, hospital, or nursing home.
Completely unsustainable.
The private sector in healthcare needs refinement…. but I’m positive Medicare ain’t the answer.
DantheMan;
Hello,private insurers set limits and reimburse doctors/hospitals less it just depends on where you live.
I have read several places that for many doctors(certain specialties)Medicare is what makes up most of their income, so please direct me to where you found the 98 cents figure.
Is there enough of the health care dollar to satisfy both the cost and the profits demanded by the insurance industry?
The Kaiser Family Foundation published the study I’m referring to, but I can’t dig up the link I’m looking for.
Here is an excerpt from an AHA White Paper Summary:
“The paper also indicates the percentage of hospitals losing money on providing care to Medicare patients overall rose from almost 46 percent in 1997 to 58 percent in 2000 and is projected to reach 65 percent by 2005. In addition, the report projects total Medicare payments will be $18 billion less than actual costs for hospital and hospital-based services by 2005.
Underpayments for Medicare and Medicaid services contributed to declining margins in 2000. From 1997 to 2000, Medicaid margins dropped from -4.2 percent to -5.1 percent, Medicare margins dropped from 3.5 percent to -0.9 percent, and private payer margins dropped from 14.9 percent to 13.5 percent, according to the AHA.”
As to your question on if there is enough of the healthcare dollar to satisfy the cost and profit motive in the private insurance industry? I believe there is, as they emphasize more and more the preventative nature of healthcare. Payers are increasily paying for Health. Medicare is still, and will probably always, be paying for Care. One is the wise use of dollars, and the other a poor use.
Very good discussion. The other issue I would like to hear single payer advocates resolve is where are the incentives for people to take care of themselves? One of the biggest problems with the current system is because the bulk of health insurance are most often paid for by and employer under group plans it is hard to reward people with lower premiums based upon behavior that lowers costs. Things like not smoking, regular check-ups and the like.
The other issue with the current system is that since health insurers most often provide coverage to businesses, not individuals, they have little incentive to keep people healthy. Why spend money on preventative care when there is a good chance that employee will be working someplace with a different insurer when their bad behavior catches up with them.
Portability should be the number one key to any new system. Incentives for healthy choices is a strong number two.
Careful, K.H
You’re on a slippery slope there. Insurance for healthy people only, you know bad behavior is not the only reason people need medical care. Newborns and preemies are some of the most costly factors in health care today. Along with uninsured adults between the age of 50 to 65 who don’t seek medical care until they become eligible for Medicare that are driving up the cost of Medicare. Insurance companies don’t want to pay for preventative care because then every policy holder would cost them money not just the sick ones. The profit factor is the problem.
I support anyone but Al Franken, because Al Franken will lose to Coleman if he is the nominee.
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you Idetrorce
Here is an email that Norm sent to me in response to my letter to him on the retroactive immunity for the telecoms. I think this is one he can run on
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the proposal for immunity for telecommunication companies included in the modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I respectfully disagree with your view on this matter.
I believe that it is unfair to penalize companies for responding to written assurances from the highest levels of the government that their help is legal and essential for saving lives. The immunity provision will only apply to companies if they have official documents from the government demonstrating the activities were deemed legal and authorized by the President. I would also point out that the Senate Intelligence Committee looked into this matter and found that the telecom companies acted in “good faith” based on the information they had.
Whether the government acted properly is a different question from whether a private person has acted properly in responding to the government’s call for help. I have supported efforts to investigate the legality of the wireless surveillance program, and believe that if any wrongdoing is found, measures should be taken accordingly.
As you may know, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248) was introduced by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) on October 26, 2007 . This bill seeks to amend the FISA Act of 1978 in order to modernize and streamline its provisions, which is necessary for our country to enhance our nation’s capability to prevent future terrorist attacks. S. 2248 also includes a retroactive liability protection for telecommunication companies that assisted our government in a warrantless surveillance program in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the U.S. The bill was approved by the Intelligence Committee on a bipartisan bas i s and currently awaits consideration by the full Senate.
I support national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government which are lawful and necessary for the pursuit of terrorists. I recognize that we need to strike a balance between preventing another terrorist attack and defending civil liberties. For this reason I am a strong proponent of Congressional oversight of surveillance activities.
I will continue to follow this important issue. While we may agree on some issues and disagree on others, I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate