Though the green screen question has been put to rest, the media attention continues to focus on the new Coleman ad. Why? Because of the inclusion of Norm’s wife Laurie in the ad. WCCO did a story on this last night:
“By putting Laurie Coleman in this ad, the Coleman campaign has invited scrutiny on an issue they thought was long forgotten,” said Professor Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey Institute.
The issue that the Coleman campaign “thought was long forgotten” is the Coleman’s “untraditional marriage” or so says Doug Grow. This makes the Coleman campaign very upset. Esme Murphy at WCCO has more:
The real issue is that the Coleman campaign has always been super-sensitive about Laurie Coleman. I am not sure why. She is an exceptionally beautiful woman who has pursued a modeling and acting career long after most of us could not hope to look one-quarter as good as she does.
More Murphy…
It really seems the Coleman campaign is not comfortable with the fact that the Colemans don’t fit a cookie cutter mold of what is a family. But what family does these days?
There are a few possible reasons why the Coleman campaign is so sensitive about any attention paid to the Coleman marriage. I’m sure one reason is the rumors that circulate through political circles that Coleman has been less than faithful in his marriage. But no concrete evidence has ever been produced to substantiate these rumors, despite the fact that they have been around as long as Coleman has been in the public eye.
Larry Jacobs offered a more basic rationale on WCCO last night:
“They have now launched an ad that’s taken the attention away from Al Franken and put it right on Senator Coleman,” said Jacobs.
I don’t always agree with the good professor, but he got this one exactly right.
Loading ...
“It really seems the Coleman campaign is not comfortable with the fact that the Colemans don’t fit a cookie cutter mold of what is a family. But what family does these days?”
Ooh! Ooh! Do I get a guess?
I’d say the Franken family neatly meets the image of a traditional family.
Who hasn’t heard the Norm Coleman rumors? I’ve heard a number of stories related to this topic, but like the article said- at this point it’s all hearsay.
His father’s incident at Red Savoy’s didn’t help matters.
jismo dreamed: “I’d say the Franken family neatly meets the image of a traditional family.”
Yeah, well I guess every family in the Democrat feverswamp might include Dad writing about Jr. studying beastiality for a porn mag, but in Minnesota I doubt that’ll fly.
“They have now launched an ad that’s taken the attention away from Al Franken and put it right on Senator Coleman”
Suuure. But you know what’s coming now, right? Frankenbomb!
Swiffer-
You do realize Franken is a writer, right?
He acted on the teevee too!
Senator Webb wrote a book which had a scene involving bestiality too. He served as assistant secretary of the Navy under Reagan!
Swiftee, I agree 100%,
Keep insulting and treating moonbats like shit. They deserve it.
Luckily, we Republicans are polling well, so I wouldn’t worry about the ramifications of treating those we disagree with so poorly. These moonbats are irrelevant.
I think it’s just dandy!
Great Job!
Zack, I’m sure today is a proud day for you and MN Publius. Thanks to Team Franken working behind the scenes, you’ve now been able to trash Senator Coleman and his family the way you’ve always wanted.
Micheal B. Brodkorb, I agree 100%,
Thank god no Republican bloggers are behaving the way Team Franken does.
Republicans do not win by trashing people. We Republicans win because we are consistently right. We Republicans are the party of ideas, correct ideas.
Great Job!
Hey Swiffer-
Just remember: Franken wrote some books, and some skits, and did an article in playboy.
Yours is the party of toe-tapping bathroom stalkers, page fondlers, and diaper wearing prostitute fetishists.
Yup. That playboy article sure is (not) a disaster.
@ broadkorb
Coleman’s relationship becomes an issue when he wears his beard in a teevee ad. Sorry, sport. If Coleman is shaky on his sham of a marriage, he should keep it out of commercials.
Interesting how this blog, and Brodkorb’s blog took totally different Larry Jacobs quotes to pull. This shows it’s not the first time Coleman’s campaign has used phony ads. This one may not have been green screened, but there’s certainly reasons to be suspicious considering the history of Norm Coleman campaigns. http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2008/06/from-archives-norm-colemans-history-of.html
Michael,
prove it you douche, Thanks to Team Franken working behind the scenes, you’ve now been able to trash Senator Coleman and his family the way you’ve always wanted.
just because you have blog does that allow you to write bullshit and then say you have a policy of not disclosing your sources? that is bull, it makes you look like a tool and your blog a farce.
Yoni: I don’t want to fill up MN Publius’ comment section with a debate over my comment. I’ll have more posts on my blog about Team Franken’s behind the scenes maneuvering.
I used to have some friends who lived in the Coleman’s St. Paul neighborhood — and while it was amusing to see Norm’s neighbors hosting highway-sized Wellstone signs in their yards back in 2002, the neighborhood stories were far more interesting.
Yes, those neghbors have some PG-13 stories to tell, but Franken’s shrill public history and posture are far more embarassing and, frankly a bigger deal, than the Colemans’ indiscretion(s).
If you voted for Clinton, and were pissed about his impeachment, I don’t know how many stones you can throw at the Colemans’ glass house.
Still haven’t seen a shred of evidence that the Coleman spot WASN’T green-screened. Showing more people in the foreground plate proves only that there was a makeup person for Laurie, and nuttin’ else folks. I don’t really care that it was a composite, except for the fact that the lighting was what one tries to avoid in such cases, but doing the spot as a comp belies the claim that they’re a “fun and happy” couple. Oh wait, they aren’t anyway.
That was actually Scooter Libby’s book with the bestiality. But, Scooter’s Republican so his values don’t matter- only his partisanship.
Hey, Michael - you ever find out why Laurie scrubbed her HairDryerThingy website of all the shameless shilling of her senatorial hubby?
Tommy: I have no responsibilities to find the answers to your questions and responses to your attacks.
Micheal, you know, I would actually read your blog if there weren’t a couple huge problems with it.
1) Whenever I try to post a comment in an attempt to have a meaningful discussion, I get an error, or my comment is sent and never appears on the page (yes, I have tried this on several computers and browsers, including mac).
2) You use GOP press conferences as your main source for information. I’m sorry, but if you want unbiased news to base your opinions off of, a GOP press conference is not the place to get it. I know, I’ve been to several.
3) Finally, I just think it’s quite funny, the obvious differences in the approach your blog (Minnesota Democrats EXPOSED) and other blogs, such as this one, take to online journalism. I mean, one only need look at the names of the blogs to get an idea of what kind of tactics are going to be used. Yours=scare tactics.
So, Michael - your pals over at Team Smokescreen haven’t told ya who made the decision to scrub Laurie Coleman’s commercial website of all that shameless shilling of her senatorial hubby?
Brodkorb says “I have no responsibilities to find the answers to your questions and responses to your attacks.”
But Mikey, isn’t that what Norm pays you for? It should be good for at least 79 posts when you get an answer. I can’t wait for your evidence of Franken’s campaign orchestrating this whole ad flap. And while you’re asking Norm and Laurie about Blo-and-Go, how about asking them about their St. Paul babysitter when Norm was mayor?
Mike,
First, I won’t treat you as some others have, I don’t think it’s right or appropriate. I can’t apologize for them, I don’t represent them, but I’m sorry for it none the less. I think we’re all better off just letting Swiffer be the toilet bowel.
Second, whatever MNPublius may be trying or not, it would be right in line with what I’ve seen from MDE - totally biased nonsense.
SouthernMinny - while I agree no one should wring their puritanical hands over Coleman’s affairs - and I have heard first hand commentary on his conduct from those who worked with him pretty closely - the point of Clinton’s impeachment wasn’t about white-washing infidelity or even perjury, it was that the tactic, the motive was clear - the Republicans engaged in a 6 year witch hunt making accusations of all kinds - and finally only landed on infidelity, and an infidelity which occured LONG after the activities that allegedly launched the investigation. In short, it was about showing that the Republicans were about stripping Clinton of his ability to govern, not about any moral rectitude.
I think Larry Craig, Tom Foley, and Ted Haggert show pretty well that Republican rectitude has as many holes in it as any group you might name - we aren’t trying to live in house made of glass - but rather, if Coleman chooses to make this about personality, and guys like Swiffer show he does - ‘angry Al’ - then his own personality is to be measured too, including his honesty, and frankly, his ‘faithfulness’ to the ‘family values’ he so frequently likes to reference.
BTW - Mike - I also understand you don’t want to clutter up a comments section - but I might wonder whether it’s that, or like Mitch Berg, you have a need to engage in conversations where YOU get to control the text and tenor - and aren’t likely to be held accountable for vascilations and/or duplicity. Given the nature of the comments on MDE, I’d have to wonder a LOT.
Penigma,
Your comments are disgusting. To compare Clinton’s actions (including having sex with an intern and lying about it) or Layyr Craig or anyone else for that matter to the Colemans is appalling. You know nothing about them — all you’re doing is repeating rumors from Norm’s political opponents that have never been proven. If the Colemans have such a bad marriage, it’s pretty funny that they were out shopping together at Sam’s Club in Eagan last December. I know, because I saw them there — and George Lattimer was there and talked to Norm and Laurie too. I guess it’s no wonder you’ve endorsed such a sleazy guy as Al Franken because that’s where your party is heading — attacking someone’s marriage and wife.
Chris, should we list all the depraved Republicans who are either indicted or in court over sexual matters? Some of it involved things I don’t think even adults want to know about… least of all anybody with family values.
And perhaps the most disgusting part is that Republicans are responsible for the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of America… The Iraq War. I think the Republican Party is an ongoing criminal enterprise. All evidence points to that.
Well, amuseinc, it certainly appears that the GOP could be guilty with RICO implications from W.D.C. on down to the republiCon Party of Minnesota.
republiCon Ron’s paperwork problems certainly indicate a huge criminal problem; the allegations - first aired by Mn GOP employees - of using payroll retirement deductions to pay operating expenses have never - NEVER - been fully addressed by republiCon Ron.
All in all, GOP most certainly stands for GreedOverPrinciples, these days.
Chris, I agree 100%,
The Republican party has set the bar very high by never trashing Democrats or their families to win elections.
Fact is, there are no sleazy Republicans, or sleazy Republican bloggers.
Everyone knows this. That’s why there have been no attacks on Barack Obama’s wife, for example.
Great Job!
TFRWG -
Michelle Obama has been giving CAMPAIGN SPEECHES. When you give a campaign speech, you are opening yourself up to critique.
Coleman’s wife opens herself up to some of it when she appears in a commercial like this. But it is far different than going on the stump and addressing issues like Mrs. Obama. I commend her for it — but she knows as we all do that she puts herself in “the game” when she does.
My big thing is that back in the primary season, there was a high and mighty tone around here about not bringing family members into these blog debates. But now that the subject is a Republican, these bloggers are initiating the discussion.
DtM, at the turn of the new year, Laurie Coleman went to market with her new HairDrierThningy widget, and shamelessly shilled her senatorial hubby at media events such as with the Washington Post, and on her commercial website.
Seems to me that if the party was reversed, rightwingnuts would be going ballistic if a Democratic wife shamelessly shilled a Senatorial hubby.
But the story from the GOP these days, seems to say Laurie is off limits while guys like you say Michelle is a fair target.
I don’t know if Michelle is a legitimate target or not, but Laurie shamelessly shilled her senatorial hubby, but doesn’t show any income from the business she shilled him with.
That’s a legitimate line of inquiry, and you’ll hear more.
Michelle Obama is pubicly taking positions on issues of the day. And she is doing so in the media.
Maybe Laurie Coleman is “shilling”, but when you are giving speeches on the same topics that Barack is discussing, it raises it to a different level.