Author Archive for Jon-David

The Hill has this now - but the only reason I’m posting this is that it reveals a new nugget of info, DFL Chair Brian Melendez actually personally called Coleman’s office to apologize, but evidently Coleman’s office either had noone in the office during business hours to take a call from a State Chair, or they didn’t take his call on purpose. Typical Coleman behavior either way - incompetence or political advantage over all else, at all costs, at all times. The Hill:

Coleman was not appeased (by the DFL apology). He issued a release saying that the DFL release had “lied about Coleman’s vote.” It continued: “If DFL Chairman Brian Melendez truly wants to ‘put partisanship aside’ as he says, he may want to start checking the Congressional record before creating his own reality.”… Melendez left a voicemail with Coleman’s chief of staff apologizing for the mix-up.

Read the part about his tie too - it’s mildly amusing and somewhat interesting.

The holidays came late this year for the MN-GOP when Eric Black gave them a couple huge belated Christmas presents by completely missing the point of Norman Coleman’s fancy-pants political dance on Bush’s Iraq escalation plan.

The first came on the 19th of January, when Black took shots at the DFL (on his blog and in the Strib) for daring to suggest that Coleman was hedging on Bush’s escalation plan:

“The DFL says Coleman has flip-flopped on increasing troop levels; Coleman’s words have been consistent.”

The Star Tribune political team realized this had a less than intimate relationship with the crux of the story on Coleman’s backflip, so Kevin Diaz wrote:

“Coleman has come under sharp criticism from Minnesota DFLers for appearing to break from Bush’s war policy, but refusing to back up his words in deeds. He appeared to check those criticisms Monday afternoon by signing on to a proposal that Warner and other had been considering for the past five days.”

Then today, the AP finished linguistically smooshing Black’s simply inaccurate assertion that Coleman has been consistent (emphasis and image are mine):

“The Minnesota Republican sounded like the old longhaired anti-war activist in a speech two weeks ago when talking about President Bush’s plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq: “I refuse to put more American lives on the line in Baghdad without being assured that the Iraqis themselves are willing to do what they need to do to end the violence of Iraqi against Iraqi.”

But Coleman wasn’t going as far as war opponents thought he was, as he soon expressed concerns that a nonbinding Senate resolution disapproving of the buildup went too far. Coleman said that while he opposed a troop buildup in Baghdad, he was not against sending more troops to other parts of Iraq, like the western Anbar province, where al-Qaida members are believed to be operating.

This week, he removed any doubt about his position by voting against the resolution in committee. Coleman has backed an alternative nonbinding resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., which opposes Bush’s plan but leaves open the possibility that a small number of forces could be sent to Anbar province.”

Not surprisingly, Republican law students [one of whom, btw, took everyone to school on Almanac this Friday] kept the talking point alive, that the Star Tribune reported Coleman’s consistent position on escalation in Iraq, and those that think the fog surrounding the headlines and actual reporting of his position is the result of a mid-winter mixture of warm, muddy communication and the crisp cool air of journalism are simply shaking their fist at the moon.

Well I, for one, refuse to go quietly into the night:

“Coleman opposes troop surge” [Marshall Independent, 1/11/07].

ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: This hour, the president right now is behind closed doors with a group of Republican lawmakers, including Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman. He’s one of those lawmakers who has come out against an increase of troops in Iraq. [January 17, 2007 Wednesday

I got the releases, here’s how it actually went down.

DFL sends out wrong release: 3:32 pm

DFL corrects release: 4:23 pm

Brodkorb posts as if the correction doesn’t exist: 4:36 pm

Then MDE puts up this post, not citing that the Strib Checked itself and Diaz wrote the opposite story, noting Norm’s backflip, which I pointed out here.

Weak. I think it’s important to note that the point of all this is to distract from the massive debacle of Michelle Bachmann’s SOTU clutching at Bush, and Coleman - you guessed it - voted against the resolution telling the President his escalation plan is complete bunk. Norman created the opening for himself to worm through by offering an amendment drawing a distinction between escalation in Baghdad and Al-Anbar province. Coleman knew it would fail, offered it anyway - Why? - so he could vote with Bachmann’s Beau Bush

Examiner:

“The Iraqis don’t have a blank check on American blood and treasure,” Coleman said prior to the vote on his amendment. “Our patience is wearing thin, certainly with the public and the Congress. But I’m not prepared to have a resolution which says we will disregard the advice of our commanders on the ground, when they say they need something which may even mean an increase in a given area. Iraq is a mess,” Coleman said, but added, “I’m not ready to pull the plug.”

This is another perfect example of Norman’s recently perfected backflip - not flipping lest he flop. Why? Well, I agree with the commanders on the ground, but later when I’m running for re-election, I’m going to go ahead and pull the plug.

Huh?

This ‘what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger’ style of rhetoric simply will not fly under the scrunity of a high profile Senate race, Minnesotans have a longer memory and are a hell of a lot smarter than Norman thinks.

Eric Black just got checked by Kevin Diaz who checked Norman Coleman checking the DFL. Interesting.

Eric Black:

The DFL says Coleman has flip-flopped on increasing troop levels; Coleman’s words have been consistent.

Kevin Diaz:

Coleman has come under sharp criticism from Minnesota DFLers for appearing to break from Bush’s war policy, but refusing to back up his words in deeds. He appeared to check those criticisms Monday afternoon by signing on to a proposal that Warner and other had been considering for the past five days.

Techically speaking, Norman’s escalation hedge is not so much a flip-flop as it is a refusal to flip at all. I’m calling it a backflip. Nuanced Norman has been clouding the waters around his escalation position for weeks, refusing to flip - lest he be discovered later to have flopped - hence, backflip.

TP cited an AP article from this Kos piece where a Coleman spokesperson admitted that Sen. Coleman would be open to a surge in Anbar province:

“Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota, one of several Republicans wary of Bush’s plan, said he is concerned the [Biden] resolution may go too far. Coleman spokesman Tom Steward said the senator is open to an increase in the Anbar province, for example.”

Can anyone figure out his position on Iraq? I think I know why…

CNN:

“BLITZER Reports: It’s not just Chuck Hagel, who you accurately point out has disagreed with the president on Iraq. Normally very loyal foot soldiers, Republican supporters of the president are now increasingly coming out as well, including Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Listen to what he said after the president’s speech.
SEN. NORM COLEMAN, R-MINN.: I oppose the proposal for a troop surge. I oppose the proposal for a troop surge in Baghdad, where violence can only be defined as sectarian.
 ”

Oh right. Baghdad. But wait…

The AP ED ROUNDUP: “At least seven Republican senators have said they flatly oppose the troop increase: Sam Brownback of Kansas, Hagel, Norm Coleman of Minnesota”

But I think Paul Begala got it right on CNN:

Sam Brownback, he gives the impression — and I think he is — speaking really directly from the heart. He is — he’s not — let’s name names — he is not Norm Coleman, who you mentioned earlier, who’s, you know, I think, just kind of flip-flopping wherever the wind blows.