You Could See This Coming
By Mitch Berg
The other day, I sat in on a conference call with some people from the Norm Coleman campaign, as they rolled out their “Franken Flip-Flops On Iraq” video.
And, having interviewed the Senator on this very subject in the past, I jumped one step ahead of the local Sorosphere; playing the devil’s advocate, I asked the campaign staffer “How would the Senator answer charges that he, himself, has held contradictory positions on the war?”
The answer, of course…
…well, we’ll get back to that. Because the counterspin has begun.
Minnesota’s most reliable DFL mouthpieces (except Lori Sturdevant), MNPublius, bring exactly the spin I predicted:
Today Norm Coleman did what any guy afraid of his own record on an issue does: attack the other guy for his record. Coleman is trying his darndest to turn people’s attention away from his abysmal record on this war (he’s gone so far as to convert the whole frontpage of his campaign site to an ad for the webclip) that he’s, apparently, taken to editing together disparate clips from Franken’s past.
Let’s take a moment to make sure we’re clear, here; Coleman’s “abysmal record” has nothing to do with the complaints conservatives might have – about Coleman’s tepid stance on the surge, for example. The conservative complaints are misguided, in my opinion; while I think Coleman was wrong on the surge (he’s a Senator trying to influence operational decisions, which I think is a poor idea, albeit his right to try as a citizen and legislator), he’s been strong on pretty much every other aspect of the war – including areas that much of the rest of Congress is afraid to touch, like Iran, the UN, and the fallout of the Oil for Food program.
The closest Coleman’s come to a “flip flop” is his principled – and wrong – votes on the surge. Mistakes happen. I give him a “90”, and tell him to go forth and sin no more.
So given that MNPublius is a reliable barometer of the “very-left-but-not-crazy” wing of the DFL, let’s check out their defense of Franken:
Alright, so, the first claim is that Franken has both supported and opposed a timeline for withdrawal but if you take a look at the record you’ll find out (and I might point out that Franken hasn’t attempted to hide this) that his position in favor of a timeline wasn’t formed until late 2006. He has said repeatedly that he became convinced of the need for a timetable during the tumultuous year of 2006, with its waves of sectarian violence and the lack of political progress. He has since made a timeline part of his campaign platform on Iraq.
Now, I don’t necessarily look at “flip-flopping” – sometimes also known as “changing ones’ mind after a rational reappraisal” of something – as a bad thing. It’d be against interest, for starters. I “flip-flopped” on being a liberal, 20-odd years ago, after all. If humans didn’t reappraise things based on evolving knowledge and experience, our hands would all be covered with third-degree burns from the hot stoves we continue testing with our fingers, lest we “flip flop” on trusting our eyes.
No, changing ones’ mind isn’t a bad thing. Changing ones’ mind from a smart stance to a dumb one – like “giving the terrorists and militias a hard date when it’ll be safe to come out of the cellar and resume their depredations without fear of a US soldier putting a laser-guided missile up your rectum” – however, is.
The second claim here is that Franken has held multiple positions on cutting off funding for the war. This one’s pretty easy to debunk because the guy’s always held the exact same position: that Congress should force the President to establish an exit strategy as a condition of further funding. If the President refused to do so, he would be “cutting off the funding for the troops.” Since that’s not a move the President would make, it would force him to accept the terms of the funding – namely, withdrawal. Moreover, I think this is a plan that most Americans can and would support.
Leave aside that the latest polling shows otherwise (when in the echo chamber, it can take a while for the actual sound to change), that’d be another example of “changing ones’ mind to a stupid position”.
Franken has acknowledged that he never spoke out against the war before it began, and he has acknowledged becoming a vocal critic of the war since. He’s not afraid of his record but stands by it. Which is maybe why he doesn’t feel the need to counterpoint the Coleman spin machine and is maybe why Coleman feels the need to throw these distractions out into the web. I mean, if you had Coleman’s record would you do anything else?
The difference:
- Coleman has made erroneous tangents from a basic core of support for the war – a platform on which he was elected.
- Franken’s positions have evolved from “I don’t know yet” to “I’m going to cater to the nutroots’ most fevered delusions”.
That kinda sums it up, to me.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
“”The conservative complaints are misguided, in my opinion; while I think Coleman was wrong on the surge (he’s a Senator trying to influence operational decisions, which I think is a poor idea, albeit his right to try as a citizen and legislator),””
Although a cynic may say we was just playing politics, this is one main area where I am still not ready to throw out the incumbent just because of a party label. I agree that the Sen was wrong on the Surge, but was impressed with his acknowledgment that a portion of his constituency that may not have voted for him, but who he still needs to represent, had issues with escalation. It is really OK to represnt the people of the entire state, not just the plurality that elected him.
That is what makes Sen Amy even better. After a Spank down at the polls, she still has represented her constituency well, ie FISA, knowing the base that helped elect her would not be thrilled. Takes guts, and character, and a good Senator!!
I haven’t seen the latest Norm ad. I would hope that Sen Norm would work harder to hold on to guys in the middle like me who recognize his efforts, without turning it into a blood bath on the airwaves. If he is going to play that game again, I have to wonder if he is the guy I think he has become.
Flash
December 4th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
A change of opinion is a “flip-flop” only in the minds of angry Kerry supporters. Right angryclown?
December 4th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“Takes guts, and character, ”
It doesn’t hurt that you won your election by 20 points and you’re not up for re-election for 5 years.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Norm will need guys like Flash to make up for guys like me that have no time for him. Of course, Flash will vote for Franken or Cirisi and Coleman will lose becuase he spent the last 2 years kissing asses that will never voet for him, all the while, pissing off his base. Great strategy Norm!
December 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I’m curious how Amy’s lockstep Democrat voting equates to either “guts and character” or “representing her constituency”.
December 4th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Amy voted for an extension to FISA that her lefty friends were not very happy with. Some people seem to think that took “guts”.
In the end, Amy will do what is good for Amy.
December 4th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“exactly as I predicted’.. self-congratulatory poppy-cock. So what, like it’s hard to predict that he’ll be held accountable for playing both sides on the ‘surge’ and more, as if he shouldn’t be held accountable?
Coleman’s single claim to ‘guts’ was voting against, and then eventually voting for (as I recall), drilling in ANWAR. Guts and vascilation all in one bundle, yay Norm. It’s not as if he’s distinguished himself by voting against the party on any close vote on any meaningful topic, ever.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Norm still opposes drilling in the Arctic National wasteland. He has no claim to guts.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:52 am
It’s not as if he’s distinguished himself by voting against the party
He was elected on the party’s platform. Voting against it isn’t so much “distinguished” as “wrong”.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:25 am
AFAIk, Norm has never voted for ANWAR drilling. He is wrong on that issue, but consistent. When he was running he stated he was against it, and has voted that way since, again AFAIK, unless pb, peevish, et. al want to post proof of a pro-Anwar vote.
I am pretty sure I would have remembered if he finally voted the correct way on ANWAR.
Now he voted the wrong way on cloture for the “DREAM” act and a couple other issues. I remember those.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Spot-on, Tracey…spot-on.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Takes a lot of guts to side with the oil companies on trashing Alaska, Kerm. I guess the fear is that you’ll be crushed under all the campaign contributions?
Taking dictation from big industries is the wingnut’s idea of a profile in courage.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
trashing Alaska
Actually, the drilling would take place in an out-of-the-way area of the ANWR not a lot bigger than the Clown’s studio apartment in Passaic.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
No! Drilling will destroy a PRISTINE WILDERNESS and KILL CARIBOU and causa Alaska to FALL INTO THE SEA!!!
Just like the North Slope. Damn the Prudhoe Bay!
December 6th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Angryclown prefers caribou to fat-assed suburban Republicans in SUVs.
Guess that Exxon Valdez thing wasn’t such a big deal, eh Kermite?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:54 am
How many caribou were killed by the Exxon Valdez?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Angryclown also favors fish, birds, Alaskan fishermen, tourists and sea slugs over fat-assed suburban Republicans in SUVs, Master of Bation.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I think angryclown favors good intentions over results.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Chuckles, I saw plenty of those things on my last trip to Valdez.
(what exactly is Bation?)