I have my differences with Senator Norm Coleman.
That should be no shock; the guy came up through the DFL. He even gave Paul Wellstone’s nominating speech at the 1996 DFL convention.
But he was one of Saint Paul’s thin film of “good” DFLers, the tiny scree of Truman Democrats left in the increasingly loony Saint Paul party, along with his successor Randy Kelly; both represented what an eastside DFLer friend of mine called the “pro-life, assault-rifle-owning, pro-defense” wing of the DFL.
Hence, the DFL couldn’t tolerate either of them, and Norm became a Republican. Not a perfect conservative, mind you – he never claimed to be – but the closest to one that we’ve got in the Senate at the moment.
And so I voted for him, enthusiastically, in two mayoral races, and in 2002, and I’ll vote for him early and often this fall, too. Not because he’s the perfect conservative, but because he’s better than Al Franken or Mike Ciresi or the risible Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer – and because the MNGOP came nowhere close to showing us a vastly better alternative in this cycle.
And – more importantly – because while he’s not the perfect conservative, he does the blocking and tackling of good government generally well. A former prosecutor, he and his administration had a solid role in helping Saint Paul have a vastly lower crime rate, per capita, than Minneapolis.
Which is one reason, I suspect, that the Minneapolis and Saint Paul Police Federations have endorsed the Senator against whomever he’s running against:
The Saint Paul and Minneapolis Police Federations today joined forces to endorse U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s re-election campaign. The Minneapolis Police Federation represents over 900 officers employed by the City of Minneapolis as well as Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The Saint Paul Police Federation represents 620 sworn officers and 75 Emergency Communications workers in the City of Saint Paul.
Saint Paul Police Federation. “Since his time as Saint Paul’s Mayor, when he worked hard to put more officers on the streets, he has always listened to our needs and responded. He knows that the strength of our communities depends on the strength of our officers and their abilities to do their jobs. He has consistently been there for us, and that’s why we are here for him today and going forward in this campaign.”“Throughout his entire career, starting with prosecuting criminals across the state during his time in the Attorney General’s office, to his work in the Mayor’s office and now in the Senate, Norm has responded to the needs of law enforcement. His efforts have made a real difference in how we do our jobs. We need to keep Norm in the Senate working with us in the law enforcement community because he gets it,” said John Delmonico, President of the Minneapolis Police Federation.
Now if Coleman could only sic some of those cops on the UN, he’d redeem a few of his mistakes…
(And perhaps give him a warning about his apparent support for the “Cap and Trade” bill. Maybe a tazer).
Saw my first bash-Bachmann ad last night. The DFL is going to show every Republican as a Bush clone (which is what this commercial did).
I think Republicans should play the same game….portray every Democrat as a puppet to San Fran Nan and her San Francisco values.
Another great post, Mitch. Norm Coleman is NOT a carpetbagger. He earned his MN bona fides, unlike Franken.
I will vote for Norm.
I’m not sure if the following recent facts will help or hurt Norm in MN:
Norm
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?tab=votes&id=300024
voted for MN’s Colin Peterson’s pork-laden Farm bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2007-434
And then after Bush vetoed it, helped to override:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-140
I am sick an tired of voting for RINOs like Norm Coleman. The guys is against any domestic drilling, he says the debate over man-made global wamring “is over”, he supports biofuels and corporate welfare, and he wobbles on the GWOT when it politically prudent to do so.
What is so great about supporting a guy who will “let ya keep yer guns!” when he sells your liberty and freedom down the river by growing government and tripling your electric bill?
The reason our Repulican party never gives us a conservative that we can vote for is because of people like you, Mitch, the pull the lever for RINOs and pat yourself on the back for doing so. They know you are going to support them because they scare you with the alternative.
The reason our Repulican party never gives us a conservative that we can vote for is because of people like you, Mitch, the pull the lever for RINOs and pat yourself on the back for doing so.
Er, yes and no.
There’s an eternal battle between idealism and pragmatism. I don’t care for RINOs – and on most issues that matter to me (way more than just guns) Coleman is just fine. He’s very wrong on some, of course, and on every single one, Franken/Ciresi/whatshisface will be much worse.
Does that make me a RINO-coddler? Totally your call.
I’d rather have someone that CAN be pulled to the right in there (on the issues where he’s not already) than someone who can’t or won’t.
Norm will be right on at least one HUGE issue. Judges. A RINO Norm in the Senate is better then seveal dozen Ruth Bater Ginsbergs running this country via judicial activism.
Mitch said:
“There’s an eternal battle between idealism and pragmatism. I don’t care for RINOs – and on most issues that matter to me (way more than just guns) Coleman is just fine. He’s very wrong on some, of course, and on every single one, Franken/Ciresi/whatshisface will be much worse.”
What is the point of voting for “the party” with you have to compromise your principles to do so? It has gotten to the point where the party is more important than what it should stand for and that having a “R” behind your name is all that is required. We have seen what a disaster that can be with local “Republicans” like Erhardt. The guy is a commited anti-freemarket, big government, nanny state socialist. How can any alternative be any worse?
Look at McCain? Let me ask some questions….
1. Do you trust him on immigration?
2. Do you trust him on freeemarkets when he makes comments equating greed with profits!?!
3. Do you trust him on energy when he embraces environmentalism and his stand against drilling for oil?
What is the point of supporting a man who is strong on bringing freedom and liberty to millions of people in Iraq when here at home everything he says and does destroys or threatens our liberty and freedom here!?! What is the point of fighting oversees only to protect life so that it can be enslaved by out own government?
I’m sick of it!
1. Do you trust him on immigration?
Answer: I trust McCain a lot more on immigration than I do those who think that all they have to do is bleat “secure the borders” and smear anyone who proposes a more comprehensive solution as supporting “amnesty” when the truth is none of them bothered to actually take the time to read the legislation he authored.
2. Do you trust him on freeemarkets when he makes comments equating greed with profits!?!
Answer: I trust McCain on free markets because he’s proven himself to be the most consistent supporter of free trade, the most consistent opponent of corporate welfare, and the most consistent supporter of cutting government spending that has run as a major party candidate in the last forty years.
3. Do you trust him on energy when he embraces environmentalism and his stand against drilling for oil?
Answer: I trust McCain on energy because he’s the only major party candidate to oppose ethanol subsidies and to have the guts to tell Midwestern voters to their face that it’s a boondoggle.
Chuck,
The most activist judge on the bench is Clarence Thomas, by a MASSIVE margin. Until he died, Rehnquist was second. Ginsberg was third. I think the numbers were like Thomas voted 70 some times to overturn, Rehnquist 51 (ish) and Ginsburg 42-43 (ish).
Just so you know.
BTW – Activism, in that analysis, was considered the act of overruling the legislature of a state (or nation) and to an extent inventing law by supplying or supporting a mixed interpretation of permissable conduct (as I understand it).
Also, Chuck, Thomas, in 18 years on the bench, has written one opinion. No matter what Mitch may ‘admire’ about him – and it’s hard to know why considering the paucity of actual expressed thought in ruling – the guy is considered a joke on law school campuses (other than the pathetically bad Regent University probably). We sure do need more like him. Vote without opinion, rule without justification, that’s definetely not tyranny.. nosireeebob. Right Mitch?
Oh, and Chuck, no one expected SCOTUS to rule in Bush v. Gore, because it was considered utterly dubious that Bush could be harmed by counting votes – they also limited thier ruling to THAT specific case. I wonder why? Talk about activism. They claimed Bush would be harmed – in a 5-4 vote along political lines of course – but that didn’t make such a claim true – seeming Bush was as likely to benefit from hanging or dimpled chads as anyone – unless you agree that butterfly ballots were disporportionately placed in poorer pricincts, making it more likely that their votes would read invalid (no vote) – a clear violation of eleciton law btw – but let’s not get sidetracked. In that case, Bush might have been harmed because clearly the poor were voting more for Gore than Bush – but that presupposes an outright violation of election law, providing more likely to malfunction machinery to poor princints. The equal protection argument is moot without the harm claim- and the harm claim is a laughingstock. I’m over the vote, but hearing someone claim Scalia or Rehnquist or Thomas didn’t engage in the greatest ‘activisim’ of our time, or even our country’s history, is abusrd. Bush had no claim to harm, none. The administration of the vote (and recount)was the FL Supreme Court’s jurisdiction – Katherine Harris’ attempts to stonewall it were political theartre – and if you believe in State’s rights, then that vote was a gross insult upon the right’s of the States.
“The administration of the vote (and recount)was the FL Supreme Court’s jurisdiction – Katherine Harris’ attempts to stonewall it were political theartre – and if you believe in State’s rights, then that vote was a gross insult upon the right’s of the States.”
And if you believe in Democracy as Peev clearly does not, your will remember the Fl Supreme Ct grossly distorting Fl law as passed by the legislators. You will also remember the talk of special sessions of said legislators to make law overturning the Supreme Ct blatant partisan in making its ruling. You will also remember that after all votes were in fact counted, Bush won. The only way Gore would win is if you also counted the votes that were made for Gore AND someone else for president. In other words, the voters that voted for 2 people for president. As demonstrated currently in the democratic primary, those democrats know how to run an election.
“unless you agree that butterfly ballots were disporportionately placed in poorer pricincts, making it more likely that their votes would read invalid (no vote) – a clear violation of eleciton law btw – but let’s not get sidetracked.”
Possibly due to the democratic party designing the ballots and placing them in those precincts. Laughably easy to understand ballots, btw. But easier to blame someone else for the democratic party’s “clear violation of election law”. And sidetracking is a peeve specialty.
Laughably easy to understand ballots, btw.
Bear in mind that I’m a human factors and usability guy. As such, I am incredibly clinincal about this sort of thing (sort of like radio).
I was teaching a web writing/usability class in 2001. The infamous Broward County Ballot was one of our case studies for teaching how to analyze the usability of a thing – software, document, store, process or whatever.
It was not very good at all.