« MCCAIN’S TOWN HALL MEETING IN ST. PAUL | Home | MCCAIN’S TOWN HALL MEETING IN ST. PAUL #2 »
TEAM COLEMAN RELEASES STATEMENT ABOUT “GOOFY” BLOGGERS WHO CREATED “A CONSPIRACY THEORY” ABOUT THEIR NEW TV AD
By Michael Brodkorb | June 19, 2008
There was an all-star list of bloggers screwing-up in the last 24 hours about a new TV ad released by Senator Coleman’s campaign yesterday. Blue man in a Red district, MN Blue, MN Publius, The Mississippifarian, and Minnesota Independent to name a few, all strongly raised the possibility that Mrs. Coleman wasn’t in the kitchen with Senator Coleman when this ad was shot and that she may have been edited into the ad at a later point.
MN Publius seemed to the best job of the blogs cited above of asking questions about the TV ad, rather than definitively claiming that Mrs. Coleman was edited into the commercial. But they also did a great job of saving me a bunch of time by collecting all of the crazy statements from so-called “experts” who stated their sound opinion that Mrs. Coleman was edited into the ad.
One blogger flat-out said that Mrs. Coleman was embedded in the TV ad:
“…but when a Republican candidate for re-election green-screens his wife into an ad…” Source: MN Campaign Report, June 19, 2008
The reality is that Mrs. Coleman wasn’t edited or embedded or green-screened into the ad. Late this afternoon, U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s campaign released a statement to reporters about the “goofy” bloggers who created this “conspiracy theory”:
“A statement from Erin Rath, of the Coleman campaign:
These left-wing, liberal, Al Franken bloggers are as goofy a bunch as I’ve ever seen. They’ve spent the entire morning concocting a conspiracy theory, wasting valuable bandwidth on the Internet. The Senator and his wife were both in the kitchen of their home where the commercial was filmed.” Source: Pioneer Press’ Political Animal, June 19, 2008
Click here for the complete post.
I look forward to reading the corrections and apologies on all of the liberal blogs who used lighting in an ad to once again falsely attack Senator Coleman and his family. But I’m sure it will be difficult for you to type your corrections and apologies with egg all over your face.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 43 Comments »
43 Responses to “TEAM COLEMAN RELEASES STATEMENT ABOUT “GOOFY” BLOGGERS WHO CREATED “A CONSPIRACY THEORY” ABOUT THEIR NEW TV AD”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:37 PM
I look forward to seeing the outtakes proving Erin Rath’s claim. How soon can you have them posted?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:41 PM
In the title: “Team ColemaM…”?
The second (2nd) uppercase M in Colemam, is in bright red letters, too!
It appears that you may have been a tad bit in too much of a hurry to label some people as “goofy.”
June 19th, 2008 at 10:46 PM
If she WAS in the kitchen, it was one of the most poorly concocted ads ever. Why would you have a woman believed to spend little to no time in this state so awkwardly added to the ad? The premise was good, but it was shot so poorly, it certainly gave the impression that she hadn’t bothered to come out here for the shoot. Or, was that possibly shot in HER kitchen in L.A.?
June 19th, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I agree, there needs to be higher quality video proving this. A statement by itself is not proof.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Eva: With all due respect, the campaign released a statement. Mrs. Coleman was in the ad.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Eva makes a good point. A statement itsself is not proof. For example, Barak Obama made a statement that he would accept public financing for his campaign and abide by limits for doing so.
That statement was meaningless, because it was a lie. Obama also made a statement that his relationship with Tony Rezko wasn’t the reason he bought land for his house next to Rezko at a $300,000 discount. Yet, he hasn’t explained just how he DID happen to get that sweetheart deal.
Obama also made a statement that he couldn’t disown his racist pastor. He even made a stupid speech about it… a few weeks later, he disowned him.
Yeah, statements don’t mean much. Particularly if they come from Democrats.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Laurie Coleman may have been in the ad with Norm, but she was not in the same room with him when the ad was shot. There seems to be no personal connection between them.
It is quite obvious that her part ws shot in front of a green screen. The lighting on her is off as well as the overall perspective.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Michael, it’s obvious that Mrs. Coleman was in the ad; the questions others are asking is: was Mrs. Coleman in the kitchen?
And Eva is correct; a statement by itself is not proof.
Team Coleman claims Mrs. Coleman was in the kitchen at the same time Norm was when the video was shot. They need prove this to end this story. Surely you recognize this; if they prove it, it’s story over. If they don’t, it’s fodder all campaign season long.
Personally, I don’t know if she’s there or if she isn’t; the comment I made is that this ad is eerily reminiscent of “Little Markie On A Park Bench”. And when that “Little Markie At A Bus Stop” ad ran, I knew Little Markie was toast.
I saw this ad, and I’m calling this campaign over. It’s a pathetic ad, and ol’ Smokescreen is toast.
By the way, did you ever find out why Laurie Coleman scrubbed her website of the shameless shilling of her senatorial hubby?
June 20th, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Oh yes, I see how this is a really big deal. How can anyone see that the entire campaign hinges on whether his wife was in the same room when filming an ad. *snicker*
They were being nice when they termed this “goofy”. I guess I’ll take my cue and be nice too: you guys are “special”.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Agreed, statements are not proof. Politicians lie all the time, on both sides of the aisle.
Come on Michael, even you must be able to look at the ad and think, wow that just doesnt look right. And it’s not just the lighting, the angle she is at in the ad and the angle of kitchen is just all out of whack. No way is that not green screened.
Hell, I’ll just ask you directly. Regardless of what the Coleman campaign has said, do you, Michael, think that the camera work or editting or what have you makes it appear that Laurie is green screened in?
June 20th, 2008 at 4:24 AM
Someone’s in the kitchen with Dinah,
Someone’s in the kitchen I know.
Someone’s in the kitchen with Dinah,
Strummin’ on the ole banjo.
And singin’ Green Screen, Blo & Go,
Green Screen, Blo & Go, I know, oh!
Green Screen, Blo & Go.
Strummin’ on the ole banjo.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:15 AM
It’s an AD for Pete’s sake! Laurie and Norm could have been CG characters, and it would still be a perfectly good political ad– not as warm and personal, but a bit funny and painting the lovely couple as just ordinary folks– exactly the kind of positive message this campaign needs. If you want to criticize it as all fluff, go ahead, but can’t we get back to talking about Al Franken’s Playboy stuff?
June 20th, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Tommy, if you dipshits deliver some compelling proof that socialism works, I’m sure the Coleman campaign will waste time proving to you that Laurie and Norm were filmed together.
For f’ sake, a person could waste 100 lifetimes chasing down the delusional theories advanced by deranged idiots like Tommy and the DFL.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:43 AM
Basically what Tommy, Eva, et. al. are charging is that the Coleman campaign is lying about how the ad was filmed… Yeah, that’s focusing on the substantive issues of the campaign.
Coleman has no reason to lie, and he has no history of lying.
Conversely, nearly every word out of a Democrat’s mouth is a lie. Need proof, read Tommy’s shit on his blog; listen to anything Barak Obama has to say; pay attention when a Democrat vows to legislate responsibly.
All lies.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:16 AM
WHO GIVES A FLYING RIP?
Holy flippin Keerist almighty! We’ve got Ultra-Socialist Democrats trying to nationalize health care and energy, we have Republicans off the reservation on drilling and cap and trade, we have corn hitting $8 a bushel, We have fairytale energy policy signed into law and people are talking about if Mrs. Coleman was ‘Really’ in the kitchen or not!!!!
Why did ‘Team Colman’ even take the time to comment? Let the Left-tards blabber on and sit back and enjoy the show. As I have said before; God put stupid crazy people in this planet for my entertainment. I just don’t waste my time engaging them.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Chestnut, you need to quit makin’s stuff up. Oh, wait – you’re a republiCon and it’s in your nature.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:47 AM
“Coleman has no reason to lie, and he has no history of lying.”
Ok then, which one of these is true Chestnut?
“I am a Democrat
I am a Wellstone Democrat
I am a Clinton Democrat
I am a Republican
I am a Bush Republican”
June 20th, 2008 at 8:51 AM
The mere fact that they acknowledged the allegations on their cheap youtube ad, means there is more to the story then meets the eye. The fact that they provided no proof to back up their claims, makes them look like fools.
The mere fact of this ad being released shows that it’s amateur hour at the Coleman campaign.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:56 AM
Who is the press is going to be stupid enough to print this statement from the Coleman campaign? Where is the proof?
Regardless if these allegations turn out to be true or not, it shows Norm needs to hire someone other then the high school AV club to make his future ads.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Hey Mike, you silly, stupid s.o.b., when you were 6 years old, did you ever tell anyone you believed in Santa Claus?
If you said you did when you were six, then you’re a goddam liar!
Norm Coleman said he was a Democrat, and at the time, he was. Just like you eventually learned a few things about life and stopped believing in Santa Claus, Norm Coleman realized what at bunch of lunatic, anti-American shitbags were surrounding him in the Democrat party, and he evolved.
Maybe you’ll learn a few more things about life and evolve yourself, you fucking liar.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:36 AM
[The name (el presidente) and the accompanying month, date, year, and time, are no longer highlighted in the color red.]
[With all of the writing about R-A-P-E, perhaps it means that MBB/MDE thinks that I've somehow lost my significance.]
June 20th, 2008 at 9:38 AM
It seems that I only temporarily lost my significance in posts 2 & 11.
By post 21 my significance was back.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I’m digging the abbreviated profanity in this thread. You guys are really getting after it…
June 20th, 2008 at 9:47 AM
“the accompanying month, date, year, and time, are no longer highlighted in the color red”
You’re not too bright, are you?
June 20th, 2008 at 9:56 AM
el presidente said: “It seems that I only temporarily lost my significance in posts 2 & 11.”
You never had any significance to lose.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Sorry to burst your bubble Chestnut, but Norm’s a complete fake, you can also add liar, jerk and spineless prick to that description.
I look forward to getting rid this pinwheel in November.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:30 AM
You have a fixation with homosexual sex, Scrotee. Your personal library of full frontal male nudity must be substantial – it didn’t take you long to post that link you did, to full frontal male nudity.
Oh, and Scrotee? It’s 2008; you can “be who you really are”, now. Really.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:32 AM
The only thing that “evolved” with Norm is his sense of opportunism. He knew he could never reach higher office within the DFL, so he jumped ship and pimped out his soul for the Republicans.
He is a puppet and the ultimate version of the poll driven politican. The public imagine he wants to convey to people, bears little resemblace to the complete tool he actually is.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:36 AM
bent over Al’s table yelling “I’m ready, daddyâ€
Getting a little out of hand huh Michael?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Where is the proof? This should be easy for the Coleman campaign to dispel, just show the press the outakes or the raw footage and it will be done.
Why did the campaign take the time to acknowledge the accusation and not take the extra step which backs them up?
June 20th, 2008 at 10:44 AM
The campaign figures they don’t have to back up the claim; since the claim came from a GOPer, the bootlickers in the rightwingnut blogosphere don’t need no stinkin’ proof.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:07 AM
It’s nice to see Team Coleman is as screwed up as Team Franken.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I hope they don’t fix it.
If the Republicans run this ad, there will be plenty of Minnesotans who begin to ask why Laurie Coleman hates Minnesota to the degree which she apparently does. I mean, a round trip ticket from L.A. to Minneapolis for a one hour commercial shoot is a lot of money. My only question is if Norm has to pay her a talent fee to disrupt her life to play the role of his wife every time an election rolls around?
June 20th, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I take it that the “goofy blogger” community thinks it is somehow scandalous that a politician would:
a) create a video advertisement,
b) include themselves and their spouse in the cast, and
c) film it in a way that made one question whether the cast was in the same room or not.
The “accusation” and the “scandal” are pretty empty and insignificant.
The goofs demand “proof” that their fantastic theories are false. This is amusing in light of their many denunciations of Al Franken’s (far more obvious and significant) faults when posted here.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:22 PM
[...] a follow-up to this post, I went over to MN Blue and left a comment about their claim that Mrs. Coleman looked like she was [...]
June 20th, 2008 at 1:30 PM
[...] the other hand, there are times when bloggers do things like this: There was an all-star list of bloggers screwing-up in the last 24 hours about a new TV ad released [...]
June 20th, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I’ll speak for myself and say that I really dont care if Laurie was green screened in. I mean, whatever, it isn’t a big deal at all to me.
I just think the ad looks like shit because of it and them lying about it is ridiculous. I mean come on, she is on top of the counter for crying out loud.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Where is the B-Roll, Michael?
I swear you promised to provide evidence that this happened. So far, all we have is a growing controversy, and Norm’s reputation taking a hit.
I would think it would be easy to provide b-roll showing the two of them together when the commercial was being shot.
Or are you and Norm lying?
June 20th, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Leroy, they could have put an end to this story with a couple of outtakes. They haven’t. The implication is obvious.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Al Franken had sex with Chevy Chase.
O.k. Tommy, prove that it didn’t happen.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:48 PM
[...] TV ad with Mrs. Coleman have been released. I once again look forward to reading the apologies from the bloggers mentioned in this post. It’s time for these “goofy” bloggers to accept [...]
June 20th, 2008 at 9:30 PM
[...] Coleman campaign answered the goofy questions and weirdo accusations that are flying around on the liberal pro-Franken [...]
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 AM
[...] after liberal blogs in Minnesota launched a false attack on Senator Norm Coleman and his family, none of the blogs have posted apologies or admitted they were wrong. MN Publius was the first and only blog to [...]