« REGULAR PROGRAMMING RESUMES ON MINNESOTA DEMOCRATS EXPOSED | Home | COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “COLEMAN FOR SENATE RELEASES WEBVIDEO REFUTING LIES FROM FRANKEN TV AD” »
SENATOR NORM COLEMAN ISSUES STATEMENT ON REPRESENTATIVE OLSON’S ENDORSEMENT BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 14, 2008
I just received this statement from U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s campaign.
###
ST. PAUL – The following is a statement from U.S. Senator Norm Coleman regarding the Minnesota state Senate Republican Caucus’ decision not to support disgraced state Rep. Mark Olson.
“I stand firmly with the members of the Senate Republican Caucus who today announced that they will not support Mark Olson for the open Senate seat of Betsy Wergin. His endorsement by the party is a matter that is of great concern to me. In particular, given the circumstances behind Mr. Olson’s decision to not seek re-election to the Minnesota House of Representatives – a decision that I believe was the right decision – I believe the fact that he is our party’s endorsed candidate for Senate District 16 is simply unacceptable and unsupportable.
“The Senate Republican Caucus has made the appropriate decision in rejecting the candidacy of Mark Olson. I understand there are other candidates who may remain eligible to run in the September Primary, and I would hope that they continue their efforts to become our party’s standard bearer.
“In the unfortunate event that Mr. Olson succeeds in the September Primary, I would ask that our party refuse to offer any type of assistance to his campaign. While the loss of a State Senate seat is unfortunate, I join Senators Senjem, Fischbach, Gimse, Hann, Koch and Michel in the strong belief that we must maintain and uphold our beliefs that violence of any kind, whether it is in word or in deed, should not be rewarded with our party’s
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 18 Comments »
18 Responses to “SENATOR NORM COLEMAN ISSUES STATEMENT ON REPRESENTATIVE OLSON’S ENDORSEMENT BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:46 PM
This is a good thing for MN. Republicans and Democrats can agree that Mark Olson would be bad for Minnesota.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:56 PM
At first I was concerned by senate republicans getting involved in a district endorsements, but Mark Olson is special situation. I think its good to put the activists on notice that if they actually get this creep elected, he will be completely irrelevant. His problems with his wife are just the tip of the iceberg…he (and I speak with some experience) is a sociopath. Good move GOP.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Wow, now the senate on the state and national level have weighed in to say that they think the voters of District 16 are incompetent.
It sure will be interesting to see how Norm’s contributions from that part of the state change in the coming weeks when people shove his statement up his ass and elect Mark Olson anyway.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Leroy Jenkins Says:
Spoken like a true Democrat. Electing (or endorsing) someone who is immoral and corrupt is more important than taking a principled stand against it and accepting the consequences.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I think Leroy is green with envy.
The Democrat party would kill for a candidate like Olson…he’s everything a moonbat wants in a politician.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Whew, its a good thing that Brodkorb and Coleman threw Olson under the bus so they can continue to chastise the DFL for endorsing a candidate who merely writes anti-female material.
But wait, it is still a matter of fact that members of their party chose to look past actual abuse. Unless you are throwing the whole lot of Republicans in SD16 under the bus you still have the problem that a group of your own has looked past actual examples of abuse to endorse a candidate.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Muse, A week ago, I threw the endorsing convention delegates who put Rep. Olson over the top under the bus without hesitation.
That group blew it by picking a violent man because (a) he votes right or (b) he’s their friend. I wouldn’t hesitate in telling that to their faces either.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Color me cynical on all this. This guy makes some reasonable points:
http://www.mnpact.org/sblog/comments.php?id=1298
Why did Norm Coleman quickly condemn Larry Craig, but so far, not a peep about David Vitter and his madam scandal. Why no comment from Norm Coleman – Mr pro-traditional marriage – on that one? Is Vitter’s marriage what Norm considers traditional family values?
August 14th, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Eva,
Are you really that stupid?
Larry Craig: Convicted of a crime
Mark Olson: Convicted of a crime
Vitter: Not convicted of a crime.
What’s so hard to figure out?
August 14th, 2008 at 9:48 PM
mmmm – some Republicans are starting to sound like Democrats… they don’t like the result of what by all appearances was a standard endorsing process.
Are you trying to disenfranchise the loyal party activists who attended their local oaucuses and were duly elected as delegates to the SD convention?
Are you repressing their 1st Amendment rights that they exercised by voting for Mark Olson?
It smells of a dangerous precedent to attempt to not acknowledge the results of an endorsing convention because you don’t like the result.
Personally, I’ll look forward to having Mark Olson in the Senate. The entertainment value of the floor sessions will spike every time he decides to quote a passage from the Declaration of Independence.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:58 PM
MMHH, just another Moron Munching Ho-Hos?
“they don’t like the result of what by all appearances was a standard endorsing process.”
Naaa, Democrats would never be too upset if a wife beating criminal was nominated at their conventions. If criminals were disqualified, Democrats would have no candidates at all.
“Are you trying to disenfranchise the loyal party activists who attended their local oaucuses and were duly elected as delegates to the SD convention?”
Do you know what the word “disenfranchise” means? They voted, their votes counted, therefore they are not disenfranchised. If you want to know what disenfranchisement looks like, ask Democrats in Florida and Michigan.
“Are you repressing their 1st Amendment rights that they exercised by voting for Mark Olson?”
Do you know what the text of the First Amendement says? If you do, then you realize how stupid your comment is.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Chestnut – pull your head out. When you hear a loud popping sound, you’ll know you were successful.
The geniuses in charge of the state GOP party, and the Senate Republican caucus ARE trying to disenfranchise the delegates at the SD convention.
They’d like to not acknowledge the results of the endorsing convention, because they don’t like the result.
And the elected delegates were exercising their free speech rights (see 1st Amendment) … true, Congress wasn’t involved, but it’s the same principle.
And re: David ‘Diaper Boy’ Vitter – are you okay with married men banging prostitutes?
August 14th, 2008 at 11:22 PM
So you DON’T know the meaning of “disenfranchised” then. O.k., you should have just said you were that fucking stupid.
They’re acknowledging the result, and opting not to waste their effort supporting a wife beater. Anyone with a conscience would probably do the same. Unfortunately, and handful of morons in the 16th don’t have any class or intelligence.
And dipshit, Free Speech works both ways. If the idiots in the 16th want to publicly voice their support for electing a wife beater, then the rest of us have First Amendment rights to voice our opposition to their stupidity.
As for Vitter, no I don’t appreciate him either. But he’s not a convicted criminal or wife beater. What’s your point?
August 14th, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Another note on the ignorant “disenfranchised” claim: Just because a group of wife beater lovers in the 16th endorse a wife beater, doesn’t mean the rest of the state GOP is required to line up against their wife beating candidate.
Nobody’s been disenfranchised. But if you knew what that word meant, you’d know that.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Correction: Just because a group of wife beater lovers in the 16th endorses a wife beater, doesn’t mean the rest of the state GOP is required to line up to support their wife beating candidate.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Chestnut-
There is no disagreement here. The power brokers in the state’s republican party believe that 2/3 of the voters in District 16 are not smart enough to pick their own candidate, and as such, they are going to do everything they can within their powers to see to it that their will is overturned.
You say it. We say it.
You can dance around semantics all you want, but the truth remains. The endorsed republican candidate for Senate in SD16 is being Swift Boated by his own party.
August 15th, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Leroy,
The folks at the State GOP are simply saying they won’t support the disgraced, discredited wife beater, Mark Olson. They’re not obligated to, either.
And apparently you don’t know the meaning of “swift boated”… which is to tell the truth about a disgraced, discredited Democrat no matter how inconvenient for his campaign.
August 15th, 2008 at 11:14 AM
If you live in SD16, I am currently running a series of three anonymous polls to just how well an Olson Primary and an Olson General would play out.
SD16 Polling
Remember, only people living in SD16 should participate. I encourage Republicans in the district to take the Primary poll.