« MDE EXCLUSIVE: AL FRANKEN’S ATTORNEY & DELAWARE LAWSUIT – SIX DEGREES OF SEPARATION? | Home | COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE: “AT DEBATE, AL FRANKEN REFUSES TO CONDEMN NEGATIVE ATTACK AGAINST SENATOR COLEMAN’S WIFE” »
MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA CALLS ON STAR TRIBUNE TO EXPLAIN ROLE IN DSCC ATTACK ADS”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | November 2, 2008
St. Paul- In a letter to Star Tribune Publisher Chris Harte and General Counsel Lebedoff, Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Ron Carey called on the Star Tribune to explain its role in the DSCC attack ads running across Minnesota. According to Chairman Carey’s letter, “the Star Tribune has a much greater obligation to be candid and to tell the truth than they have demonstrated thus far.”
A copy of Chairman Carey’s letter is below:
Dear Mr. Harte,
On Wednesday, October 29th, two Star Tribune reporters, Tony Kennedy and Paul McEnroe, travelled to St. Cloud, Minnesota with what appears to have been the express purpose of ambushing Senator Norm Coleman with allegations that were contained in a lawsuit that had been filed – and subsequently withdrawn.
At the conclusion of the event in St. Cloud, your reporters began to shout questions loudly enough at Senator Coleman with the following questions that appear designed to inflict the maximum amount of controversy:
- “Senator, the allegations – what are the allegations about your wife receiving $75,000?”
- “Why won’t the Senator answer the question?”
- “Any response?”
It is obvious that your reporters were aware of the television media, and DFL video “tracker” who was on-site during their ambush of Senator Coleman.
Earlier this week, Senator Norm Coleman revealed that the Star Tribune had been in receipt – last week – of allegations that were subsequently included in a lawsuit that was filed in Texas.
When originally confronted with this information, the Star Tribune’s Managing Editor Rene Sanchez told David Brauer of Minn Post that, “We did not get a copy of this lawsuit until after it was filed Monday.”
However, yesterday, Brauer reported that Sanchez is now refusing to answer questions about whether the Star Tribune had the allegations- and not the lawsuit- before it was filed in Texas.
According to Brauer, “I believe the Strib didn’t have a copy of the lawsuit, but I now believe the paper had some version of some set of these allegations before this week. Sanchez wouldn’t comment when I tried to follow up.”
Yesterday Star Tribune reporter Paul McEnroe told a different story to a different website, the Minnesota Independent: “Nobody sent an anonymous package to me or Tony. And Tony and I have never talked to anyone in the Coleman campaign about where we get our information. We have no idea what he based that statement on. If he cares to share it, we’d love to hear from him about it.”
The contradictions between the editors refusing to answer, Brauer’s contention that the Star Tribune did have the allegations, and the reporters’ new denials on a different website, demand an immediate response from the paper.
With fundamental control of the United States Senate at stake – in a state in which who wins the race for the United States Senate could determine if one-party total control of Congress will occur after Tuesday’s election – the Star Tribune has a much greater obligation to be candid and to tell the truth than they have demonstrated thus far.
Here are the questions the Star Tribune must answer:
- When exactly did its reporters, Tony Kennedy and Paul McEnroe, receive the allegations that were ultimately put into a lawsuit this week?
- What was contained in those allegations – and who sent the allegations to them?
- Did they speak to any individual associated with these allegations prior to the lawsuit being filed – and when did they speak to them?
- Why did the Star Tribune reporters – being fully aware that the lawsuit had been withdrawn – drive up to St. Cloud and ambush the Senator in front of television crews and a DFL Party employee who had a video camera?
- Has the Star Tribune made any effort to demand that Al Franken and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pull down the ad attacking Senator Coleman and his wife – or, are they admitting that the information their reporters had with them – is the same information that the DSCC used in its television commercial that is now starring their two investigative reporters?
This election is too important for your newspaper to maintain its silence in this matter, particularly as it relates to the actions of your two reporters, Paul McEnroe and Tony Kennedy. If not for the balance offered by other media outlets in this matter, Minnesotans would be left with the false impression that this lawsuit and the subsequent actions by Al Franken and his Democratic allies were fair and honest.
Please, on behalf of the truth, come forward and provide this information to the people of Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Ron Carey, Chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota
Cc: Ms. Randy Lebedoff, Nancy Barnes, Rene Sanchez, Paul McEnroe, Tony Kennedy
Topics: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Coleman is truly in PANIC mode.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Here is the question that Norm Coleman should answer: Why did you run and hide from two reporters that were asking questions that deserved to be answered.
Anything other than that is just trying to divert attention from the issue at hand.
Questions related to this (Hays Co. and Mrs Coleman’s employment) were asked nearly a month ago, so clearly someone had been tracking this story down for a long time.
November 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
Seriously. How hard would it be for Norm to stand up like a man and say that he is not familiar with the litigation, but that he would look into it and get back to the reporters?
Earlier this campaign season, Michael made a huge deal of Al Franken leaving a capitol press conference without talking to reporters.
Is it so hard to see why the democrats would have similar issues with republicans, especially when the republican in question is being evasive about potentially felonious corruption charges that are likely to be served on Senator Coleman?