« MN SRC PRESS RELEASE: “HOUSE & SENATE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS ANNOUNCE PROPOSAL TO CUT PAY OF LEGISLATORS AND CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS; PAY CUT PROPOSAL SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AT BUDGET MEETINGS STARTING TOMORROW” | Home | NEW MEANING TO “I HAVE A LOT OF FREE TIME ON MY HANDS” »
STAR TRIBUNE: “GOP HEAVYWEIGHTS MAKE A COLEMAN FUNDRAISING PUSH”
By Ryan Flynn | February 19, 2009
A dozen Republican heavyweights debuted on YouTube this week, pleading for donations to help Norm Coleman pay his legal bills in his fight to regain Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race.
The two-minute ad, produced by Coleman’s election campaign, is straightforward about Coleman’s financial needs and emphasizes the importance of holding 42 GOP seats in the Senate.
“We need 42 Republicans — we need Norm Coleman to win his fight for Minnesota,” says North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr. “A little bit of money right now could make the difference,” says South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham. “We want him back in Washington — we need him,” says Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. (Source, Star Tribune, February 19, 2008)
To continue reading click here.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 56 Comments »
56 Responses to “STAR TRIBUNE: “GOP HEAVYWEIGHTS MAKE A COLEMAN FUNDRAISING PUSH””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I thought the consensus around here was that the senate should stay out of the Minnesota Senate Race. I didn’t think Reid should interfere in the Minnesota senate race. But if Republicans senators are going to intervene on the side of Coleman, why shouldn’t Reid intervene on the side of Franken?
February 19th, 2009 at 5:36 PM
I also thought it was the consensus here that raising any money for the purposes of the recount was a total and complete outrage! Remember how outraged we all were when Al Franken had the audacity to hold a fundraiser to support his campaign during the recount effort? How could Norm pull the same stunt. I am truly OUTRAGED that he would even dare!
February 19th, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I heard Norm’s wife has $150,000 lying around that I’m sure she could use to keep the smears going for her hubby! Too bad she’s living in California, strongly dislikes Norm, and allows him to have a mistress. Oh well, I guess we’ll have to front the bill then.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:46 PM
You all seem to forget. Once Norm fell behind, all rules had to go out the window. Now republicans are trying to remember all the stuff that Franken did to take the lead, in hopes that it will return to them magically.
February 19th, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Integrity..
Your instincts are top shelf. Bravo!
February 19th, 2009 at 7:25 PM
The ads say how “Norm is needed back in the US Senate”.
Norm is needed to asure that the Republicans have the ability to filibuster bills. Let’s be honest here!!! That’s the only underlying reason these Republicans are on the plea for their buddy Norm.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Kathy, DUH!!!
February 19th, 2009 at 7:38 PM
Integrity. Liberals are always outraged about something. That is why normal people ignore them.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:13 PM
During election season I think it was MDE that told us that the conservatives were outraged by everything the progressives did…
Pete, let’s get real…
February 19th, 2009 at 9:19 PM
“The usual suspects” are here, circling like the vultures that they are. Vicious statements and unsubstantiated charges reveal their blighted souls. I can respect and engage people who are passionate about views that are diametrically opposed to my own, but it is hard for me to have anything but contempt for people who choose to act like rabid animals.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Mark-
Honestly, what are you talking about?
February 19th, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Seriously, are there any “GOP Heavyweights” left? I thought they were extinct.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:02 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71t0zTf0k_8
The pleading and begging of these people are nothing short of hilarious..
February 20th, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Kathy, you should consider using Botox. Lisa Murkowski doesn’t look to bad for and old gal.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I love how quicksand continues to not have a reasonable, adult argument. He instead chooses to continue to stoop to the arguments of children. Congrats quicksand…we’re all impressed…
February 20th, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Integrity, I’m willing to help anyway I can.
Did you have a comment about the Republicans who are rallying around Norm?
February 20th, 2009 at 1:38 AM
They don’t need Norm in the senate…they need another vote, doesn’t matter where it comes from. Even the conservatives in the senate can agree with that…
That is my constructive comment about the ReBublicans rallying around Norm…
February 20th, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Integrity, your comment was very immature and narrow minded. Even the Democrats can agree with that.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:28 AM
Gentlemen, can you check your egos at the door before posting? It’s hard to find any substance in all this bickering. That aside, let’s be realistic: Norm can do as he likes and it’s *clearly* in the best interest of Minnesotans. Franken only wanted to raise money under the guise of it being for the recount so that, after he finished stealing the Senate seat, he could give the left over dough to the party of Hussein and Socialism. Double standard? No, no. Just Team Coleman doubleplusgood speak.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:21 AM
It’s hard for me to check my partisanship at the door. It’s basically tattooed to my forehead. But one thing I have been saying for a while and if this sounds partisan, so be it, is that this election dispute should be decided by Minnesotans. I really do think that senators, democrats and republicans, should stay out of it. Remember, those senators are putting their own personal political agendas ahead of what this election should be about which is sending the candidate who is the choice of Minnesotans to the US Senate.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:15 AM
The Republican supporters in the video have every right to appear pathetic and desperate.
Watching them beg was the best chuckle I’ve had since Norm said Franken should “step back”.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:23 AM
What’s really sad is that it takes so much money to simply try and get the legal votes that Angry Al doesn’t want counted counted.
Those votes might even increase Angry Al’s current lead, but he’d rather be safe and disenfranchise thousands of Minnesotans ….. even his supporters.
What a pig.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:27 AM
danbrome, was it as funny as this?
http://flickr.com/photos/21963550@N08/2123501839/
February 20th, 2009 at 10:31 AM
KIS…
Well, then… after considerable thought… by your definition, BOTH Senator-Elect Franken and Former Senator Norm Colemen are pigs. If the shoe was on the other foot, Norm would be doing the same thing.
IS it safe to assume you agree? Great!
February 20th, 2009 at 10:34 AM
chili..
No, not that funny. Good catch!
February 20th, 2009 at 10:38 AM
danbrome, both sides would be doing what the other side is doing if they were in the same boat at this point.
The issue is how we got to this point. The process to resolve the issues is working its way through the legal system and will mostly be decided by the Supreme Court in the end.
Just think. If we required people to show proper identification when they voted and simply followed the rules correctly this would not even be an issue.
Which is why the left refuses to require proper identification at the polls.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:38 AM
danbrone,
Don’t be silly …. and think just a little ….. Norm is trying to make all legal votes count even if it means he loses. He and we all know that.
There is no need for Al’s hypothetical “Norm’s a pig just like me” defense here because there are facts. Norm is trying to get votes to count. Angry Al is trying to not count them.
Did I keep it simple enough for you?
And Al is just such a pig on so many levels…
February 20th, 2009 at 10:45 AM
KIS..
Explain why Former Senator Coleman changed his strategy from “step back” to “count all the votes”.
Crystal Clear Flip Flop.
Understandable, but still a Flip Flop.
Also, why would Senator-Elect Franken be angry after winning a seat in the United States Senate for the next 6-12 years? He has to be excited to help President Obama rebuild our great nation.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Pete..
If the State would insure that every legal voter is supplied with “proper identification”, then I would agree with you.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:56 AM
danbrone,
I don’t speculate about the “whys” because facts are clear. Norm wants votes counted. Angry Al does not.
…and again Al’s anger is pathological.
He’s just one of those liberals like Bill Maher, Susan Sarandon and Rosie who are pissed off all the time.
If he does become the Senator-Elect in the future he will still be an angry pig as he helps Obama destroy the country.
Say, anyone know how the DOW is doing these days??
February 20th, 2009 at 11:23 AM
danbrome, did you mean “insure” or “ensure”?
(Ir)regarless, you’re an idiot. State Identification is provided to everyone who asks for one – provided they have a birth certificate, SS card, passport, etc.
If someone is unable to obtain an ID from the state, then they shouldn’t vote.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:26 AM
KIS..
Was Al angry when you met him and got to know him?
February 20th, 2009 at 11:27 AM
chili..
you are a bigoted ass.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
chili..
What you meant is.. if someone is a Democrat, then they shouldn’t vote.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
KIS, the Dow is barely half of what it was when Democrats took full control of Congress two years and one month ago.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:36 AM
If you ask Erik Paulsen, he would say..
“If a voter is not one of us, then they should not vote.”
February 20th, 2009 at 11:42 AM
danrome, are you saying Democrats can’t get a state ID?
I’m a bigot? Could you please tell me why expecting voters to be citizens who live in the precincts they are voting in is somehow bigoted?
danbrome, Obama is sending a stimulus check to ACORN. You should get a job there.
danbrome: Voter Fraud
February 20th, 2009 at 11:46 AM
danbrome, before this past election how many times did Asslick Maida vote in the 3rd district?
February 20th, 2009 at 12:48 PM
danbrome, I thought the Republicans recently offered exactly that and was still shot down by the Democrats. Their excuse? They did not want to inconvience people by making them go get their free ID.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:43 PM
danbrome,
I have never met Angry Al.
I avoid pigs. I haven’t met Larry Flynt or Bill Clinton either.
February 20th, 2009 at 5:53 PM
danbrome – you hiding again? Any civil thoughts on my post #39?
I’ll wait.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:47 PM
“If someone is unable to obtain an ID from the state, then they shouldn’t vote.”
All of us can have an opinion about who should or shouldn’t vote. The question is, who has the right to vote.
Personally, I am very open to measures tightening up the registration process. I think they are particularly necessary when there are active voter registration campaigns out there. But I am against putting any barriers to voting the polling place. If I can buy liquor without an ID, if I can use a credit card without an ID, why should I need an ID when I vote?
February 21st, 2009 at 7:41 AM
Hiram, Are you really that stupid? Comparing voting for people to lead this country to buying a bottle of wine? Are you nuts?
Using your credit card without an ID? How in the hell does that affect the rest of us?
A persons vote impacts everyone else in this country. You buying a bottle of wine with your credit card has no impact on how the goverment is run.
Your comments here are just plain stupid.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:46 AM
“Are you really that stupid?”
Stupider. I wallow in my stupidity. It’s a point of pride with me. I am ignorant also.
“Using your credit card without an ID? How in the hell does that affect the rest of us?”
Because I don’t pay my credit card bill, so the bank whose stock is in your 401k plan goes broke, and because when I default on my debt the interest charges you pay on whatever you pay them go up.
February 21st, 2009 at 8:57 AM
I am also feckless, that is, totally lacking in feck, but I don’t think that’s relevant here.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Hiram, providing an ID, or not, when using a credit card has nothing to do with you not paying your bill.
Can you buy liquor without an ID? Not always, some places require ID for all liquor purchases.
You need an ID to get get on a commercial airliner. You need an ID to get a job.
If I go to Gander Mountain to exercise my constitituional rights to buy a firearm, I need and I.D. For rifles/shotguns the background checks take up to several hours. For handguns I also need to obtain a permit from my local law enforcement agency.
The argument the an ID requirement presents a “barrier” to voting is a red herring. Unless that “barrier” keeps non/illegal resident from voting – which is the intent.
BTW, merchants are not required to accept credit card.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Can you buy liquor without an ID?
Yes.
“Not always, some places require ID for all liquor purchases.”
I wouldn’t go to those places.
“You need an ID to get get on a commercial airliner.”
I never fly. Too dangerous.
“The argument the an ID requirement presents a “barrier†to voting is a red herring.”
Believe me on this, if I didn’t think requiring an ID was a barrier, I wouldn’t oppose it. I have no interest at all in having unqualified individuals voting from my perspective that’s the red herring.
February 21st, 2009 at 2:43 PM
“merchants are not required to accept credit card.”
Then why do they? And why don’t they insist on seeing an ID? And why, lately, do they not even ask for a signature when completing the transaction? Isn’t it because all these things are, in one way or another, a barrier to a transaction the merchant wants to complete?
If insisting on an id is a barrier to a sale, why isn’t it a barrier to voting?
February 21st, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Only you are calling it a barrier Hiram. It is done to speed up the process and the merchant is willing to risk some fraud to move things along faster.
Using your senario yor are willing to accept a some fraud to make voting easier for a select few.
I know you will not understand because you are merely here to iritate and not join in on a conversation about a legitmate topic.
You liberals are all alike.
February 21st, 2009 at 9:09 PM
“It is done to speed up the process and the merchant is willing to risk some fraud to move things along faster.”
There you go. If you don’t like the word “barrier”, choose your own.
“Using your scenario yor are willing to accept a some fraud to make voting easier for a select few.”
Of course. I am always in favor of making voting as easy as possible. Making vote more difficult does not address the issue of fraud. I am certainly in favor of addressing the fraud issues in other ways, however. I think that’s one of the things the registration process is intended to do. Given the fact that there are aggressive registration campaigns out there, I think it is important to verify registrations, as appropriate.
I am no more in favor of unqualified voters voting than you are. But I will tell you a secret. My voters screw up more than your voters. My voters are more likely to be discouraged from going to the polls than yours are. Intensive recounts tend to favor Democrats over Republicans in ways that have nothing to do with qualifications. Franken has been gaining in this recount since it began, and there is no reason at all to think that is because more unqualified voters are having their votes counted.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Soucheray, when he talks about finding ways to discourage voting by people who disagree with him or people he doesn’t like, talks about creating “responsibilities” instead of inserting barriers. As someone who loves a semantic argument, and enjoys a search for creative euphemism, I find his language substitution perfectly acceptable. The problem for conservatives is the same. The wrong people are voting, and while it’s hard to stop them, there are plenty of ways that can be used to discourage them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Hiram, here is a “secret” you forgot to mention: Your voters are more likely to not be legal residents of the precincts they vote in. Your voters are more likely to be convicted felons who have restricted voting rights. Your voters are more likely to be bused from precinct to precinct to voter more than once.
Guess what Hiram, when you party’s agenda is to broaden its base by appealing to illegal residents, convicts, and bums – then that part of your base is not legally qualified to vote.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Hiram, it seems you are using the term “barriers” in place of “legalities.”
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:32 PM
“Your voters are more likely to not be legal residents of the precincts they vote in.”
I don’t really know if it’s that’s the case. It seems to me that Republicans are about as likely to go to the wrong polling place as Democrats. But in any event, the solution to that problem is reviewing the registration roles, and not voter ID. That’s assuming that the voter ID proposal is just that, that those elderly election judges would be identifying voters, not performing the additional task of verifying their residence.
“Your voters are more likely to be convicted felons who have restricted voting rights.”
I don’t know if that’s true either. Lewis Libby is a Republican. But again, that’s a problem that is best addressed through the registration process. Election judges at the polling place have no means at all of determining who is or isn’t a disenfranchised felon.
“Your voters are more likely to be bused from precinct to precinct to voter more than once.”
Again, another problem that is best addressed by registration. Unless of course, they have different identities at each precinct, in which case, you can pretty likely assume they will have different ID’s.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 PM
“it seems you are using the term “barriers†in place of “legalities.—
“Legalities” isn’t a word I would have chosen here. I am opposed to unqualified voters voting, that’s something on which we both agree. We just differ about how to go about preventing it, to the extent that occurs.
I admit, I don’t see it as a serious problem. But what I also say that the most serious and widespread form of voter fraud is the improper use of absentee ballots. And it’s my general view that absentee ballots skew Republican. For anyone seriously concerned about voter fraud, absentee ballot abuse is one good place to start.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:44 PM
[...] PUSH … 19 Feb 2009 | 03:43 pm | Category: Uncategorized The Eadle Family wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHe’s just one of those liberals [...]