« MNGOP MEDIA ADVISORY: CHAIR SUTTON & DEPUTY CHAIR BRODKORB TO PROVIDE 2010 ELECTION OVERVIEW | Home | KELLIHER COURTING BEGINS? »
PIONEER PRESS EDITORIAL: MINNESOTA NEEDS A SENATOR WHO “SHIES AWAY FROM EXTREME, GRATUITOUS PARTISANSHIP”
By Ryan Flynn | July 1, 2009
We hope Franken follows through on his promised humility. His final margin is a hair over one-thousandth of 1 percent. A bounce of the ball here and there and Coleman could be going to Washington next week. We need a senator who recognizes the division within the state and shies away from extreme, gratuitous partisanship. This is what we hoped for when we endorsed Coleman; this is what we hope for as Franken heads off to Washington. Source: Pioneer Press, July 1, 2009.
To read the entire editorial click here.
This editorial comes with the news that Franken’s first act as Senator-elect* will be a partisan rally on the steps of the state Capitol.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 20 Comments »
20 Responses to “PIONEER PRESS EDITORIAL: MINNESOTA NEEDS A SENATOR WHO “SHIES AWAY FROM EXTREME, GRATUITOUS PARTISANSHIP””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Of course, if Norm would have won, there would not been any type of rally or celebration.
right.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Very few senators are known for their extreme or gratuitous partisanship. Norm wasn’t known for that, and even Paul Wellstone mellowed quite a bit over the years. I think in his statement yesterday, Al indicated an awareness of that particular pitfall when he talked about being a Minnesota senator, rather than a Democrat senator. That said, Al shouldn’t defer to the half of Minnesotans who voted against him at the expense of the half of Minnesotans who voted for him.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:17 AM
In today’s Washington Post, Chris Cilizza argued that one key to Franken’s success was being ahead in the ballot count. Personally, I don’t think the importance of having more votes than your opponent can be emphasized enough.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Hiram,
I hate to quibble because the spoils go to the winner regardless, but half of Minnesotans did not vote for Al Franken. Half didn’t vote for Norm Coleman either, but at least be honest that Franken got 42% of the vote — hardly a sweeping victory.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:12 PM
chris..
My college English professor taught me to be suspicious of all words before the “but” in a statement. I employed that rule when I read your post #4.
If you hate to quibble, then why make the point that our new United States Senator Al Franken received 42% of the vote?
To me that qualifies as spin, and reflects your level of denial. No wonder you are so critical when I cite President Obama’s approval ratings. You don’t believe hard cold facts.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:18 PM
but at least be honest that Franken got 42% of the vote — hardly a sweeping victory.
To me that qualifies as spin, and reflects your level of denial.
I cannot tell you how many thousands of times I’ve seen liberals suggest that Pawlenty wasn’t doing what was in the best interests of the state because he didn’t get a majority. So to see some liberal complain after a similar statement about their own guy is laughable, at best.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Liberal danbrome, but 58% of the voters did not pick Angry Al.
Why would someone make the point that Franken received only 42% of the vote? Because its a hard cold fact.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:35 PM
“I hate to quibble because the spoils go to the winner regardless, but half of Minnesotans did not vote for Al Franken. Half didn’t vote for Norm Coleman either, but at least be honest that Franken got 42% of the vote — hardly a sweeping victory.”
I don’t count Barkley voters. I don’t claim a sweeping victory, and Al does need to keep in mind he represents all voters, but his job isn’t to advocate the policies of those who voted against him, it’s his job to advocate the policies of the policies of those who voted for him. The same would have been true if Norm had won.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:38 PM
“I cannot tell you how many thousands of times I’ve seen liberals suggest that Pawlenty wasn’t doing what was in the best interests of the state because he didn’t get a majority.”
Not something I would say. But all politicians have to take into account the views of those who voted for them. But that doesn’t mean that they should or even can afford to ignore the views of those who didn’t.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Hiram says: “I don’t count Barkely Voters.”
Why not Hiram? His name was legally on the ballot as he was endorsed by a group with major party status. He had 437,505 votes that were counted.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:09 PM
But all politicians have to take into account the views of those who voted for them.
Never seen a liberal politician do that. They received millions and millions of emails, calls and faxes over the Cap and Tax thing and still voted for it.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Why not Hiram?
I just don’t.
“Never seen a liberal politician do that.”
I think a lot of liberals do. It’s just that conservatives very often take absolute positions which translate into an all or nothing view of political issues. Currently a lot of liberals on the health care issue are running around trying to find a role for private insurers. The main reason they are doing that is to appeal to conservative voters.
Senators, unlike representatives, have to be open to different points of view because their constituencies are so diverse. This was a 50-50 election and any winner of it would be crazy not to consider the interests of those who voted against him. Congressional districts, on the other hand, are gerrymandered to be one-sided. Congressmen don’t have to take into account the views of opposition voters because there are so few of them in most districts.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Who said Franken won by 503 votes?????? I’m pretty sure whoever muttered those numbers 15 or more times on this blog was incredibly WRONG! Can we believe anything else now?
July 1st, 2009 at 3:12 PM
hi-ten, it was liberal danbrome who said that Franekn would win by 503. Liberal danbrome has never had any credibility.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I also believe danbrome used words like “predict” when he spoke about the number. And I know humor and sarcasm can get lost in translation, but I always took that claim as tongue-in-cheek anyway. Danbrome?
Besides, hi-ten, out of all the things “claimed” on this site that would happen during the recount and how it would end, do you really want to jump on that innacuracy? There were some bigger whoppers out there if you want to go back and look.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:36 PM
AC, wrong.
“Franken by 503. You heard it here first.”
http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/11/19/us-senate-recount-data-posted-1549-completed/#comment-261949
July 1st, 2009 at 4:10 PM
How am I wrong chile? I read that statement with a grain of salt and humor? You take it seriously? Geesh.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Never seen a liberal politician do that.
It’s so difficult to reach a compromise with governor because he assumes credit for compromises the other side is willing to make. As part of the failed negotiations over the budget, the DFL was willing to accept the governor’s proposed shift in education funding. But what the governor than told everyone is that the education shift was the Democrats’ idea, one on which he would compromise. The governor’s stated willingness to compromise was nothing more than a willingness to compromise with himself.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:36 PM
AC, grain of salt? Yes, at the very least. Liberal danbrome has no credibility and nothing he says should be believed.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:38 PM
I will stipulate that chile THINKS that I am a liberal, that I have no credibility, and that nothing I say should be believed.
I refuse to stipulate that any of those 3 theories are factually correct.
chile..
Is that all you got, that danbrome was not exactly right on Franken’s margin of victory?
LOL