Coleman Tries to Blur

Here's some video of Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) talking to anti-war constituents and giving a preview of the political strategy I think we'll be seeing more of from Republicans representing moderate areas:

As observed by the Uptake, Coleman repeatedly says that "we shouldn’t be in the middle of a civil war" even though in his role as a United States Senator he's consistently cast votes designed to ensure that we do just that. His hope seems to be that triangulating rhetoric combined with steadfast support for Bush when it comes time to vote can shield him from the wrath of the pro-war base and the anti-war middle alike.

Comments

Hopefully Franken or Ciresi won't let him. Hopefully voters are smart enough to see Coleman for the fraud he is.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | September 19, 2007 10:04 AM

What is he going to run on now that Kofi Annan isn't around for him to kick anymore?

Posted by Jayhawk Max | September 19, 2007 10:26 AM

I think it's significant that Coleman went out and talked to people who are openly anti-war. Presumably he knew that anything he said would sound confused. The main trick, which doesn't sound all that difficult to me, is to keep Bush and the war on the front page. Every time W ventures out of the White House bunker, Coleman will have more explaining to do.

Posted by MattF | September 19, 2007 10:28 AM

His hope seems to be that triangulating rhetoric combined with steadfast support for Bush when it comes time to vote can shield him from the wrath of the pro-war base and the anti-war middle alike.

It worked for Joe Lieberman and success breeds imitation. It's a good bet it will indeed be the strategy of war supporters in all but the reddest areas to support the war in fact while promising peace at some future, indefinite date.

Posted by Curt M | September 19, 2007 11:07 AM

I'm still amazed that a guy with such a thick New York accent could ever get elected to anything in Minnesota.

Posted by jim | September 19, 2007 11:41 AM

isn't he the idiot who got cut to pieces by Galloway? If I was his constituent I'd vote against him simply for dishonouring the regiment.

Posted by dsquared | September 19, 2007 11:50 AM

I hope Coleman loses next November, but I don't think he's a bad guy, and he's really a pretty good politician. Therefore he's a good one to watch for signs of what a rational GOP politician would do under the current circumstances.

Posted by Martin | September 19, 2007 12:17 PM

I hope Coleman loses next November, but I don't think he's a bad guy, and he's really a pretty good politician. Therefore he's a good one to watch for signs of what a rational GOP politician would do under the current circumstances.

Posted by Martin | September 19, 2007 12:17 PM

Martin writes: "Therefore he's a good one to watch for signs of what a rational GOP politician would do under the current circumstances."

Sorry, but he's not. Chuck Hagel is, though - and what he's doing is getting out of the way while admitting that his party has gone batshit crazy.

If Coleman is actually rational he should do the same.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 1:53 PM

He is very sly here. Notice how he never says what our next course of action is going to be, just that we need to face Al Qaida but stay out of a Civil War. Brilliant.

Soccer moms and BBQ Dads eat this stuff up, because in they hear this while trying to feed or bathe the kids and their attention is such that they never quite critically break down this position. All they know is that they too want to take down Al Qaida (Coleman is for that, check) but wants us out of the civil war (Coleman is for that, check).

I think Franken is going to have a tough, tough time taking down Coleman, because he is brilliant at positioning himself in politically astute ways.

I think the tactic needs to be Franken need to VOW to vote to withdraw immediately with the caveat that our resources will be transferred to Afghanistan where we can finish our initial fight. This makes Franken look Hawkish on an issue people still care about (Al Qaida) while also challenging Coleman to take a more substantive position on Iraq.

Posted by Brad | September 19, 2007 3:09 PM

Mark Kennedy tried this in a House race in Minnesota in 2006, basically scrubbing any mention of the President and any indication of his party affiliation from his website. He more or less got his ass handed to him, so I'd be surprised if Minnesotans will let Coleman polish this turd. Long term incumbant Gil Gutknecht also lost in my parent's rural district after some 11th hour attempts to distance himself from the war.

Unless urban Minnesotans still hold him in high regard for his tenure as Mayor of St. Paul (and he was a good mayor as far as I could tell), I have a hard time seeing him holding the seat if independents are swinging Democrat as strongly as polls suggest.

Posted by TheF79 | September 19, 2007 5:19 PM