Coleman Still Attending GOP Caucus Meetings -- Even Though He's No Longer A Senator!
It turns out that Norm Coleman is still a member in good standing of the Senate Republican Conference -- in fact, it just so happens that he attended today's party lunch meeting on the Hill, and was also there for Inauguration Week.
What makes this remarkable is that Coleman isn't actually a member of the United States Senate anymore. Remember that his term expired this past January 3, and Minnesota has been without a Senator because of his lawsuit bottling up Al Franken's amazingly-narrow win.
"He's always welcome," Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told TPMDC, adding that "we still think he has a very good opportunity" to win.
It's unclear whether Alexander has actually been watching the trial, which has seen some key rulings lately going against Coleman's position, diminishing the likelihood of a Coleman victory. In fact, the Coleman camp's press operation has taken to openly attacking the court's rulings.
We will say this: The fact that Coleman doesn't actually have a vote probably makes Jon Kyl's whip operation a lot easier.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Then it seems we can all go to these luncheons. When and where?
February 24, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the party that dissed Al Gore for having the temerity to dare to be a defendant in a court challenge to an election.
February 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
IOKIYAR.
February 24, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
February 24, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Coleman accept a job with a firm that has lobbying functions? Is it legal for him to have that kind of access to legislators?
February 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norm's a private citizen at this point, no? So anyone and everyone who's a private citizen can, with an invite, attend Senate meetings?
How does this fly with security? Privacy? Sensitive material discussions? WTF?
February 24, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senate floor privileges last a lifetime, I am pretty certain. Membership has its privileges.
February 24, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. This isn't about Senate Floor privileges. It's about access to the caucus.
2. They don't last a lifetime. That's why Harry Reid said Biden would not be allowed in the Democratic caucus.
February 24, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, is the caucus even an official body? I thought it was just there by convention and that each party caucus made up all its own rules. In which case, they can invite whom they want, right?
(Note, I don't know much about the subject...that was just my understanding. By all means correct me if I don't have it right.)
February 24, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate Republican caucus is for all of the elected republican senators. Same for Democrats, plus the two indepenents.
There are also semi-official caucuses like the "out of Iraq" caucus and the "Blue Dog" caucus. The members are self-selecting with one criteria: you have to be serving in Congress.
February 24, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Games people play...
February 24, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably there panhandling for help with his legal fees...
February 24, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
He just got $250K from the republican party. He's probably there offering BJ's of thanks.
February 24, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
norm cant do that anymore. his enormous fake teeth get in the way. he has to resort to the good old republican reacharound.
February 24, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Reid? Call for you on line 1...
February 24, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just one more example of why I think the fix is in for Coleman. And I think Harry Reid is just fine with that.
February 24, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You probably also think there are black helicopters hovering over your house and sending gama rays into your brain, too.
February 24, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but he forgot to attach the ground cable to his tinfoil beanie.
February 24, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eat shit and die, fuckwad.
February 24, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
while you make your case with class and elegance, ultimately i find your argument unpersuasive.
February 24, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Blue dogs will hate Franken just as much as the Republicans. The Blue dogs already see themselves as having 61-62 votes to get whatever they want. Franken coming in will strip away some of that power and give more to the progressives within the party and overall just be a pain in their ass.
February 24, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Challenge: Name the Senate Blue Dogs and point to *any* evidence that they hate Franken (or liberal Democrats) and don't want them in the Senate.
Waiting . . .
February 24, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
While not officially existing, they exist in spirit - the moderate/centrist Dems who have more in common with the moderate Republican than the progressive left. I don't know if Bayh's idea is still in the works or he dropped it, if he dropped it it's likely because like-minded Senators didn't want to pigeonhole themselves.
As to why they'd hate Franken,"hate" was hyperbole, however it's not a stretch to believe Franken would weaken their power and thus they are in no real rush to see him seated.
February 24, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect to see some handsome apologies from the commenters who dissed "Walter Mitty."
February 24, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not. Gonna. Happen. These assholes think think their smug certainty that the Democrats and Obama are actually on the side of pregessives trump the need for argument.
February 24, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
QUESTION: What is a "pregressive"?
FYI, I welcome argument. What I don't like is bullshit, unsubstantiated straw men accusations with no basis in reality like Walter Mitty just made.
If you conclude that Bayh's *potential* caucus must hate liberals and work to defeat them, then you have to assume that the new caucus being formed in the House by Defazio, et al must hate moderate Democrats.
February 24, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't expect anything. That makes all of six supposed "targets" for Bayh who "exist in spirit". And not a thing was said by Bayh about "liberal Democrats". Very weak by any standard.
February 24, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Walter Mitty be entitled to an apology? He made shit up out of whole cloth and was totally unable to back it up.
February 24, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't ask for or demand an apology chief - I backed it up just fine as I named the "Blue Dogs" and I explained why they would be happy with the current status quo. They have more political power and political cover to get what they want when it is necessary to peel off GOP votes.
I contend that if Bayh, Nelson, Landrieu, Webb and the like could have authored the Stimulus bill they would have wrote something that looks a lot like it looked on Obama's desk. You seem to believe that they are closet progressives who are only moderates because of their constituents and in order to get and stay elected and would gladly sign on to a purely progressive bill if they could vote their conscience.
February 24, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response about the apology was to cheesehead, not you.
Listen, you have NO evidence that those senators you named are blue dogs. You only cited an article saying that Bayh would target them.
I also never claimed that Lincoln and Bayh were progressives. I know that they are moderate/conservative democrats.
Here's where I call bullshit on you: You claim that these people hate Franken and don't want Franken in the senate based on nothing more than your own "liberals are always persecuted" theory.
You claim that they really want the republican agenda enacted and that's why they don't want Franken in the senate. Again, this is based on nothing more that your own musings.
If you make a claim that the blue dogs hate Franken as much as the republicans, you should have more to substantiate that than your persecution complex.
February 24, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have ANY evidence to prove the opposite. The circumstantial evidence (namely, big fundraisers and press releases for Coleman vs. radio silence from the Democrats re Franken) offers support for Mitty and my argument.
The onus is on you to provide anything to support your certainty that all Dems and especially Blue Dogs are looking forward to seating Senator Al Franken. And it looks to me like you got nothing.
February 24, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Asshole, why would the onus be on me to prove a contention I never made? LOL!
Show me where I said blue dogs and dems are looking forward to welcoming Franken. I never made any such statement.
The only people here who claim to know what's in the hearts and heads of the Blue Dogs are you and Walter Mitty. You say you know what they're thinking and wishing (how to harm Franken). You don't know shit!
But here's what I do know: there is ZERO evidence to support your contention that they are trying to keep Franken out of the Senate. ZERO. You and Walter Mitty are pulling shit out of your ass. I guess that's to be expected since that's where you keep your brains!
February 24, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you don't understand this but a clip about Bayh potentially starting a new caucus has ZERO to do with your original post.
Again, name the Blue Dogs in the Senate and point out what they've done to make you think they "hate" Franken.
February 24, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Says you.
His new caucus was compared to the Blue Dogs in the house. His targets "would include" meaning there would be more than what was listed. Even if he just had the six plus himself, that would be seven out of 58, and Lieberman wasn't on that list. Even if it never happened, it doesn't mean there isn't a group if Moderates, centrists and Dino's that have more in common with the moderates and centrists on the right than they do with the progressives in the Democratic party.
As to why the moderates/centrists wouldn't like Franken, I think it's rather self-explanatory.
February 24, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because I target George Clooney and Denzel Washington for my husbands doesn't mean they are!!
We know who the more moderate/conservative members of the Senate are but that doesn't mean they are a caucus. Just like there's no liberal caucus for Kennedy and Leahy and Boxer and Feingold.
FYI: Lieberman would *never* be classified as a Blue Dog because Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives and, although Lieberman is hawk/conservative on matters of foreign policy, he is a nothing even close on social and fiscal matters. Check his record.
Also, just because you hate members of your party who don't march lockstep with your ideology doesn't mean every one else is as reactionary.
February 24, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the moderates are the ones with the purity tests...
February 24, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree with you but you do realize that you just undermined your entire argument, don't you?
You're claiming that Blue Dogs will hate Franken. When it's the extremes who hate the moderates, not the other way around. Right wing nutters hate Snowe, Collins. Left wing nutters hate Bayh and Lincoln.
Just read this blog and you'll see all of the left-wing nutters talking about how we should kick the blue dogs out of the party. I have *never* heard a moderate Dem saying we should kill off Feingold, Kennedy and Boxer.
February 24, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was making a comment on a blog not writing a thesis. I do think the centrists/moderates have more power in the party with less than 60 votes because then they can "blame" the move to the center on having to appease the 2-3 Republicans while getting exactly what they want. Should the Dems ever get 60 seats, it will be the party fighting each other.
I just get the feeling that Obama and the moderates in the Senate don't want 60 seats. I think ideally they'd just want more moderates on the right from which to choose from and peel off depending on the issue.
February 24, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your arguments are too ridiculous to take seriously. You have yet to lay out any factual basis for your claim that the Blue Dogs don't want Franken in the senate.
It's all because you "believe" they have some kind of hidden right-wing agenda. Well, if that were true, they could just be Republicans. They could have been Republicans when Repugs were in the majority instead of laboring in the minority party for a dozen years.
But never mind. You're part of that "the pure Democrats are forever villified" bs.
February 24, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say anything about a right wing agenda - you're making stuff up. You believe Bayh and the like are secretly far left progressives who only play moderates to get elected.
February 24, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one making things up. I am not defending the liberal bona fides of Bayh, et al. They are way too conservative for my tastes.
But to claim that they are secretly in cahoots with the republicans and waiting to undermine Franken in the senate is just too rich. You sound like a nut with your ridiculous conspiracy theories.
FYI, Bayh and Lincoln and Nelson and Pryor could flip to republicans tomorrow and still get elected in their states. So, no. I don't think they're pretending to be Democrats to get elected.
The inter-party resentment I see is liberals (like you) hating on moderates, not the other way around. I say this as a liberal. But I know how bat shit crazy and impractical many of the nutters are -- left wing and right wing.
February 24, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, here's the thing. You think it's self explanatory why moderate Senators would dislike Franken. But others don't...in fact, FreeRider asked specifically for an explanation. Frankly, I'd like one myself; I see absolutely no reason to think that these Senators would be happier with Coleman than Franken. So humor us...if it's so simple to explain that it's self-explanatory to you, maybe you could help out us slow kids.
Put a different way, when someone disagrees with you on a point you don't get to respond by simply saying the point is self-explanatory. If it were, there would be no disagreement.
Put a third way, put up or shut up.
February 24, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here' the thing - I have explained it, but you decided to ignore the additional discussion on this matter so you could make your condescending post and feel better about yourself. Right now there is 56 Democratic votes and two independent votes, equally 58 votes. It is my contention that the moderates like Bayh, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson are closer politically to Specter, Collins and Snowe than they are to Franken. Thus they want what Specter, Collins and Snowe want more than what Franken wants.
Now it's politically easier for them to shift any legislation to the center using the explanation that in order to get the necessary GOP votes they needed to make concessions.
Franken comes in with a more progressive agenda, bringing the Dem total to 59 seats, meaning they'd only need one GOP vote on cloture issues. If the Dems get 60+ seats in 2010, the moderates/centrists will have to battle their own party to bring any legislation closer to center.
So that's it - with 58 votes the Moderates still get what they want, but don't take any hits politically from progressives because they can use the necessary Republican votes as cover. 60 seats or more and it's them that are keeping legislation "less progressive".
February 24, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is funny. And I'm quite sure that everyone who has watched any part of the recount or the court proceedings is sharing my laughter. Why would the court crap all over Coleman's head all the time if they were fixed for him?
February 24, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Coleman showed up to eat, but the bigger question is: Who paid for his clothes?
PEACE
February 24, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all EFCA.
The RNC is paying Coleman and his lawyers to drag this out for as long as possible.
February 24, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The caucus meets to organize the party's efforts as the opposition in Congress. It's clear that the Coleman battles in MN and the Republican party's money on his behalf are designed to keep Franken out of the Senate, reduce the Democrat's majority by one vote, and obstruct Obama's and the Democrats' agenda in Congress at this critical time in this country and the Obama Administration's early weeks. Coleman's participation in that caucus meeting is a central part of that strategy.
February 24, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman should sue the guy who did his teeth. They make him look as phony as he is.
February 24, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
those teeth make him look like he could be the slightly retarded son of john elway and sandra bernhard with maybe a little baba booey in the mix.
pretty nasty.
February 24, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If and when Al gets seated, he will be a co-sponsor of EFCA. It is a fair bet that Bayh, Nelson, and their ilk, who played along with the Republicans in trying to vilify and scapegoat that all-purpose rightie bogeyman ACORN in a recent floor vote, are less than eager to have to take a stand on that super-duper rightie rightie bogeyman EFCA.
I believe Senator Franken would approach his role with a cautious tread, not trying to be inflammatory or radical. But his penchant for getting to the root of an issue, and for making his points with memorable turns of phrase, would make him a natural person for the more liberal Senators to rally around.
Conversely, the right-wing Democrats like Bayh are likely to snipe at Al, in concert with the Thugs. I hope they don't, but hope is a thin thread to cling to . . . in the face of what actually does happen.
February 24, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your entire post is nothing more than lame speculation. There isn't a single fact anywhere.
There are already senators to co-sponsor EFCA so hoping Franken goes down in defeat doesn't help any moderate democrats who is opposed to it.
And your notion that moderate Dems will spend their time trying to discredit a liberal Dem who is ranked 100 out 100 is just more paranoid silliness.
Show me one occasion when Bayh has gone after Bernie Sanders or Pat Leahy or Barbara Boxer. Show me one time when Mark Pryor has attacked or tried to undermine Ron Wyden or Russ Feingold.
If the moderates were all about attacking outspoken liberals, they don't have to wait for Franken.
February 24, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when do comments have to factual. Commentary is usually opinion and not facts. If you want to be factual and include links and the like- more power to you.
However, the lame confrontations with people who are simply trying to comment, give their opinion are too much. If you something isn't factual and is opinion- you take it or leave it. Calling people out on not be "factual" is lame and makes this site waaaaaaaaay less fun.
February 24, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when do comments have to BE factual?
Among other typos....
February 24, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
When they are presented as facts rather than opinion, they have to be factual. Get it? Facts. Factual.
Sheez. Sometimes it's like talking to third graders in here.
February 24, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sometimes it's like talking to third graders in here."
Then why don't you leave? Your certainty that the Democratic estblishment welcomes a Senator Franken is built on speculation every bit as much as our suspicion that they would rather see Coleman restored to his seat.
We at least have some justification in wondering how strongly the Dems support Franken, by virtue of their near-total silence on the issue and complete lack of financial, political or moral support for him.
If you can'r explain this lack of support, why don't you just shut the fuck up about the issue, instead of condescending towards people who generally share your political outlook yet have concerns about the level of Dems' support for Franken?
February 25, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again you demonstrate why your picture appears next to the word "moron" in the dictionary.
I NEVER said that the Democrats welcomed Franken. I don't know if they welcome him or not. Just like you don't know that they're trying to keep him out of the senate. You just make up stuff and then post it as fact.
I know you're embarrassed because you were outed as a clueless blowhard. You can remedy that by not being a clueless blowhard in the future. OK?
February 25, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink