The Hill: GOPers Blaming Coleman (And Pawlenty) For Botching Media Angle On Recount
The Hill reports that a lot of Republicans are realizing the same thing many of us did a while ago -- or perhaps they realized it, too, and are only now just saying it: That Norm Coleman's recount operation was a mess.
"The buzz in GOP circles is that if Sen. Coleman's team and party strategists were to have launched a full-blown PR campaign as the recount was unfolding, they would have had a better environment prior to the legal proceedings," a Republican operative said, adding that "They allowed the legal proceedings to define the media environment."
A GOP strategist said: "A lot of noise has to be made immediately, and it has to be sustained," adding, "Where the heck has [Pawlenty] been?"
For the record: Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) briefly did wade into the spin game, but quickly faded into the background. At this point, he's hedging on whether he'd grant an election certificate should the state Supreme Court rule for Franken.
The comparison has been made here to what happened in Florida in 2000. The Bush people were out there quickly with a consistent message, and rode out the crisis. This time, though, it was the Franken campaign that was clearly more prepared and more disciplined -- indeed, they had begun working on a contingency plan for a recount months in advance -- while the Coleman campaign relied on local lawyers and didn't seem to exhibit a clear idea of how to manage the situation.
On the other hand, is this really a legitimate beef with Coleman, that he failed to manage the media operation, or just a bunch of folks covering their posteriors? The fact is, practically zero media outlets took the idea of a Franken win seriously until late December, and Coleman and the GOP have had a pretty easy ride in the press as they've kept this seat vacant for months on end. Just imagine what the push from Fox News would have been, if it had been Franken down in the vote count and launching this lawsuit.
To a certain degree, this is all a tautology: The campaign that won was a well-run campaign, and the campaign that lost was badly-managed.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Coleman would have been smarter to talk up the military absentee vote. There were apparently a pretty large number of overseas ballots which did not arrive in time to be counted.
Think about it - "I'm fighting for the rights of thousands of our men and women serving their country, who were denied their right to vote."
Sure, MN law is pretty clear that the ballots have to arrive by election day. But it's a better PR angle than the one he took, and they're more likely to have gone his way.
Fortunately, Coleman and his attorneys aren't the brightest bulbs around.
April 15, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be interesting to know why some overseas/military ballots didn't arrive on time. One of my children serves with the State Dept. at a post a zillion miles from nowhere and he had no trouble voting. He said all they had to do was fill out their ballots and hand them off to FedEx-this would be all the State Dept. people plus the marine guard assigned there, fewer than 20 people. He voted a couple of weeks before election day. Evidently FedEx volunteered to make sure all completed ballots got to their appropriate destinations promptly. Maybe the military ballots in question just weren't handed in with time left to get them to MN? Short of living in fox hole and never coming into base, and not having a supply line, I'm guessing some military personnel just didn't fill out their ballots on time.
April 15, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a dedicated slacker, I object to any suggestion that procrastination should disenfranchise a voter. =)
On a more serious note, I do think that military and other overseas US personnel ought to be able to wait until the last minute and still have their votes counted. I don't think that service to our country should deprive voters of the ability to change their minds in the waning moments of an election.
April 15, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being able to get absentee ballots counted past the deadline has been a common method of stuffing the ballot box, particularly in close elections, including Bush v. Gore in 2000, where ballots allegedly from Florida servicemen were "found" well after Election Day, without postmarks that might have provided some kind of proof of when they were mailed in. The Gore campaign correctly said, "no effin' way," while the right-wing shitstorm increased in intensity claiming that VP Gore wanted to disenfranchise the troops.
Deadlines are deadlines, and that business about postmarks was pure malarkey. APOs have postmarks just like every other branch of the Postal Service.
April 15, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've no objection to insisting on proof that the absentee ballots were mailed by election day. I just think that all absentee ballots from overseas US personnel should be counted so Lin as they are mailed no later than election day.
April 15, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical GOOPer whiny excuse: We didn't {spin,brand,promote,hype} the issue correctly.
They still believe in the power of up-is-down-ism to mesmerize the sheep, provided, of course, it's competently done. Substance is never a consideration, just perception. And, of course, perceptions can be managed, so why worry about substance?
And, of course, house prices never go down, so, What? Me Worry???
April 15, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you're so right. Their one regret is that the didn't caterwaul how *unAmerican* it was that the guy who got more votes had *stolen* the election from the one who came in second.
Up-is-down seemed to be working quite well for the Bush people for a while. Breast-beating support for the war in Timbuktu, oh I mean Iraq, being an example. And they ever were closing the noose around Bin Laden long after the troops had left Bora Bora. But now, somehow and for some reason, up-is-down seems very 2003.
April 15, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the sad thing is, they are right. Spin and BS do trump reality in american politics. And the media is more than happy to break for the GOP spin machine when they crank it up.
So they are right: if Coleman had run a competent bullshit campaign the MSM would have been there for him to spout any crap he put out as if it were the holy gospel. They always do.
April 15, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a cool blurb about 'spin busting':
http://www.thenewiq.com/integritywatch-blog/three-secrets-becoming-spin-buster
April 15, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
God forbid the media would cover the news rather than be used by the rightwingers to spin a lie.
April 15, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, God forbid. TPM has probably ranks amongst the best coverage of this one too.
April 15, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry about the grammar.
April 15, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Shorter GOP complaint: "Damnit! We let the truth drive the story."
April 15, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should be praising the GOP for their noble attempt to get a fair election. And encourage them that their methods were the best possible.
After all, there'll be other recounts in the future.
April 15, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weirdly, I kind of like this. Praise for actually trying to play by the rules? Problem is, they tried everything in their power in the legal battle to bend the rules, even those set by their earlier selves...
April 15, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick, hire Burson-Marsteller!
April 15, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So after all the borderline legal malpractice the Coleman legal team has committed over the last six months, their conclusion is that they failed because they didn't put enough emphasis on PR over legal strategy? Fascinating.
Equally fascinating is the idea that the ballots would have turned out differently if only they'd had a different messaging strategy one month after the election.
April 15, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tell is in the Rethug operative's line that ""They allowed the legal proceedings to define the media environment."
In other words, they let the media report accurately what was happening in real time, rather than obscure reality with GOP spin.
Anyone truly following this case closely knows that Coleman wasn't going to win this thing with better lawyers or better spin. It was simply that more people voted for Franken than for Coleman, and Minnesota's trasnparent and exemplary recount and election contest bore that out.
April 15, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hardly accurate to say that the GOP and it's stooges didn't try to spin this. The WSJ Op Page certainly made a valiant effort with it's: "ACORN IS STEALING THE ELECTION!!!?!!11" editorials. The problem was that no one in the main stream bought their spin. I think the GOP is discovering that even the stubbornly gullible American public has a saturation level for histrionics and outright lies.
April 15, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been plenty of wingnut stooges parroting "ACORN!" and "election theft" on the Strib's comment pages as well. Far too many, really. The facts are clearly not running in their favor, so amping up the volume is their last recourse.
April 15, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter GOP: "Those idiots! They allowed the recount and legal proceedings to go on unhindered. They blew their chance to stage faux riots by Republican staffers, pave the local print media with astroturf LTEs, and assault the Franken team with a constant chorus of schoolyard taunts. What were they thinking?!!!
As one of the judges said to Team Coleman early on, this isn't Florida. A Brooks Brothers riot never would have made it past the metal detectors.
April 15, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a coincidence. I posted the previous comment and then looked at the top of the comment list. There's an ad for Brooks Brothers there.
April 15, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the sweet, sweet sound of Republican recrimination over losing yet another battle with reality is like dessert after lunch. Better, really, because it's not fattening.
April 15, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
If coleman goes on to the Federal courts, Franken should go on the offensive and sue to be seated. Any chance that the Dems can pick up a governorship in MN because of this issue?
PS - Moveon is collecting money for Franken's court coffers if you're interested.
April 15, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's looking better every day. The next move is Timmy's. He'd better be careful.
April 15, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The to-be-expected GOP sighing about spin misses the real meat of the article:
April 15, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blah. Blah. Blah. Complaining about the quality of spin on this case is tantamount to complaining about the re-upholstering of the Titanic's deck chairs. Doesn't matter whether you were favor of striped or floral. Coleman failed to get the greater number of votes during the election and failed to wage a competent legal battle to get more votes counted, and instead lost ground. The case went on too long, with too much transparency to convince anyone other than those already convinced that Coleman was the rightful winner. Most didn't follow the case, don't care about the details, and don't follow the spin. All they know is that Coleman lost, Coleman spent months fighting, and still lost, and is now continuing to fight.
April 15, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hill is wrong. Minnesota has a history of clean elections and Minnesotans start with the assumption that the election is fair. Neither side ever had any real evidence that the election was not fair. Minnesotans of both parties always saw this for what it was, a very close election. Norm's problem now is that it's clear that he's lost and he won't concede. He looks like the poor sport that he is.
April 15, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the problems with the suggestion that Pawlenty and Coleman botched the recount:
1.) This ain't Florida. Minnesota has a fairly objective recount process. Two contest trial judges, for example, were Republicans. They just aren't GOP operatives anymore.
2.) Pawlenty is likely in the running for a third term. He knows his state voted overwhelmingly for Obama, so for Pawlenty to win, he has to be sure he doesn't appear to have influenced the outcome of the contest trial.
3.) Coleman erred on election night, noting that Franken should surrender because his margin of victory was so small. Days later, of course, he had a miniscule margin and before the recount trial started, Franken was determined the winner. So, then it was Coleman having to backtrack.
4.) For the lawyers out there, aren't there collateral estoppel/res judicata issues associated with a federal lawsuit? Didn't Coleman have a duty to raise the federal constitituional questions in the recount trial? I don't believe that he raised these issues, so marching into federal court may not be legally permissible. It's been awhile since my bar exam, but the argument that he had to raise the federal constitutional questions in the recount trial seems at least plausible to me. The possible claim arose from the same set of facts.
April 16, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink