Will Coleman Give Up The Fight In Minnesota?
Roll Call reports that we may now be entering a truly crucial phase in the seemingly never-ending saga of the 2008 Minnesota Senate election -- indeed, it might actually be ending fairly soon, if Norm Coleman doesn't have the heart to keep going.
On the one hand, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the NRSC chairman who has said the race could take "years" to resolve, says the party would continue to keep on supporting Norm -- and would fight any effort to seat Franken even if the Minnesota Supreme Court orders his certification. "I personally think it'd be a mistake to seat anybody while the appeals are pending," said Cornyn.
However, Roll Call says: "Sources close to Coleman say the former Senator would likely give up his legal battle and accept defeat if the Minnesota Supreme Court decides in Franken's favor. That's because Coleman anticipates that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) would ultimately sign Franken's certification papers." The issue here is that Coleman might not have the energy to keep fighting this in federal court -- as it is, he's already put his political reputation on the line with the state court battle.
A ruling from the state Supremes is expected to happen some time in the next few weeks, and is universally expected to be a strong decision in favor of Al Franken.
Josh
Matt
Eric
I'm sure that if Coleman were the Democratic candidate, the GOP would've been calling for him to give up the fight months ago.
The GOP! Hypocrisy in Action!
June 4, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember this election in November where the Democrat named Al was losing to a guy named Norm and Norm called on him to concede- Politico, 11/5/08:
"Coleman went on to praise the state for its reputation of running clean elections. He also noted Franken's right to seek a recount, but added that "I would step back" if he were similarly trailing."
It was like bizarro world.
June 4, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
All together, everyone! IOKIYAR
Charges of hypocrisy aside, and everyone is vulnerable to those now and again, the real problem here for Norm is that this fight long ago stopped being about the sanctity of the vote, or even an outside shot of keeping his senate career alive. That's when this thing became a slow-motion comedy/freakshow. If Norm is tired of it, well, good for him. I'll believe it when I see it.
June 4, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd guess that Norm can only continue the (losing) battle if he believes that his high-profile political career is over. If it's not, then he has other decisions to make (Run for governor?) and it is already past time to make them.
It seems likely to me that both the personal and professional cost of this battle is getting rather high, while the potential payoff is dwindling. Cornyn and others will happily throw him under the bus for their own benefit.
June 4, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's in this for the long haul. If he ditches before Maximum Supreme Leader Rush gives him permission to, he can kiss goodbye his hopes of cashing in on the wingnut welfare gravy train. No lucrative Regnery book contract (and artificially pumped up sales), no well-paid speaking engagements in front of right wing supper clubs, no cushy position at the head of a K Street lobbyist or seat on the board of a Fortune 500 company. He's not going to jeopardize that.
What, you thought it was about protecting the franchise of every single Minnesota voter?
June 5, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know TPM is looking at this all half-glass-empty (see yesterday re: Pawlenty).
But I think you need to see the potential other breakdown of this. Imagine:
Pawlenty, who wants to run for President in 2012, probably doesn't want to be in the position of having to play coy with a certificate signing on the basis of a questionable federal lawsuit, and probably would like to avoid the whole thing altogether.
Norm, who may be corrupt and worthy of scorn and derision, is not a stupid man. can we all agree that Norm Coleman is probably not cut from the same Blagojevich cloth that let's him genuinely and sincerely believe he has a shot at winning? Of course not. Coleman: bad, but not stupid. So he pushes forward on a federal lawsuit to get what, exactly? Nothing. Best to let this one go, claim that he thinks it was a travesty, but proclaim that he will not press his bona fide case forward in the federal courts for the good of the people of Minnesota etc. etc. Norm has no shot of coming back politically if he keeps pissing against the wind, but he may have a chance to retire to San Clemente for a spell and come back and run for Governor if he lets this one go.
So: Pawlenty has every reason to want Norm to stop now, and Norm may recognize that his trip to the wilderness need not be so long if he stops now.
Two politicians with not incompatible goals. A situation ripe for certain soft deals to be made. Norm knocks it off, and maybe Pawlenty rewards Norm by either supporting him for Governor or by keeping his support for some other candidate at bay.
This is not inconceivable and, I would argue, more beneficial to both than a stupid tilt at yet another windmill that benefits no one.
June 4, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was a really thoughtful and cogent analysis.
June 4, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was excellent. Now, let's see if Norm is thoughtful, rational, still able to reason. The jury is still out on that one.
June 4, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
June 4, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It really was thoughtful and cogent. I just hadn't read Lars' post before I posted mine. I think were are thinking similarly.
The thing is, conservatives have NOT thought this way frequently, and have ended up winning the election by simply refusing to give up and wearing everyone down. So they seem to have learned they should always act that way. The result is that rational behavior self-interested behavior is not now what we expect from conservatives. Instead, we now expect them to hang in to the bitter end of even apparently hopeless causes just to disrupt the normal functioning of the system and make the existing political system itself look bad. Norm so far has not disappointed us by acting rationally in his own self-interest.
The surprise is the report that Norm may be practicing rational thought.
June 4, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like how you think, sir!
June 4, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just BTW, I was interpreted by some as glass half-empty yesterday. Main thing I was saying is Pawlenty would love it if court would say he has to sign. That way, out of his hands (probably, but even a court wouldn't satisfy every seething wingnut who wanted to fight right into the gates fo hell).
Even better choreography for Pawlenty is if Norm Withdraws. Then Pawlenty really can't be faulted.
BTW Lars don't get a big head with them guys complimenting you like that, okay? ;)
June 4, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty good analysis. My only issue with it is that, if Coleman drags this out as far as he possibly can, he's a hero and/or martyr with the party's base and will have his choice of plum jobs with GOP lobbying and political action groups. He may find that more appealing than preserving a very long-shot bid at the governorship.
June 4, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just about to post the same point when I decided, better read the comments first. "That's because Coleman anticipates that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) would ultimately sign Franken's certification papers." Or in other words, as I was going to say, Pawlenty has told Coleman "please don't put me in that position, I wanna run for Prez and I don't want either decision in my record."
June 4, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, speaking of running clocks, what's the status of the investigation into Norm's ties to his pal Nasser Kazeminy? It would be really bad form to have this thing still going contemporaneous with, say, a grand jury proceeding.
June 4, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://crooksandliars.com/
Mitchell: I know you've said you'll abide by the Supreme Court decision on the Franken Coleman race, do you expect that that will by all accounts lead to Al Franken being the next Senator from Minnesota? Isn't it time to get this resolved?
Pawlenty: Yea, we're anxious to get it resolved but I can't sign the certificate until the State court process is complete, we don't know who the winner is, but as soon as that process is complete and they give direction as to signing the certificate, I'm going to sign it, there's not going to be any undue delay or tactics like that so we'll follow the direction of the court.
June 4, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There you have it, the law is clear. When this is finished in the state courts, it is over and the election certificate issues. End of story. People keep bringing up this bizarre theory that Pawlenty has some kind of power as governor to refuse something like this. In fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue when it wrote, in its March 6, 2009 Order:
In my view, this whole story is overblown. Governors do not have the ability to unilaterally refuse to acknowledge the results of an election. The fact that people would even suggest that Pawlenty could so openly defy the law and democracy itself is absurd. However, it does seem as if in the post-Bush era, we are willing to accept that almost anything can happen, I guess.
June 4, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, in the March order (in Franken v. Pawlenty et al.) the Minnesota Supreme Court tipped its hand that it viewed the "judicial determination" that ends an election contest as the state court proceedings -- the contest is, after all, a creature of state law. Better yet, the brief filed on behalf of Pawlenty and SOS Richey (by MN AG Lori Swanson)argued that a "final state determination" is the last prerequisite to issuing a certificate of election.
June 4, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't read this the same way you do, and I have the same reaction to the LA Times clip that Rich cites below. It seems to me the court is merely saying that the prohibition on issuing a certificate until the state proceedings are concluded applies to US Senate elections; it is not saying that a certificate must issue when the state proceedings are concluded.
Similarly, while Pawlenty may "follow the Supreme Court's direction on whether to issue an election certificate", what if the court does not direct him one way or the other?
Lots of wiggle room here, seems to me.
June 4, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
For certain your comments are based on very sound reasoning. But alas, my party has stopped thinking soundly of late. Amazing that any Republican Senator would make a comment that clearly overrides a state functions since I always heard them expounding on State's Rights in precinct meetings. The Republican Party has lost it's soul apparently, and many of us are forced to leave such a wicked mess. Sad but true.
June 7, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's clear that Pawlenty will do the right thing and abide by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
However, I'd be surprised if the national GOP leadership would allow MN to have the last word. The SCOTUS is even more stacked in the GOP's favor than it was when it overruled the FL Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore -- thus establishing the precedent that "equal protection" can only be served by handing victory to the Republican candidate, regardless of whether he won the most votes.
It ain't over till the fat, cigar-smoking, Italian hand-gesturing lady sings.
June 4, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You point to the major GOP problem with Sotomayor as a candidate for the highest court in this land.
There is no evidence she realizes that the most noble calling of the SCOTUS is to serve as a protection racket for Republicans.
That mission is never more important then when Republicans face the loss of an election by the counting of votes, and was narrowly avoided in the case Gore vs. Bush.
June 4, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ezra Klein linked to this note in the LA Times yesterday:
June 4, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
From now on, reporters are going to ask Norm in every future election, "Mr. Coleman, if you lose this election this time do you plan to allow your opponent to serve their term in office?"
June 4, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman will not put Pawlenty in that position. He owes Tim a big one.
In 2002, Pawlenty was about to announce his exploratory committee for a Senate run when he received a phone call from a Mr. Dick Cheney. Cheney said the GOP would be supporting Coleman, and asked Tim to back off. Pawlenty obliged, and set his sights on the governorship.
June 5, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink