Norm . . . Norm. Do You Really Want to Go There?
By Brian Lambert
Apparently cartoonist Steve Sack is the only one in the Strib's
Op-Ed department capable of weighing, condensing, and expressing the
mood of the public in the matter of Norm Coleman v. Logic and Common
Sense. Coleman made The Grand Tour of editorial boards last week,
hoping, I guess, that his charm would do what no amount of legal talent
has so far accomplished. (Or maybe I should say "lack of legal talent,"
based on the way I hear local law birds bashing Team Coleman's hapless
court presentations to date).
Although I've been waiting weeks for the Strib to offer a sophisticated analysis of what has really been going on with Coleman's not-so excellent legal adventure, it gave something beyond a mincing reiteration that he has every right to exhaust every avenue at his disposal. The Sunday after Coleman's appearance in the paper's toothless kitty den seemed like an appropriate moment for its wise men and women to sum up the long, tedious, and, frankly, ridiculous episode.
But no. Instead of reasserting itself as a nexus of critical thinking on matters of civic significance, the paper punted . . . again . . . offering, instead of a clear statement of its best thinking on the legal wrangle, a collection of condensed excerpts of its conversation with Coleman . . . without any further comment.
As someone who admired tremendously the way former editorial writer Jim Boyd put the paper well out ahead of so many other papers in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, I can only shake my head at the . . . What's the word I'm looking for? . . . oh yeah . . . wimpiness . . . of this exercise in groupthink.
Steve Sack at least managed another cartoon on the debacle. But for me at least, Sack's work (I'm not going to call it "courageous" because by any poll, anecdotal or scientific. Sack is comfortably swimming with the majority of the citizenry on this one.) tends to draw attention to the edit board's flagrant shirking of basic daily newspaper responsibilities. (Happily for Avista Capital Partners, whose hand skeptics, like me, see in this unwillingness to rule against—or fully in favor of—the guy they endorsed, there is no pesky Star Tribune polling operation left to cook up poll numbers of its own with which to further embarrass the editorial board).
Newspapers aren't dying by the hands of craigslist alone. They are also dying because they embrace safety and institutional comfort more than character-asserting exercises like saying what needs to be said and the hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.
So while we wait to see if the Strib's opinion section ever finds those gonads they packed away . . . someplace . . . we do have the picture of quintessential Norm on tape diving into the shallow end of the pool and, again, accusing reporters Paul McEnroe and Tony Kennedy of "inserting themselves in a Democrat campaign commercial" four days before last November's election.
What are you thinking here, Norm? (And I'm not talking about the hackneyed George W. "Democrat" bit.) This ain't the Blue Earth Kiwanis Club, some of whom might think you're on to something. You're talking to a crowd that knows damned well that you aggressively avoided talking to the two reporters—pretty much right up to the moment you accused Al Franken of dropping this whole squirrely Kazeminy-Texas-insurance-$75k-to Laurie-as-an-elaborate-eleventh-hour IED.
So why go there? To deflect from the patty-cake interrogation you were getting over "whether" you're playing a silly, cynical delaying game with the recount? Believe me, the way the Strib editorial board has been treating you, all you really had to do was flash those re-engineered choppers, compliment them on their terrific coverage of . . . oh, I don't know . . . the Twins opener, its feature on hot bars for girls getting naughty, pick anything . . . and it would have folded . . . I mean if it wasn't already folded and placed away in a drawer with little scented cedar balls.
(The interaction in the tape between Norm and reporter Kevin Duchschere—offscreen—is classic Norm for anyone who hasn't seen him off balance and trying to get back on the offensive.)
The "inserting themselves" accusation is beyond pathetic and only serves to reinvigorate the two reporters to deliver the full package on Nasser . . . and whoever else has been extraordinarily generous to the former Senator. The editorial board may never loosen the Chris Harte-Avista choke collar that's turning their faces purple, but for any reporter with a pulse, Norm Coleman churning up that "inserting" claptrap is the equivalent of being taunted with "bring it on."
Although I've been waiting weeks for the Strib to offer a sophisticated analysis of what has really been going on with Coleman's not-so excellent legal adventure, it gave something beyond a mincing reiteration that he has every right to exhaust every avenue at his disposal. The Sunday after Coleman's appearance in the paper's toothless kitty den seemed like an appropriate moment for its wise men and women to sum up the long, tedious, and, frankly, ridiculous episode.
But no. Instead of reasserting itself as a nexus of critical thinking on matters of civic significance, the paper punted . . . again . . . offering, instead of a clear statement of its best thinking on the legal wrangle, a collection of condensed excerpts of its conversation with Coleman . . . without any further comment.
As someone who admired tremendously the way former editorial writer Jim Boyd put the paper well out ahead of so many other papers in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, I can only shake my head at the . . . What's the word I'm looking for? . . . oh yeah . . . wimpiness . . . of this exercise in groupthink.
Steve Sack at least managed another cartoon on the debacle. But for me at least, Sack's work (I'm not going to call it "courageous" because by any poll, anecdotal or scientific. Sack is comfortably swimming with the majority of the citizenry on this one.) tends to draw attention to the edit board's flagrant shirking of basic daily newspaper responsibilities. (Happily for Avista Capital Partners, whose hand skeptics, like me, see in this unwillingness to rule against—or fully in favor of—the guy they endorsed, there is no pesky Star Tribune polling operation left to cook up poll numbers of its own with which to further embarrass the editorial board).
Newspapers aren't dying by the hands of craigslist alone. They are also dying because they embrace safety and institutional comfort more than character-asserting exercises like saying what needs to be said and the hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.
So while we wait to see if the Strib's opinion section ever finds those gonads they packed away . . . someplace . . . we do have the picture of quintessential Norm on tape diving into the shallow end of the pool and, again, accusing reporters Paul McEnroe and Tony Kennedy of "inserting themselves in a Democrat campaign commercial" four days before last November's election.
What are you thinking here, Norm? (And I'm not talking about the hackneyed George W. "Democrat" bit.) This ain't the Blue Earth Kiwanis Club, some of whom might think you're on to something. You're talking to a crowd that knows damned well that you aggressively avoided talking to the two reporters—pretty much right up to the moment you accused Al Franken of dropping this whole squirrely Kazeminy-Texas-insurance-$75k-to Laurie-as-an-elaborate-eleventh-hour IED.
So why go there? To deflect from the patty-cake interrogation you were getting over "whether" you're playing a silly, cynical delaying game with the recount? Believe me, the way the Strib editorial board has been treating you, all you really had to do was flash those re-engineered choppers, compliment them on their terrific coverage of . . . oh, I don't know . . . the Twins opener, its feature on hot bars for girls getting naughty, pick anything . . . and it would have folded . . . I mean if it wasn't already folded and placed away in a drawer with little scented cedar balls.
(The interaction in the tape between Norm and reporter Kevin Duchschere—offscreen—is classic Norm for anyone who hasn't seen him off balance and trying to get back on the offensive.)
The "inserting themselves" accusation is beyond pathetic and only serves to reinvigorate the two reporters to deliver the full package on Nasser . . . and whoever else has been extraordinarily generous to the former Senator. The editorial board may never loosen the Chris Harte-Avista choke collar that's turning their faces purple, but for any reporter with a pulse, Norm Coleman churning up that "inserting" claptrap is the equivalent of being taunted with "bring it on."
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I am waiting for the paper to do a follow up on Al Franken's claims that he made on election night that the reason he came behind was because Somalis were being intimidated not to vote for him.
LAMBERT: Apparently the Somalis rallied.
Posted by: Namzso on April 20, 2009 at 8:35 AM
On the theory that each state is entitled to two U.S. Senators and that Sen. Coleman went off the payroll in early January, why not encourage Gov. Pawlenty to acknowledge a vacancy exists and name a qualified person (Arne Carlson?) to serve as MN's second Senator until the court contests have been completed?
LAMBERT: I hear Dean Barkley is available.
Posted by: Bob Meek on April 20, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Listen pard', you're startin' to sound like a fella' whose had his hands under a bull sputterin' in frustration that he caint' git him so much as a droppa milk outta' the dadblamed critter. Course, in your case, hos', you keep pullin' your milk stool up to a dang gelding.
Like our 401Ks, the Strib's never gonna' be what it was. But you got most of the old beard strokers over there at MinnPost calling Nahm out on his four-corner stall to less than cathartic effect.
Join the rest of us over here on Step 5--acceptance. It's over, as will Nahm's appeals, eventually.
LAMBERT: You may be right. I should just sit back and let Father Time do his work. But I never cease to be amazed when public entities -- a former U.s. Senator and a major daily newspaper -- so badly misread their audience. If the Strib was ever going to hazard a focused thought on the recount it was last Sunday. And as I say, if they want to give a full-throated endorsement of Coleman's quest "to protect the constitutional rights of ... blah, blah, blah" they could do THAT. At least then they'd be ... somewhere ... on a topic of significance to their readers.
Posted by: Jim Leinfelder on April 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Brian. Come on. You know they were inserting themselves into that story. There were cameras there. Reporters are not allowed to go anywhere where there are cameras That's the first thing you learn in journalism school.
I'm kind of surprised the Strib op-ed page thought they had the right to insert themselves into those chairs at that conference room. Come to think of it, that's what is so great about new media. No more tyranny of the inserters. That old guard had their chance, and just couldn't stop their arrogant presumption about inserting themselves into their cars, and into their desk chairs, and into grocery stores on their way home before inserting themselves into their driveways and garages. Information wants to be free from inserting.
But I agree. A simple, "you're kidding, right?" uttered from off camera would have gone a long way.
LAMBERT: Even for Norm, who is expert at defending every 180 he takes on any issue, reactivating the "inserting" charge ... now ... makes no sense at all. Even though the rattler is missing a fang, it could still add to your problems. So don't poke at it.
Posted by: Paul Scott on April 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM
The Strib is a zombie newspaper.God I wish these dinosaurs would die so we can go on to the next era of journalism.
LAMBERT: They do seem to be struggling with the "stress test" don't they?
Posted by: Dan on April 20, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Norm is an easy man to hate - for so many reasons.
But, we're talking about the Body Politic having reason to believe that this is being decided by -gasp - the Rule of Law.
Let the Minnesota Supreme Court dispatch Norn with a reasoned opinion. A bullet-proof one that will make any appeal to the federal courts pointless.
Partisans are caught up in angst. And, I'm sure, some will stay that way no matter the outcome. But there is a benefit to let it play out a few more weeks.
Let's remember, Al supporters, that Obama won this state by double-digit percentages. Al won by a handful of votes. A testiment to his woefulness as a candidate. Any decent DFL candidate would have creamed Norm.
Any taint that it was "stolen" will come to haunt.
So, let a clear opinion by this state's High Court put a finish to it. That actually will help Al in the long run more than a few weeks delay will hurt.
And the lesson for the DFL? Aside from Amy Klobuchar, they have constantly put up lame candidates in the important state-wide races. Maybe that's why we havn't had a DFL governor since Rudy Perpich. That's a damn long time...
LAMBERT: There are a couple who write in here who still can't get over the Franken candidacy, arguing that Ciresi would have been a better choice. For whatever the reason -- Franken was more appealing to the delegate crowd -- he won out. I believe he'll be a better Senator than candidate, and as I've often said, all I want is a reliable progressive vote, and I have no doubts he'll provide that, his mercurial personality withstanding.
Posted by: Paul Gustafson on April 20, 2009 at 12:04 PM
As if the Strib needed another nail for the coffin. I'm not sure how alienating half its readership is going to help them.
I know it's almost unfathomable, but yes there are people walking the streets of Sauk Rapids and Albert Lea that think that the Norm has a valid claim (Democratic districts ripping open bad absentee ballots preventing them from being uncounted = new election).
Turning the Strib into the Village Voice might lock in your subscription, but not sure how that's a good business strategy.
LAMBERT: Look, I may believe Coleman's is a fundamentally cynical strategy, and prefer the Star Tribune to say so, loudly. But as I say, all I really want from an entity that presents itself as having the sophistication to analyze civic issues is a unequivocal statement one way or another. If they want to support Coleman ... do it. SAY they completely agree with his "constitutional" argument and see no reason to suspect that there is anything more going on here than a healthy debate over legitimate issues. THEN ask yourself why they're not saying that.
Posted by: Howard Wolff on April 20, 2009 at 1:04 PM
There's more sense about newspapers' business plans in the strib's comic pages, specifically Stephan Pastis' Pearls before Swine for today (Monday)than in the rest of the paper, or just about anywhere else.
Of all the recent coverage of Coleman the only thing of any interest was the Opinion Exchange on 4/17 wherein Coleman argued that asking him about the two sworn statements by Texas Republicans stating that Kazeminy had ordered $100K put into the Coleman family cookie jar was dirty pool.
I submitted a letter to the strib suggesting that Coleman was more likely to end up sitting in a cell than in the U.S. Senate. I suspect they won't publish it, as only conservatives are allowed to be angry in the letters column.
LAMBERT: If you want to get your letter published, argue indignantly that Coleman has been deprived of due process by "Democrat judges".
Posted by: john sherman on April 20, 2009 at 7:42 PM
All of you would be crying about widows with shaky handwriting and other sorts of problems with disenfranchised absentee voters... if Coleman had a razor thin lead over Franken.
I do think this race has gone on too long but it pains me to see this dumping on Coleman when you wouldn't do the same thing if the results were opposite.
Really, would any of you be clamoring for Franken to quietly step aside when he still had the option of pursuing this with a higher court?
Would it have been possible if the only thing different here were the names for Lambert to write "Al,do you really want to go there?"
You aren't making good, solid observations. You're just taking sides based on a candidate's political party.
LAMBERT: I'm not hiding my preference for Franken, and there's no way to prove that I would take a different view if the tables were reversed. But I strongly suspect that Franken would not enjoy the same support from liberals (here and nationally) than Coleman is getting from conservatives. This means thing just more to Republicans. Their situation is closer to desperate. And in my experience the lefties I know don't have the same, uh, appetite, for a protracted, patently obvious gaming gimmicks. Also, the right-wing echo chamber would have created a howl that would have ginned up public outrage far beyond what Coleman is facing.
Posted by: Robert on April 21, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I'm not all that sure that the Strib should be concerned about bias at this point. Commenting on the process and it's flaws it a perfectly legit story as is asking Coleman to just stop.
My best guess is Coleman keeps pressing on at the RNCs insistence. With the Republicans getting destroyed in the last election, they need every last body they can get.
For someone to leans a bit right, Coleman isn't that exciting of a candidate anyway. He flops around like a fish. Most conservative types are only pushing for Coleman because Franken is the alternative.
So time to end the madness. I'd rather see time spent on creating a better election system that doesn't end up in court like this.
But I agree Brian, it's pretty sad when the paper cartoonist has the most interesting commentary. Sacks is brilliant.
LAMBERT: Again, all I'd like to read is the Strib's editorial board's conclusive thinking on this significant matter. Their mousiness with "he has every right" is kind of beside the point.
Posted by: Dave on April 21, 2009 at 12:34 PM
First and foremost, I actually enjoy reading you. For the most part you can actually argue a point. You accept all comments and fairly answer your critics. In other words, I dont consider you a fascist like many other liberal types. Take Perez Hilton, he asks a question and requests a reason for the answer and then attacks a poor woman for doing exactly what was asked simply because he didnt agree with her answer. See, my point is that I think you actually understand that there are two sides to a story.
Unfortunately, you lack consistency. Where you seem to get confused is with your inability to reach a state of logic or reason regarding anything that deals with the democrats.
I respect your opinion that Norm is wasting his time. And, a lot of your points are definitely valid. However, anyone (including you) that complains that what Norm is doing is wrong is a huge hypocrite. It seems liberals are great at being hypocrites. Some liberals are attacking Norm's character and pretending that it actually matters to them. These same clowns have no problem willingly promoting Al and his equally questionable character. Other liberals are pretending that if put in the same exact situation as Norm wouldn’t do exactly what Norm is doing. Yet others that are now complaining would be screaming for Al to do the same thing Norm is currently doing. Norm wants the same thing Al wants – to win. Stop insulting those of us with a brain. If Norm would have won the last ruling it would be Al filing with the State Supreme court and you praising his move. Actually, knowing both men, Al wouldn’t have handled himself nearly as classy as Norm did. Anyone paying attention knew this was going to the Supreme Court. Now you are acting surprised it is doing just that. This is not a republican reaction. This is the action of a competitor. Do not pretend that the democrats wouldn’t act like this. Have you forgotten just how hard it was for Hillary to quit? It was only 6 months ago that Obama and Clinton (mostly Clinton) were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at each other trying to win.
I get that you hate the republicans. Believe me, there are more than enough reasons to hate them. However, it seems to me that you have somehow come to the conclusion that the Dems in charge are actually more interested in their Ideals and the good of the country. Reality has proven they are in it for the same reason as the republicans – they want to win.
LAMBERT: Hmm, so I'm not as bad as Perez Hilton. I'm feeling a whole lot better. I answered most of the body of your complaint in a previous comment just above this one. But quickly ... I support Franken on policy. Period. And my central complaint -- media-wise -- is a prominent daily news source, albeit one hanging by its fingernails -- should have gathered its thoughts on the matter of Norm Coleman's fundamental strategy here and said something definitive about it. If the Strib -- which endorsed Coleman -- believes his actions are entirely noble and constitutionally-drivem as he says,. come out and say so. Put it on the record. In other words, man up.
Posted by: Felix Garcia on April 21, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Felix, I have your back.
BL: What say you about Miss California?
LAMBERT: Have you called her for a date?
Posted by: bertram jr. on April 21, 2009 at 8:03 PM
The Most Popular Mayor ever robbed of his Senate Seat...The Greatest Communist writer since Marx let go. Can't ANYONE see the connection ?!? Chris Coleman is destroying any one well known with the same last name to pave the way for a Gubernatorial run.
LAMBERT: You really should be in network programming.
Posted by: Jed Leyland on April 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM