Memo to Sen. Coleman: You Can’t Have It Both Ways
Posted by Andy on June 26th, 2007
That fundraising email from Sen. Coleman yesterday got under my skin. I replied with the following to his campaign.
With all due respect Senator,
But will you oppose the Amnesty bill currently before the US Senate?
You can’t say you oppose the bill here in campaign emails, but vote FOR it in the US Senate. No matter how many good amendments the bill gets, it is still an Amnesty bill. Will you vote against the Bill’s final passage if it still contains the current provisions to grant or allow citizenship to people who entered this country illegally?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to publicly oppose this bill. Conservatives and Republicans will get behind you, and have your back against Liberals when there are confident you stand with us, not between us and them.
(While I have your attention)
And another thing, I strongly disapprove of your support for higher CAFE standards. I drive a truck that would be impossible to have under your plans, and there is no alternative for guys and people like me. We need trucks and SUVs that get “bad” mileage so we can tow boats, trailers, equipment, for play AND WORK.
Don’t you dare forget that it is plumbers who keep the s@*t from getting too deep. This bill you are supporting, (if your official website is accurate) would put and end to the American way of life, and cripple small business. And we’d be up to our eyeballs in you know what.
You can’t haul a roto rooter in the back of a Prius. And a truck that gets 35 MPG can’t haul a damn thing.
Plus “your” Ethanol will make getting that 35MPG nearly impossible. Ethanol is about 30% less efficient. So as YOU ramp up the percentage for Ethanol, you lower MPG. Don’t believe me? Go sit in a brand new Chevy and look at the big label that they have hanging from the glove box. The more Ethanol, the lower the MPG!
(Example)http://www.residualforces.com/2006/07/08/alternatively-bad-for-the-environement/
YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Sincerely,
Andy Aplikowski
(address)
Blaine, MN
(#)
andy@residualforces.comAlso a blogger at www.residualforces.com where I am a conservative activist first!
Now for more explanation.
I do mean this with respect.
I am rapidly becoming one of those conservatives who resides in the GOP who is questioning the party’s direction. What if Coleman has a voting record closer to Klobuchar’s than our party platform? What will the party, or more importantly, the rank and file members do? (Will the leadership retaliate or rather, ignore our desires again?)
I happen to know for a fact that the powerbrokers surrounding Chairman Carey during his reelection are focussed almost exclusively on reelecting Coleman. I have a feeling they’re going to do and spend anything in order to help him. But what if Coleman won’t help himself?
I know this will upset many people, and disappoint others, well, the feeling is mutual.
My advice to the Senator’s staff and his campaign, get him the hell out of Washington. Get him back home and get him out with us, his real base of support. A lot of it is just Washington, it does it to everyone. He has got to get grounded with us again, or I am sorry to say, we may not be there for him next year.
I guess to be blunt, I am not sure I am willing to dump all our eggs in this basket if this is what we get.
I would much rather focus on the MN House and take the gavel back here at home. If Carey and the MNGOP lose sight of those races and become singularly focused on Coleman, we’re in trouble. What’s worse, like Pawlenty did, if Coleman defines the ticket (or rather the meaning of conservatism) the volunteer discontent will be worse than 2006. We’re only a handful of votes from a veto override right now, we CAN’T afford to lose any more seats, and we should be winning them back. Don’t forget, the coat tails go both ways. Strong showings in the MN House races WILL help Coleman.
I more than almost anyone want to see a Republican have this US Senate seat. I would be absolutely thrilled to have Coleman remain our senior Senator. BUT, if I do not feel he stands for my core principles, quite frankly, it is pretty darn tough to see myself get excited about making that happen. I have to be true to my word, and I will not be hauling any of the Senator’s lawnsigns.
He’s not the worst or as bad as some say, but you have to be honest that he is not the perfect conservative candidate. He gets a lot of issues right, but he lets us (me) down on many as well. It just so happens that they happen to be very very important ones for me and many like me at this time.
To sum up:
Senator Coleman, you can’t afford to vote for the Amnesty bill. And you had better not vote for cloture. Doing so may be the final straw for your connection with the conservative base of the Republican Party of Minnesota.
June 26th, 2007 at 9:29 am
The way to get rid of RINOs (not specifically Sen. Coleman, but acknowledging that he has at least a small horn on his nose) is to challenge them for the endorsement and in the primary. After that, you have to vote for the Republican or you’re just, well, working against your own best interests. So, does this mean you’ll be supporting Joe Repya in his bid to challenge Norm?
June 26th, 2007 at 10:13 am
One of Coleman’s aides was just on Laura Ingraham stating that Norm plans to vote YES on cloture.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
What if Coleman has a voting record closer to Klobuchar’s than our party platform?
Does the fact that Minnesotans seem to want Senators more like Klobuchar then our party platform mean anything to you? One thing you’ve got to admit is that Mark Kennedy was closer to the GOP platform then Klobuchar and Minnesotans resoundedly rejected him. So what’s Senator Coleman to do? This is one of the easiest decisions in politics there is.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Coleman voted YES on cloture. What did we expect from a former Democrat.
June 26th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I’d rather have a former Democrat then a current Democrat but I’ll leave the logistics of that up to the reader
June 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I’ve heard representatives from or callers into several Senator’s offices say the Senator plans to vote “Yes” to bring the bill up and tag on some amendments, but if the bill doesn’t fundamentally toughen up they will vote NO on final cloture. (Including Coleman’s office).
That to me seems like a dangerous game of chicken that could have been avoided all together.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I don’t think you mean final cloture, but the final vote on the actual bill. This logic that we should require a supermajority to pass a bill is the same logic that the moveon morons used to try to stop the confirmations of Roberts and Alito. We saw the rewards of those cloture votes yesterday.
Of course, now playing hardball with the Senate is the name of the game. I just don’t think that you’ll stop a cloture vote on this anymore then the clutore vote was stopped on the confirmations. That’s what happens when conservatives let so many Republicans lose their seats, I guess. But what’s done is done, so it seems like the best strategy is to get some conservative amendments attached to the bill. Oh. That’s what the Republicans are doing. Go figure.
Yes, it could have been avoided had conservatives elected more Republicans and had their leadership in control. But giving it up to Democrats, and you get this. Surprised? Let’s let Senator Coleman lose his seat along with another bunch of Republican senators and then see what kind of dangerous game of chicken they are forced to play then.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Republicans have enough votes to easily stop cloture, and thus this disastrous legislation, but not enough votes to stop it if it comes to a vote. They have a choice to exercise their power or lose their seats, IMHO. Just that simple.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=1345
Doesn’t sound to me like Coleman is opposed to AMnesty. He’ll vote for the final cloture if the border security and employer punishment is changed.
But he has yet to definitively say he opposes Amnesty.
I have a hell of a big problem with that.
Add to that the other issues I have a hell of a big problem with, and i have myself a predicament.
Oh and as for Minnesotans rejecting our platform….. when in the hell was the last time someone ran on our platform?
You find me a series of Republicans who ran as unabashed conservatives who got their butts kicked, and I’ll believe we need to be sniveling moderates. Until then I will expect results.
If we don’t have standards for our representatives, what is the point.
If we the people cannot rely on our representatives, we have lost the Republic. It was up to keep. If Amnesty is passed and those who allowed it to happen receive their own clemency from their base, all bets are off.
June 26th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
They have a choice to exercise their power or lose their seats, IMHO. Just that simple.
That’s the same choice that the Democrats had last year with the confirmation vote and look where it got them. Obviously, not exercising their power did not destroy their chances last November. I’m going to take a wild stab and say that the Republicans aren’t going to vote against cloture.
Brent
June 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
You find me a series of Republicans who ran as unabashed conservatives who got their butts kicked, and I’ll believe we need to be sniveling moderates.
What does it say about our platform when no conservatives are compelled to run for office in moderate or liberal districts? Sure, it would be easy to be a party that only existed in true conservative districts, but how many of those do we have in MN? If we want to be a serious party in MN, our platform needs to be broad enough to let conservatives run in conservative districts, moderates run in moderate districts, and even those who appeal to liberals in liberal districts. Then we’ll have a platform that means something in MN.
Brent
June 26th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Bmetzler,
It sounded like the plan was that if the amendments desired weren’t put into the Coleman and a few others that let the bill get on the floor wouldn’t support cloture to end debate and bring it to the final vote. At least that’s how I took it.
Once they opened the door it’s going to be much harder to close.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The problem is it sounds like those amendments will be offered….but not voted on until AFTER the final cloture vote.
So many Senators will be able to see their favorite pet amendments on the books, but they won’t know the outcome until after the final cloture.
Which is partly why that first cloture vote was so critical.
At least that is my understanding of this clay pigeon amendment and how it works….then again it’s never been used like this before so it’s hard to say for certain that at least some of the amendments won’t be voted on first.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Oh and yes as a GOP delegate I intend to support anyone to the right of Hillary in the primary against Coleman. “Anyone but Coleman” is my motto at this point.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Oh and yes as a GOP delegate I intend to support anyone to the right of Hillary in the primary against Coleman. “Anyone but Coleman” is my motto at this point.
You could get some pretty liberal candidates that are to the right of Hillary. I’ll stick with Senator Coleman. Not only is he to the right of Hillary, but he’s actually been representing us already. Tried and True, I say.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“Doesn’t sound to me like Coleman is opposed to AMnesty. He’ll vote for the final cloture if the border security and employer punishment is changed. ”
Actually, if the letter I got from the Senator (in regards to S1348) is any indication…
“I strongly oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants. Any legalized status for people already here must not be a blank check that will encourage more people to enter this country illegally. In order to be here, I believe that immigrants must undergo background checks, demonstrate proof of employment, possess English proficiency and an understanding of civics, and pay a monetary penalty if they entered illegally. ”
We’ll be watching Senator…..watching and writing and calling!
LL
June 26th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
He already voted for cloture on a bill that provides amnesty, when cloture was the best chance to defeat it. Even Coleman’s precious sanctuary cities amendment doesn’t change that. He has ALREADY gone against his own word…if his word is to be trusted.
Bmetzler, when did he start representing us?? From the sounds of it 95% of the calls to his office have been against this bill, yet he just voted for it. Obviously your idea of representation greatly differs from mine.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
[...] think Senator Coleman deserves to be taken at his word here, and we conservatives should hold our fire and see what happens to the [...]
June 27th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Coleman right now has a 68% conservative record. Not the worst in the Senate, not even among Republicans, but it is certainly short of the “80% agreement” that Ronald Reagan suggested as a standard. Remember that at the State Convention, it took a 70% vote to change the platform? If his record were a platform plank, it couldn’t win approval. He needs to step up.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I hate giving up a GOP seat because of a 68% record to a Democrat who will probably have a 38% record if we are lucky just because the GOP candidate is 2%, or 12% short of the “threshold” we feel a GOP candidate should have.
Also the fact that 1 seat last election would have changed the balance of power in the Senate, and may have the same significance in 2008.