Senate Republicans slowly abandoning Coleman: part deux

by: Joe Bodell

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 15:50:56 PM CDT

The negative effects of dragging this thing on are increasing -- now that the NRSC either has to cut bait or send Coleman stacks of cash that could otherwise be used to defend vulnerable seats in Missouri, New Hampshire, and elsewhere, the fact that each day Coleman's challenges continues brings in more money for progressive candidates across the country hurts even more. $140,000 is nothing to sneeze at, folks.

It's getting noticed inside the beltway where the party committee bigwigs spend their time. You can still find a link to the "Dollar a Day" campaign in the sidebar to the right.

Senate Republicans slowly stepping away from Coleman

by: Joe Bodell

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 06:52:46 AM CDT

Federal Appeal Is 'Entirely' Coleman's Decision, Cornyn Says of Minn. Race

By Kathleen Hunter, CQ Staff

The head of the Senate GOP's campaign committee said Wednesday that he would not press Republican Norm Coleman to mount an appeal in the federal court system if the Minnesota Supreme Court rules that Democrat Al Franken won their Senate race.

"I think it's entirely up to him," said John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Frankly, I've been amazed that Sen. Coleman's been willing to persevere as long as he has, and I'm proud of him for doing that. I think we will support him until he decides to hang it up one way or another."

Cornyn said Wednesday that he was "not in the position to predict what Sen. Coleman will do because he's undecided" but that the NRSC would continue to support Coleman as long as he wishes to continue his legal challenge.

"His hope is that he's the winner in the Minnesota Supreme Court . . . so I don't know what happens after that," Cornyn said. The court heard oral arguments in the case June 1.

Cornyn, a former Texas supreme court justice, previously said that he hoped Coleman would take his case to the federal court system if Minnesota's high court ruled against him. Cornyn suggested that the case raises an equal protection issue that could be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The argument is that Minnesota's ballot counting process is flawed.

In March, Cornyn expressed concern that Coleman would "run out of gas too soon," saying that his case raises "an important constitutional issue." Earlier in the year, Cornyn said returning Coleman to office was a top GOP priority.

Cornyn's statements don't seem quite as strident now, do they?

Mud Soup

by: The Big E

Fri May 29, 2009 at 22:05:20 PM CDT

It cannot be that the Republican Party sucks, it's gotta be something else.

The stupid, it hurts, make Tom Tancredo stop.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Chair of the Armed Services Committee, calls Dick Cheney a liar on torture..

Get the straight scoop on swift-boating of healthcare reform.

Ruh roh.  Another Republican is going to have to apologize to the leader of the Republicans.

The GOP's violent rhetoric: still a means to an end?

by: Joe Bodell

Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 06:14:59 AM CDT

Minnesota's own Michele Bachmann wants us "armed and dangerous" over President Obama's cap-and-trade proposal for carbon emissions. Bachmann has also been quoted calling herself a "a foreign correspondent on enemy lines" in some figurative war against...something.

Is the war really figurative for modern conservative leaders? Why all the violent rhetoric?

Are they just crying wolf, or is their violent talk a carefully measured means to an end?

In his recent book Outright Barbarous, political language expert Jeffrey Feldman examined the violent themes present in modern conservative speech, looking at the framing used by such conservative luminaries as Pat Buchanan, Wayne LaPierre, and several others. By using violent rhetoric, Feldman posits that conservative leaders seek to poison the debate, reducing listeners to their fight-or-flight animal instincts instead of parsing a debate in reasoned, rational terms.

World War Three. Armed and dangerous. Congress is "enemy lines." Certainly fits into Feldman's analysis, doesn't it?

Using these violent frames isn't about winning the debate on the merits. It isn't even about having the debate. It's the kind of shock tactic to which the American electorate slowly became immune while Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2007 - vote for Democrats, and Osama bin Laden will attack your neighborhood! This is war, people!

The politics of the situation don't even begin to address arguments over culpability if someone takes them at their word and actually becomes violent, do they?

We've just been through two election cycles in which Republicans have taken huge losses across the country. Are Bachmann and Cornyn wondering why? Perhaps if they examine the way they think they're winning the debate, they might realize one of the many reasons they're still losing - and why America no longer has any need for their violent talk.

Their goals just aren't that interesting anymore.