Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Is Coleman's Hands-On Approach to His Court Challenge Going to Backfire?

Bookmark and Share

Norm Coleman is leaving no doubt to the public or the press that he stands firmly behind his decision to launch his U.S. Senate recount legal challenge. Coleman has drawn significant attention for his frequent courtroom appearances and the Senator has hardly been a shrinking violet when it comes to making media appearances.

This very public image has, until recently, stood in stark contrast to that of Al Franken, who has kept his distance from his attorneys, and, until this past weekend, most of the local media. One wonders, were it not for Esme Murphy's high-profile open-letter blog to Franken nearly a week ago, would the Round 1 recount winner have been so eager to log about a half-dozen interviews this weekend (including one with WCCO)?

Franken's motives for remaining aloof from the legal processes are obvious - he both wants to act like he has already won the election, plus he does not want to appear 'in the frame' when his attorneys take any actions that may give the impression of trying to cut the process short or suppress the counting of legitimate ballots of Minnesotans.

In recent weeks, Smart Politics has already outlined the many advantages for Coleman to pursue this court challenge as well as the fact that his actions to date have not truly damaged his public image .

However, while proceeding with the court challenge per se has its clear advantages, Coleman is incurring a real risk to his public image by so boldly putting himself in middle of the legal and public relations battlefields.

On the upside, by making numerous appearances before the media and in the courtroom, Coleman is taking ownership of his lawsuit, and is not seen as hiding behind his lawyers. The positive side of this for the Senator is that he is viewed by the public as taking responsibility for his actions - a sign of political leadership (even if motivated by undeniable personal gain).

On the downside, however, Coleman is now intimately being associated with every legal argument, and the laborious ballot-by-ballot examination in an election that is now 97 days old and counting.

In the political moment, when really big issues are facing the state of Minnesota - record unemployment increases, a budget battle in St. Paul, and a monumental stimulus bill on the Hill that split the Gopher State's U.S. House delegation - the problems of Norm Coleman and the minutiae that emerges from these court proceedings seem, well, rather small. And with each passing day, Coleman and his legal arguments, however well-grounded, will likely seem even smaller as November 4th 2008 becomes an increasingly distant image in the voters' rear view mirror.

A camper is told, should they encounter a bear, to stand up straight, reach their arms out wide to seem as tall as possible, and make a lot of noise to scare the bear away. While Coleman's words and legal briefs may not be scaring away his opponent, he is doing his best to make his court challenge seem as big and important to the public as possible: the Senator couches his arguments for the challenge in grand Constitutional terms - that every vote should be counted, and that (alleged) double-counting will disenfranchise the votes of millions of Minnesotans.

The media strategy may be paying off so far for Coleman, despite an increasing number of Minnesotans who want the election to be over and done with. For it is Al Franken who has perhaps endured the greatest media backlash to date - first for his invisibility, and secondly when, in his motion before the Minnesota Supreme Court last week to dismiss the case, Franken attorney Marc Elias strayed from legal arguments to political ones - explicitly linking the need for Franken to be seated with the need to pass the federal stimulus package: "The fate of a stimulus package hinges on one vote in the United States Senate. For want of a vote, a stimulus package may be lost."

Public relations gaffes like that by Franken and an open, roll-up-your-sleeves relationship with the media by Coleman will clearly buy the Senator more time. But how long can Coleman continue to tread water in the sea of public opinion?

Previous post: Why the Minnesota Senate Recount and Court Challenge Is Helping the Federal Budget Deficit
Next post: Why Governor Pawlenty's Criticism of the Federal Stimulus Bill Is Smart Politics

1 Comment


  • It's *former* Senator.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Gender Equality in the US House: A State-by State Quarter-Century Report Card (1989-2014)

    A study of 5,325 congressional elections finds the number of female U.S. Representatives has more than tripled over the last 25 years, but the rate at which women are elected to the chamber still varies greatly between the states.

    Political Crumbs

    Final Four Has Presidential Approval

    By edging Michigan in the final seconds Sunday, the University of Kentucky guaranteed that one school in the Final Four this year would be located in a state that was not carried by President Barack Obama in 2012. (Connecticut, Florida, and Wisconsin had previously earned Final Four slots over the weekend). Across the 76 Final Fours since 1939, an average of 3.1 schools have been located in states won by the president's ticket during the previous election cycle. All four schools have come from states won by the president 29 times, with the most recent being the 2009 Final Four featuring Connecticut, Michigan State, North Carolina, and Villanova. On 30 occasions three Final Four schools have been located in states won by the president, with two schools 11 times and only one school six times (the most recent being 2012 with Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, and Ohio State). There has never been a Men's NCAA Division I Final Four in which no schools were located in states carried by the president's ticket.


    Three for the Road

    A new Rasmussen Poll shows Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in a dead heat with likely 2014 Democratic nominee Mary Burke. Walker is seeking to win his third consecutive election after prevailing in 2012's recall contest. Eight of his predecessors accomplished this feat: Republicans Lucius Fairchild (in 1869), Jeremiah Rusk (1886), Robert La Follette (1904), Emanuel Philipp (1918), John Blaine (1924), Walter Kohler (1954), Warren Knowles (1968), and Tommy Thompson (1994). Three others Badger State governors lost on their third campaign: Democrat George Peck (1894), Progressive Philip La Follette (1938), and Republican Julius Heil (1942). One died in office before having the opportunity to win a third contest (GOPer Walter Goodland in 1947) while another resigned beforehand (Democrat Patrick Lucey in 1977 to become Ambassador to Mexico). Overall Wisconsin gubernatorial incumbents have won 35 of 47 general election contests, or 74.5 percent of the time.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting