Why Norm Coleman Lost My Vote
It is with extreme disappointment that I have to right this. I can no longer support Sen Norm Coleman. He showed yesterday that in voting for the Bailout of Wall Street that he is no longer deserving to represent the state of Minnesota. According to The Political Animal at The Pioneer Press, Sen Coleman thinks he knows better then you what should be done.
But you decided that you know what's best for all of us. Last time I checked, we call that Elitism, something that is usually reserved for liberals, but then again maybe you never really left that land.
A great American once stated,"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."
Sen. Coleman, you are now that government. I'm voting for Sen Dean Barkley so that we can rid Washington of one its problems.
Oh yeah, Sen Klobuchar, don't think your vote went unnoticed either. The article doesn't say what your phone ratio was but I have to assume it's similar since you hold the same position as Sen Coleman.
Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, locked in an increasingly tight re-election race, will take a vote for the bailout measure even though his constituents have overwhelmingly told him they oppose it.
The
volume of calls to his office: about 20,000 calls against and less than
1,000 for the bill. Today alone, after details of the House bill have
been out for days and after many details of the Senate bill had started
to be reported, he's received 2,100 against the measure and 250 in
favor.
Last time I checked Sen Coleman, you worked for the people of Minnesota, but you obviously think otherwise."I recognize that the public, from what they have heard, has deep concerns," Coleman said on a conference
call with reporters this afternoon. "Clearly, the public has very
strong feelings. For me this is doing what's right for the country it's
what right for the moms and dads that I represent. I've got an election
coming up. I'm not putting a finger to the wind on this and measuring
the phone calls. I'd rather lose an election on this than see this
economy crumble. If I can make any difference and strengthen this
economy than I'm going to do it."
"I can't tell you that this is something that is political popular because it is not. ...This is one in which you do put country first and you put your personal political situation in the back seat. And so I'm doing what I firmly believe is the right thing for the people that I represent. And I do it knowing that if we avert a crisis folks may never see that."
This is where your wrong Senator. You don't put country first, even though that sounds bad. You put the WILL OF THE PEOPLE first. In this case, the people of Minnesota who overwhelmingly said NO to this bill. You say that voting NO would be "putting a finger to the wind on this and measuring
the phone calls." You couldn't be more wrong. Those phone calls represent MAIN STREET Minnesota. Everyday Minnesotans who elected you to represent us in congress. "I can't tell you that this is something that is political popular because it is not. ...This is one in which you do put country first and you put your personal political situation in the back seat. And so I'm doing what I firmly believe is the right thing for the people that I represent. And I do it knowing that if we avert a crisis folks may never see that."
But you decided that you know what's best for all of us. Last time I checked, we call that Elitism, something that is usually reserved for liberals, but then again maybe you never really left that land.
A great American once stated,"Government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem."
Sen. Coleman, you are now that government. I'm voting for Sen Dean Barkley so that we can rid Washington of one its problems.
Oh yeah, Sen Klobuchar, don't think your vote went unnoticed either. The article doesn't say what your phone ratio was but I have to assume it's similar since you hold the same position as Sen Coleman.
I agree with you, but why would you be voting Barkley? He also changed his mind (again) and now supports the bailout. Franken is against the bailout in its current form.
Reply to this
Because I believe that Barkley would be less partisan. Franken is a no go based on his past comments. These comments make it hard for me to believe that Franken would be able ever represent the people in a way that would be in their interest. Also I saw where Barkley said he'd support it reluctantly but he's not the one getting 20,000 phone calls against and then actually voting for it. Franken, that I saw, never said he was against it. He said he didn't like it but refused to say whether or not he would vote for it.
Reply to this
I think his "past comments" stuff is just republican talking points. They're just trying to paint him as someone who's against what he actually supports.
Either way, Franken, over a week ago laid out principles that he said needed to be part of the bailout package in order to support it. He was clear from the beginning where he stood. He said that stuff that protects consumers, borrowers and homebuyers needs to be part of it in order to support it. Stuff that fixes the problems instead of just throwing money at it. Stuff that includes proper oversight. Being none of that was in the bill, he doesn't support it. He had a press conference about it today.
Reply to this