Good Tuesday morning Fellow Seekers,
The Al Franken for Senate campaign put out a two-paragraph response yesterday afternoon to the Coleman campaign’s video attacking Franken for his changing positions on various aspects of the Iraq War. I promised yesterday to pass it along. Here’s the full text of the Franken rebuttal (it’s actually attributed to Andy Barr, Franken’s communications director):
“Norm Coleman’s record is clear: blind support of the President’s disastrous Iraq policy and absolutely no interest in defending his repeated votes against bringing our troops home. If I were him, I wouldn’t want to talk about a record like that, either.
But fundamental dishonesty like we are seeing from Coleman’s campaign today was a bad way to get us into this war, and it’s certainly not going to get us out. It won’t stop Al from speaking out against this war and holding Norm Coleman accountable, and it won’t stop Minnesotans from voting for a new direction.”
I’ve asked Team Franken to specify the “fundamental dishonesty.” So far, they haven’t replied. Matt, at Mn Publius, put together a more substantive rebuttal for Franken, but I can’t say I find it very persuasive.
The Coleman video, like most political attack pieces, is not a paragon of civility or substance. But it effectively puts on the table issues that Franken should someday confront honestly and directly.
This is the template for Coleman’s whole campaign - using Franken’s own quotes against him. How is Franken supposed to respond to something like that? How can his own quotes be fundamentally dishonest? Matt’s response at MNPublius - which denies that Franken made any public pro-war statements - is unconvincing mainly because its false.
If Franken is the nominee, this is going to be a very easy race for Coleman.
1. There is a wide range of statements that could be considered ‘prowar.’ Franken’s were qualified, not unconditional.
2. Being present at a rally does not constitute supporting everything said at that rally.
“1. There is a wide range of statements that could be considered ‘prowar.’ Franken’s were qualified, not unconditional.”
Franken said that his Iraq position was based on Colin Powell’s speech. Powell sure wasn’t making conditional statements. And Franken’s claim (one of his many conflicting claims) is that he didn’t make any pro-war staements, not that he didn’t make any unconditional ones.
2. Being present at a rally does not constitute supporting everything said at that rally.
Well I guess that is true, although I don’t know why you would be speaking at a pro-war rally sponsored by a right-wing, Bush-loving media company if you didn’t agree with the purpose of the rally.
Dan–
I said that Franken had made a conditional statement about supporting the war, not that Powell had.
And the article cited only said that Franken attended a rally, not that he spoke at it, much less quoted him as saying anything.
Still no there there.
The most that Franken can be accused of is not having a clear position in terms of advocating a specific action.
As Kipling didn’t quite say:
There were a lot of people in 2003 who conditionally supported the war. Most people polled actually thought we should wait for U.N. approval and should give the inspectors more time. Colin Powell unconditionally supported the war. Clear Channel unconditionally supported the war.
Al Franken, despite his claims of conditional suppport, based his Iraq position on Colin Powell’s position, and “attended” a Clear Channel pro-war rally.