Coleman must be a heckuva snow job for the PB editorial board to forget how ineffectual he has been.

My reflection is that for the period 2002-2006 Coleman was a “Protect the Republican Party” advocate. After the 2006 election, he realized that a “compromising moderate” image would serve his re-election efforts. But repeatedly he was actually late and ineffective. The Farm Bill was not completed on time, and Senator Chambliss (R-GA) probably had more to getting Republican support than Coleman. Also, Coleman missed an excellent opportunity to promote biofuels and show his compromise skills if he had joined Sens. Chambliss, Conrad (D-ND), Issakson (R-GA), and Thune (R-SD) when they established the Gang of 10 to address energy legislation … plus he could have joined with Senator Graham who joined the same group to promote the nuclear industry (something that Coleman supports). Now, Coleman is joining to be part of a Gang of 20 … better late than never … however the legislation is not as good as the bi-partisan legislation (which included those sources but also wind) supported in the House (notable Minnesotans Tim Walz (D-01), John Kline (R-02) and Michele Bachmann (R-06).
Yes, Coleman did support SCHIP, but he knew that Bush’s vetoes would stand. Coleman has been steadfast in his support for maintaining the current tax policies while others like Congressman Walz want to lower taxes for the middle class.
Coleman stood strong with Bush on issues ranging from FISA to the recent bailout – all while watching the deficit rise. The PB editorial states that Coleman wants a line-item-veto, yet, Coleman leads the Minnesota delegation in earmarks.
On foreign policy, Coleman told Minnesota farmers that he would open Cuba for exports, and once elected, he has reversed himself. He embraced John Bolton’s don’t talk policy with Iran and Syria, despite recommendations by the Iraq Study Group and five Secretaries of State.
In short, Coleman is an opportunist more than anything else.