Coleman: Reporters’ questions — on-camera, not ‘quiet’ — cost him election

No, he's not making a shadow-bird: Coleman shows how ballots get counted twice.

No, he's not making a shadow-bird: Coleman shows how ballots could get counted twice.

Norm Coleman suggested in a TV interview Sunday that reporters’ asking about charges of illegally funneled money cost him the Nov. 4 Senate election. “That could have been a quiet story,” Coleman said. “It could have been a story that came out the day after the election.”

The live interview on WCCO-TV’s “Sunday Morning” news program contained other intriguing Coleman quotes. About the Senate election: “It will end soon.” About the idea of taking his fight to federal court: “If somehow there’s a violation of equal protection, you think about that.” About a run for governor in 2010 if he loses and Gov. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t seek re-election: “I’m not looking to the next election.”

But the most interesting part was a 100-second exchange about charges that a campaign supporter funneled unreported funds to the former Republican senator. The exchange begins at the 5:30 mark in the seven-minute interview (video link). Anchor Esme Murphy’ asks about allegations in a pair of civil suits that Coleman benefactor Nasser Kazeminy directed $75,000 from a Texas business he controls to Coleman’s wife’s firm.

NORM COLEMAN: No money was ever funneled to my family. My wife has a job. She does a job. And there’s nothing that was illegally funneled to her. But you had two Star Tribune reporters appearing in a DFL ad on a story that came out four days –

WCCO-TV NEWS ANCHOR ESME MURPHY: But not of their own volition!

COLEMAN: Not of their own volition but they –

MURPHY: Because I was there, I mean when that was taped –

COLEMAN: But they put themselves in that ad. They put themselves. And so four days –

MURPHY: No, they didn’t.

COLEMAN: Esme, the cameras were there. They could have asked those questions quietly. They could have had a different conversation.

MURPHY: But they had no control over the cameras.

COLEMAN: But they knew the cameras were there. They could have gone back and had a quiet conversation if that was the purpose. My point being they appeared in a Democratic Party ad four days before an election on something that never happened.

And so in the end, I welcome — let’s take a full look at this. But, I can’t, you can’t recreate that. You can’t take that back. And so in the end it’s the nature of this business.

But no — you know, my wife never got any money that she didn’t earn. There was no money funneled to her. You had two guys involved in a lawsuit. And perhaps using that relationship, my relationship with that person to maybe squeeze more money out of him.

But that could have been a quiet story. It could have been a story that came out the day after the election. Instead you had two reporters in front of cameras confront a candidate on something they could have had a quiet conversation about if that was the purpose.

So, be that as it may. No question: Nothing ever happened there. And it’s unfortunate that those last-minute, eleventh-hour charges can have an impact on the race. I’m not lamenting anything. …

Those other issues will be dealt with. But emphatically, there’s nothing to that. And it’s a shame that those kind of charges can be thrown out. No one – There’s not a single allegation that my wife or I actually received any money. Not one. Not one. And no facts to back that up.

UPDATE: The Star Tribune reporters responded to Coleman’s charges at Braublog.

7 Comments »

AC
Comment posted February 1, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

Is he honestly suggesting that if reporters have embarrassing questions, questions about possible illegal behavior, or questions that paint him in anything other than a positive light, they should be whispered quietly, off-camera, after the election? Gee, it sounds like he has something to hide.

Coleman needs to realize that the reporters asking the questions were not the problem. The problem was him jumping into a big black SUV and speeding away, ducking the questions and looking guilty as all get-out.

He made that bed, now he has to sleep in it.

Eric Ferguson
Comment posted February 1, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

One minor correction: the last answer is labeled MURPHY, but that was Coleman speaking.

Good for Murphy calling him on a lie. Coleman wants to play the “liberal media” card by refusing to make a distinction between reporters making a commercial or being caught on camera just like he was. If would have just answered their questions instead of trying to run off, the commercial couldn’t have been made. Apparently he thinks politicians have a right to have potentially embarrassing questions asked privately and the answers withheld until after the election. I have lost so much respect for this man. It’s like he’s gotten wingnuttier since the election.

Chris Steller
Comment posted February 1, 2009 @ 10:40 pm

Thank you, Eric. I’ll make the correction.

Alec
Comment posted February 2, 2009 @ 9:36 am

Didn’t Coleman himself file an eleventh hour lawsuit against Franken right before the election? What a terrible tactic!

Miro
Comment posted February 2, 2009 @ 9:50 am

I looked in my email archives at the little folder that said “Coleman” and scanned his reponses to my letters of concern….

Oh gawd…. Get a clue, Karl…. er, I mean Norm.

EK
Comment posted March 23, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

Since when did the Repiglicans keep mum about ANY story against a Democrat, even a phony one, that they could toss out in front of the media?

Richard Massey
Comment posted April 15, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

“Mr. Coleman. How do you respond to the notion that that American People now suspect that what you have been engaged in, here, with the Election Contest and the subsequent appeal and threat to take the matter on to the Supreme Court, is nothing but a GOP Conspiracy, involving you, members of the Republican Senate Committee and Governor Pawlenty?”
You’ve come-up considerably more than short in all the Motions and Rulings. Pawlenty has conveniently gone-along for the ride, making comments about issuing the Certificate to Franken that are contrary to what the Judges have said and Ordered. It seems like you, Pawlenty and the GOP have a good thing going. The Republican Senate Committee sent you a quarter million dollars over the Holiday Season. Did any of that money go to Governor Pawlenty? Is he being paid to keep the Minnesota Senate Seat vacant? Why would a sitting Governor, with the Nation in the grips of a historic economic collapse, not want to have his constituency and the Nation fully represented in the Senate? What kept Pawlenty from sending a Provisional Senator until your Election Contest got decided? Lastly, why isn’t the Election Contest OVER and your legal battle with the State? The Election Contest was to see who, between you and Franken, got the most votes. That Case is decided. That matter closed. Anything you want to complain about should now be “Coleman v Minnesota”, Coleman v Something other than Franken because Franken won the Election Contest you brought and the GOP bought. The Election Contest is OVER.
It’s NOT an Election Contest, anymore! It is a GOP-Funded, Un-American, Bad Faith, Civil Rights Violating, Un-Constitutional, perpetuation of a Fraud and an obvious Conspiracy to keep Al Franken tied-up in Court while Governor Pawlenty keeps the Senate Seat Vacant for the GOP Senatorial Committee who did everything but Earmark Stimulus money to pay-off all the alleged Conspirators. Nice work, Norm. Talk about disenfranchisement. Mister. When it comes to disenfranchisement … You wear the Gold … Pawlenty: Silver … and, the GOP Senate Committee: Bronze (But, they’re having theirs Gold Plated). The stench of this alleged Conspiracy is drifting out of Minnesota and all across the Nation. You’d think you guys would be embarrassed by how you are stinking-up the place. But, you’re not. You guys just laugh and high-five and see if the smoke from you taking a match to The Constitution will somehow obscure the reprehensible assault you have executed on Democracy. Shame on you!

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Top Stories:

Coleman: Reporters’ questions — on-camera, not ‘quiet’ — cost him election

7 Comments »

Leave a comment