pioneer-wsj-logo-collageYou’ve heard of carbon offsets; newspapers seem to be doing something similar with offsetting editorials for and against Norm Coleman’s legal appeals to reclaim his old U.S. Senate seat. Over the weekend it was the Wall Street Journal egging Coleman on (sorry, bad metaphor), while the Bemidji Pioneer, a reliable outpost of Coleman support in Northern Minnesota, counseled Coleman that “incessant appeals serve no more than to obstruct the process.”

In backing Republican Coleman’s constitutional arguments, the WSJ recycles its earlier warning about Minnesota being another Florida (a la 2000’s Bush v. Gore recount fiasco) and tosses in more geographic name-calling for good measure:

And there have been plenty of irregularities. By the end of the recount, the state was awash with evidence of duplicate ballot counting, newly discovered ballots, missing ballots, illegal voting, and wildly diverse standards as to which votes were counted. Any one of these issues was enough to throw the outcome into doubt. Combined, they created a taint more worthy of New Jersey than Minnesota.

The Bemidji Pioneer likewise leans Coleman’s way (the paper endorsed him in 1998, 2002 and 2008) but is ready with strong medicine for the former senator about accepting Democrat Al Franken’s election:

Sen. Coleman’s appeals were necessary and a legal part of the process. But at some point, incessant appeals serve no more than to obstruct the process than to guarantee justice. … The public perception at this point appears not to be one of letting Sen. Coleman fully seek redress of his legal grievances, but rather one of obstructing the Democrat-controlled Senate to prevent it from reaching that magic number of 60 votes. … To continue to obstruct doesn’t bode well for Minnesota, nor for Sen. Coleman’s career, should he continue in politics. It’s time to come home, Norm.

Interestingly, the Pioneer sees the process breaking against both men:

At this point, we seriously doubt the credibility of either Sen. Coleman or Mr. Franken to have a productive Senate tenure for the remaining 5½ years — which could become less should Sen. Coleman continue to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could decide not to hear the case until it convenes in October after a summer break.

The word “credibility” is suddenly popping up in the Coleman-Franken fracas just as the tips of tulips are breaking through the chilly Minnesota soil. Coleman himself used it while holding court with the Star Tribune editorial board:

No matter who wins, one side is going to pound the other side and question the credibility of the winner. If I win, I’ll be shot at by those who say, “Is he legitimate?”

Coleman’s comment, posted and published over the weekend, is in tune with this statement from the same session, released by the Strib last week: “We will never know who won.”

According to the tally kept at MinnPost’s Braublog, newspaper editorials now stand at — you guessed it — a tie, for and against Coleman’s imminent appeal to the state Supreme Court. That’s not counting such out-of-state interlopers as the WSJ, the New York Times, the Las Vegas Sun and the Jamestown (S.D.) Sun.