“My goal in the House is to do what Jim DeMint has been very successful doing in the Senate. He’s been trying to bring like-minded conservatives into the U.S. Senate.”

That elicited an interesting comment from University of Minnesota political expert Larry Jacobs.

“What it suggests then is that [Bachmann’s] role is not the legislative process and bill passing, but rather the political electoral part. She’s not trying to be elected speaker or majority leader — this is about her trying to build a movement across the country.”

Bachmann has started her own leadership PAC and has begun to give funds to candidates. Politico notes that her PAC, an acronym for her first name, actually spelled her name wrong. The paperwork filed with the FEC read “MICHELLE” — with two Ls instead of one.

Bachmann has been a fundraising dynamo for her own campaign thus far, despite her online form being somewhat incomplete:

Photo: Paul Demko, MnIndy

Senate Democrats are salivating at the prospect of attacking Republicans in 2010 who voted against an anti-rape amendment sponsored by Al Franken, reports Politico. The provision, which was supported by 68 senators, would prevent the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that prohibit employees from suing over workplace disputes — including complaints of sexual assault.

The amendment was inspired by the story of a 19-year-old KBR employee who was gang-raped by co-workers while detailed to Iraq. Upon returning to the U.S., she learned that she was unable to sue the company because of a clause in her contract. Thirty Republicans voted against the measure, often coming up with rather tortured explanations for their votes.

“I think anyone who voted against that has some tough explaining to do,” New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told Politico. “And I think particularly some incumbents already in a challenged position — it can be very detrimental to them because women voters are going to look at that and wonder, ‘Does this senator stand on my side?’”

But Politico posits that the amendment could also prove politically problematic for Franken as he attempts to complete the transition from liberal pitbull to respected legislator.

“Franken’s amendment may make sense for national Democrats in laying down lines of attack heading into the 2010 campaign — but this is not what Franken needs to build a base in Minnesota,” Larry Jacobs, of the University of Minnesota, told Politico. “Being a poster boy of a hard-hitting campaign against the Republican Party is the opposite of what he needs in Minnesota.”

Former Sen. Norm Coleman (WDCpix)

When Norm Coleman gathered the media at his St. Paul residence last week to announce that he was conceding the U.S. Senate contest after a nearly eight-month post-election battle, he hit all the appropriate notes for appearing gracious in defeat. The Republican repeatedly congratulated his Democratic challenger, praised the integrity of the Minnesota Supreme Court and hailed Minnesotans as the smartest, most decent folks on the planet. It was a relaxed, even folksy display of Coleman’s redoubtable political skills — a tone noticeably missing during the bitter fight with Al Franken.

At the close of the press conference, however, Coleman made perhaps his most illuminating comment. Pressed on his future political plans, he didn’t duck the question as inappropriate for a day on which he was conceding a previous political contest. Rather, the former senator promised prompt news on that front.

“Sometime next week I presume I’ll be talking a little bit about what the future is,” he said.

That teasing answer caught political observers off guard and has fueled speculation that Coleman may turn around and run for governor in 2010.

“I was shocked by it,” says Larry Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. “He was using the announcement almost as a boomerang into the next campaign.”

While some political prognosticators are highly skeptical that Coleman will wage a gubernatorial bid in 2010, the specter of another campaign raises an intriguing question: Is Norm Coleman still politically viable?

There’s little doubt that he comes out of the battle with Franken as somewhat damaged goods. As far back as January both candidates registered approval ratings south of 40 percent — and it’s doubtful the intervening six months have done anything to bolster public sentiment. Most Minnesotans would be happy not to see either of their mugs until ice-fishing season.

In addition, Coleman may have run out of chances to prove his political mettle in a statewide campaign. He’s now lost two of three such races, including a 1998 bid for governor. Even Coleman’s 2002 Senate victory carries an asterisk, owing to the death of Paul Wellstone just 11 days before the election.

But few political observers count Coleman out of the contest. He’s an unusually adroit politician who further endeared himself to the GOP base by taking the Senate contest all the way to the state’s top court despite repeated calls for him to concede. In addition, with Tim Pawlenty opting not to seek a third term, the GOP gubernatorial field looks to be a wide-open affair with no obvious favorite. Even so, Coleman can’t be considered a shoo-in for endorsement if he enters the fray.

“I think that he would be among the front-runners,” says Greg Peppin, a GOP political consultant who is advising former House Speaker Steve Sviggum on a potential gubernatorial bid. “I think he would be in the top tier.”

Peppin believes the taint from the ugly Senate fight will fade as the contest recedes from the headlines. “It was kind of a pox on both their houses, but I don’t see that lasting for either of them,” he says.

Coleman would easily have the widest name recognition among the current crop of contenders. He’d also bring a proven track record of raising revenue in what’s likely to be a very expensive race.

“The amount of money this guy raises is just stunning,” says Jacobs. “This is a guy who has been in the big fights and knows how to put together a plan for a campaign and then stick to it.”

Former Republican U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger agrees that the voting public won’t continue to punish Coleman for taking the contest to the state’s top court. But he believes Coleman will be hurt by a hallmark of his six years in Washington: fealty to the Bush administration.

“He will have to answer for appearing to be George Bush’s man from Minnesota,” says Durenberger, who supported Coleman in the 2008 campaign.

Coleman’s plans, however, will likely be driven by more than simple political calculus. The Senate campaign revealed numerous indications that the Republican’s vaunted fundraising ability doesn’t extend to his personal bank account.

In January it was revealed that Coleman had refinanced his St. Paul residence 12 times over the last 14 years, most recently in 2007 for $775,000. In addition, Harper’s Magazine reported that longtime Coleman patron Nasser Kazeminy had purchased suits for the then-senator at the Neiman Marcus store in Minneapolis. Finally a pair of lawsuits filed just days before the election alleged that Kazeminy attempted to funnel $100,000 to Coleman through a Minneapolis insurance firm. The businessman’s purported reason for this political philanthropy: “Senators don’t make shit.”

Eyeing age 60, with two kids currently in college, it seems likely that Coleman might be seeking a post more financially rewarding than the governor’s $180,000 salary.

“I’m not sure he can afford to be governor with his private debt load,” says David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University. “He may actually need at this point to say, ‘Gosh, I can’t run for governor.’ That could very well factor in to what he’s going to do down the line.”

Durenberger expresses similar misgivings about any future campaigns for Coleman. He believes the former senator would be better served by stepping away from public life.

“Does he have legs?” Durenberger asks of Coleman’s political future. “Yes. I’d rather he trotted off into civilian life, but that’s just a personal thing.”

Chris Coleman at a December strike by Regina Medical Center workers in Hastings. Photo: Paul Demko

Chris Coleman is going to win re-election as mayor of St. Paul. Barring incarceration or a Spitzer-esque political meltdown, this time next year he’ll be settling into his second term at City Hall. Four years ago, after all, Coleman trounced incumbent Randy Kelly by a ratio of more than 2-to-1, and no opponents have emerged to challenge him this time around.

But judging by his actions, Coleman seems to be winding up for an all-out political brawl. Yesterday’s announcement that John Stiles will leave his post as the DFL’s communications director to helm Coleman’s re-election effort is the latest indication that Coleman may have plans beyond another four years at City Hall.

“This is using the sledgehammer to kill the fly,” says David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University. “He doesn’t need this person, but it’s a great way of sort of building for the future.”

Coleman has been loath to publicly entertain whether that future might include a 2010 run for the governor’s mansion, maintaining instead that his focus is simply on winning a second term.

“We’re taking nothing for granted this year — and bringing on talent of this caliber shows that we’re going to run an aggressive campaign,” Coleman said in a statement announcing the Stiles hire.

But the hiring of a seasoned political operative such as Stiles is certainly a sign that Coleman is at least going to sniff the current political winds to see if a gubernatorial run would be viable.

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak is also frequently mentioned as a possible DFL candidate for governor in 2010, and he’s also assembled a conspicuously robust campaign operation for a re-election contest that’s likely to be a cakewalk. Rybak’s hired Jaclyn Urness, state field director for Barack Obama’s Minnesota campaign, as his campaign manager.

“I don’t think it’s a secret that both Chris Coleman and R.T. have higher aspirations with the real possibility that Governor Pawlenty will not be running for re-election in 2010,” says Larry Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota’s Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.

Jacobs argues that Pawlenty’s recent behavior suggests a run for national political office is more likely in the cards than a third term. He’s struck by Pawlenty’s reluctance to lobby for passage of the stimulus package despite a looming $5 billion budget deficit, positioning himself as a hard-line fiscal conservative.

In addition, Jacobs notes that Pawlenty has been conspicuously more aggressive in fundraising than he was four years ago, with nearly $600,000 in the bank at the end of the year.

“To me the behavior of Tim Pawlenty, in terms of fundraising and in terms of positioning, looks strikingly presidential,” he says.

Both Coleman and Rybak would face the tricky task of winning re-election and then almost immediately jumping into the governor’s race. In St. Paul there’s significant historical evidence that even the nimblest of politicians could find such maneuvering perilous. In 1986, George Latimer attempted to make the leap to the governor’s mansion but lost an inter-party fight to incumbent Rudy Perpich. A decade later Norm Coleman finished second to Jesse Ventura in a three-way gubernatorial contest.

Despite this track record, Latimer believes Chris Coleman’s statewide prospects are quite bright.

“I have no doubt that if things go well that he should look towards going the next step,” Latimer says. “I think that he should keep all of his options open to run statewide.”

Still, some observers noted that while Coleman’s campaign operation may seem suspiciously robust for the political task currently at hand, such preparations are also simple prudence.

“Political fortunes shift rather quickly, and it always pays to be prepared,” says state Rep. John Lesch, who served as Coleman’s legislative aide when he was on the St. Paul City Council.

“People are going to look very critically at how he runs his mayoral race. You’ve got to make sure all your i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.”

12:05 p.m. Paulsen says his reason for running for the 3rd District is that Congress is ‘broken.’ Paulsen also says he has learned civility from retiring Representative Jim Ramstad, for whom he once worked in D.C. Ramstad and Paulsen have criticized the Ashwin Madia campaign for its ‘gutter tactics’ in this race.

12:13 p.m. Paulsen says he was not a fan of the stimulus check that was sent out earlier this summer. He is opposed to these ‘short-term solutions’ and the country needs real economic incentives by making changes to the tax code, and making these changes permanent (he wants to make permanent the Bush tax cuts).

12:20 p.m.: Been here five minutes and already lost a liveblog post to the U of M’s wifi system. I’ll try to catch up. Paulsen is speaking, has referenced Sweden as lowering corporate tax rates and China (where Paulsen has visited) as a country where Schwan’s ice cream could sell its products to a billion Chinese.

12:25 p.m.: China, Japan, India, Sweden — he’s really touring the world with this speech. China has 1.2 billion people, will soon be the top English-speaking country in the world, will quadruple higher ed enrollment in next decade.

12:30 p.m.: Prof. Larry Jacobs asks crowd (of about 40, half of yesterday’s Madia event) to write questions on cards. Jacobs asks about what to do at the current moment in the financial crisis, if you’re fiscally conservative. Paulsen: As Republican, I’ve been frustrated with party members for not exerting fiscal discipline — a bipartisan spending spree. And that goes for Bush administration as well. It’s about living within your means, which is hard for legislators — to say no. Proposes sunsets for funding legislation. 

12:35 p.m.: (Another point where Paulsen echoes recent sounds from Madia camp: simplifying tax forms, a move U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel endorsed while in town to stump for Madia.) Fiscal responsibility, as he grew up as a good German Lutheran, means to conserve. Jacobs: Would you have voted for second bailout plan that passed. Paulsen: Reluctantly yes. Bill had improved with FDIC insurance limits fix, pricing corrections. But what’s going to happen next? Wants to make sure taxpayers see an upside with repayment in the future.  

12:40 p.m.: Paulsen makes two metaphors that might be seen as unfortunate, to Iraq and New Orleans. What is our economic exit strategy? He’s concerned that financial sector is moving from new York to Washington, D.C. Then he cites Hurricane Katrina (ouch!) as evidence D.C. can’t do stuff right. Paulsen gives example of the farm bill as one in which Republicans went along with legislation that isn’t financially sound. It’s wrong, and thinks his constituents don’t really support it. He supports agriculture, but not to the tune of subsidizing millionaire farmers. Pharmaceutical industry policy has been helpful, a good thing, although there’s still too much chaos or choice. Jacobs comes back to the cost side of it: Would Paulsen have voted for the program? Paulsen: Yes. (Notion of the government not being allowed to strike best deal with pharmaceutical companies isn’t raised by either Jacobs or Paulsen, although Jacobs seemed to be driving at that.

12:45 p.m.: Paulsen: Regular commercial banking industry is probably over-regulated. Jacobs: Clarifies that Paulsen wants regulation for unregulated areas of financial sector. Paulsen agrees. Jacobs: What about regulating credit card companies? Paulsen: I’m not a fan of regulation and wary of overstepping proper bounds. Jacobs: A new agency is being proposed to regulate consumer credit. Paulsen: To push home ownership towards folks for whom its unsuitable — there needs to be regulation of that. For me it doesn’t make sense that people would expect to buy a home with no money down and expect someone to buy their mortgage as part of a package. Jacobs: But would you be in favor of expanding regulation in subprime mortgage area? Paulsen: Absolutely. jacobs: Asks re: AIG, insurance industry. Paulsen cites states’ role in regulating insurance. So-called “too big to fail” companies like AIG … there didn’t seem to be a consistent standard on that from the Bush administration. 

12:50 p.m.: Jacobs: Conservatives seem confused about where nationalization of banks stops. Paulsen: i am suspicious of that. We seem to be in uncharted waters. Good to see G20 come up with a plan. Whether you’re conservative or liberal, question is what is the appropriate role for governement. Jacobs: So you would take into account functioning of markets in determining whether government should be involved. Some people seem contagion as different industries (airlines, health care) ask for help. Would you take these on case-by-case basis or is there an overall appropriate answer? Paulsen: Review each situation on its own, not ideologically.

[Several liveblog posts seem to have been lost to an Iffy U of M wifi signal. I’ll try to recover them and edit them back in.}

1:00 p.m.: Jacobs: Obama is president, let’s say. Support line item veto? Paulsen: Yes, no matter which party has presidency. It’s a good tool for eliminating pork. Jacobs: how do you propose to control rising cost of education for middle class? Paulsen: References his four daughters, and the cost of their weddings (joke) let alone education. Debt load for students is so heavy it could be next subprime mortgage crisis if job market can’t support them on graduation. Solution is financial aid, such as Pell grants and the state’s program. Jacobs; Regulate tuition hikes? Paulsen: I’d look at it. Is it over-regulation? The top-down model presents false choices between spending options. Jacobs: How do you increase the number of engineers, for example. Paulsen: Require higher math at younger age, although I’m resistant to idea of federal government doing more that asking states to set goals. Paulsen cites Chinese who get up a 6 a.m. to study. Jacobs: Support free trade? Paulsen: Yes. It was a travesty that Columbian free trade was sidelined by Congress. Special interests and unions got hold of that one.

1:10 p.m. Jacobs: Free trade losers raises question of what to do about those on the downside who are anxious or losing jobs? Would you support job programs? Paulsen: We’re always going to have workforce resources for retraining. Cites his trip to India to bring up retirement-like accounts that individuals and employers can contribute to for individual lifelong learning savings.

1:15 p.m.: Very small crowd is hanging out in animated conversation in the hall. A couple student reporters are interviewing others in the audience as the event breaks up. I’m going to repair to a table in the lobby where the wifi signal is better and try to reconstruct this liveblog from various peices that may be floating in cyberspace.

1:30 p.m.: Interesting example of market forces at work at the reception afterwards. There seems to be more pizza today than yesterday, perhaps in response to not having enough yesterday. But today there are fewer people to feed, so the extra pies reflect a basic difficulties in supply meeting anticipated demand. Perhaps government could step in at least temporarily to regulate pizza distribution for campus events — but if so they must act soon, because Independence Party candidate David Dillon will be here at noon on Friday for his turn to be grilled by Jacobs and student questioners. Will Dillon draw people who attended Madia’s event, or Paulsen’s? As in politics, the third party presents a catering conundrum:

A lightweight foam paperweight freebie at the HHH institute event.

DFL candidate Ashwin Madia spoke Monday over the noon hour at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute, in a Charlie Rose-style dialogue with Prof. Larry Jacobs. Tomorrow, Madia’s Republican opponent in the 3rd district congressional race, state Rep. Erik Paulsen, will appear at the same venue. The title of Madia’s presentation today is “Green Fuel, Green Technology and Greenbacks: A Plan to Protect Our Environment and Our Economy.” The event’s over now, but read a liveblog archived after the jump, and look here at noon Tuesday for a liveblog of Paulsen’s appearance. 12:06 p.m.: Jacobs introducing Madia to applause from about 30 gathered at the HHH Institute. Madia will speak for 20 minutes.

12:11 p.m.: Madia: Dependence on oil is an economic problem, a security risk and an unsustainable planetary concern.

12:14 p.m.: More like 50 people here now. Madia knocks Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for downplaying environmental impacts.

12:17 p.m.: Madia: Potential to lead world on carbon neutral technology. Do it now or buy it in 10 years from China. Switchgrass! How? Unleash power of private sector: Let people make a profit, with tax incentives and rebates for businesses and consumers who invest in carbon-neutral tech, as in Israel. Also: R&D.

12:20 p.m.: Madia: When prices for oil were high in the 1970s, the country focused on saving energy, even putting solar panels on the White House roof — which were removed when oil prices dropped.

12:25 p.m.: Madia ends with Humphrey quote, under huge wall collage of mementos from Humphrey’s career. Jacobs dives into dialogue with question on people’s faith in technology. How feasible, cost-effective? Madia’s answer: Not there yet, but very much so to both. If U.S. puts $14 billion per year toward alternative energy technologies, lots of technologies possible. High prices now are creating political will to change: Don’t let that opportunity slip away.

12:30 p.m. : Jacobs: Administration moved away from carbon sequestration technology (his second reference to this … he must really like it). Madia: Today carbon sequestration. Compares to Star Wars technology (favorably, I think). Jacobs: What do you say to West Virginians who rely on coal for jobs? Madia; World is changing. It’s true we’ll lose some jobs but we’ll gain jobs in alternative energy industries. I’m not too worried, because with progress comes more jobs. Jacobs’ last question re: cap-and-trade proposals. Madia: [Missed part of answer here] It won’t hurt public pocket book. Doesn’t support government price controls. Jacobs last-last question [actually first audience question read from a card] re: transportation spending. Madia: Highways to western suburbs jammed, but what if light rail went out there? Ease congestion, increase productivity, spur economic growth, cut pollution, save money on gas and vehicles. Cites Israeli model again, but at Jacobs’ prompting, doesn’t think we need a gas tax to fund changes.

12:40 p.m.: Madia: Pushes pay-as-you-go philosophy. Jacobs: Give us two examples of source of revenue, from what cuts? Madia: Get rid of tax benefits for oil companies and pharmaceutical industries, Iraq pull-out … He gets through six things so fast I lost the thread, and someone in the crowd starts to laugh, just at his speedy delivery, I think.

12:45 p.m.: Jacobs presses on cost competitiveness of green technologies. Would you favor raising costs of carbon-based energy technologies? Madia would not make costs more expensive for carbon-based energy, but would make it cheaper for alternative energies. Jacobs: Offshore drilling? Madia: Maybe that’s part of it, but don’t give oil companies carte blanche. Wants “responsible” drilling, where companies can demonstrate oil’s there and potential for environmental damage is limited. “It’s got to be more thoughtful than ‘Drill, baby, drill.” Jacobs (now reading audience questions off cards?): What’s your view on nuclear power? Madia agrees with Gore: It’s part of an overall strategy.

12:50 p.m.: Jacobs: California had fuel-efficiency standards … should Minnesota and other states set energy policies for themselves, or should it be federal standards? Madia: Both. Hard to argue with California, and even cities can have own policies. But ultimately it’s a national problem. It’s embarrassing that states and cities have had to move forward on these issues as the federal government drags its heels. Jacobs: What about business resistance to state and local energy policy changes? Madia: That argues for need for national energy strategy. Jacobs: with audience question on federal flood insurance. Madia: Hasn’t looked at that issue.

12:55 p.m. Jacobs: What to do about student indebtedness, financial literacy? Madia: Find out why costs increasing and what can be done to contain rather than shift cost from one party to the next. Jacobs: Ethanol’s future? Madia: I’d like to see more cellulosic-based fuel, recognizing the fuel’s importance for the state. Jacobs: That’s still on the drawing board though, as opposed to ethanol. Madia: It’s several years away, but tax incentives and government R&D can hurry it along. Jacobs: Other transportation ideas? Madia: Invest in roads, infrastructure, mass transit. “Smart Cities” concept, with less travel due to Internet and telecommuting from home. Or simply living close to work. Jacobs: How about railroads and airlines? Rethink those  from energy standpoint? Madia: No concrete ideas, but admires China’s rail system as model for regional travel, to reduce demand for air travel – either a government system or, better yet, private systems. Jacobs: What committees would you want to be on in Congress? Madia: Armed Services committee, a budgetary committee –- to make cuts though, not to bring home bacon. Jacobs: Would you make pledge not to accept earmarks? Madia: No. I won’t take middle-of-the-night inserted items, but I would take line items for needed things like the new I-35W bridge.

1:00 p.m.: Question: How does government partner with people to solve problems? Madia: That’s a broad question. Government can’t do this alone is a central theme to my campaign. Specifically, with energy: People need to change habits, even the way they think. “I don’t think my kids are going to be raised that same way” — referring to current energy practices, but a notable answer considering Republican profiling of him as not being a family man. Jacobs, in a final question, picks up on that point: “Do you consider yourself a role model for childless, mortgage-free young people who want to change the country?” Madia explains reference to Paulsen attacks. The most important decision you [young people ] will make is economic policy. Whew — in the very last sentence he utters at this event, Madia finally uses his favorite word, “fulsome,” I think in reference to a national energy strategy. I submit he’s the only candidate for Congress this year making regular use of that SAT-level word. Jacobs announces free T-shirts and reception after speech. Ending applause from now maybe 75-100 people in the room. Maybe the latecomers heard about the free T-shirts.

1:15 p.m.: T-shirts are one thing … free pizza is something we can all agree on. But in a quarter of an hour, this student crowd put away four pies.

1:30 p.m.: HHH Institute students are actually hanging around in the central atrium, talking about issues they just heard about — tax credits and such — and dissecting the dialogue. I guess this is the after-party. Tomorrow: Republican candidate Erik Paulsen, whose theme wasn’t announced as of this morning. But HHH staff here told me they got late word it’ll be the economy, and what tomorrow’s leaders (read: you guys at the Humphrey Institute) can do about it. Like the pizza, the event is free and open to the public, as is Friday’s installment with Independence Party candidate David Dillon. But if you can’t make it, MnIndy expects to liveblog again tomorrow at noon, same bat channel. And with that, this liveblog is officially dead … for now. For another take on today’s proceedings, check out a pizza-and-offspring-status-free liveblog from the Humphrey Institute’s Center for the Study of Politics and Governance’s blog, Smart Politics.