I had originally planned to exclusively talk about the economy and the financial crisis, which I still intend to address. But, these are fearful anxious times – and people are looking for hope and confidence and leadership.

So, today, I want to talk about hope and confidence and real concerns people have about the future and about other things that I know many of you are here to discuss.

One of the many advantages of my Jewish faith is the ancient calendar we keep that calls for certain beneficial spiritual activities throughout the year.

One such event is Yom Kippur which just concluded last night at sundown, a time of fasting, soul searching and refocusing of your life. It was for me a very necessary day to stop and contemplate and make a couple of decisions I want share with the people of Minnesota this morning.

The first is an announcement that as of today I am suspending all negative campaign ads and am calling on those who support me to do the same.

Legally I can’t control ads from independent groups.

I wish I could, if I could they would all be positive.

All I can control is those ads where I say “I’m Norm Coleman and I approve this message.”
I’m doing this for two reasons

First of all, this is a terrible time for so many people with the financial crisis – with real concerns and fear about people’s jobs – about their life savings – and their children’s future and education — when we are all bombarded with negative messages of real consequence.

At times like this, politics should not add to negativity – it should lift people up with hope and a confident vision for the future.

And second, I decided that I was not all that interested in returning to Washington for six years based on the judgment of voters that I was not as bad as the other two guys. I want folks to vote for me, not against the other guys.

I will continue to campaign in a way that shows the contrast between myself and the others in experience, judgment and temperament. But I will stress my positive record, of which I am very proud, as the main reason folks should support me.

I have directed my campaign this morning to begin the process of immediately pulling any negative ad that I am personally responsible for approving- I am also issuing a press release today calling on those who chose to weigh in on this race to honor my call for only positive ads.

The fact is, there may be ads in the pipeline- fundraising letters- direct mail—YouTube or Web videos or other campaign messages that will filter out into the public over the next several days.

I raise this because I want to avoid being caught up on a technicality while the good faith effort is being made to pull these ads down.

At a time when we need unity, people want hope and that’s what I have offered and acted upon my entire life in public service.

As many people know, my theme when I was running for election as Mayor of Saint Paul was that Saint Paul’s best days are yet to come. My mantra was hope plus confidence yields investment.

And, I was right.

Today, people need hope and a more positive campaign is a start.

It’s a rule of thumb on both sides of the political aisle that negative ads work. I’m wiling to put that theory to a test and trust the higher standards of the people of Minnesota.

Like the vote I took last week on the Financial Stabilization Plan, if this move costs me an election… I can live with that.

My second decision was to make an appeal to basic fairness and respect when it comes to coverage of our personal lives.

Over the last several days I have received a fresh batch of questions from reporters, fueled by blogs, about personal issues concerning my finances, my family and my wife.

I guess I was a little naive last week. I thought news organizations would not publish a story based on a political blog without substantiation, so I didn’t think I personally needed to respond to baseless and sensationalized claims. Our thought was that responding would make a story out of a non-story. Today there is obviously a different standard. Refusing to respond to a baseless unsubstantiated claim that appears on a blog becomes a story. I guess I learned a lesson.

We all learn from different sources, like the tidbit I picked up from Michael Scott from The Office who said “Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.” That’s the world we live in

So today my response will be specific and complete.

While I have answered honestly the question about suits and jobs – I will say as clearly as I can.

Nobody except my wife or me bought my suits.

If my friends have shared gifts with me and my family – or I have shared gifts with them – if they rose to the level of having to be reported – they were reported.

As many know, Senate Ethics Rules are extensive – and tough and spell out exactly what must be disclosed. Lobbyists can’t give you gifts – long-time friends can share gifts that friends share. I have friends – like many of you here today have friends – and if my friends ever gave me a gift that was required to have been reported – it was reported.

I have heard and answered many of these questions before and given my answers, but I will do it again – and for the last time.

Throughout my public career I have tried to be as transparent and forthcoming as I could and maintain a minimum degree of privacy in my family’s private life.

I have, in good faith, reported everything I was required to and then some.

My official life is an open book for anyone to read, in my financial disclosures, my FEC reports and my official websites which lists all my trips and earmarks.

I’m okay with you asking me these questions – but I am also intent on saying that when they’ve been answered, they’ve been answered.

Families and personal issues are out of bounds and must stay that way. And, from this Senator and father and husband – they are off bounds – and out of bounds.

In recent days, outrageous questions and insinuations have been lodged against my wife about her employment. My wife’s job has been disclosed as required under the ethics laws of the United States Senate. My wife is a certified and licensed insurance agent – she works for a living – and her employer is pleased with her work – and she is pleased with her job.

And that’s all anybody is entitled to know.

Questions about my wife – about my children – about their private lives, jobs, work and school – are just that – private. And, they will remain that way.

Al Franken’s family – Dean Barkley’s family – Norm Coleman’s family – are off limits.

Barack Obama was right – families should not be targets of attack in political campaigns. And, I won’t let my family be the target of anyone’s attack – nor will I cross that line where you feel that you have a right to come across that line. Because you do not.

I will, once more, gladly respond to your questions—and then we must get back on track with a positive campaign about the issues of the day.

You may not like my answers – and you may feel you are entitled to something more – but, I am entitled to my privacy in my private life – and I am entitled to have my public life treated honestly and fairly – and I will insist on both.

In the remaining days I hope we can not only engage the people of Minnesota in the debate but inspire them with confidence that we can overcome the negative tenor of these times and move Minnesota and the nation forward.
That’s my plan going forward and I hope others will choose the same path.

Norm and Laurie: A second Coleman-Kazeminy connection implicates Mrs. C.

The figure of Nasser Kazeminy — longtime Norm Coleman friend and patron — is once again casting a shadow over the U.S. Senate campaign. Kazeminy, the man who may or may not have purchased suits for Coleman at Neiman-Marcus once upon a time, was reportedly accused in a lawsuit filed (and withdrawn) this week of funneling money to Coleman’s wife, Laurie Coleman, through a third party.

(UPDATE: The Nation has obtained a copy of the suit. Someone sent one to MnIndy as well; it’s posted here.)

We know this because there is videotape (published this morning at MnIndy) of Star Tribune reporter Paul McEnroe asking Coleman — or rather, the closed window of Coleman’s SUV — about it.

But whereas McEnroe and Tony Kennedy’s previous inquiries into the Coleman/Kazeminy relationship (the Neiman-Marcus affair) never yielded a story in the paper, this one has to. A quick recapitulation of the main known facts in the matter explains why.

1) The lawsuit was filed Tuesday Monday in a Texas court. Kazeminy was the defendant; the plaintiff is not publicly known at present.

2) One of the claims in the lawsuit, judging from McEnroe’s questions on the video, is the allegation that Laurie Coleman received $75,000 indirectly from Kazeminy, disbursed by Deep Marine Technologies, a company of which Kazeminy owns a substantial share, and paid to Hays Companies, an insurance/risk management outfit where Laurie Coleman was on the payroll.

3) The lawsuit was withdrawn on Wednesday. In his comments to the Pioneer Press, Coleman said the claim was “’simply false.’… The purpose of this stuff is to, at the 11th hour, throw something out there and see if it sticks. There were some things that we believe were thrown in there for the purpose of influencing the campaign. It was withdrawn because the attorneys recognized that there were some things in there that weren’t factual.” Coleman claims, in other words, that the suit was withdrawn because it lacked merit — because the allegations contained in it were false.

4) When asked directly about the disposition of the lawsuit — specifically, whether Kazeminy had struck a settlement with the plaintiff — Coleman campaign manager Cullen Sheehan said he didn’t know: “I don’t know about the details of a settlement or not.”

So either the plaintiff was leaned on to withdraw a legal action without merit, or the defendant made a settlement with that party within 24 hours or so of the litigation’s filing. Which was it? The implications regarding the merits of the underlying claim would be judged very differently by most legal observers depending on the answer.

5) The Star Tribune’s McEnroe and Kennedy — unlike any other reporters in town, to our knowledge — have a copy of the lawsuit, which MnIndy and no doubt others are pursuing through the county court systems of Texas. McEnroe and Kennedy are thus in a position to contact the principals’ attorneys of record to get an answer about the disposition of the suit, and to elaborate on the nature of the claims in it, with whatever caveats and disclaimers their reporting of the story may dictate.

But under no circumstances should the public be left in the dark concerning the backstory that frames this unusual turn of events. If the Strib stays mum this time, it will only get tougher for them to deny the not-exactly-subtle pro-GOP bias on the part of the paper’s editors.

One version of the rumor held that editors at the paper discouraged the story, but when I phoned McEnroe earlier this week to ask about that, he vehemently denied it. “That’s not true at all,” he told me. “Whoever is telling you that doesn’t have a clue. No editor has ever dissuaded us from the work Tony and I do, with respect to any subject.”

So is there a story in the works about the alleged Coleman/Kazeminy ties? McEnroe refused to say, offering only that “We’re still working on a lot of interesting information.”

I visited Neiman Marcus myself earlier this week to see if any of the salesmen in their menswear department were willing to discuss the matter, and was promptly told by a staffer that no one there could discuss client information and that the reporters who have been coming around lately were “jeopardizing our jobs.” The individual I spoke to would not comment on a report I’d heard that sales staff there had been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements.

Ken Silverstein, the Harper’s magazine’s Washington editor who broke the Suitgate story two weeks ago, posted this update about the matter — and about Norm Coleman’s role in promulgating it by refusing to address the question initially — on Wednesday.

The Nation’s Ari Berman digs into the financial friendship between Coleman and Kazeminy.

In the past few years, Kazeminy has paid for Coleman’s trips to the Bahamas, Paris and Jordan. Coleman called him “a friend with a plane.”

Yet the relationship is deeper than that. When Coleman was mayor of St. Paul (from 1994 to 2002), the city gave a $425,000 loan to help renovate the St. Paul Athletic Club, a project Kazeminy was an investor in. When the new gym opened, Coleman became the first member.

Between his stint as mayor and senator, Coleman joined a law firm, Winthrop and Weinstine, retained by Kazeminy’s company. Coleman was paid $140,000 during that brief time period, even though his law license was suspended at the time of the hiring because he’d failed to pay his dues to the Minnesota State Bar while mayor. Coleman initially declined to disclose the terms of the contract, telling the Minneapolis Star-Tribune it was “between the firm, me and my wife.”

Berman’s article as much more analysis and is worth the read.

Meanwhile, DailyKos diarist, D Wreck, looks through Nasser’s federal government contracts. Nasser’s received $1,139,494 in government contracts since Coleman took office in the Senate.

Nasser Kazeminy’s campaign contribution disclosure forms indicate NJK Holding as his employer. A review of USASpending.gov reveals government payments to NJK Holding totaling $328,082 beginning in 2003 when Coleman took office.

Kazeminy’s joint investment with Goodman in United Energy Corp has also benefited from government contracts. A review of USASpending.gov reveals government payments to United Energy Corp totaling $465,103 since Coleman took office in 2003. United Energy had previously received $222,766 between 2000-2002.

John Goodman’s campaign contribution disclosure forms indicate Sage Co. and The Goodman Group as his employers. A review of USASpending.gov reveals government payments to Sage Co totaling $346,309 since Coleman took office in 2003. Sage also received government payments of $174,000 between 2000-2002.

That totals $1,139,494 in government contracts between 2003-2008.

While I have answered honestly the question about suits and jobs – I will say as clearly as I can.

Nobody except my wife or me bought my suits.

If my friends have shared gifts with me and my family – or I have shared gifts with them – if they rose to the level of having to be reported – they were reported.

Are you satisfied with his answer? Let us know in the comments.

The full portion of the statement regarding suits:

Over the last several days I have received a fresh batch of questions from reporters, fueled by blogs, about personal issues concerning my finances, my family and my wife.

I guess I was a little naive last week. I thought news organizations would not publish a story based on a political blog without substantiation, so I didn’t think I personally needed to respond to baseless and sensationalized claims. Our thought was that responding would make a story out of a non-story. Today there is obviously a different standard. Refusing to respond to a baseless unsubstantiated claim that appears on a blog becomes a story. I guess I learned a lesson.

We all learn from different sources, like the tidbit I picked up from Michael Scott from The Office who said “Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information.” That’s the world we live in

So today my response will be specific and complete.

While I have answered honestly the question about suits and jobs – I will say as clearly as I can.

Nobody except my wife or me bought my suits.

If my friends have shared gifts with me and my family – or I have shared gifts with them – if they rose to the level of having to be reported – they were reported.

As many know, Senate Ethics Rules are extensive – and tough and spell out exactly what must be disclosed. Lobbyists can’t give you gifts – long-time friends can share gifts that friends share. I have friends – like many of you here today have friends – and if my friends ever gave me a gift that was required to have been reported – it was reported.

I have heard and answered many of these questions before and given my answers, but I will do it again – and for the last time.

Throughout my public career I have tried to be as transparent and forthcoming as I could and maintain a minimum degree of privacy in my family’s private life.

I have, in good faith, reported everything I was required to and then some.

My official life is an open book for anyone to read, in my financial disclosures, my FEC reports and my official websites which lists all my trips and earmarks.

I’m okay with you asking me these questions – but I am also intent on saying that when they’ve been answered, they’ve been answered.

Families and personal issues are out of bounds and must stay that way. And, from this Senator and father and husband – they are off bounds – and out of bounds.

In recent days, outrageous questions and insinuations have been lodged against my wife about her employment. My wife’s job has been disclosed as required under the ethics laws of the United States Senate. My wife is a certified and licensed insurance agent – she works for a living – and her employer is pleased with her work – and she is pleased with her job.

And that’s all anybody is entitled to know.

Questions about my wife – about my children – about their private lives, jobs, work and school – are just that – private. And, they will remain that way.

Al Franken’s family – Dean Barkley’s family – Norm Coleman’s family – are off limits.

Barack Obama was right – families should not be targets of attack in political campaigns. And, I won’t let my family be the target of anyone’s attack – nor will I cross that line where you feel that you have a right to come across that line. Because you do not.

I will, once more, gladly respond to your questions—and then we must get back on track with a positive campaign about the issues of the day.

You may not like my answers – and you may feel you are entitled to something more – but, I am entitled to my privacy in my private life – and I am entitled to have my public life treated honestly and fairly – and I will insist on both.

In the remaining days I hope we can not only engage the people of Minnesota in the debate but inspire them with confidence that we can overcome the negative tenor of these times and move Minnesota and the nation forward.

That’s my plan going forward and I hope others will choose the same path.

The mini-scandal over whether Sen. Norm Coleman received gifts of men’s haberdashery has a name — “Suitgate” — and it’s gaining national attention, and not just on the blogs. Yesterday MSNBC interviewed the Star Tribune’s Patricia Lopez about the issue, which was exacerbated this week when Coleman spokesman Cullen Sheehan refused to directly answer questions about whether campaign donor Nasser Kazeminy purchased suits for Coleman. In footage excerpted by MSNBC, Sheehan repeated — 12 times in three minutes — that the senator has “reported every gift he has ever received.”

Meanwhile, MinnPost’s Eric Black writes that he, too, received a tip about Kazeminy’s alleged gifts to Coleman; he asked Sheehan who denied it, so he left the issue alone. But “I now understand that to have been a technical, but not candid, answer.”

He goes on to give background on Kazeminy’s history with Coleman, as both a friend and donor (in those capacities, gifts have included funds and at least two trips for Coleman and family members — to Paris and the Bahamas). Black also reminds that “no one has reported any allegation that Coleman has used his official position to benefit Kazeminy.”

And: The Wall Street Journal gets in on the action.