Talk:Norm Coleman/archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
"Mushy Qualifiers"
This article is rather biased against Coleman in places. Mushy qualifiers like "widely considered" are not particularly objective. The quotes on the end are clearly offered without a context to make a point. I disagree with using selective quotes to make someone look bad. This page deserves changing or reverting to an older version.
--Tom Ruen 05:14, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't leave it untouched, but found it very easy to remove the trashy statements. It certainly deserves more work, if there's anyone out there without a political agenda for editting. --Tom Ruen 05:24, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
I think that it is fair to place a link to a satirical site about Sen. Coleman since it has his own personal Seante site linked as well. In the past the Bushboy.com link has been removed but without reason. Micah 00:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Micah. NormC 00:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absulutely agree with NormC and Micah. Edwin 08:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Irrelevant Info About Blog Rumor
The article includes an irrelevant statement about a blog rumor: "A rumor, circulated widely on political blogs, suggested that the subcommittee censored Mr. Galloway by removing his testimony from their website... The rumor was false."
I do vaguely recall that a political website observed that some testimony or document relating to Galloway was not present on the Senate website, and so it wasn't, but I don't recall any particularly loud accusations of foul play nor do I recall that the issue received wide circulation. There was no specific accusation against Coleman on this point that I'm aware of. The person who wrote this bit said "the rumor suggested..." How does a rumor "suggest" something? Any decent rumor will come out and accuse, won't it? The phrasing is deliberately formulated to make it appear that Coleman was vindicated of some heinous leftwing charge, but this is simply not true. And really, a lot of noise will occur in blogs, why should this matter be relevant for the Wikipedia entry?
I think it sidesteps the really salient point of the Galloway matter, which was that Coleman and his committee made cheap, amateurish, poorly researched, and demonstrably false charges against the anti-war Brit MP, and Galloway showed up to refute them all in a forceful, clear, remarkable way that made a minor dent on the American consciousness. Among the problem charges was the accusation that Galloway met with Saddam Hussein "many times" when he had met with him just twice. And Galloway's overall point, besides refuting the individual charges in a way that was almost universally seen as effective, was that Coleman and co.'s entire enterprise chasing down supposed accounting irregularities in the years-old Oil-for-Food program was really in fact a "smokescreen" designed to divert attention from the atrocious state of the war in Iraq today.
I think that the bit (that is not even sourced) about the supposed blog rumor should be removed and replaced with a factual summary of what actually occured during the Galloway testimony. -Daniel M. (PS: I did not mean to clip anybody's else's comments from this screen, sorry if I did, I'm new at this.)
Al Franken As Likely Opponent
I reverted back to include Franken as Coleman's likely opponent because he has recently said he would like to run in 2008 to take back Wellstone's seat. Franken said he would not run for Mark Dayton's seat which will be an open election (Dayton is not seeking re-election). I know there was some confusion, but I'd be happy to provide a link to a news story about it if you'd like.
MicahMN | Talk 00:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see how Franken being a "likely opponent" is relavent biographical information. This is article is about Norm Coleman, not about a Senate seat from Minnesota. I am sure there are many "likely opponents" that Coleman may have in 2008. There is no need to list them here. — Linnwood 15:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed: The Franken idea is just wild speculation at this point. At this point, it would be questionable even on a page about "Minnesota 2008 Senatorial Election." Coleman has many likely opponents; singling out Franken is just weird. !melquiades 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can somebody type in that Franken will kick Coleman's butt in 2008? -Amit
Claims of biased report
I removed the following sentance: "There have been claims, however, that Coleman's staunch Republican views have biased the report, and some claim that the report was little more than an attempt by the Bush administration to discredit prominent anti-war politicians."
First this is not NOPV. Secondly, if you are going to say there have been claims you must state and cite them, otherwise they are rumors and hearsay.
Coleman's Deceased Children
During his televisived debate with Vice President Walter Mondale in 2002, Mondale bashed Coleman for his abortion position. Norm Coleman retorted, and included that he and his wife personally knew the tragedy that comes with the death of children, as he and his wife lost two children through miscarriage. The transcripts of the debate are readily availible on any number of websites. Please look it up and alter the page back to what I had before you so carelessly altered it. Your remark about Freemasonry was a really careless thing to add. I think now that you realize there is absolutely no credible source on that, you made the right decision by deleting it.
- I actually went out and checked the transcript, and I believe you are incorrect. "COLEMAN: Let me just finish off on that issue, if I may, Mr. Vice President. And I would take exception, I'll use a kind word, to the description of an arbitrary. My wife and I have had two children who were born, first son and the last daughter. They died at very young ages. I have a deep and profound respect for the value of life; it's not arbitrary. But even on that issue, I think we can and should look to find common ground, but please, don't describe it as arbitrary." You can confirm this because the excerpt was on the National Review Online. I can also provide you a copy of the complete transcript if you'd like. Please stop reverting this as it is considered vandalism and you will be blocked. As I said on your talk page, the reason why I did not revert the Freemason reference is because it is hard to prove that Coleman is or is not a member of a secret society, although, to my credit, the NNDB has him listed as one [1]. MicahMN | Talk 03:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
To your credit? Or is it to the credit of whatever website you found that on?
- No, to my credit, it was something I read somewhere else, not something that I just made up. I have no idea where the NNDB gets their info, but much of their other information seems to be correct. MicahMN | Talk 04:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- NNDB is published by the same people that run the perverse "rotten.com" and their information is typically frivolous and specious. --TJive 05:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
