Garrison Keillor recently wrote a scathing column about senator elect Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
He was savaged by republicans after the piece (especially in Minnesota) and he has come back now with an even more blistering attack. on Coleman and the GOP.
Personally, I think the columns are very entertaining and insightful. (guess what side I voted for) but YMMV.
What do you think? Is Keillor out of line?
The whole column adds up to “Paul Wellstone was a saint.” Well, he’s dead so whether he was a saint or not is irrelevant.
I especially like this line: “I personally don’t believe he had anything to do with the crash of Paul’s plane. Plenty of people suspect he did. I don’t.” What’s up with that? That is about the cheapest Richard Nixon-style smear you can use. Please.
For the most part it seems like more of an attack on Republicans in general than on Coleman. His main issue with Coleman is that he is a phony. But the only hard facts he had to offer were the facts that he had different political views as a kid, and that he said nice things about Wellstone after he died.
Nothing in it that I could see.
Keillor is not out of line. It’s refreshing to hear someone finally call a spade a spade.
I think this may be a response to some of his more whacky fans who email him with conspiracy theories or approach him in public and ask if he thinks Wellstone was “assassinated.” maybe he thinks if he states publicly that he doesn’t buy the conspiracy bullshit, then people will leave him alone.
I have been a Garrison Keillor fan for many years. He seemed so nice on the radio. Ah, well, Johnny Carson seemed nice on the Tonight Show, too. Here’s an article that says Keillor was never nice.
Kellor’s article was despicable because it hinted at scandal without even identifying the accusation, let alone providing evidence. Imagine what Collounsbury would do to a statement like, “Everyone knows that his family situation is, shall we say, very interesting,” with no further explanation.
My cited article analyzes in details the flaws in Keillor’s article. I recommend it.
He sounds like Martha Stewart.
Keillor may be an A-hole but that doesn’t make him wrong about NC necessarily. As to the allusions to Coleman’s personal life, well it is well known around here that he and his wife do not actually live together. Laurie Coleman lives in Los Angeles. (trying to be movie star)
Furthermore, Coleman has been frequently seen around downtown St. Paul having dinner or drinks with other women. There has long been a quiet assumption in these parts that the Colemans have an “understanding.” The DFL in Minnesota did not attempt to make a campaign issue of Normie’s personal life, mostly because Paul Wellstone would not have stood for it.
Is it a cheap shot for Keillor to bring it up now? Yeah, probably, although I think he’s trying to point out what a soft ride Coleman got in the press around here.
Regarding Coleman’s personal life - it, by definintion, must be less hypocritical than our last Republican Senator from Minnesota.
I didn’t see any examples of how exactly Norm Coleman had hideously violated every tenet of civilized behavior in his campaign against Wellstone in Garry’s column.
Keillor is another Minnesota liberal who can’t find anything between “I disagree with you politically” and “you are an evil person”.
Not necessarily over the line, just stupid.
Regards,
Shodan
I find this explanation highly unlikely. It appears clear from the context that it was put in as an insinuation for which Keillor could feign innocence.
There is no need to even mention the conspiracy theories except to taint Colemen by their mention in a paragraph describing Coleman as a cynical politician.
As for the rest of the piece – it’s the type of thing that keeps me amused after elections. No matter who sweeps to victory I’m safe in the knowledge that blind partisans from the other side will right unintentionally comical stuff. I’m anxious for the Dems to take over next election to see what Ann Coulter has to say.
I’m a Republican and I bristled a couple of times over the way he painted us all with a broad brush, but I’ll get over it. I have very little knowledge of Coleman’s campaign before Wellstone’s death so I cannot gauge the fairness of Keillor’s comments re how dirty it was. I will say that I thought Coleman acted appropriately after Wellstone’s death. What could he have possibly done that would have appeased Keillor? Nothing, I suspect.
It’s obvious thought Keillor adored Paul Wellstone. I just think that risking your career and alienating good people who have done nothing to deserve your wrath is a poor way of honoring him.
I was going to do the same the Diogenes did, mostly because I’m kind of curious. I don’t really know much of anything about Norm because there wasn’t a chance in Heck that I was gonna vote for him. But I was very surprised that Gary the K was so strong on the subject, I wanted to know if anybody knew something to warrant it.
I’ve known some people who worked with him on Prairie and there were some problems, centering around the time he started to make some actual bucks. As that can have a deleteriouis effect on the personality (lord, yes!), that wasn’t too surprising. Last I heard, all was pretty much patched up. He’s an ok sort of guy, but that’s all he needs to be, he isnt asking for power over us, like a politician does.
Thing is, I still don’t know what Norm stand for. I have the impression of a moderately middlish sort of Republican, which, while not desireable, isnt out and out toxic either. I’ve also heard in passing the he is anti-choice, but his ads never touched on that. Fact is, his ads never said anything but that he was a nice photogenic guy in a flannel shirt who has some cute kids, unlike the rest of us, who have pretty ordinary kids. Somehow he was to be credited with making more jobs than there are people in St. Paul, and single-handedly bringing hockey to Minnesota. Huh? Somebody brought hockey to Texas, now that took some doing. But bringing hockey to Minnesota? Might as well claim he invented hot dish.
So, Gary, if your reading this, give us the straight skinny: what is so loathesome about this guy?
Did anyone else find it funny that Keillor called the Republicans empty suits with no ideas who are basically running as the “not-Clintons?” Isn’t that why the Democrats didn’t get elected? Fake Republicans vs. real Republicans and all that?
I dunno. I thought it was humorous.
Yes, Coleman is pro-life (unfortunately, from my POV). The point came up in the debate with Mondale.
Who among us wouldn’t be shaking in our boots knowing that GARRISON KEILLOR is out there disapproving of us? That man just drips power and intrigue.
<Keillor>Fear me… (nasal wheeze) mortals.</Keillor>
Seriously, rumors true or not, sniping at someone’s marriage is a cheap shot. I just lost some respect for Garrison.
It’s one thing to dislike Coleman, but another to insult his personal life. If I were Norm, I’d challenge him to a duel.
Stoid has another thread going, asking why “partisan” is used as an epithet.
Her answer is, because it leads people to say things like this:
Or, translated, “I have no idea where he stands on the issues. But by golly, I oppose him!”
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, booshwa, Shodan. You ain’t “translating” shit, you’re just shoving your words in my mouth in order to retrieve them. What a load.
Norm ran as a Republican, I am quite thoroughly aware of the Republican stance on the issues of the day, and oppose them on just about every one. I am also quite knowledgeable about Paul Wellstone. I didn’t agree with everything he said, but thought he had his head screwed on right. Good enough for me.
I was also impressed with the feverish determination of the Troglodyte Right to get Paul at any cost. It is perfectly valid to judge a man by his enemies, and he had an excellent set of them. If Tom Delay and Newt Gangrene hate your guts, you’ve most likely got a lot going for you. They feared and hated Paul Wellstone.
If John McCain were running here I might very well vote for him, if for no other reason that his honorable and principled stand on campaign finance reform. When a man stands for a principle that will have the effect of undermining his Party’s power, because the source of that power is ignoble, well, damn! That’s refreshing as hell!
Sure - and a perfect example of the opposite of a partisan approach, as the term is used in the other thread.
I voted for McCain in the primaries.