Barkley Takes Off the Gloves!

Last night was Dean Barkley's most dominating performance at any of the US Senate debates to date.

Independence Party candidate Barkley, in particular, went bare-knuckled at his better-financed, big-party rivals, saying their campaigns have been corrupted by special interest money and negativity. He reserved some of his sharpest criticism for incumbent Coleman for, among other things, not doing more to stop the economic meltdown affecting the nation and world.

“Norm, on your watch we had the greatest malfeasance in economic history. If you were in Enron, right now you’d probably be under indictment, not running for reelection.”

Coleman responded that “It’s easy from the cheap seats to throw shots,” and said that Barkley and Franken lack his experience and his understanding of what it takes to forge deals in the hard-ball partisan atmosphere of Washington.

So is Coleman referring that any of us not a sitting member of Congress sits in the cheap seats now? We're all in the cheap seats Coleman. It's from these cheap seats that I worry about the economy, I worry about the company I work for and my job, I worry about stubborn leaders who keep sending my brothers and sisters in arms in harms way, without a plan to get them home and without the proper care once they return.

Senator Coleman, perhaps you should spend a day in the cheap seats and see what this is really like.

Coleman is bipartisan?

In 2003 he voted with President Bush 98% of the time.
2004: 92%
2005: 84%
2006: 88%
2007: 68%.

His final years he may have began to reach across the aisle, knowing he would be up for a tough election fight.

Norm Coleman is not bipartisan, he supported the Bush agenda at nearly a 90% clip.

On campaign finance reform:

Barkley told Coleman, “I’d love to hear an apology for you putting Minnesotans for the last 10 months of these negative ads.” He said public financing of campaigns would help ease cynicism over campaigning and special interests, with each voter getting vouchers to give to the campaign of their choice.

Coleman responded by stating that the people would not want their money spent on all these negative tv ads.

First of all, we already pay for those ads, one way or another, through increased costs to goods and services. Tell me that the $136,000,000 given from the financial services industry this year alone hasn't come back on the user.

Secondly, if you're stupid enough to use public voucher money on negative campaign ads, it shows the candidate's lack of intelligence and fiscal discipline.