We won't have Norm to kick around anymore…

… or will we?
File this under HA HA HA HA HA HA HA:

RJC Announces Norm Coleman to Serve as Consultant and Strategic Advisor
Washington, D.C. (January 22, 2009) — Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks announced today that Senator Norm Colelman (MN) has agreed to join the RJC as a consultant and strategic advisor. In this capacity, Coleman will help the RJC as it plans for the future and looks at ways to continue its historic record of growth and success.

Which success, the one where despite a huge whisper campaign and a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama, Jews voted 78-22 for our new President, besting Kerry’s 04 numbers?
I’m reminded of a certain CT senator staying on the ballot for Senate while running for VP. Getting a job just in case all the spurious claims don’t get you back into that seat, Norm? Here’s hoping a real Progressive is back in Senator Wellstone’s (z’l) chair.
(h/t: TMP and JTA)

4 thoughts on “We won't have Norm to kick around anymore…

  1. This is the best job Norm could get?
    At this point his chances of being back in the senate are indeed slim to none, and it’s no secret in MN that he is having some ‘financial difficulties’.
    I wonder what they’re paying him.

  2. Ruby K writes:
    I’m reminded of a certain CT senator staying on the ballot for Senate while running for VP.
    A certain DE senator did the same thing in 2008, but this wasn’t a problem because Delaware has a Democratic governor, so he was ensuring that the seat would stay in Democratic hands one way or the other. The problem with Lieberman was that CT had a Republican governor, so if he had been elected VP, he would have been giving up a Democratic seat (which could have been retained if he had dropped out of the Senate race) in what turned out to be a 50-50 Senate. (Of course, he found a way to do that anyway.)

  3. Hmm. Looks like the Governor of Texas in 1988 was a Republican. So Bentsen was being lame. Although the Senate elected that year was 55-45 (and in those days, filibusters were still filibusters), so one seat wouldn’t have made as much of a difference. Also a generic Democrat wouldn’t necessarily have won (whereas they would have in Connecticut), so there’s complicated game theory going on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.