TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Article on Sen. Coleman's position on troop surge

E-mail a friend

Sen. Norm Coleman discusses the debate over a possible U.S. troop surge in Iraq.
 

Tavis: Senator Norm Coleman, Republican from Minnesota is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the ranking Republican on the subcommittee dealing with the Middle East. He joins us tonight from Washington. Senator, nice to have you back on the program, sir.

Sen. Norm Coleman: It’s always great to be with you, Tavis, thank you.

Tavis: I wanna talk about some foreign issues and some domestic issues. We’ll start, of course, with the big issue, Iraq, before we come back here Stateside. We've been hearing so much about these resolutions, nonbinding though they may be, but sending messages to the president about where people in the Senate stand on his so-called troop surge.

What’s been happening of late, as you certainly well know, is that Republicans have been expressing concern – in fact, opposition to the president on his troop surge plan for Iraq. And so, this John Warner non-binding resolution that everybody’s been talking about got blocked by your party. By the GOP. So, question one, what happened?

Coleman: Well, two things. First of all, I actually voted to move the resolution forward. I wanted to continue the debate. I think my colleagues, by the way, I've gotta make it very clear. I think we all want a debate, but folks want it to be an open debate. The problem was one of my colleagues, Judd Gregg, had an amendment that would have said, no cutting off funding.

The Democrats didn’t want to have a debate on that. And ultimately, I voted for moving this resolution forward. I think we should get everything on the table, bottom line. And you said it, Tavis, this is the big issue. This is the most important issue we’re facing today. This is the issue on the minds of the American public, and put it all out there.

Put the Warner amendment, by the way, which I'm a support of, a cosponsor of. I have a concern about the surge in Baghdad. By the way, I separate that from the fighting that’s going on in places like Anbar, where we’re fighting Al-Qaeda, we’re fighting foreign fighters, we’re fighting the insurgency. But I worry about putting our men and women, in the crosshairs of sectarian civil war in Baghdad.

That’s my concern. So the bottom line, let’s have debate on the Warner resolution, but then the other side has to have, be willing to have a debate on the Judd Gregg resolution, which would say no cut-off funding. I don't support cutting off of funding. I think the majority of senators will agree with me on that. But folks on the other side don't wanna have that debate.

Let’s put all the politics beside, put it out there. I think Congress should be debating this, should be discussing. I think that’s what our constituents expect. And I reject those who say that this kind of debate hurts the effort of the guys on the ground. I was in Iraq a month ago. I'm in constant contact with folks on the ground. We can have our debate.

We support our troops. We’re gonna give them what they need to do their mission. But I think it’s legitimate to say that we have concerns, in this case, in my case, about the surge of troops in Baghdad, putting folks in the middle of a sectarian civil war.

Tavis: Let me ask you what might be a politically incorrect question, but…

Coleman: I couldn’t imagine you asking that question, Tavis.

Tavis: (Laugh) Wouldn’t it send a strong signal to the president, rather than these non-binding resolutions – as you know, Warner’s isn't the only one. But rather than these non-binding resolutions, if the Senate were interesting, underline the phrase were interested, in sending the president the strongest message about the wrongness, the wrong-directedness, of his Iraq policy, wouldn’t cutting off funding for him stop him from doing what he’s doing?

Coleman: Yeah, it would also inflict grave damage on brave young men and woman who are on the front line, fighting Al-Qaeda, fighting terrorism, putting their lives on the line. I don't believe that a majority of the United States Senate would support that. We may disagree with an aspect of the president’s policy, and in the end, Tavis, all you can do is really send a message.

He is the Commander-In-Chief. He was elected as Commander-In-Chief. He has certain powers. He has certain Constitutional authority. We also, by the way, as members of Senate, have the right to express our concerns, have the right to express the concerns of our citizens, so we do that. But in the end, he is the commander.

We hope that he listens to those concerns, but the idea of cutting off funding I think would be a terrible, terrible mistake. And I do not believe, by the way, there’s a majority in the United States Senate that would support that action. By the way, Tavis, there may not be 60 votes to support any resolution. (Laugh) We have a divided Senate; we have a divided country on these issues.

So I'm not sure there are 60 votes. I think we come closest with the Warner resolution. Again, it says that we are troubled with the surge in Baghdad, we don't wanna put troops in the center of a sectarian civil war. But it does separate that from what’s going on in Anbar, it does not allow for cutting off of funding. And most importantly, it says that there are great consequences if we fail, and the nation should understand that.

Tavis: To one of the points you made a moment ago, when you suggested that we have a divided country, I hear your point. I take your point on the fact that we are a divided nation. You don't believe, though, that we’re divided on this Iraq question, do you?

Coleman: Well, I think we are divided. I can’t tell you the numbers. First of all, you don't make policy by taking a poll.

Tavis: You're right about that, but every poll, study, and survey says the American people think the president is wrong on this policy.

Coleman: Yeah, but we are a divided nation. Not everybody thinks wrong. There are a lot of folks, I get a lot of emails from folks on the ground. That’s really important to me, by the way, the folks who are there, in uniform, who have answered the call to duty and on the front line. And I can tell you there’s division there.

But that’s the nature of our country. So be it. There is the division. We have a right to express ourselves, the president is acting, he’s Commander-In-Chief. Bottom line is, we always should understand that there are consequences to failure. That failure in Iraq, if we were simply to leave right now, the level of sectarian violence, experts all say would go way beyond what we see now.

The possibility of Iran and Saudi Arabia and those others kind of entering the fray. So there are consequences to failure. But on the other hand, I think legitimately, as you indicated, certainly the body politic in America has grave concerns about a surge at this time. Has concerns about Iraq. But the bottom line is that I don't think any of us are the Commander-In-Chief.

We’re not. Not I don't think. None of us are the Commander-In-Chief. The president is gonna take certain action. We wanna make sure he’s listening. The Warner resolution raises those concerns. We bring it to his attention. But I do not believe that we are gonna be cutting off funds to the troops in the field.

Tavis: All right, we roughly have tonight a 10 minute conversation with you. I'm looking at the clock now, about five minutes of it. So clearly, half of it’s been spent talking about Iraq. I only raise that because I'm curious as to what you think Americans ought to be talking about on the domestic front that we haven’t talked about for the last five minutes, because Iraq sucks the air out of every other conversation in the room.

Coleman: And it does, by the way, there’s no question it does. To Abraham Lincoln, at the height of the Civil War, when he wanted to free the slaves, when he wanted to unite the nation, he also built a transcontinental railroad and laid out the vision that united this country from sea to shining sea. There are other things to talk about. Healthcare. We’re gonna have a budget debate coming up soon. There’s some things in that budget that are some good things.

There's money for renewable fuels, we gotta end that addiction we have to foreign oil, to Middle East oil. But there’s substantial cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, and we have to look at those and measure the human impact of those. So, we have challenges out there. Healthcare, energy, meeting the challenge of global competition.

China’s producing 600,000 engineers a year, India, 350,000. We’re producing 70,000. So we got some big issues out there, and we have to be able to multitask, Tavis. We gotta deal with Iraq, but let us deal with making sure that Americans can send their kids to school, got good healthcare, don't have to worry about losing their jobs. So, those issues are important.

And hopefully, in a bipartisan way after this last election. I think we heard the public say, "Get the job done. Put the partisan stuff aside, let’s figure out a way to work together and solve some problems."

Tavis: This is not about Norm Coleman specifically, but you can’t be proud of your party for the last nine or 10 years that they’ve had control, fighting against increasing the minimum wage, the longest lack of an increase in the nation’s history. We’re finally up now to $7.25, phased in over two years. But what’s that ridiculousness about?

Coleman: Oh, let me tell you, I've actually supported the minimum wage (laugh). I think it’s been much too long. But part of the, not ridiculousness, I think there’s some of my colleagues, and I also join in this, having a legitimate concern about the impact on small business. You don't wanna raise the wage and then lose jobs. Bottom line, I gotta say I think it was ridiculous that we had to wait 10 years to raise the minimum wage.

But Tavis, you gotta put all the party stuff aside. Your party’s a bad party, there’s enough blame to go around for both sides. We’re in this together. The partisan stuff, when Tom Daschle was leader of the US Senate, they were gonna block the Republican majority from getting things done, getting things done. Ultimately, we got an energy bill done.

I think that was a pretty good thing. But the bottom line, there’s enough blame to go around for everyone. Let’s put the labels aside. Let’s figure out if we can see something that we agree on. Let’s deal with healthcare for average Americans. Let’s deal with energy costs for average Americans. Let’s deal with the challenge of global competition.

So, I wanna put the labels aside, I wanna stop the blame game. I'm a former mayor. I wish there were more mayors in the United States Senate. I got measured by what I got done, not what I fought about or debated about.

Tavis: I hear your point, and I take your point. You're not just a former mayor, but you're also a former Democrat. These years later, after switching parties, you still happy with your decision right about now?

Coleman: Oh yeah, absolutely. Listen, I still love Ronald Reagan. When I was a mayor, I said, “The best mayors in America were Republicans, and Democrats who governed like Republicans.” I gotta say this, Tavis, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they care so much they almost do something. It’s not about caring, it’s about getting it done.

But I will say, in the last Congress, we didn’t get it done. We didn’t deal with corruption. We didn’t deal with competence. Katrina was a disaster. So yeah, if you ask me should my party look in the mirror and say, "We messed up," absolutely. On the other hand, the principles of trying to make sure that each child has the opportunity to be the best they can be, the sense of pride in America, I think that’s a good thing, and I'm still very, very proud of that.

Tavis: So finally, everybody in the country who’s at all attuned to politics knows that Minnesota could be an interesting race the next time around, because there are rumors that the guy who thinks he can take you is a guy named Al Franken. So what do you make of a possible campaign against Al Franken?

Coleman: Well, he’s gonna have to fight some others in the Democratic party to get an endorsement for the United States Senate, if that’s what he seeks to do. I'm not gonna comment. Bottom line is this is a very serious business. If he wants to engage in a serious debate, and he can get through the Democratic process, I presume there are folks in Minnesota that have lived there the last 20 years that might wanna take a shot at the job also.

So, let them sort that out. When they sort it out, I’ll be there. I'm looking to serve the people of Minnesota. I hope that I have served them well. I'm gonna try very hard to keep serving them.

Tavis: If this senatorial thing doesn’t work out, you can be an ambassador. That was real smooth (laugh).

Coleman: By the way, Tavis, have you gone on “Jeopardy” again? Did you get another shot at that?

Tavis: No, no, we’re not doing “Jeopardy” ever again.

Coleman: (Laugh) In case this doesn’t work out.

Tavis: But I always remind people, I lost to a Republican named Christie Whitman, but I did beat Tim Russert. (Laugh) So, gotta remind people of that.

Coleman: Hey, that’s pretty good, by the way. I'm pretty impressed.

Tavis: There you go. Senator Coleman, nice to have you on. all the best to you.

Coleman: Always the best to you, Tavis, thank you.

Tavis: Take care, sir.