Go after Coleman on oil before rent
July 3
I realize the story about Coleman paying what appears to be below-market price rent to a lobbyist, and getting to miss payments with no reminders from his landlord, is an easy story to grab on to. The article didn't get into details about how thoroughly connected the lobbyist in question, Jeff Larson, is to Republican politics including the Coleman campaign. I think his company's work for the junta in Burma is much more disturbing, but that issue seems to have faded with the Burmese cyclone dropping out of the news, so I understand why the rent story is playing so much more.
However, Coleman has recently told two whoppers in his talking points to promote more oil drilling, and it seems there's a commercial in these, not just to make Coleman explain whether he's a liar or too much of a fool to check his talking points, but to shoot down these Republican lies.
The older lie/talking point is the one I highlighted a week ago, "We had the worst natural disaster in the history of this country Katrina, and there wasn't a drop of oil spilled." Read the whole entry for details, but in short, there were enough spills to nearly equal the Exxon Valdez.
The new one is only new for Coleman since it was debunked three weeks ago, even to the point of the acting vice-president admitting it was false. It's hard to hear, but in this video, Coleman can be heard claiming, "The Chinese are able to begin operating 90 miles from our shore by working for Cubans. American companies should tap into those resources.". OK, the 90 miles is new since the other Republicans have been saying 60, but not only is the point not true, it's long been known to not be true, yet Coleman is by TPM's count the eleventh Republican to use it. Most of the public knows little or nothing about this which I assume is why it hasn't been seized on for a commercial (unpaid rent is much easier to understand), but there's a chance to simultaneously get the truth out first and show Coleman getting it wrong.
Drilling Onshore for Information
July 3
Ironically, on the same Sunday Opinion section in which the Star Tribune carried an article on how people incorporate misinformation into what they think they know, the editorial board grossly misinformed their readers on offshore drilling. They repeated the misinformation that drilling is banned when in fact only new leasing is banned. There are tens of millions of acres offshore and in Alaska already leased to oil companies and open to drilling, yet this was not mentioned to readers.
As the board said, there is indeed a debate over how long it would take to get new offshore oil to market. It's a debate is between those telling the truth and special interests deliberately misinforming the public. It is unclear whether it would take 15 years or just a decade for new oil to get to market, but this editorial left readers thinking those who say it would be a few months before gas prices magically come down have a legitimate point. Doesn't anybody fact-check at the Star Tribune anymore?
The Star Tribune would do its readers a much better service to ask why oil companies aren't already drilling where the have leases and know where the oil is. Could it be because oil company stock prices depend partly on how many reserves each company has, so opening up ANWR and more coastline will mean a stock price boost and nice executive bonuses without producing a single drop of oil?




