What follows is the full transcript of Sen. Norm Coleman’s roughly 90-minute chat with Law & Politics, which was conducted in two parts, the first in his office on Feb. 1, the second a 15-minute follow-up by phone on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5. In it, Coleman discusses his life as a senator, the president and his newfound status as one of the Senate’s “new centrists,” after building an early voting portfolio as one of the chamber’s most dogged conservatives. And, of course, his coming re-election.
(Note: The interview transcript is only lightly edited for clarity. So please note that, unlike the familiar print format, where an ellipsis indicates that extraneous sentences have been excised, here ellipses are usually an indication that the senator has changed a thought in mid-sentence, which is one of his frequent idiosyncrasies as a speaker.)
***
L&P: Walk me through the day in the life of a U.S. senator. What does that take out of you?
Coleman: It’s a good question, because it’s something that I think when you run for the office, I don’t know if you’re really aware of what you’re getting into.
L&P: It’s a lot different than being mayor?
C: Yeah, it is, and it isn’t. Because being mayor is 24/7. It never leaves you. If it snows, and I’ll go in Kowalski’s and I’m getting a quart of milk, or a loaf of bread or something and the streets aren’t plowed, people will tell me. (Laughs)
In the Senate, though, the stage is larger. First, just in terms of a typical day, I get up at 6:15 every morning. I’m in Washington, by the way Monday through, typically, Friday. I get home Friday night or Saturday.
L&P: Really? I thought that people were typically bailing out of town by Wednesday afternoon?
C: Not anymore. It’s the nature of the schedule. It’s not that we even get much done. We didn’t have any votes this week.
L&P: Where do you stay out there?
C: I have a room, it’s in a house, it’s on the ground floor, just a little room.
L&P: Right in town?
C: Yeah, right by the Capitol. I could just about walk to work. I don’t spend more than two or three waking hours in my apartment. I get home at 10 o’clock at night, I kind of download a little bit, relax.
L&P: 10 o’clock?
C: Yeah, just about every night. 9:30, 10 o’clock. You have a dinner every night. There are people, either to give a speech or there are people in town, so there is a dinner every night. Constituents—a lot of constituents come in, that’s part of it, and it’s their chance to see you there. I get there; I get prepared for tomorrow, the next day. I have a file that’s waiting for me.
It’s a cross-section. My day yesterday was … I testified at a hearing with [U.S. Sen.] John Kerry by my side on a bill I have to establish a commission to look at creating CO2 pipelines so we can take CO2 pipes out of coal-burning plants and sequester them [the CO2 emissions]. So you’ve got to figure out first how to … where you’re going to put it. Is it next to the plant? You have to have a pipeline. Those are huge issues, siting issues, regulation issues, financing issues. And if we’re going that route—which we will … So there’s me and John Kerry working together in front of the Senate Energy Committee.
And earlier in the morning I had been at the Foreign Relations Committee with General [James L.] Jones, former Ambassador [William] Holbrooke … talking about Afghanistan because I am the ranking member of the Near East subcommittee. So I go from Afghanistan, to a discussion on CO2 sequestration that I’m testifying at that I’ve got to prepare for, for a bill I have, a bipartisan bill. A great bill, by the way, a lot of support from industry, from the regulatory people, from the folks concerned about the environment. Then I had a meeting after that with the Secretary of Agriculture, the new secretary Ed Schafer, with the U.S. Trade Ambassador Sue Schwab, with folks from the sugar industry, talking about NAFTA and a way to deal with what could be an influx of Mexican sugar here or even our sugar in Mexico, and an industry response to that that the industry came up with.
The sugar—by the way, we have the largest sugar-producing region in the country in northwest Minnesota. There’s a $2 billion industry. Because most of the sugar in this country is beet sugar. It’s the same sugar, you go into the store—to Kowalski’s or something—and get it made under whatever brand. Crystal Sugar is made right here. So I convened a meeting in my office with the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Ambassador to sit with the sugar folks representing the sugar growers, to talk about how to deal with that. And also to talk about an issue that I champion, which is sugar energy. Which originally had sugar-to-ethanol, which originally had been resisted by the administration, but now it’s both in the Senate and the House farm bills.
From that I had a conversation with the Transportation Deputy Secretary regarding anti-trust immunity for Northwest Airlines so that they can compete in Europe. And then in between …
L&P: Are we at noon yet?
C: (Smiles) And in between, meetings with Humphrey Institute folks who are in Washington, Larry Jacobs’ students. They were there yesterday, so I do a little discussion there. And then folks coming in talking about roads and highways and passports.
I’m heading up today to International Falls to review the State Department’s change to its rules on passports in this Western Hemisphere travel initiative, which I’ve been a big champion of, to make sure that you don’t impose the passport requirement. Which reminds me; thank goodness I brought my folder. (Coleman speaks to an aide.) I need my passport to get across the border. Today the new rules go into effect and I’m going up there to take a look.
My point being that the range of things, from … The folks in International Falls, those passport issues are life or death, economic life or death. Obviously, my sugar growers, the ability to convert sugar into ethanol will be part of the ethanol revolution as well as the Mexico trade remedy is pretty important. To be sitting with the U.S. Trade Ambassador, who doesn’t necessarily agree but is listening and we get a chance to make the case. To Afghanistan, critical to security. The range of things you deal with each and every day is pretty overwhelming.
So you need great staff, you really do. On my end you have to process a lot of information, sometimes quickly. You’ve got to process it.
L&P: Have you had to train yourself to keep one slice of your brain activated on each of these issues?
C: No, I don’t know. I was 17 years with the attorney general, eight years as mayor; I think I’ve been trained. As mayor, the universe is more compact—it’s a city. But it’s still a pretty big city, so in the end you do process it, you do train yourself and it does take time. That’s kind of what I did for eight years. And I think, humbly that I do it … hopefully, I do it well. I believe my constituents think I do it well. I feel comfortable going into any of those environments, I feel comfortable sitting down and can work with folks. Sit down with John Kerry and do a common bill together and work with, have long talks with my friend [U.S. Sen.] Mary Landrieu, we’re both up for tough re-elections. We’re co-chairs of the adoption caucus together and we’ve got a new executive director of the adoption caucus.
Sometimes people ask me, ‘what are the most important things you’ve done?’
L&P: I was going to ask you that.
C: Well, you know, you talk about policy and I think we’ve transformed the way that nations looked at renewable fuels and I played a huge part in that culture in the [GOP] caucus.
L&P: Do you have five of those?
C: I’ll tell you, I’ll give you specifics. Everyone looks at policy, but that’s macro. But there are the micro things. The help I’ve given for families who have been adopting kids and all of a sudden are caught in some bureaucratic nightmare. I went to Guatemala, and by the time I left, or shortly thereafter, they changed their law so there are families who were in the middle of an adoption process who thought they were going to lose the opportunity to bring home their kids, all of a sudden find themselves with their anxiety relieved.
Going up to International Falls, I have literally thousands, because that’s how many people we help, whose passports were lost in a bureaucratic haze, you know? We save them, because we worked with the State Department and worked in a way in which they respect what we do. I mean, I’m not into beating up on bureaucrats. It’s easy, but I treat people with respect. You push them if you think they’re wrong, but you treat them with respect and in the end, I mean I think people will tell you if you polled folks …
I’m in the customer service business. And I believe folks who we have impacted will tell you that, that’s what we do. I don’t know if we do it well.
It is the macro of the work we’ve done on the permanent subcommittee [on homeland security and government affairs], which has literally recouped billions of dollars.
L&P: The only committee that has subpoena power?
C: The chairman has subpoena power, but you have to get the whole committee. But even in that, it’s the chairman. That is probably the most bipartisan committee, or one of the most bipartisan committees in the Congress, and I sat there yesterday … yesterday, believe it or not. Did I do that yesterday? Wow. With [U.S. Sen.] Carl Levin and the head of CMS who is in charge of Medicaid and Medicare. We’ve done a number of investigations of Medicare fraud. Doctors and service providers paid by Medicaid who don’t pay taxes, in both Medicare and Medicaid.
L&P: When you took committee assignments, the ones you took were in the end, according to one anonymous person who apparently was at one time close to you at the time, called “thankless.” You’ve got agriculture, small business, but aside from that you’ve got foreign affairs and the permanent subcommittee on investigations. That seems to raise your profile nationally, but without much ability to “make hay” back home. That means you don’t get credit for some of the things you’ve done with Levin (credit card fraud initiatives, etc.) Some people, like [former editor of The Hill newspaper] Al Eisele suggest this is because you were interested in raising a national profile rather than focusing on your state. Anything to that?
C: No, I did that because I was a former prosecutor for 17 years. And I thought rooting out waste, fraud and abuse is an important part of the Senate.
L&P: But you don’t get coverage on that stuff back here. I had to read the National Journal to even find out about this stuff.
C: This may be hard, and I need to emphasize. I loved your question talking last time (at a speaking event in St. Cloud) about some political angle on something [the mortgage crisis]. It may be hard to imagine, but I don’t go into the office … I didn’t run, and having run and been elected, I don’t spend all my time thinking my goal is to get coverage. I love what I do. I love being there. Every day is a great day in spite of the changes, just in terms of doing something that you love. I loved working for the [Minnesota] attorney general, and I tell you, people who know me will say, yeah, I love doing what I do now. And I have a chance, certainly on agriculture, to have a profound impact on ethanol. And I have, by the way. Even when the ag bill was being hung up, I pushed my own colleagues to say, let’s end the filibuster and get this bill passed. We reached a point where we could do that.
I think I’m … Just an aside, I’ve got to laugh. My mantra as mayor was, “Bring people together to get things done.” All of a sudden I’ve got the whole universe touting that, you know?
L&P: Have you asked [presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Barack] Obama to send you any royalties?
C: (Laughs) I should. Go back, take a look. That’s what I had on my [campaign] buttons. But I think rooting out waste, fraud is an important part of what a senator does. And then the other part, I think being involved in conversations about America’s place in the world is gratifying to me. I am the ranking member on there [the subcommittee]. I’ll be the second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations committee. Assuming I get re-elected, if we get back in power, I’ll be the chairman of the Foreign Relations committee within two years, because we term-limit our chairmen.
What I did two nights ago, because I flew back last night, I ended the night with a dinner with [U.S. Deputy of Secretary of State] John Negroponte, with Tom Shannon, the former Minnesotan who is the State Department head of the Western Hemisphere, talking about an anti-drug program with the Mexican ambassador; the El Salvador ambassador; and Dick Lugar, the [ranking member] of the Foreign Relations committee; Bob Menendez, who is [a member] of the Western Hemisphere [Foreign Relations subcommittee].
My point being that I’m noted as one of the foremost [senate Republican] foreign policy leaders. Chuck Hagel is gone. I’ll be next to Dick Lugar in the U.S. Senate. That gives me great personal satisfaction.
Al is great. I love Al, he is a wonderful guy. But I’m sorry, you don’t go into these things with all of your thoughts being, ‘What’s the politics of this?’
Interestingly enough, when I got elected, [former U.S. Sen.] Rudy Boschwitz wrote me a beautiful hand-written, single-spaced letter about being a senator and books to read and colleagues to talk to. And he evaluated the committees, by the way. And he drew a frown next to Foreign Relations. He said, ‘It won’t make any impact back home.’ But I told him I think it’s important to be involved in a conversation about America’s place in the world. I mean look at it.
And that’s changed. You’ve got Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean our committee, under Lugar, and [U.S. Sen. Joe] Biden, by the way, really led the way and pushed the administration on Iraq reconstruction, when others didn’t.
I joined with [Sen.] Kerry yesterday, and I have a different perspective than him, but two days ago at a press conference where there were three reports being issued about Afghanistan, one charged by General Jones, Former Ambassador Tom Pickering, talking about a change of direction strategy in Afghanistan. That’s important to our security.
My point being that, in spite of everyone thinking that everything you do is done for the political edge, most of what you do is done because you want to make a difference. That’s why people go into this business. At least that’s why I went into the business. And that’s not kind of a Pollyannaish view. That is, you know, you live every day, you wake up and say, ‘What are you doing in the world today, what difference are you making?’
I’ve lived my whole life essentially trying to make a difference, that’s what I do. And that’s what gives me the satisfaction, that’s what recharges the batteries.
L&P: Talk about your history with the president and the vice president, starting with the point at which they recruited you out of the mayor’s office to be the Senate candidate. What are your thoughts about what brought you together with them? And what do you think about them now? Have they changed?
C: A couple of thoughts. First, I signed up on the Bush campaign when he was still governor. I thought he was our best hope to capture the White House. So I got to know him in those days, campaigning from Iowa, so I knew him.
Being recruited to run was not an act of love. (Smiles) It was not, ‘You’re our guy.’ It was a reflection of polling showed that I had the best chance of capturing the seat. Very simple. It had me either ahead of Senator Wellstone, or having the best chance. We do that all throughout the country. You find the person with the best … And a Senate seat’s very hard.
Remember I had a successful run as mayor. The NHL was in full bloom, people began to fully appreciate that, St. Paul had been turned around. If you go back to where I started in St. Paul when I ended it, in my last four years after the Jesse race, you know, broke ground and dropped the opening puck on the hockey arena. The Science Museum opened up. St. Paul had turned around and people saw it. Before ’98, it was a dream. But we did the deal, and in 2000, it opened and we dropped the first puck. So in all the things that I did, I mean, my numbers were really pretty good. It showed me as … I think they had a poll in January showing me two points ahead of Wellstone.
I was the only person on the Republican side who was in that position. So my being recruited was not an act of love, we really want you because you are our friend. That’s very matter of fact—you’ve got the best chance. I had the only chance of beating him. It’s tough to beat incumbents. And you recruit just about two years out. So I was in that position and people say, you know, you’re the one person. Bill Frist talked to me, the president talked to me, and ultimately I decided to run.
But it’s interesting, I kind of look at the way that people looked at that, like it was somehow folks were doing me a favor. It’s really hard to run. (Laughs) It’s hard to run against an incumbent. I’m sure my challengers are seeing that. It’s just difficult.
L&P: They both spent a half million dollars already.
C: Already! Which is stunning. Which is absolutely stunning to run commercials now. You’ll get a little bump in the polls, and that will go away.
My point being, that was the … I knew the president, and I had a relationship, and so it’s a comfortable relationship. And then I was seen as the one who could win the seat beyond anyone else in the state. There wasn’t anyone else in that state in that position. So then I ran, and succeeded. And have had a good relationship.
L&P: Let me stop you there. I can’t let you filibuster, either. This may be touchy because the man has a 32 percent approval rating, but do you have any anecdotes you can share about the president, maybe some funny thing that has happened in your encounters? Does he have a nickname for you the way he has for everyone?
C: Stormin’ Norman. You know, in spite of his low approval rating, and I know, from the other side I don’t think there is hate. When you’re rating is low, people are very upset about the economy clearly, I know about the war and the way the war was handled. Certainly I could identify mistakes and differences.
But when I’m there with him, he’s got his … how do I articulate it? He’s a Texan. He’s got that kind of toughness. That is who he is. But he’s got a good heart, I’ve got to tell you. He cares. It doesn’t make every decision right. But he approaches it … he fully … he cares.
I’m trying to think about anecdotes, little stories. One of the things you do get to do is, you know, you get these private conversations. I had a long talk with him one time, because we had just [been] doing the State of the Union, about energy. And he came in with his advisors and we talked about … we’re having a meeting with a bunch of my colleagues, just folks on our side, this was just our side of the aisle before the State of the Union a couple of years ago.
And his folks were saying, 'we’ve got to lessen independence on foreign oil.' And I said to this group, ‘You’ve got to be bolder than that. You’ve got to tell the American public, we’re going to end dependence on foreign oil.’ And the advisors were saying, well, technically what that means and doesn’t mean. And I said, ‘Mr. President, you’ve got to lead people, you’ve got to challenge Americans to reach beyond where we’re at today. You know? You’ve challenged folks about Islamic terrorism. I mean bold, bright, and pushing folks, and you’re getting a lot of push back on that and it’s impacted you and your ratings and things have not gone well on the war, but you’ve got a chance with energy here to move people to a new place.’
Well, in his State of the Union speech two years ago, he used the line, ‘We’ve got to end dependence on Middle East oil.’ And as he did, he looked over and gave me the wink. OK? That’s what he does during the speech. You can see him, even during the speech. He’ll look down; he’ll do the same thing with a Democrat or something. If he uses something, it’s like, ‘OK, I heard you.’
Even though he can be pretty rigid on some things, you know, this is where I am. My point being that people, when you’re in this business, there is such a … you get labeled a good or a bad person by what you believe. And I think that’s unfortunate.
I get along well with [U.S. Sen.] Ted Kennedy. I have respect for Ted Kennedy. I disagree with him. But he believes what he believes. The president is the same way. It doesn’t mean that you always agree with him. But they approach it with … they’re Americans and they love America and they believe in the greatness of America. And one of the frustrating things among some folks out there, it’s with everything, you’re the enemy because you don’t think like I think. And I think that’s unfortunate.
So I’ve been there with the president and the first lady and, you know, and my wife up on the Truman balcony. And he leans over to my wife, who was standing there. The Truman balcony is on the second floor, it overlooks the Mall, you can see the Washington Monument, and you’re there, you’re up there, by where the president kind of lives. And there is a huge tree that is way above the second floor. This massive tree. And he leans over and he says, ‘Andrew Jackson planted that.’
And you have this sense, and he does, this sense of history. The president has a great responsibility and it’s difficult. And there aren’t many presidents in modern times who walk away from a second term with many people liking him. History decides how to treat them ultimately. But that was true with Bill Clinton, it was true with Ronald Reagan. He’s being lionized now, but go back to where he was—he had Iran-Contra, you know? He had the burdens of leading a great nation.
But my point being that, I’ve seen the love that he has for this country, and I’ve witnessed the mourning that he has for lives that have been lost in Iraq.
And every day in the U.S. Senate, I go up to Bob Byrd—every day in the U.S. Senate—and I say, ‘Senator, it’s great to see you today. It’s an honor to serve with you.’ Every day. Bob Byrd has been there 50 years. And I’ll grab his hand and he grabs mine, and that’s real. Are my politics and Bob Byrd’s parallel? I don’t think so.
L&P: Do you play fiddle though?
C: And I can’t quote Shakespeare the way he can, or the Bible. Or a thousand other things, but my point being, and the president … I see the personal side of people. And I see not just the politics.
L&P: The question I asked was have they changed, and I think you’re saying no. But is that unfortunate, the way things have played out here? He was stubborn, he’s a Texan, would it have been to our benefit if he had been able to modify that to a degree?
C: I think you have two separate questions. Because strengths can be weaknesses. I think a weakness … and I would say to the president, because I said it, I called for Gonzales’ resignation or [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld’s. He’s extremely loyal. In Iraq, you go there now and you look at [U.S. Army Gen. David] Petraeus and you look at what [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates is doing—it has been a transformation. That should have occurred earlier. The inability to make change, and perhaps as a result of a … what’s the word? I’m trying to find the right word there. It’s a … I don’t know if stiffness is the right word, but a stubbornness. And there are consequences to that on the negative side.
On the other hand, in the Middle East strength is important, and the ability to reflect that is important. And if you would listen to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid, who said ‘the war is lost,’ for instance, and if you had listened to those voices that just said, ‘We leave today,’ the consequences for us would have been great. So now we see a little more stability. On the military side significantly more change. Maybe an opportunity for an orderly transition, for the Iraqis to be out front.
And so that kind of stick neck is a virtue, but it’s also a negative. So when you say, ‘did they change?’—you are who you are. Does he recognize, in that sense, a little more flexibility from a policy side? I think it’s easy to say—and I would say—Rumsfeld should have left sooner, and Gonzales should have left sooner. And we’d be better off today. But that’s, you know, you are who you are. And he’ll serve his term, and history will judge. History will judge, rather than the polls at the moment.
L&P: Have you changed? During your 2002 campaign you boasted that you had a tremendous advantage over Paul Wellstone because you [had a] closer relationship to the president, you could get a lot more done. In 2003, the National Journal ranked you as more conservative than 78 percent of your peers on foreign policy votes, which made you equally hawkish with Bill Frist, Jim Bunning and Richard Lugar, and considerably more hawkish than John McCain. At the same time you were rated more conservative than 59 percent of your colleagues on social issues, which put you in line with Saxby Chambliss, Trent Lott and Rick Santorum. By 2006 the numbers had changed dramatically. Then you were listed among “the centrists,” more liberal than 49 percent of your peers on economic issues, 40 percent on social and 47 percent on foreign policy.
C: I’m going to go back and give you some background. I love this question.
L&P: The real question is this: I’ve been told that at one point you said, “I’m an independent, really.” What changed?
C: Let me say this. Nothing has changed.
L&P: So you haven’t had a fundamental change in your ideological outlook?
C: No, and I’ll walk you through it. The proof is not just in the numbers but in the issues.
L&P: So this isn’t just the drift to the center of a vulnerable GOP incumbent?
C: Well, no. And I’ll show you the same numbers. In other words, you can’t just use numbers that support your argument, you’ve got to use all numbers to say, well, obviously there is a number there that says I’m wrong, you’re wrong, I’m missing something. And I’ll show you in a second, but let me divide the question into two parts.
The first part, and most important, is that by being able to work with the administration, it has been a tremendous plus for this state. I flew in with [Transportation Secretary] Mary Peters after the bridge collapsed, and I was able to call her, and she arranged a plane for me and [Minnesota's DFL U.S.] Sen. [Amy] Klobuchar. Look at the response of this administration, both in the bridge and in the floods in Southeast Minnesota. So the Secretary of Homeland Security shows up in Southeast Minnesota, the head of FEMA shows up because I called him. The head of the Small Business Administration walks through. Those are benefits, that’s a good thing.
L&P: But it wouldn’t be shocking that you’d have that kind of access in that kind of crisis in any circumstance. Even a Democrat would have that kind of access.
C: I think it’s fair to say that I could call the head of FEMA and the head of Homeland Security …
L&P: Klobuchar couldn’t?
C: I don’t think she … I mean, she can. But these are my friends, I know these people. I think it’s very fair to say that I can call [Homeland Security Secretary] Michael Chertoff, and I know Michael Chertoff, and, I mean, just yesterday, I’m sitting in a meeting with who? The Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer, Sue Schwab, the Trade Ambassador with the folks in the sugar industry. Because they have a major concern—a deep concern—about NAFTA, and I can bring those folks together. I think that’s a unique ability.
I mean, any senator has great power. Amy is doing a great job, I’m not going to … but if you know the head of FEMA, if you know the head of the SBA and you give them a call on your cell phone and they show up, it makes a big difference. I think we would have got a good response anyway, but it’s a … this is a relationship business, and we use those relationships in a positive way. That’s not a bad thing.
If there is a Democrat in the White House, I’ve got to believe, because Amy has got good personal skills, she can do that. But don’t discount the ability to …
L&P: I get that point. You were going to answer my question.
C: I gave you 20 examples of where we’ve had that ability. I’m dealing now with Northwest Airlines and ATI.
Let me just go over this, because you mentioned Dick Lugar. On the National Journal analysis by the way. OK? 2003—more hawkish than 87 [percent of senators]. Now put that same change (points to Lugar’s numbers)—he’s actually gone a little more—we’re at about the same place here. Dick Lugar ran unopposed. OK?
L&P: OK, so what does that indicate to me?
C: I’ll give it to you. And by the way, Congressional Quarterly, party unity, 2003. [I’m the] eighth most independent Republican, 2003. The same figure. Everyone talks the same … Well, [former U.S. Sen. Lincoln] Chafee is gone, OK? So I’ve moved up a couple of notches. OK? 2006, 2005 and this is now three years before an election.
So in other words…
L&P: Help me make sense of this, what your point is.
C: My point is—I’ll show you the same numbers that said I’ve consistently been among … and that’s how I’m rated in Washington. Two observations. One, I’ll give you in these years, particularly in this year [indicates a sheet of stats he brought to the interview], if you go in 2007, there are a lot more things I’ll vote on in 2007 and that I wouldn’t have voted on in 2003. And let me back it up. So tell me, what position I’ve changed? Tell me.
L&P: I didn’t write all that stuff down.
C: In other words, rather than citing a number, you’re not going to. So I have always supported the president and the party on judicial nominations. We’re not voting on as many of those contentious ones. We’re not voting on cloture nominations with the Democrats in charge because they don’t come up. OK? Probably 70 percent of the votes in ’03 were those, by the way.
L&P: So it’s really a question of the issues that have come forward for a vote?
C: Yeah, I have always had the same … I’ve been the champion of the Senate on community development block grants. Talk with mayors in this state; I am the champion of community development block grant funding. We didn’t get as much chance. … I’ve had a few votes on those where I’d be against my party. I get more of those now. I’m a champion with [U.S. Sen.] Jack Reed, a Democrat, on the low-income home energy assistance program (LI-HEAP). I’ve been the champion consistently. I’m voting on more LI-HEAP stuff now. So two things, you can’t just talk about the transition. And by the way, in almost all of the National Journal vote analysis you’ll see folks who have gone from where they were in 2003, folks in my group like [senators Mike] DeWine, [Gordon] Smith, [Olympia] Snowe, [Susan] Collins, [John] McCain—all of us—have had probably a 20-point move. All of us.
[Editor’s note: Of those senators Coleman mentions, DeWine was the single most vulnerable GOP candidate in 2006, and lost his re-election bid. Sen. Gordon Smith is widely regarded as a vulnerable incumbent, as is Sen. Susan Collins. John McCain has long been seen as a maverick within his party, as has the moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.]
C: But the most important thing is … to the other side. So tell me, where is this switching of issues? I’m in the same place I was on these issues. We didn’t vote on them as much in ’03. Different things that are measured. But from the very beginning, the very beginning, I have been among … and that’s where I am, it’s not …
I wish people would come back with more of that to say, hey … I have … and in that sense you can pick all of your different kind of analysis … I’m trying to think if there are some others that are like that.
It’s kind of interesting. In the Washington Post, this is kind of an interesting one. I go back to me and Lugar, you mentioned Lugar. He was somebody who was a non-vulnerable incumbent, right? Dick Lugar in the 108th Washington Post voting analysis, he was ranked as 95 percent with the party. OK? I’m with 93. Two years later, he is at a 20-point difference. Two years later, I’m at a 16-point difference. Susan Collins is a 17-point difference. [U.S. Sen. Arlen] Specter is a 19-point difference. Smith is a little more. 20 point. In other words, all of us. It’s the same, consistently in Washington. So if you read the Washington papers, if you read the Times or the Post, I’m consistently … Because this is where I am. I’m not looking for a label. I’m simply voting the way I vote, and then what you get are folks who use certain numbers to say that Coleman was at 98 percent that first year.
And by the way, that first year never measured; there was never a vote that first year on CDBG or ANWR. About three or four things, I wasn’t with the president. And by the way, do I agree with them on judges? Absolutely. I’m a strong supporter of the president’s judicial picks. And I’m, by the way, strongly supporting him on cutting taxes. I voted for the 2003 tax cut. I don’t think you improve an economy by raising taxes.
So position-wise, I know the challenge is: tell me the five things you think I’ve changed to be more moderate? No. I am who I am, been consistent in who I am.
L&P: So are you an independent really? Is that a genuine quote of yours?
C: No. I am independent thinking. But I’m a conservative. I’m a conservative. But among my party, I’m among the most independent in the party because as a former urban mayor, somebody representing … I’m a mayor, too. That’s been my life. So there are things like Head Start and Pell Grants, and LI-HEAP, that I’ve always supported. I’ve never changed. I believe in them. And I’ll argue with my more conservative colleagues. But am I with them on the life issue? Am I with them on the Second Amendment issue? Yeah I am.
L&P: It shows here in the National Journal numbers that you haven’t moved on the social issues.
C: And I haven’t changed on the others. That would be the challenge. I’m the champion in the Senate on these very issues today, but I was when I was the mayor. I’d love to see these, rather than raise these as the argument, takes it from another approach. If you look at the numbers, you’ll see … you can make an argument about any statistics if you cherry pick them, but if you really look at the data, it really shows that Coleman has been where he has been on the issues. Some he agrees, and some he disagrees.
L&P: I want you to think through your very well-trained attorney’s mind about some of the things that are legal issues that the country faces. I want to find out what your stance is on some of the things that we’ve seen driven by (Dick Cheney’s former legal counsel and current chief of staff) David Addington’s office on the issues of torture, domestic surveillance, the power of the unitary executives. What is your opinion on presidential signing statements?
C: Do I think water boarding is torture? I’m also, by the way, the principal author of the Torture Center funding, because St. Paul had the first Torture Center. Talk to Doug Johnson. I was the mayor and worked with them and did the groundcutting. Talk to Doug Johnson, the executive director of the Torture Center.
L&P: You asked the question, what’s the answer?
C: Yeah, first of all, I think waterboarding is torture. John McCain is right on that one. He knows as well as anybody.
L&P: So are you disturbed by the Attorney General [Michael Mukasey] finding four ways to not answer that question to Congress?
C: No. No. Let me just say that that’s what I believe. I understand the different issues that he has to deal with. I think that Mukasey, I think he’s smart, I think it was a needed change. I understand some of the issues he has to deal with in terms of not subjecting folks to liability, folks who are great Americans that have served this country. I understand his sensitivity. I have my opinion. You asked what I believe, that’s what I believe.
L&P: I’m asking you what you believe about the approach of this administration to these issues?
C: A few things. Also, is it legal policy? That should not be a policy making agency.
L&P: People have complained that it’s the [White House] Office of Legal Counsel that is really driving that agenda.
C: And I don’t think they should. That’s not their job. We do policy. I think in some areas the executive has overreached its authority. I say that as a member of a different branch of government, of the legislative. I think we are, under Article One [of the U.S. Constitution]. And so I start with that. I think that’s an overreach. It gives me cause for concern, and I would hope that Mukasey would take a close review of that and make sure that folks do their job. Like I say, judges should not be making policy. As a good conservative, I don’t think the executive should be, in that sense. Those lawyers, I don’t think, are there to be a policymaking group. They’re supposed to be a legal operation.
Some of the [signing] statements, some of the things the president has done with those statements give me cause for concern. I think they have pushed that a little far.
L&P: Maybe a lot far?
C: Far. They pushed it beyond where they should. I disagree with the extent of what they’ve done with policy statements. I think they’re invading the prerogative of the legislative branch and that concerns me.
I gotta tell you, I met with … my questions to [Justice Samuel] Alito and [John] Roberts (during Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings) both focused on this area. Both focused on, in particular, from their own history, whether they had enough of a respect for the legislative branch.
I don’t think this is a Democrat or a Republican issue. I think it’s simply one of the nature of the Constitution, and so I’ve looked at it. I think, in that sense, it’s one area where I disagree with the president. I think the executive has gone beyond its constitutional authority in some of these areas. That gives me cause for concern.
L&P: It’s kind of like the filibuster flap in 2005. Don’t people imagine that the other party might take over at some point?
C: Yeah. And even, by the way, with earmarks—which I support, earmark reform—something I’ve instituted myself, I put all my earmarks on the Web. Anything that I do with earmarks, I make sure that it’s in the light of day, because earmark abuse has been, you know, stuck in the middle of the night, and I think that undermines confidence. But for the president to simply reject any earmark that the Congress does? For the president to take that authority? So what if there is somebody from the other party [in office]? I’m not willing to give to the executive … again, I’m very protective in the sense of the legislative authority within the Constitution.
L&P: Let’s move on to another question. What is your view of the Congress’ oversight role? Did the Congress fail at oversight when you were part of the majority? And have the Democrats taken it too far since the ’06 election? And if so, how much is the appropriate level of oversight?
C: That’s a great question. In my universe, it goes back to the permanent subcommittee.
L&P: Where you’ve done a great deal of this kind of work?
C: But it’s bipartisan. You raised the issue that the chairman is the only one with subpoena power. But we work in partnership. I just did my hearing last week on the United Nations Development Program. I’ve got another one coming up on Medicare fraud. I’m in the minority. But I sat in a meeting, I told you, with Carl Levin, the head of CMS, who was not giving us information, to come in, because their own folks were not cooperating to the degree that we would want. I castigated them in one of my hearings; they were not giving us information that we needed. My point being this: that within my subcommittee, it has worked in a bipartisan way and I think we’ve done good oversight.
(To an aide who tries to get the senator to break off the interview so he can board a flight to Keewatin:) You’ve got to give us five minutes. We’ll leave when we leave.
I think we’ve done good oversight. I think there is a danger, if you look at some of this stuff on the House side, that we just get oversight by subpoena. The question that I kind of turn back is, so what’s been the results? What have you seen that’s different with the Democrats in charge?
L&P: Mark McGwire is not going to the Baseball Hall of Fame?
C: I know. So, in other words, in spite of all this talk that there hasn’t been enough oversight, I’m not seeing any major changes. We did oversight on the Foreign Relations Committee. It’s a committee that pushed the [Iraq] reconstruction issue. My point being is that the House is different than the Senate. On the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden and Lugar worked hand in hand. And you know, on the permanent subcommittee, [Sen.] Levin and I worked hand in hand.
You know, [DFL Senate candidate Al] Franken has attacked the permanent subcommittee in the piece that Law and Politics did. “Oh, Coleman abrogated his responsibilities.” I mean, he’s attacking Carl Levin! I don’t think he can conceptually understand that there are still areas in Congress where people can work in a bipartisan way. So if the Democrats ever wanted to do any investigation of anything when I’m chair, they could’ve done it, just as I do what I want to do now as a ranking member, not as the chairman.
I think the difference is between the bodies. I think on the House side, it’s much more contentious, but I don’t think they produce much more results. I mean, if you asked the American public, ‘what kind of corruption has been rooted out in the last year?’ I can’t tell you much of anything. But I can’t speak for the House.
I can say in the Senate that we challenged the administration, for instance, on Iraq reconstruction. In the permanent subcommittee, a lot of my focus was focused on the Defense Department, and failures on the whole abuse and mismanagement side. Literally, defense contractors who aren’t paying taxes—in the billions. In the billions! And the investigation that Levin did, an investigation into folks who were using phony tax shelters—including by the way, the Wiley family out of Texas, who were best friends of the president and some of the largest contributors to the Republican Party. It was his investigation. I’m co-sponsor of that investigation. Because it was a good investigation, and it went after and identified failures in the system that allowed people to shield billions of dollars of gain without paying taxes.
And so, I would say that in the Senate, I don’t think there has been a huge shift, because in the Senate you’ve got to work in a bipartisan way, at least on the committees that I work on. And that is the permanent subcommittee, and that is Foreign Relations. Beyond that, the House is a different beast, and it’s winner take all.
L&P: A quick question on Northwest Airlines. [Sen.] Klobuchar has expressed concerns, [DFL Rep. Jim] Oberstar has expressed concerns. Do you have expressed concerns about the potential for a Northwest Airlines/Delta merger?
C: Yeah. The concerns are twofold. One is the hub here is a major economic driver and it has a direct impact on jobs. Minnesota is in a recession. Minnesota’s economy is hurting here. Our growth, even a couple of months ago, was a tenth of the national average, and in terms of our unemployment, it went from 4.5 to 4.9. The last thing we need is to lose a hub.
In addition to that, the jobs at the corporate headquarters. Those are significant jobs. So those are my concerns. So this is a major, major issue.
L&P: Are you concerned about the customer service aspects of it?
C: Well, the hub piece of it. The key for a hub is that it drives traffic through. It’s the ability to get places around the country nonstop. And for business to come here. So it’s a major issue. So I am in touch with folks at Northwest and I talked to [CEO] Richard Anderson, who is a former CEO at Northwest, by the way, who is now at Delta. I’ve had a number of conversations with him. And at this point we’re monitoring it, we’re watching closely. But we all should be concerned. We all should be concerned.
L&P: Last question. Your two opponents have already spent half a million dollars each on TV advertising in their campaigns against you and for the DFL endorsement. What does this tell you about the kind of campaign you are faced with, and what’s your assessment of these two candidates?
C: With Franken, it tells me that his negatives are very high and he had to spend a lot of money to lift them up.
L&P: And they got a little higher down there in Northfield, didn’t they? [Editor’s note: This question is in reference to a bitterly personal verbal assault allegedly committed by Franken against a young College Republican student on the St. Olaf college campus, earlier in the campaign.]
C: Yeah, and you know? You are who you are. I mean, he is now coming back trying to say that all that stuff was just comedy, but it wasn’t just a routine. The vitriol, the anger. I kind of look at his stuff now, and he says it was all just comedy, it was just satire. Does the United States Senate really need a satirist? If you’re worried about your job, if you’re worried about bringing your kid home from Guatemala, if you’re worried about whether we’re going to have a renewable fuel standard that’s going to ensure that Minnesota stays in the forefront of ending U.S. dependence on foreign oil, is a comedian—an angry comedian—the guy who is going to do the job for you?
What could they show? So these guys have got to spend money to say that he really was a nice kid in fourth grade. And I wouldn’t argue with that.
L&P: You’re focused on Franken. [Senate candidate Mike] Ciresi doesn’t appear to you to be a serious contender?
C: I think in the nature of our system, the person furthest to the left with the most money, in the end, has the best chance of getting the [DFL] nomination. [Editor’s note: Ciresi did indeed drop out of the campaign just at the point that the Coleman story was published in the print version of Law & Politics magazine.]
L&P: You could end up with the distinction of having run campaigns against two celebrities.
C: Yeah. So I’m just saying, that’s how I think that plays out. Ciresi in many ways may be too centrist, certainly in Democratic terms, to get through the caucus. And it’s a caucus, not a primary, so the folks who show up tend to be more polarized, on both sides.
L&P: What kind of race are you expecting? You’re considered vulnerable, this is a supposedly blue state.
C: No, this will be a challenging re-election, I have no question. It’s one that I anticipate will be close.
In the end, I love what I do. It’s interesting. There that are two issues, there are two themes nationally that are coming out now. One is you’ve got to bring people together to get things done. There is this partisan, ugly divide in Washington. If I run against Al Franken, that’s a good race for me. My history has been one of somebody that has tried to find that common ground, tried ultimately as a mayor where you’re measured by what you do. And I think that people are concerned, they’re scared about the economy, they’re concerned about getting health care. They’re concerned that we should be looking at energy independence, which is sucking billions out of this economy.
I’m in a position to make change, and also to get results, and I think that’s what people want. If the race is against Al Franken, who is going to be a critic, and has been a critic—whether it’s a satirist or a contrarian—I’ll take that race. But certainly by labels—and it’s interesting because of where we started this conversation, we’ll end on that—what they’ll do, is they’ll say, ‘well you fit in this group. What’s your label?’
The issue is not labels. Judge him by what he has done. Or what he hasn’t done. Al Franken has been angry. I mean, Al Franken has called conservatives the most vile, despicable names. That’s how he is. I don’t think that’s the tone. People want change in Washington. I think people want a change of tone in Washington.
With folks on the other side, like [U.S. senators] Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, I’ve been part of the conversation in the Senate that tries to bring common ground—bringing my conservative principals to the table. Those haven’t changed. But where I think government needs to do more, I’ll reach out and I’ll be part of that discussion.
I think that’s what’s needed in these tough times. So I am looking forward to the contest and in the end, if it’s labels versus a record of service, a record of making change happen, I think I’m in a pretty good place. I’ll run against a guy whose sum total of public service is very thin, whose sum total of connection with Minnesota is … you can do all the commercials saying, ‘I grew up here,’ but you know, for 30 years … in the end, I think Minnesotans are smart. They’ll judge people ultimately not on the label but on their ability to do things, to help them in these difficult, challenging times.
[Coleman communications director] Tom Steward: Do you want to get a top five or six?
L&P: Yeah.
C: Again, in that, I want to be careful. We always do it in the macro, energy, returning 12 billions …
L&P: It’s all about the “lawmaker” part of the job?
C: I think the … maybe it’s the mayor in me, I keep coming back to that. I’ll just say, I’ll end on this. Twenty years from now, if I’m walking down the street and someone comes up to me, and they’ll still use the title ‘senator.’ I still call Dave Durenberger that. They’re going to come up to me and say, ‘Senator, I thank you for…’ And they’re not going to thank me for my vote on a particular issue. They’ll say, ‘I want to thank you for helping unite my baby with our family.’ ‘For bringing my mom into this country.’ ‘I want to thank you for the time that your office helped me get my passport when we were all set to go on our honeymoon and it got lost in the bureaucracy.’ It will be for a personal connection.
I take pride in that. I think that’s important and it’s often overlooked. It’s about heart, and it’s about service, and it’s about relationships and I think those are important. And I’ve got to believe that I’ve got a decided edge over Al Franken in those regards.
L&P: Any thoughts on the Obama phenomenon?
C: Part of the phenomenon, what’s fascinating is that his message is phenomenal. His message is, you know, we’ve got to move away from red states and blue states in the United States and bring people together to get things done. What’s fascinating about Obama is that his record is the most liberal in the Senate.
L&P: But that’s a bit like John Kerry. There are a whole lot of missing votes there from all the time he has spent on the campaign trail, so that seems misleading.
C: Yeah. Obama has not been part of that group of folks when we get together saying can we find some common ground to fix it. It’s been Ben Nelson and others, and those folks don’t get that credit. The Mark Pryors and Mary Landrieus, the others that I’ve mentioned. Blanche Lincolns, the Joe Liebermans. Not part of that.
So on the issues he is way out there. But I give him credit because he is tapping into what people are feeling, and that is a sense that we’ve got to get away from all this partisan divide. We’ve got to get away from the negativity, we’ve got to get away from the anger, and figure out how to move this country forward. That’s a powerful message. I like that message. Ultimately, he is going to be measured by rhetoric versus reality. That will be the measure. And whether he stands up will be the test.
What follows is the follow-up telephone interview of Feb. 5. Coleman begins by back-tracking slightly on a statement in the earlier interview suggesting that had it not been for the deep personal relationships he has forged with transportation and Homeland Security officials, the federal response to the I-35W collapse would have been less robust.
C: When I raised the question about the benefit of … I talked about it’s worth having ties to the administration, and then you kind of raised the question, well, couldn’t Amy do that?
The other best example, by the way is the North Star rail line. That’s an example where, if you went by the book, there were 10 times where that project could have been dead, by OMB [the Office of Management and Budget], by [the U.S. Department of] Transportation. It’s included in the way, to make it timely, in the president’s budget that just came out, which is a very tight budget. There is $71 million, you know, to finish the funding for NorthStar. That’s a project, for instance, when [OMB Director] Jim Nussle was going to be the new OMB person, he came by. I’ll back it up. When [former OMB chief Rob] Portman was leaving, I talked to Portman. I remember running into him on a subway one time: ‘How you doing?’ And he talked about going back to Ohio and stuff, and then he said, ‘I told Nussle about this project, that this is an important one, and don’t worry, I passed on the importance of this project to my successor.’ And sure enough, when I met with Nussle, he was there.
And that’s a project, again, if you went by the book, there were a number of different times where it might not have passed muster. But relationships do matter. And you can make your case personally. And you can explain how the Hiawatha line, the actual [ridership] numbers went far beyond what the original projections were. And that’s a good example.
[I-35W] was the wrong example, that’s a better example. And I could give you, whether it’s with HUD [U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development] and relationships there. Like I said, without these relationships, this would never have happened.
The interesting thing on the bridge, actually it was a better example about relationships. Even with your colleagues and others on the other side, if you look at the bridge example—and maybe this gets to Franken by the way. It would be tough to say. Al Franken is not Amy Klobuchar. If Al Franken was on the other side of the aisle and the bridge disaster happened, I’ve got to believe that one of my colleagues would have said no. I mean, it is about relationships. You need that, particularly in the Senate, where any one person can really stop something. It is, having that ability to work your side and a little bit on the other side. I wish I could find a better way to paint the picture for you. You’ve got to be here. I think I’ll have to have you come and spend the day with me.
I would if the presidency changes hands, I would think that Amy would have that. It’s kind of her style, her nature, to be a positive force.
L&P: Before we didn’t dwell on the personal. I asked you a question, sort of a day in the life of the senator thing, and you kind of went off into talking about those relationships. What we didn’t get to, and I’d like to follow up on is this … I know you go to every county every year, and I got a sense from your description of your day. It sounds exhausting. The question I asked you was, what does that take out of you? How do you maintain that kind of schedule? I don’t know how you do it.
C: Well, you have to … I get lifted up. As tired as one may be, and listen, I go everyday from 6:15 a.m. until 10 at night, that’s what I do. I might come back, I get home and chill out about an hour. I go through my stuff for the next day, read a book, sit down and watch something on TV—maybe something pretty mindless for a half hour or an hour—then you’re at about 12 a.m. or 1 a.m., you get to sleep, get up and go again.
But I get lifted up by groups of people. I could be tired, and I’ll walk into a group of people, and I think it’s the nature of folks in this business, if you really love it. That is, you get energized. Some people, energy gets drawn out of them, right? In groups? I get energized from the human interaction. I can be very tired but I’ll go before a group of people and they’ll lift me up, and energize me. Afterwards, you get tired again.
That’s why I play tennis in the morning, I work out. You’ve have to be physically fit. It may sound strange, but I can be very tired, not even feeling at the top of my game, and I can walk into a group of people and be lifted up by their energy, by their enthusiasm, by their hope. And that really sustains me. And I think that’s a quality a lot of my colleagues have.
L&P: To sustain that over six years seems Herculean.
C: I have had to sustain it over 30 years. I was a mayor for eight years. I walked into a city that was dying and tried to transform it. I was in the AG’s office and we re-did the way we did child abuse and created the DARE program. Like I said, I’m always trying to turn things around, to transform and move things to another level. It’s not a passive thing, but you need to get energized by other people’s energy and I get energized by that. It’s a relationship you have with people and the people in front of you. It is sustaining, it is energizing. But you’ve also got to stay physically fit, and mentally, too.
I mean, I pray a lot. I got to bow my head. I realize that I need strength beyond what I have to do what I do. So many people come up to me and say they pray for me, and I say, ‘Thank you.’ Absolutely. I mean there is a spiritual part and a physical part that go with this.
L&P: I hope you don’t mind if I shift into the Tiger Beat portion of the interview. I’ll refrain from asking you your favorite color. But it always does kind of spark my interest to know what people are reading and to know what TV shows you sit and chill out to. What are you reading right now?
C: I just finished book seven, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
L&P: Really?
C: I reread the last 50 pages twice. My kids challenged me. And I started, it was OK, it was pretty good, then it got a little better. By the sixth book, when Dumbledore died, I was crushed. I called my 18-year-old, we had a long conversation. She didn’t reveal the seventh book. The seventh book, I was reading it on the plane and I got to one of the climactic scenes, I kind of went, “Ya!” People around were going, “Yeah, what’s going on here?” “Harry.”
So I reread it. What I do is I go between books. I alternate between Deathly Hallows, and then I’m reading Jay Winik’s The Great Upheaval. It’s a great book, by the way, he’s a great writer. It’s between like 1787 and 1792 America, and kind of the interrelationships. There’s moments in history, and how the course of history is impacted, not just by what is happening here but by what is happening in other places in the world. This is a review of history kind of showing the connecting threads between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, Catherine the Great, and her challenge to the Ottoman Empire. It’s really fascinating.
So I go between. I love John Sandford, Lucas Davenport, but I’ve got to go between. So I just finished Harry Potter and it’s like my friend is grown up and I don’t know what to do without him. I’ll probably move onto the next iteration of Dune. It’s written by Frank Herbert’s son (Brian Herbert). So whatever.
L&P: I just discovered Cormac McCarthy for the first time.
C: There you go. I love, what’s the name, the “Bourne” books, Robert Ludlum. I’ve read those. And Vince Flynn, by the way, he’s written like 15 books. And Vince Flynn is a friend and a great author. Do you know Flynn?
L&P: I don’t.
C: Oh, goodness gracious. He’s a St. Paul kid! He worked as a bartender at O’Gara’s. His stuff is like Ludlum. Oh, awesome. And the president likes him, too, by the way. I got to tell you, a lot of my colleagues do, too. I’m glad I can help educate you.
L&P: I’m surprised you’re able to read so many books. I remember talking to [former Minnesota U.S. Rep. and Bush confidant] Vin Weber once and he told me at the time he didn’t have time to read books when he was in Congress, that he only had time to read the periodicals.
C: You do. But it’s interesting. That last hour for me at night, you’ve got to move outside of all the other stuff. By the way, check out Vince. His first book was Term Limits. They’re great books.
L&P: What periodicals do you subscribe to?
C: You know, I am not a great … I do read a ton of journal stuff here, by the way, The National Journal, The New Republic, whatever. I think my only subscription is to Sports Illustrated.
L&P: And the last thing. What TV show will you tune in before you drop off to sleep?
C: Either one of two things, either the DVD of “The Office.” My wife kind of got me into that. And by the way, The Tennis Channel. I watch the Tennis Channel, it’s great. Always looking to improve the game.
I’m told I have a live interview; my staff has just walked in.
L&P: Time for one quick final question?
C: Yeah, what have you got?
L&P: The family, how are you handling that? I don’t know if you’re living solo in that apartment in Washington, but are you able to see them?
C: I’m like an over-the-road trucker. I’m gone Monday to Thursday night, I come home Friday night and Saturday to Sunday night. I see them back here. I’m a commuter. I commute to work.
L&P: I know your wife’s name but forgive me; I’ve forgotten your kids’?
C: Jacob is 21, he’ll be 22, and Sarah is 18, graduating high school. They’re great kids.
Back to Articles
