Minnesota Recount: Franken’s Sore Loser Strategy

posted at 11:17 am on November 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

The setback at the Canvassing Board has forced Al Franken to face the fact that he didn’t get enough valid votes to beat Norm Coleman in Minnesota’s Senate Race.  With the rejection of his bid to get the panel to add in thousands of rejected absentee ballots, there seems little chance that the remaining 15% of ballots left in the recount will produce the kind of change that 85% has not.  What’s a surly, self-absorbed DFL candidate to do?

Sue:

Minnesota’s U.S. Senate showdown is veering down a path toward the courts and possibly the Senate itself after a panel’s ruling on rejected absentee ballots dealt a blow to Democrat Al Franken’s chances.

For the first time, his campaign on Wednesday openly discussed mounting challenges after the hand recount involving Franken and Republican Sen. Norm Coleman concludes. That includes the possibility of drawing the Senate into the fracas.

The state Canvassing Board denied Franken’s request to factor absentee ballots rejected by poll workers into the recount. He sought to overturn the exclusions in cases where ballots were invalidated over signature problems or other voter errors. Coleman’s campaign maintained the board lacked power to revisit those ballots.

Going to court was always inevitable.  Gone are the days when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well.  The recount is automatic in this case, and a good idea, but the notion that courts should determine winners and losers is antithetical to democracy.

More worrisome is this statement from Harry Reid:

The board’s decision drew a response from the Senate’s top Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid, who called it a “cause for great concern.”

“As the process moves forward, Minnesota authorities must ensure that no voter is disenfranchised,” Reid said in a statement. “A citizen’s right to have his or her vote counted is fundamental in our democracy.”

The Senate does have the authority to determine the winner of any Senate election, as does House for its elections, but they rarely use that power.  Reid’s comment threatens the efforts of Minnesota to provide a non-partisan, fair, and legitimate election.  In fact, it sounds like an extortion attempt to push state officials into a particular decision that would violate the law in order to produce a specific partisan result.

We have laws on the books to ensure that voter fraud and manipulation regarding absentee ballots gets avoided to the extent possible.  (We don’t have such laws with voter registration, which is another issue entirely.)  Each citizen who casts his votes according to the law has the right to have them counted, and that is fundamental to our democracy, but the citizen has the responsibility to cast them properly according to the law.  Citizens who fail to do so lose the ability to have their vote count in that election.

Any action by the Senate to render this election to Franken on that basis would have the effect of undermining the rule of law.  That will be completely unacceptable to Minnesotans, as it should be to all states. Expect Minnesotans to take action if Reid pursues that path.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Gone are the days when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well. The recount is automatic in this case, and a good idea, but the notion that courts should determine winners and losers is antithetical to democracy.

Was this your attitude towards the 2000 presidential election as well, Ed?

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM

the citizen has the responsibility to cast them properly according to the law.

And of course only once…..

rich801 on November 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Was this your attitude towards the 2000 presidential election as well, Ed?

That was the problem in that election, MadisonConservative. The Florida Supreme Court was busy trying to decide the election in Gore’s favor. And as the subsequent recounts proved, Bush narrowly defeated Gore in Florida. Ed’s being consistent here.

Mr. D on November 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Who initiated court action in 2000?

mylegsareswollen on November 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Ummm… probably. The courts did not decide in 2000. Bush was ahead in Florida, and they went to court to stop all the shenanigans and “new and different” kinds of recounts.

Abby Adams on November 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM

In 2000, the democrats brought the matter to the courts, and they were unhappy with that outcome as well.

Jim - PRS on November 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM

At war with the U.S. Senate Democrat majority.
Where do I sign up?

Amendment X on November 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Gone are the days when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well.

No, a Republican would still have the class to accept it. It’s the Democrats who throw temper tantrums when they lose. They’re motto, “Either we won or you cheated!”

CurtZHP on November 29, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Who initiated court action in 2000?

mylegsareswollen on November 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM

The case was entitled Gore v. The United States, so it should be apparent.

Vashta.Nerada on November 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Democrats are entitled to win elections. It is totally wrong for Republicans to hang on to their victories.

/sarc off

backwoods conservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM

If Dingy Harry tries to steal this election by a Senate fiat, that will be a very bad precedent. It would create the mechanism for a permanent majority, robbing the American people of their votes to select their representatives. If Reid goes this route, there will be hell to pay.

iurockhead on November 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM

That was the problem in that election, MadisonConservative. The Florida Supreme Court was busy trying to decide the election in Gore’s favor. And as the subsequent recounts proved, Bush narrowly defeated Gore in Florida. Ed’s being consistent here.

Mr. D on November 29, 2008 at 11:24 AM

It still resulted in courts on both sides acting towards an outcome. I’m not challenging Ed’s consistency, by the way. I’m asking if he sees the 2000 situation as the same. The Florida SC ordered a manual recount, the Feds struck it down as unconstitutional. A clarification of the position is what I’m looking for.

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM

In 2000, the first side to go to court was Gore’s, naturally, because they were always the ones on the losing side of the recounts.

RBMN on November 29, 2008 at 11:35 AM

Gone are the days when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well.

Ed Morrissey

It’s only the Democrats – Republicans accept it just fine. Remember John Thune v. Tim Johnson in 2004? Johnson narrowly won, and there was a ton of ACORN-type fraud on the South Dakota Indian reservations. Thune gracefully conceded…the bright side was that he beat Daschle two years later, despite Daschle going to the courts.

Jim62sch on November 29, 2008 at 11:39 AM

Welcome the new era of democracy, if you can’t win on votes of the citizens, take the issue to court and try again. That’s reason enough to not wanting to be associated with the Democratic pary.

Hog Wild on November 29, 2008 at 11:40 AM

If Harry tries to do that, all republicans in the Senate must declare war on the leadership and shut down all further proceedings in the Senate/Congress until the actual winner, Coleman is seated. I haven’t heard the Senate Minority leader’s reaction to this extortionate threat by Reid.

eaglewingz08 on November 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM

If Reid goes this route, there will be hell to pay.

iurockhead on November 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM

I wish that were true but the republicans do not fight. Like john McCain in this last election, there is a a twisted sense of the wonderful old saying, Honor before Duty in the republican party and it will be the death of this country.

katy on November 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM

The Florida SC ordered a manual recount, the Feds struck it down as unconstitutional. A clarification of the position is what I’m looking for.

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM

The Florida Supreme Court ordered not a full recount, but a partial recount using new standards. The US Supreme Court case turned on those disparate standards. There was also a hard federal deadline that would’ve put the matter in the hands of the Republican-controlled US House in any case, and we know what their result would be. The House would’ve determined the slate of electors that would be seated from Florida, and that would’ve determined the outcome.

RBMN on November 29, 2008 at 11:42 AM

“Either we won or you cheated!”

DNC knows they are cheating, ACORN, etc…therefore to beat them you have to be cheating more…sad logic, but that is how the donks see it.

t on November 29, 2008 at 11:43 AM

as a public service:
http://www.despair.com/stup24x30pri.html
but for a wonderful day, just:
http://www.despair.com/viewall.html
thank me whenever

Doug on November 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM

There is such a well-established history of Republicans conceding with grace for the good of the country (Nixon, 1960), state, city, whatever, that Democrats have come to expect it as their due, just like all criminals.

drunyan8315 on November 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM

The only reason you would ask that question Madison Conservative, is if you thought that the Republicans brought suite against the democrats because Gore won. Otherwise your question is frivolous.
Perhaps you can give a better explanation but I am relly puzzled as to why you would ask that of Ed.

Vince on November 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM

I wish that were true but the republicans do not fight. Like john McCain in this last election, there is a a twisted sense of the wonderful old saying, Honor before Duty in the republican party and it will be the death of this country.

katy on November 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM

You are correct, Republicans in Congress are spineless.

The hell to pay, I believe, will come from the American people. I don’t think the people will stand for Reid usurping our political process. Cheating is one thing, but outright removing the choice of our representatives from the people is a very different animal.

iurockhead on November 29, 2008 at 11:51 AM

When Obama floods the courts with liberal judges, then voting will become irrelevant.

volsense on November 29, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Dirty Harry is hinting at strong arm tactics with this veiled threat, the MSM will provide covering fire by proclaiming the need for unity and change. Some Federal Judge (liberal Clinton appointee) will toss existing law to the gutter so The Messiah can rule with impunity. Welcome aboard this hell bound train Senator Franken!

dmann on November 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM

This will be just another stepping stone down the path of liberal fascism.

Mojave Mark on November 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM

It still resulted in courts on both sides acting towards an outcome.

Well, yeah, MadisonConservative. When the Democrats sue, the Republicans certainly have a right to respond. If they don’t, chances are that judgment gets entered against them. When you give the court to respond in your favor, it sometimes will.

Mr. D on November 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Doug @ 11:45 AM

That’s hilarious! Thanks!

Vince on November 29, 2008 at 11:57 AM

If Harry tries to do that, all republicans in the Senate must declare war on the leadership and shut down all further proceedings in the Senate/Congress until the actual winner, Coleman is seated. I haven’t heard the Senate Minority leader’s reaction to this extortionate threat by Reid.

eaglewingz08 on November 29, 2008 at 11:41 AM

+1

chunderroad on November 29, 2008 at 11:58 AM

make that last sentence:

When you give the court a reason to respond in your favor, it sometimes will.

Mr. D on November 29, 2008 at 11:58 AM

This is a good object lesson to all those people out there who stayed home this November because they didn’t like either of the presidential candidates. To beat liberals, there has to be an overwhelming majority or this kind of nonsense will go on forever. Gotta drive a steak through em. On a side note glad to see that Franken lost.

Tommy_G on November 29, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Corrupt Democrats and spineless Republicans. Two bad things that go bad together.

If power corrupts, it does kind of prove which party would govern least, however. Too bad people vote for the loudmouth.

Merovign on November 29, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Mr. Franken, with respect, you could take a lesson from Richard Nixon, circa 1960. That guy had class.
You are rapidly becoming what you hate.

dentalque on November 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Going to court was always inevitable. Gone are the days when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well.

Didn’t George Allen walk away pretty gracefully in 2004?

MayBee on November 29, 2008 at 12:10 PM

sue (soo)-v.t.,1.What sniveling libwads do when they don’t get their way.

whitetop on November 29, 2008 at 12:10 PM

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Was this your attitude towards the 2000 presidential election as well, Ed?

Gore sued, the Supreme Court booed.

Paul-Cincy on November 29, 2008 at 12:12 PM

as a public service:
http://www.despair.com/stup24×30pri.html
but for a wonderful day, just:
http://www.despair.com/viewall.html
thank me whenever

Doug on November 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM

I love the despair.com demotivators. Fabulous stuff. If politicians had more of a willingness to learn, demotivators could save our country from destruction.

Aronne on November 29, 2008 at 12:13 PM

To a large extent Minnesota is getting what it deserves. So long as they keep electing or offering up such eccentric, weird, and offputting pols like Franken and Truther Ventura, such oddball events will continue. Franken is doing what a far left lunatic is supposed to do. Maybe the citizens of Minnesota should think twice before voting for such an individual.

Also, Reid is a toothless tiger. Anyone afraid of him needs a testosterone shot.

Remember: Libs are fundamentally a cowardly race. They are only as powerful as we make them.

EMD on November 29, 2008 at 12:14 PM

Mr. Franken, with respect, you could take a lesson from Richard Nixon, circa 1960. That guy had class.
You are rapidly becoming what you hate.

Umm, you do realize Franken is the guy that did a bit on weekend update about Reagan getting a TURP? (Look it up on wikipedia) He never had any class and he was always like this.

Dave_d on November 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM

Remember: Libs are fundamentally a cowardly race. They are only as powerful as we the mainstream media makes them.

EMD on November 29, 2008 at 12:14 PM

(repaired)

Rovin on November 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM

This could get interesting…

Historicly the Senate was the representative of the State, not the people… and was appointed by the States themselves until 1913. The Founders were clear on the intent, but we changed it…

Now we could have a situation where the Senate itself, will choose a Senator? ie, the Federal Government telling the State, and its people, who will represent them?

We live in interesting times… interesting as in relation to the Chinese curse.

Romeo13 on November 29, 2008 at 12:19 PM

“As the process moves forward, Minnesota authorities must ensure that no voter is disenfranchised,” Reid said in a statement. “A citizen’s right to have his or her vote counted is fundamental in our democracy.”

Voters who cast a ballot for Coleman have the right to not be canceled out by a ballot that says “lizard people” on it too. Every rotten ballot that gets counted disenfranchises a voter from the other side.

forest on November 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM

That it is so close, with a cipher like Franken in the run, makes it something wrong with Minnesotans. Too much Sweedish in the mix. May they learn the hard way, as Sweden does/has.

Of course the Senate reaper should stay out of it.

Entelechy on November 29, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Franken is a classless, illiberate scumbag, plain and simple. Always has been, always will be.

Scott on November 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM

“As the process moves forward, Minnesota authorities must ensure that no voter is disenfranchised,” Reid said in a statement. “A citizen’s right to have his or her vote counted is fundamental in our democracy.”

Seems to me, Mr Reid, that Minnesota is taking care of their business just fine and dandy. Now why don’t you take care of Nevada’s business instead of poking your nose in a mouse trap?

Limerick on November 29, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Any action by the Senate to render this election to Franken on that basis would have the effect of undermining the rule of law.

What this shows is the Democrat Party’s unwavering lust for ‘One Party Rule’. To that end, the House of Lords Senate will do whatever they want, including violating Federal Law (which does not apply to them anyway). Al Franken went the D.C. for a ‘Legislative Update’ by Harry Reid himself. Anyone want to bet the ‘Update’ was actually a strategy meeting to get Franken the seat?

Historicly the Senate was the representative of the State, not the people… and was appointed by the States themselves until 1913. The Founders were clear on the intent, but we changed it…

Boy howdy did we blow THAT one!

SeniorD on November 29, 2008 at 12:35 PM

“As the process moves forward, Minnesota authorities must ensure that no voter is disenfranchised,” Reid said in a statement. “A citizen’s right to have his or her vote counted is fundamental in our democracy.”

The election is over. If someone didn’t vote, or make clear their vote, they won’t be counted. They disenfranchised their own self. Disenfranchised. Is that like when you own a McDonald’s and then they take it away from you?

Paul-Cincy on November 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Disenfranchised. Is that like when you own a McDonald’s and then they take it away from you?

Paul-Cincy on November 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM

That’s a keeper.:)

whitetop on November 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM

In fact, it sounds like is an extortion attempt to push state officials into a particular decision that would violate the law in order to produce a specific partisan result.

There.

petefrt on November 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM

If Reid did take such an action, the good news is, it would certainly but Klobuchar in an awkward spot; and, in my dreams would effect her ’12 re-election prospects if the US Senate chooses MN’s next Senator.

mngirl on November 29, 2008 at 12:44 PM

I hated and loved Richard Nixon all at the same time. My hero and as well as a villan. But the way he handled 1960 showed his noble side. Poppa Joe Kennedy bought the state of Illinois, no doubt about it. It was the only time in history that the winner went to visit the loser. John Kennedy flew to Florida immediately after the election to talk to Nixon. Must have been an interesting conversation. Nixon never had a bitter word to say. Nixon’s place in history is improving every year. Eventually no one will know that Gore or Franken ever existed.

JonRoss on November 29, 2008 at 12:47 PM

The case was entitled Gore v. The United States, so it should be apparent.

What an apropos name!

PackerBronco on November 29, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Do not underestimate the swine that is Harry Reid.

The scum has enough in his back ground to send him to prison a couple of times. Yet he runs the US Senate. What a country.

UT Cowboy on November 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM

The Florida SC ordered a manual recount, the Feds struck it down as unconstitutional. A clarification of the position is what I’m looking for.

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Florida 2000 Course 101

In the early going, before the Florida Supreme Court got involved, the rulings in Florida by Federal Judges going against Gore all came from Democrat-appointed Judges.

Then, the all-Democrat Florida Supreme Court stepped in, unsolicited. Nobody had asked them to get involved, they simply decided to do so themselves.

Their first “decision” was rejected by SCOTUS 9-0. SCOTUS then nicely asked them to “revise” their decision.

The next Florida Supreme Court “decision” was so far in the tank for Gore that Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Wells dissented from his colleagues, and correctly predicted that SCOTUS would reject it. Which they did, by a 7-2 ruling. The second decision that day, the much-quoted by the Left 5-4 decision, was simply a ruling on the remedy. It was the first 7-2 decision that was most important. However, to this day the Left still refuses to believe that 7-2 decision even exists.

For a good read on the Florida recount, don’t read Bill Sammon’s book or Alan Dershowitz’s book, both of which look at the recount from partisan viewpoints. The best book out there was written by 2 political scientists, and is called “The Perfect Tie”. It should be required reading in every poli-sci class and every US History class.

What’s so ironic about the whole episode is that Gore would never have needed to win Florida to gain the White House, if he had simply won his own home state of Tennessee. But they rejected him.

Del Dolemonte on November 29, 2008 at 12:51 PM

I can deal with the court. But if the US Senate weighs in, we Minnesotans will raise hell.

Captain America on November 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I am ready to form a new political action group. Kinda like Code Pink but named, maybe, Code Bullshet, and every time Reid’s sorry ass head is seen in public he hears nothing but screams and threats. We gotta stop being nice.

JonRoss on November 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Slight correction to my post above-Charles Wells, the Florida Supreme Court Justice who dissented from his colleagues in their second “ruling”, was in fact the Chief Justice of that Court.

Del Dolemonte on November 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM

Eventually no one will know that Gore or Franken ever existed.

If we are able to produce fair histories in the future, Gore will be a laughingstock.

There’s that, at least.

Kensington on November 29, 2008 at 12:58 PM

The recount is automatic in this case, and a good idea, but the notion that courts should determine winners and losers is antithetical to democracy.

The courts never determine a winner in an election. Not even in 2000. In case of elections, they are often brought in to decide the best, most fair and legal ways to count ballots.

If Franken sues to have the rejected absentee ballots re-looked at and it turns out that some legal ones were mistakenly rejected, and those legal ones help Franken win, the VOTERS will have elected Franken, not the courts.

That would not be antithetical to democracy. It may be messy and cumbersome at time, but the courts are key component to democracy.

Tom_Shipley on November 29, 2008 at 1:10 PM

I hope that Franken loses his ass! Another Franken has a mentality of a child.

sheebe on November 29, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Going to court was always inevitable. Gone are the days when the Democrat loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well. The recount is automatic in this case, and a good idea, but the notion that courts should determine winners and losers is antithetical to democracy.

Fixed that for you Ed. If I recall correctly, the last several Republican losses such as in Washington where the recount lasted only long enough to get enough votes for the Democrat, the Republican (unfortunately, in my opinion) graciously conceded.

AZfederalist on November 29, 2008 at 1:19 PM

The problem with people like MadisonConservative is that they do not have the ability to see things as they actually happen. Facts do not matter to them, or at least honest facts. Only the facts that the MSM tout are the facts that matter. As most sane people know, MSM ‘facts’ are at best half-truths and at worst outright lies.

Sporty1946 on November 29, 2008 at 1:27 PM

If the liberals lose: they were cheated.

If the liberals win: it was fair and square–no matter how many ACORNS there are laying on the ground around them.

Mallard T. Drake on November 29, 2008 at 1:33 PM

Harry Reid, trying to redefine democracy out of existence.

MB4 on November 29, 2008 at 1:35 PM

If Dingy Harry tries to steal this election by a Senate fiat, that will be a very bad precedent. It would create the mechanism for a permanent majority, robbing the American people of their votes to select their representatives. If Reid goes this route, there will be hell to pay.

iurockhead on November 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM

The precedent was already set in 1975 by (you guessed it) the ‘Rats. The initial count and second, final recount favored Republican Louis Wyman (the last by 2 votes), while the first recount favored Democrat John Durkin. The 60-’Rat (+1 independent) majority refused to seat Wyman, and indeed tried to install Durkin no less than 6 times (each time defeated by the filibuster), until Wyman stupidly accepted Durkin’s call for a do-over. Needless to say, the ‘Rat majority grew by 1.

steveegg on November 29, 2008 at 1:36 PM

“A citizen’s right to have his or her vote counted is fundamental in our democracy.”

Well, they’ve been counted and the comedian lost.
This is getting really old.

JellyToast on November 29, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Tom_Shipley on November 29, 2008

I assume you are cool if they change the rules

Jamson64 on November 29, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Was this your attitude towards the 2000 presidential election as well, Ed?

I believe it was the November 18th, 2001 edition of the New York Times that finally acknowledged that G. Bush won the 2000 election fairly. Even the hard-left NYT had to admit the truth which, unfortunately, the rest of the Lame Stream Media continued to lie about for the next 7 years.

oldleprechaun on November 29, 2008 at 1:51 PM

I bet franken was beat up alot in school.

(by girls)
(really small girls.)

Handel on November 29, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Let’s not forget Kerry’s whining about the Ohio results that led to his defeat in 2004.

The sheer audacity of these suit-happy Dems and their cocksureness that they were the winners lead me to believe that ACORN’s and similar partisan groups have a mighty significant hand in creating the closeness of the votes.

Now is the time to insist that Congress no longer provide funds for these groups. Their function in registering voters is no longer needed. Anyone not able to know how to register or find out how via television, the post office, or the local library probably shouldn’t be voting anyway.

onlineanalyst on November 29, 2008 at 1:58 PM

When you put cretins in charge, expect them to do cretinous things to stay in charge.

Speakup on November 29, 2008 at 2:04 PM

“Gone are the days when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well.”

No one has ever accused Al Franken of having “class”.

GarandFan on November 29, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Expect them to take action? Like what? I expect they’ll bitch, then roll over with a whimper, and Coleman will congratulate Franken, as Republicans who have elections stolen from them typically do.

Midas on November 29, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Yeah, we have nothing else to spend tax dollars on so this will be worth while. We must defend democracy at all costs.

Yes, this is sarcasm.

mindhacker on November 29, 2008 at 2:16 PM

uhg. A reverse Elvis Lip. Man thats the worst kind.

johnnyU on November 29, 2008 at 2:19 PM

What’s with this picture of Franken? I swear, I have seen lower body parts of a baboon that were much easier to look at than this man’s face.

Chris37 on November 29, 2008 at 2:25 PM

stay classy Al.

Oh wait–forgot who I was referring to there for a moment.

John The Baptist on November 29, 2008 at 2:31 PM

If Franken does manage to steal the election, he will instantly be one of the most honest, reasonable, objective, cooled-headed Democrats in Congress.

notagool on November 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Franken is a classless jackass and a liberal dirt bag.

rplat on November 29, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Gone are the days when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well.

Sad how ole’ Nixon was never (and still isn’t) given credit for that, when there were pretty clear signs that Kennedy had stolen the election.

Funny how modern-day libs, who get their panties in a twist so often about fairness ideas, resort to blatantly unfair tactics like this.

F’ Franken.

There’s a bumper sticker.

Hawkins1701 on November 29, 2008 at 2:37 PM

What the heck is wrong with Democrats or the people of Minnesota in general? Why was it even close?

hawkdriver on November 29, 2008 at 2:37 PM

It may be messy and cumbersome at time, but the courts are key component to democracy.

Tom_Shipley on November 29, 2008 at 1:10 PM

No.

A honest judiciary has less to do with democracy than with maintaining a civil, orderly society.

A democracy is not necessary for a civil, orderly society. Honest governance, honest judges, and a well educated moral society produce a civil, orderly nation/state.

With democracy, honest moral citizenry are given a voice in their own governance. The only effect the courts should have on democracy is adjudicating disputes in an fair and orderly fashion.

Skandia Recluse on November 29, 2008 at 2:41 PM

The Florida SC ordered a manual recount, the Feds struck it down as unconstitutional. A clarification of the position is what I’m looking for.

MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:34 AM

This is not quite right: SCOFLA “ordered” a recount in only 4 select (selected by the Democrats) Fla. counties and in violation of the state’s own election laws.
SCOTUS ruled that this was a violation of the 4th Amendment and due process by giving more weight to the votes of those select counties than the rest of the state’s counties’ votes.

Jenfidel on November 29, 2008 at 2:45 PM

In fact, it sounds like an extortion attempt to push state officials into a particular decision that would violate the law in order to produce a specific partisan result….

George Soros was quoted saying……….. “So what?”.

Seven Percent Solution on November 29, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Any action by the Senate to render this election to Franken on that basis would have the effect of undermining the rule of law.

At the precise moment the Senate steps in, I cease to pay income taxes.

Onager on November 29, 2008 at 3:10 PM

More therapy for Stuart Smalley.
It’s gonna be okay, you tool.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Loser!

HornetSting on November 29, 2008 at 3:12 PM

franken is gonna lose.

rob verdi on November 29, 2008 at 3:16 PM

What’s after beta male? I would give this puss an oilfield ass beating that may actually wake him into a life of productivity. Alpha, beta, ? I never claim I know everything.

gringo69 on November 29, 2008 at 3:38 PM

We can’t be surprised by the actions of Al Franken here.

DPierre on November 29, 2008 at 3:38 PM

The Senate does have the authority to determine the winner of any Senate election, as does House for its elections, but they rarely use that power.

Shouldn’t the “Office of the President-Elect” decide?

Mr_Magoo on November 29, 2008 at 3:47 PM

No, a Republican would still have the class to accept it. It’s the Democrats who throw temper tantrums when they lose. They’re motto, “Either we won or you cheated!”

CurtZHP on November 29, 2008 at 11:31 AM

It’s sad that when you cheat at everything (elections, marriage, leadership finances, bilking your constituents), you figure everyone else does.

A majority of Americans seem to be OK with this….

Hening on November 29, 2008 at 3:48 PM

No.

A honest judiciary has less to do with democracy than with maintaining a civil, orderly society.

A democracy is not necessary for a civil, orderly society. Honest governance, honest judges, and a well educated moral society produce a civil, orderly nation/state.

With democracy, honest moral citizenry are given a voice in their own governance. The only effect the courts should have on democracy is adjudicating disputes in an fair and orderly fashion.

Skandia Recluse on November 29, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Shipley b*tch-slapped yet again.

Mr_Magoo on November 29, 2008 at 3:50 PM

I haven’t cheated enough. I told my mom I’ve been doing it all wrong.

gringo69 on November 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Was this your attitude towards the 2000 presidential election as well, Ed?
MadisonConservative on November 29, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Gore lost every recount. The FL Supreme Court ruled that the law could be set aside, and the SCOTUS ruled that it couldn’t. What’s your point?

Akzed on November 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Gone are the days (in the DEMORCRAT PARTY) when the loser of a close election would have the class to accept a tough loss and wish the winner well

Please put emphasis on the bad loser and bad winner party.

RobCon on November 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2