I thought you people were against frivolous lawsuits.

benny shakar on January 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM

So you define a frivolous lawsuit as one that might have an outcome you don’t like?

Please.

One example is the claims of there being greater vote totals than voters who signed in on election day due to double counting. This has been repeated many times, most noticeably by the WSJ editorial, without any specific evidence to back it up; in fact, the Coleman campaign would have presented this evidence to the Supreme Court already if they had this evidence. Now, this claim may be true, but the Court correctly ruled that this would be determined during the election contest, not during the recount. So now there will be a fact-finding process, and we’ll know the answer. No need to make claims about cheating or fraud here; if there was double counting then this will be determined and corrected, and that’s exactly the way it should be.

Time and again, I have screamed for Repubs to read Horowitz’s book “The Art of Political War”.

Amendment X on January 7, 2009 at 6:34 PM

I second your suggestion enthusiastically. Probably most folks here at Hot Air have read Horowitz’s Radical Son and Art of Political War, but for anyone who hasn’t, let me urge you put Horowitz at the top of your reading list. It’s most unlikely that you’ll fully understand today’s liberalism/progressivism before you read David Horowitz.

Bonus: Both books are available as audio books, so you can listen in your car.

Time and again, I have screamed for Repubs to read Horowitz’s book “The Art of Political War”. he basically says that Repubs enter politics thinking this a version of the Oxford Debating Club. The lefties look at politics as a knife fight.

Amendment X on January 7, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Amen. It’s well past time we all (on the right) start to view this as what it is. That doesn’t mean we adopt the left’s tactics, but we at least need to factor them into our own strategies and start treating them accordingly.

Unfortunately, as my good friend Scott Johnson explains at Power Line today, it may be too little, too late. Al Franken and his team understood how to win recounts, while Coleman appeared too hesitant to play the same game, or at least play it as aggressively:

DO YA THINK????

Team Coleman got “outhustled and outsmarted” by Franken and his team…

The Coleman team simply didn’t play offense enough in the days after the election.

Story of our frikkin life as a political party, isn’t it. Gawd, how tiresome it gets.

According to Politico, Reid has sworn that Coleman will never be seated.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0109/Reid_Coleman_will_never_ever_serve.html

Which can only mean one thing — Senator Norm Coleman will be seated.

How can you with a straight face say Franken didn’t steal this? They found ballots in somebody’s car for crying out loud, that almost all went for Franken. If you don’t think that’s cheating, what is?

Louisiana of the North

clark smith on January 7, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Thank you Clark!

Ed, please reveiw the link to Fox News’ article. The Canvassing Board didn’t do anything worthy of praise and I expect that you will retract your statement because it’s obvious that the rules were not applied equally and were in favor of Franken and not of Coleman.

Al Franken and his team understood how to win fix recounts, while Coleman appeared too hesitant to play the same game, or at least play it as aggressively naively expected the Democrats to play by the rules

FIFY.

Plus, Team Franken came to win. They were driven by rage, BDS and a lustful sense of entitlement.

Franken didn’t win, Coleman lost.

Game over.

benny shakar on January 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Did anybody hear something?…..WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAAWHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAAWHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA WHAA.

I thought you people were against frivolous lawsuits.

benny shakar on January 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Or, “not frivolous.”

I’m not certain I’m fully grasping your meaning here. It does sound like you’re saying, “Everyone cheats, so you should cheat harder.”

I mean, Coleman wanted to work against Franken fixing the results by counting votes that weren’t there. But your comment was that he went the wrong way and should’ve gone “on offense.”

How does he go on offense without generating fraudulent votes?

Coleman,who received 225 fewer votes than DFLer Al Franken in the U.S. Senate recount,

this is understating the problem, as I’m sure the Star Tribune intends to do. Coleman was UP by 700 before the recount. So in actuality, Coleman received at least 925 fewer votes that Franken. That is almost unprecedented, and stinks to high heaven.

I thought you people were against frivolous lawsuits.

benny shakar on January 7, 2009 at 4:04 PM

1. characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.
2. self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.

Used with lawsuits, the generally acknowledged meaning is a lawsuit that is without merit, pursued either for monetary gain, or to harass the defendent.

I know how liberals hate dictionaries and/or facts, so I thought I’d help you out.