Apparently a great many conservatives would rather “get along” (read: submit) than actually defend the constitution.

Doing the right thing is often uncomfortable. It almost always means standing up to name calling and defending your actions. Its almost always easier to just let people get away with their unconstitutional behavior, but its not right and its not what conservatives stand for.

Grow a pair, people.

American Elephant on April 14, 2009 at 6:35 PM

No…this has gone on for FIVE months already. I can’t speak for others, but I was willing to go through all of Coleman’s protestations up to now, but it’s over.

Let’s move on.

As SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in Bush v. Gore, that is unconstitutional.

Apparently a great many conservatives would rather “get along” (read: submit) than actually defend the constitution.

Doing the right thing is often uncomfortable. It almost always means standing up to name calling and defending your actions. Its almost always easier to just let people get away with their unconstitutional behavior, but its not right and its not what conservatives stand for.

Grow a pair, people.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 14, 2009 at 4:01 PM

You are very astute and sadly accurate.

Should he do that? Some people are suggesting that an extended challenge will not only prove futile, but will also damage Coleman’s long-term political prospects.

How does that measure with this statement:

I think Coleman blew the recount phase by being too passive and too concerned about appearances rather than aggressively challenging Franken ballots the way Franken challenged his.

This is what gets me with our “supposed” side of the blogosphere. First saying, “Be the noble one,” “Don’t get in the gutter with the Left,” “Be respectful,” “Be above the sniping and anger.” Then they turn around when you listen to them and kick you in the back side saying you were a wuss all along. Who needs enemies when you’ve got friends like that?

The reason Republicans worry about their reputations is because the Left go after them like there’s no tomorrow and Republicans who are in the public eye are fair-weather friends. So-called Republicans that can write an editorial or get on CNN are usually the first to jump on the dish the dirty lefty stuff bandwagon when it hits the fan. Big example of this is when Rush said, “I hope he fails.” You had Steele, Newt, et al out there railing against Rush on behalf of the Democrats and “being nice” to the new President. *Sheesh* We ALL knew what he MEANT.

Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

Could be also that they merely smelled tax and spend goodies with the evil rich footing the bill.

In memory of the 1953 rebellion in East Germany, poet Bertolt Brecht wrote The Solution, which includes the lines:

Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be…

cthulhu on April 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM

You have hit the nail on the head! This is not a fight between Coleman vs. Franken over a senate seat. This is a fight between The Rule of Law vs. The Rule of Men over the very soul of the USA. This is a fight between conspiring men wishing to do the nation harm and the Constitution!

And for that reason alone Coleman has the duty to press on until he can no longer do so!

Coleman will likely appeal. Worst. Election. Ever…….

tneloms on April 14, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Essentially, what ended up happening was that Republicans strictly enforced exclusionary rules in Republican-leaning counties, and Democrats laxly enforced exclusionary rules in Democrat-leaning counties. This resulted in lower vote totals overall in counties most likely to favor Republicans, and higher vote totals overall in counties most likely to favor Democrats.

Of course, in the fog of war, there were a lot of other issues going around, but this one seems to be the big one (and also, handily, supports my thesis).

Franken has succeeded at what Gore was trying to do: overturn an election he lost. If election laws were violated, then how can the result be acceptable?

I know how bad McShamnesty was, but I still voted for him as the lesser of the evils.

And I agree that he didn’t challenge vigorously enough when it really counted.

That spells a lack of acuity, so maybe the outcome of this isn’t really all that bad. We need brains and instinct in our elected officials today more than ever.

Coleman believed that the rules were set up to seek the true will of the people, and would work toward that end without aggression or heated contention. Franken believed that the rules were, at most, a slight impediment to his being seated in the Senate. Along the way, the rules were bent, twisted, partially ignored, and misapplied by various parties to finally achieve the Democrats’ aim.

Coleman should take this all the way to the SCOTUS, not because of the seat — but, instead, for the benefit of people who want steady rules. People who believe that this nation should be a nation of laws, not men.

cthulhu on April 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I agree with this last part. But why do you make the accusations in the first part? Which rules were bent? How were they misapplied? Which votes were counted that shouldn’t have been? The Coleman campaign agreed that all opened absentee ballots were valid.

In other words, he was taken by surprise by people who would change the rules of a game being played if the score wasn’t what they wanted it to be.

And we see this nationwide — putting AIG bonuses in the Porkulus bill, then passing a retroactive tax to whisk them away; facing voter defeat on gay marriage, then doing an end-run through the courts; failing to get 60 Democrats in the Senate, then threatening to end the filibuster; telling Blago not to appoint a Senator, then seating Burriss.

In all these cases, there are people who are playing by the rules — making changes, if any, through designated means. And there are people who essentially say, “screw the rules, we want XXXXX.”

Coleman believed that the rules were set up to seek the true will of the people, and would work toward that end without aggression or heated contention. Franken believed that the rules were, at most, a slight impediment to his being seated in the Senate. Along the way, the rules were bent, twisted, partially ignored, and misapplied by various parties to finally achieve the Democrats’ aim.

Coleman should take this all the way to the SCOTUS, not because of the seat — but, instead, for the benefit of people who want steady rules. People who believe that this nation should be a nation of laws, not men.

My state has issues.

He brought a hackey-sack to a knife fight, and missed his opportunity.

That’s what the Stupid Party does every time it’s up against the Dangerous Party. That’s the moderate way.

Oh, well, I hope they nail the chairs down in the Senate before that lunatic gets there.

Why stop there? The better question would be, why give any more credibility to the federal courts who think themselves king-makers (if not kings)?