Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Senator Franken
The recount litigation in Minnesota is over, and Al Franken has been certified as having won the U.S. Senate election last November.
Depending upon the health and attendance of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate, the first time in three decades either party has reached that filibuster-proof figure.
Senator Franken may find that keeping his Senate seat may be more difficult than attracting a consistent listening audience as an Air America radio host.
23 Comments:
By 
Simon Kenton, at
Tue Jun 30, 10:11:00 PM:
"Senator Franken may find that keeping his Senate seat may be more difficult than attracting a consistent listening audience as an Air America radio host.'
-- That stroke was well put-by.
By JPMcT, at
Tue Jun 30, 11:12:00 PM:
I suppose we will now OFFICIALLY have to stop taking politics seriously and put all those wistful thoughts about being a republic behind us.
Let's just go whole hog and award Obama a commodore hat, epaulets, a sah and dark aviator glasses.
We are COMPLETELY third world!
By 
, at
Wed Jul 01, 12:12:00 AM:
Why did we waste all that energy on the theft of the election in Iran and do nothing about the theft of our election in 2008. Acorn. the unions and the dems stole selective elections all over the country and NO ONE did or said anything.
We will now pass into servitude and the communists (and thieves) have won!
By , at
Wed Jul 01, 01:13:00 AM:
Senator Franken may find that keeping his Senate seat may be more difficult than attracting a consistent listening audience as an Air America radio host.
I don't see how he can fail. Nobody investigated Christine Gregoire's election, nobody is investigating this one, so I see no obstacle to essentially unlimited fraud for the benefit of Democrats.
By , at
Wed Jul 01, 02:52:00 AM:
In 1996 my Congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez was elected in a race that saw a minimum of 800 ballots cast for her by illegal immigrants. She has been my Congresswoman ever since. We will never know how extensive the voter fraud was that got her elected, just as we will never know the true extent of voter fraud that got Franken elected. I have to show two forms of ID to get into my gym in the morning, but the Democrats can't cheat if only legal citizens vote, so they block reform at every turn.
By Sissy Willis, at
Wed Jul 01, 06:20:00 AM:
When I read "Depending upon the health and attendance of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd," I thought the end of the sentence would be
"the Democrats have three certified clowns in the Senate"!
By BigD, at
Wed Jul 01, 09:43:00 AM:
Anonymous says that we are a third world country now that Franken is a US Senator in place of Coleman? REALLY?!? Just curious if the same person might have been one of those screaming "Sore-Loserman" in November 2000? Is it only voter fraud if a Republican loses?
By Viking Kaj, at
Wed Jul 01, 03:03:00 PM:
Wrong guy. The first SNL alum in the Senate should have been Senator Blutarsky.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Jul 01, 04:20:00 PM:
"Just curious if the same person might have been one of those screaming "Sore-Loserman" in November 2000? Is it only voter fraud if a Republican loses?"
Hyperbole, I'm sure. A little like implying that Bush won the 2000 election through voter fraud...
By BigD, at
Wed Jul 01, 10:47:00 PM:
I'll just post a quick refresher on Election 2000. Bush sues to stop counting votes while they are still ahead. Gore sues for a hand recount. Governor and Secy of State have a clear favorite. FL Supreme Court rules recount should happen. US Supreme Court stops recount while it deliberates. Three days later, in a 5-4 decision, Supremes rule that the recount can happen but it has to be finished in 30 minutes. Did I get anything wrong? Oh, don't forget voter caging and intimidation. And now we are a third world country because Franken is a Senator? Really?!?
By JPMcT, at
Wed Jul 01, 11:07:00 PM:
Actually, BigD you did, indeed, get it wrong.
Gore sought a recount in selected, heavily Democratic counties only. He also sought to disqualify absentee ballots (like those from the troops abroad).
The Florida supreme court (politically left) let him do it. The SCOTUS said, appropriately, that thee decision violated the equal protection provision of the constitution.
Two mainstream media investigations of the recount process after the cards fell did not detect any wrong doing in the process and supported the Bush victory in Florida. As far as I am aware, the absentee ballots were never counted.
Get over it.
If anything, the Minnesota count was held in a state heavily controlled by Democrats and all of the decisions on the rather outrageous process were against Coleman. In some counties, there were more votes for Franken tan there were registered voters.
Proving once again that Democrats are superior in getting out the vote...including, in some cases, getting the voters out of the grave.
By , at
Thu Jul 02, 12:27:00 AM:
Another thing about the Florida Supreme Court decision: they allowed Gore to recount ballots in violation of Florida law. Florida law required all challenges to be concluded by a certain date, and if they were not directed the Secretary of State to certify the ballot as if the challenges failed. The Florida SC told Gore "go ahead, keep counting ballots after the deadline and we'll certify them". The US Supreme Court, rightly, slapped down the Florida SC for nakedly violating the law of their own state.
By BigD, at
Thu Jul 02, 02:04:00 AM:
It seems I touched a nerve!
You are both forgetting that the SCOTUS ruled that the recount WAS legal in the end. They may have stopped the recount for the reasons you give, but in the end Rhenquist simply said it had to be finished by midnight, then he had to push to make the announcement before midnight, to give the illusion of fairness I guess.
Was the MN election really more tilted to Franken than FL was to Bush? I'm just asking. Did the Secretary of State work for Franken? Was his brother the Gov? Also, just so you can see it through my eyes, how much would you have believed those media reports if they said Gore actually won? Exactly...
I am over it, it's just that I can't believe you guys have your panties in such a bunch over THIS!
By JPMcT, at
Thu Jul 02, 07:04:00 AM:
"I can't believe you guys have your panties in such a bunch over THIS!"
I found it a bit hard to believe that there are people who still believe that Gore won Florida.
He may have dominated the popular vote...but he didn't win the electoral vote. That's been hashed time and time again. Bush was legally elected the president of the United States by every ruler with which you choose to measure.
I would hope...but I doubt I will see...as INTENSE an investigation of the electoral process in Minnesota as we saw with Bush in Florida.
I'm not holding my breath for that one.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Jul 02, 09:49:00 AM:
"Gore sought a recount in selected, heavily Democratic counties only."
Bush offered a state-wide recount as a compromise and was shot down. Hmm.
"I am over it, it's just that I can't believe you guys have your panties in such a bunch over THIS!"
Don't play the mature elder now... you brought it up.
There is a pamphlet that was published when I was in college (studying government) called 'The Exceptional Election' that explains in solid detail the Florida drama. It also specifies that when ballots were recounted later (like in 2001/2 later) by third parties interested in the affair (including media organizations, I think) they found that Bush was the state-wide victor by 500-some odd votes.
Not to support fraud theories about MN, but instead doing my part to try to kill the retarded 'Bush stole the election!' canard. That's just a mantra that pissed off liberals repeated to themselves in moments of (continuous) rage over the next 8 years... not fact.
By , at
Thu Jul 02, 11:01:00 AM:
I would hope...but I doubt I will see...as INTENSE an investigation of the electoral process in Minnesota as we saw with Bush in Florida.
I'm sure we will see an investigation as intense as the one we saw in Christine Gregoire's election in WA state.
By BigD, at
Thu Jul 02, 04:30:00 PM:
None of what you guys have presented actually contradicts my overview. The FL SC ruled that a Statewide recount should happen. The SCOTUS stopped that recount on a Saturday to deliberate it's legality. The following Tuesday (if memory serves me correctly) at 11pm they ruled it was legal, but needed to be finished by midnight.
The whole thing reminded me of a sporting event won by the home team on a disputed final play. The home team chose not to release the replay, because, while it probably proved they won, it might prove that they lost.
I have only seen rumors posted here about the MN election. If someone has a link to some solid evidence of voter fraud, I'd love to see it (serious news organizations only please). My feeling is that I would have heard of it in the 8 months since the election.
If anyone thinks voter caging and intimidation didn't happen in FL 2000, I'm sure I could find you some links, but I feel that I've wasted enough of my time with this already. It would probably be similar to proving that the Sun rises in the East...
Btw, I never claimed that Gore won in 2000. I just can't believe that anyone would claim the recount in MN was somehow irregular and at the same time insist that FL 2000 was done by the books.
Try to expand your sources of information beyond Rush and Fox News. You will be a better informed and happier person.
By JPMcT, at
Thu Jul 02, 06:52:00 PM:
"Try to expand your sources of information beyond Rush and Fox News. You will be a better informed and happier person"
I assume you are recommending CNN, ABC, MSNBC, The NYT, Wash Post, Time, Newsweek or Public Broadcasting?
No thanks...I'll stay clear of the state controlled media until that all that is left.
By BigD, at
Fri Jul 03, 01:11:00 AM:
"We report, you decide!" Their slogan might as well be "We tell you the truth, when it benefits Conservatives!"
None of the outlets you listed are even half as skewed to one side.
By JPMcT, at
Fri Jul 03, 07:21:00 AM:
...OK...just give us all a few examples of Fox News telling "lies".
Maybe just one....
Anyone? Anyone? Beuler???
By BigD, at
Fri Jul 03, 09:39:00 AM:
They have to be very careful about lying, unlike most of right wing talk radio. If you read what I said, and I don't think you have yet, I didn't say that they lie.
But the main issue for me is perpetuating myths. Bush the hero, Obama, the shady character. I don't have any hard evidence, but I think that if you added up all of the negative pieces on Bush by all of the outlets you mentioned over his entire term, it would probably be less than the negative pieces by Fox on Obama in his first six months. Hell, probably Hannity alone has done more negatives than all the others combined. Think about it.
By JPMcT, at
Fri Jul 03, 09:55:00 PM:
Fox provides counterpoint to a syncophantic media. It seems that our watchdog journalists have largely become lapdogs. Since they are basically alone in this endeavor, they look radical...or, As George Orwell said: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.
By BigD, at
Sat Jul 04, 12:55:00 AM:
I would be impressed if you were defending almost anything BUT Fox News. LOL. Take care, it's been fun.
