Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston





Tuesday, April 14, 2009


Well do I remember the conservative punks who were flown into Florida in 2000 (I was living there at the time) to stir up anger and stop the ballot counts. I also clearly remember them holding signs that read 'SORE LOOSERMAN!" which was supposed to be their clever interpretation of "GORE/LIEBERMAN."

Now the proverbial shoe is on the other proverbial foot. Norm Coleman is beginning to look like the Miss Havisham of the Republican Party.
The ruling isn't expected to be the final word because Coleman immediately announced plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court. He has 10 days to do so. That appeal could mean weeks more delay in seating Minnesota's second senator.
"It's time that Minnesota like every other state have two" senators, a jovial Franken said outside his Minneapolis town home with his wife, Franni, at his side. "I would call on Senator Coleman to allow me to get to work for the people of Minnesota as soon as possible."
After a statewide recount and seven-week trial, Franken stands 312 votes ahead. Franken actually gained more votes from the election challenge than Coleman, the candidate who brought it.



Arthurstone said...

I seem to recall a big push from the right urging Al Gore to 'get over it' during the Republican election heist in Florida circa 2000.

Say goodbye Norm.

TAO said...

Ah, but Al Gore doing what is best for the nation is not the same thing as Norm Coleman doing what is best for Minnesota...

Especially when you find out that his legal fees are being paid for by Republican Senators in Washington...

Dave said...

Amen Shaw!

TAO said...


I was reading your blog policy on comments...

Do trolls read?

Shaw Kenawe said...


Yes. With their ears, apparently.

TRUTH 101 said...

One person's troll is another's responsible and enlightened follower.
I'm one of the enlightened ones here until two weeks from now when the White Sox play the Red Sox.

dmarks said...

Tao: Only if there are flashlights under the bridge.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shaw Kenawe said...


What has you comment have to do with Norm Coleman?

Are you using my blog as a pawn for your anti-gay marriage propaganda?

I am a staunch supporter of gay marriage, gay civil unions, whatever we wish to call it.

It's a civil rights issue.

The end.

Gordon said...

Gee, Shaw, do you remember the liberal punks who were doing the same thing at the same time in Florida? I do, and I wasn't living there.

I'd think you would be a big supporter of getting every vote counted, and counted honestly. That's all Coleman is asking for. He wants the same counting standard used outstate as was used in Minneapolis and St. Paul. One man, one vote--you know, that pesky constitutional standard.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I just deleted Pro-Life's comment because 1) it had nothing to do with my post on Norm Coleman, and 2) when I went to visit her blog, I discovered only those who are allowed to read and comment on it are those SHE allows.

Why should I let her spread her anti-gay marriage propaganda while she disallows the free exchange of ideas on her blog.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Sorry Gordon,

One man, one vote is NOT what the Coleman issue is about. And we all know it.

dmarks said...

Then what is it about?

Arthurstone said...

The Coleman 'issue' is Norm getting a result where he wins. He didn't. He won't.

In the words of Antonin Scalia : 'Get over it.'

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gordon said...

Actually, that is what it's about. An absentee voter in Chaska was treated differently from an absentee voter in Minneapolis.

There are 4000 ballots out there that would have been counted if they had lived in the cities. Besides that, there are hundreds of ballots that were run through the machines when they should not have been, and over 100 ballots that simply don't exist, and yet were included in the count.

Shaw Kenawe said...


The three-judge panel disagrees with what you've posted here. Are we to believe you instead of the judges who have access to the facts?

Here's what the Tribune reported:

Three judges soundly rejected Norm Coleman's attempt to reverse Al Franken's lead in the U.S. Senate election late Monday, sweeping away the Republican's claims in a blunt ruling Coleman promised to appeal.

After a trial spanning nearly three months, the judicial panel dismissed Coleman's central argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.

"The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the panel said in its unanimous decision.
I don't know what more you need to convince you.

This is nothing but Republican partisan obstruction to a duly elected Senator.

Had it gone the other way and it was Al Franken stopping Coleman with his legal wrangling, you'd be calling for Franken's head.

This is nothing but sour grapes partisan tactics to stop the Democrats from getting their 59th Senator.

Some clown of a Senator from, I believe, Texas said he'd fight forever before he'd see Franken seated as a Senator.

That represents what's going on.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The "Pro-Life" commenter has been deleted again because she will not allow me the courtesy to comment in her blog.

Also, I delted her comment because it adds nothing to the discussion.

dmarks said...

"Some clown of a Senator from, I believe, Texas said he'd fight forever before he'd see Franken seated as a Senator.

Sounds like Clown v Clown.

Shaw Kenawe said...


Who's the other clown? It can't be Franken because by all the accounts I've read, he's been a gentleman throughtout this whole debacle.

Arthurstone said...

John Cornyn R. Tx., easily one of the most rabidly partisan and clueless members of the US Senate.

Anonymous said...

To the guy Gordon:

Every single ballot has been reviewed. The five-person State Canvassing Board (which has only one member who's a Democrat) ruled that Franken won -- unanimously.

Then a three-judge panel conducted an exhaustive, seven-week trial. The evidence, if it were all stacked up, would stand 21 feet tall. The judges ruled -- again, unanimously -- that Franken won and that the election was fair. "The overwhelming weight of the evidence," the judges ruled, "indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately." The result? The court ruled that Al Franken "received the highest number of votes legally cast in the 2008 United States Senate general election and is therefore entitled to the certificate of election." For good measure, the court even ordered Coleman to pay some of Franken's legal fees and court costs.

Coleman, through his attorneys, says he will appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Should Franken prevail there -- and experts think he will -- he may take his case to the US Supreme Court, where there is at least a proven record of stealing elections from a guy named Al who got more votes.

Even if Coleman takes his case to the US Supreme Court, Franken should be seated in the Senate. Minnesota law calls for the governor to certify an election once all state appeals are exhausted. Cynics think the state's Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty, may refuse to certify the election even if the State Supreme Court rules for Franken, in order to ingratiate himself with the right-wing of his party for a potential presidential bid. But, let's be honest, if your party has already decided that you're slightly less qualified than Sarah Palin to be VP, they're not going to make you president.

In the end, this is about power. Republicans don't want the Democrats to have 59 votes in the Senate. But the American people do. Like the 2000 presidential recount, this is a contest between the will of the American people and the Republicans' lust for power. Republicans pulled off a judicial-sanctioned coup d'etat in 2000, giving us the worst president in a century. Here's hoping Minnesota's reputation for fairness is justified. Five months after election day, it's time -- way past time, actually -- to allow Senator Al Franken to start job the people of Minnesota elected him to do. --Paul Begala

dmarks said...

Shaw: It has been his profession. At least until now!

Anon said: " US Supreme Court, where there is at least a proven record of stealing elections from a guy named Al who got more votes."

That situation involved only the Florida vote, which Gore lost. Gore "got more votes" nationally, but that does not matter, at least until the Constitution is amended to get rid of the electoral college. Nothing was stolen: Florida's choice stood.

"Republicans don't want the Democrats to have 59 votes in the Senate. But the American people do"

Which is completely irrelevant. You pretty much undo your detailed (and useful) description of the court process with this appeal to some sort of national popularity poll.

....the 2000 presidential recount, this is a contest between the will of the American people and the Republicans' lust for power."

Erm, no. Read what you yourself wrote, about the judges and the state canvassing board. This was not over a national vote.

"Republicans pulled off a judicial-sanctioned coup d'etat in 2000"

Which is a ridiculous description of a situation in which the actual electoral vote totals (the only ones that matter) contradicted the national vote totals. It worked the way it was supposed to. If you don't like the results, change the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College before the next election.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ronald Reagan was a B movie actor until he got into politics. So?

And according to my father, was a spokesperson for G.E. (I think that's what he said) and 20-mule Borax.

He became a politician and was accepted as one.

The same will happen to Al Franken.

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

Nothing was stolen: Florida's choice stood.

That's one way of looking at it. I prefer to think the US Supreme Court, in a highly partisan 5-4 ruling, made the 'choice' to allow widespread Republican skullduggery in the 2000 election. 'Non-Activist, conservative' justices? Don't think so.

Regardless. The Minnesota election process has worked it's way to a result. Franken won. Coleman lost.

Say goodbye Norm.

dmarks said...

Skullduggery lost out in the Florida situation: the actual vote stood.

I am also tending to agree with you about Minnesota at this point. I might re-watch "Trading Places" in honor of Minnesota's "Jesse Ventura II" election.

Gordon said...

Y'all really don't know what you're talking about. I happen to live in Minnesota, and I was an election judge. I know there were four "extra" votes for Franken counted from my precinct. I also know that the election officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul failed to follow the law in certifying absentee ballots, while the county officials outstate did follow the law. There were also 131 "phantom" ballots that no one can find, but which were counted because they were on the machine total. Most likely they were absentee ballots run through the machine twice. Franken got most of those doubled votes.

The problem is that all of those ballots which should not have been counted are now in the pile, and can't be pulled out again. Meanwhile, thousands of ballots which met the exact same standards are not being counted. Machine totals were used in some cases, and hand counts were used in others.

These facts are part of the record, and make up Coleman's appeal. He may not win, but he should try.

And just to remind you of short or deficient memory, the 2000 Supreme Court "equal protection" ruling that requires a uniform standard was decided 7-2, not 5-4.

Arthurstone said...

I wish Al Gore had displayed half the cujones of the Republican in Minnesota back in 2000.

Of course it's a weakness of far too many Democrats to try and do what's best for the country rather than pursue personal ambitions to ridiculous ends.

Yet another difference in the parties.

Gordon said...

Yes, those deficient Gore cojones. Like when he tried to get all of the military ballots excluded from the count.

Gore had plenty of lawyers and they tried lots of different ways to get him to win. He just didn't have the votes.

Arthurstone said...

You are so right Gordon. Gore didn't have the necessary votes. The Supremes went 5-4 didn't they? And wasn't it those conservative 'non-activist' judges in the majority. No matter water over the dam.

Just interesting how 'get over it' has evaporated from the Republican lexicon.