Minnesota to Norm Coleman: Concede!

A new poll of Minnesota voters reveals that, by a 2-1 margin, they want former Senator Norm Coleman to quit contesting last fall's election.

Coleman lost the election by more than 300 votes, according to the count after a three-judge panel reviewed the ballots and the recount.

The panel ruled that Franken had won a fair, essentially well-run election.

But the Republican continues to challenge the result.

Minnesotans were asked by the Public Policy Polling group:

Do you think Norm Coleman should appeal the decision and continue to fight in court or should Coleman concede the race?

The response:

Coleman should concede: 63 percent

Coleman should continue contesting the result: 37 percent

(The survey of 805 registered voted was conducted on April 14 and 15 and has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.)

Those sentiments are being echoed by Minnesota newspapers.

"This newspaper endorsed Republican Norm Coleman for senator, but now it is time for him to step out of the race and let Minnesota have two senators again," argued the Albert Lea Tribune this month. "(A) good politician knows when he is looking bad and making his state look bad. Throw in the towel."

The Worthington Daily Globe says: "It's becoming increasingly clearer that Coleman and fellow Republicans -- desperate to keep the Democrats from strengthening their power -- are pressing onward primarily for political reasons. Meanwhile, Minnesota continues to only have one U.S. senator, despite a prolonged process that has shown Franken to be the winner on two occasions. We, like the Albert Lea Tribune, endorsed Norm Coleman over Franken. We also share the same opinion that Coleman, for the benefit of the state and its citizens, should concede. Norm Coleman and his attorneys claim they want to ensure no Minnesota voter gets left behind. Instead, they're trying their best to leave Minnesota behind."

And Lori Sturdevant, the highly-regarded columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune (a newspaper that endorsed Coleman) concluded, "The season of tolerance for the arduous process of determining who won the U.S. Senate election last Nov. 4 is coming to an end…Al Franken's lead over Norm Coleman had grown to 312 votes, increasingly impatient voters across this state must have muttered: ‘Enough.'"

Comments (116)

1. he's gotta draw this crap out as long as possible.

   gotta try to maintain the non filibuster-proof dynamics of the senate as long as possible.

   coleman don't give a crap. his political career is toast anyway.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/15/2009 @ 3:52pm

2. The only thing to say is the obvious...when the tables are turned those such as Mr. Nichols do not demand the apparent loser drop out, instead people such as Mr. Nichols obsess and falsely claim, apparently for eternity, about how the "election was stolen".

   Ref: Bush, George W. (then Gov. of Texas) v. Algore (then and still now Village Idiot), November 2000.

   Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:09pm

3. He has to know by now that he is loved by the state of Minnesota. He has now lost elections to a professional wrestler and a stand up comic. The only reason that he was initially elected was because of the Wellstone accident. It's time to move on Norm.

   Posted by Jkoski at 04/15/2009 @ 4:12pm

4. Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:09pm

   And the only thing to say to that is the obvious...that in 2000, SCOTUS did not allow the recount to be carried out according to state law, instead hijacking the process to effectively declare Bush the winner. In Minnesota 2008, the recount and court challenge have both been completed according to state law. Of course, technically Coleman has every right to appeal to the MNSC, but the ruling of the three-judge panel shows that he has little legal ground to stand on if he does. It's time to let the people of Minnesota have a second senator, and take a bit of the load off of the overworked Sen. Klobuchar.

   Posted by richcarl at 04/15/2009 @ 4:32pm

5. As a MN here in Mpls I would say that due to this election and the lawyers that have facilitated this farce. I am highly upset that we have been cheated out of a rep for the time it has taken to decide who won. Norm should set down for the better of all MN.

   Posted by MplsStyme at 04/15/2009 @ 4:32pm

6. richcarl,

   The obvious is that in 2000 the election was over according to Florida State Law, the Florida Supreme Court "allowed" continuation of recounting which 1) was an intrusion upon state law and 2) the court was not entitled to do according to the concepts of separation of powers and system of checks and balances and the role of the judiciary according to the Constitution.

   What is also obvious is that SCOTUS reversed this, properly so.

   Now we are clear about what is obvious, and has been for 8 years and always will be from now on, I hope.

   Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:43pm

7. Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:43pm

   What a strange post. It seems to describe some alternate reality where (a) the Flordia election was over even before the recount was completed and the FLSC's ruling was carried out, and (b) the FLSC had no authority under Florida law to rule that every valid vote should be counted. Since neither of these is true, I'll have to admit that what should be obvious still seems to elude some of us.

   Posted by richcarl at 04/15/2009 @ 5:00pm

8. Really hilarious there Mr. Nichols! I think if you will check the vote is more like 50.00000002 to 5000000008 percent. Thats why next stop is the Minnesota SC and the U.S.A. Supreme courts!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/15/2009 @ 5:07pm

9. richcarl,

   You need to go back over the whole cronology all over again.

   After the election a machine recount was done, with George W. Bush the winner.

   As the process wound around further, it was determined that no further recounting was necessary and the election result was moving towards certification.

   Except Algore wanted more recounting... his lawyers did not successfully prove to the courts hearing the case that more recounting was justified... and by the way this was selective recounting in only certain areas (that Algore wanted).

   Despite this, the Florida Supreme court ruled to go ahead and do more recounting. There was no legal justification, it was a loose and expansive ruling by a left-leaning Florida Supreme court.

   So you say I am in alternate reality by wanting the election to be over before the "recount was completed" but the election WAS over ... the recount you think should have been "completed" had no legal basis to take place.

   The Florida Supreme Courts ruling was an expansive example of judicial activism, and that circumstance (judicial activism) has of course rearded it's ugly head in a lot of other ways in this country since the Warren Court in the 60's.

   I do not understand why you would think my post was strange, because this subject has been beaten to death in the public domain in the last 8 years including in threads on this website.

   (Now, awaiting Phil McCrevice's posting in 5...4...3...2...1... all contorted saying once again (to the degree that you can figure out what he is saying) that I am an Assclown who wants to deny Black people the right to vote, because I brought up the subject of Florida 2000)

   Are you there, Phil? Might as well go ahead and make your post!

   Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 5:13pm

10. Maybe Coleman could get a recount of the polls?

    Posted by playwrtr at 04/15/2009 @ 5:34pm

11. Let it go on. It's one of those rare certainties in an uncertain world. Without the stability of the Franken/Coleman factor, the world would be in total chaos.

    Posted by JFHill at 04/15/2009 @ 7:56pm

12. Posted by sjchermak at 04/15/2009 @ 4:09pm |

    Since the "tables are turned"....you think Coleman should concede as Gore did and Franken should do everything to keep fighting it until he wins it, as Bush did?

    Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 9:25pm

13. sjchermak,

    Not that this thread is about Florida 2000, but hey, it's a pretty quiet thread, so I'll weigh in again. Of course the Florida 2000 recount had a legal basis: Florida Statute 101.5614(5), which states that "no vote shall be declared invalid or void if there is a clear indication of the intent of the voter." Not to mention a century of Florida case law emphasizing the importance of counting every vote. To the extent that this particular statute conflicted with other state laws, such as those governing election deadlines, it was up to the state supreme court to resolve the conflicts, as it was trying to do when SCOTUS intervened. The FLSC's decisions were hardly examples of "judicial activism" (whatever that means), despite the admitted problems in the process identified in the 7-2 SCOTUS ruling. The FLSC should have been given the chance to work out a constitutionally acceptable solution, but the SCOTUS majority didn't like the way the election recount was heading, and brought it to an untimely end.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/15/2009 @ 10:06pm

14. Conservatives to Coleman, fight on.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/15/2009 @ 10:57pm

15. Let him keep fighting, it ain't going to get him anywhere. Either way it's already been proven he has lost. Now they are just staving off the inevitable.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 12:02am

16. Conservatives to Coleman, fight on.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/15/2009 @ 10:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    I agree completely!!

    The outcome is inevitable. Franken won and eventually Coleman will exhasut all appeals and Franken will be seated.

    By fighting on, Coleman is costing conservative Republicans BIG TIME in Minnesota. By the time it's over and Coleman slinks off to the jail cell he deserves, that near 50 - 50 split between Dems and Repubs will be the same 70 - 30 majority for Dems that we're seeing in the rest of the country!

    Posted by Lillian at 04/16/2009 @ 12:05am

17. sjchermak

    the world over, GWB is recognized as an illegitimate appointed President, derived from a process outside the Constitution, and history will one day post merely an asterisk, as if, as in reality, the American people were denied their true choice for President in 2000.

    your hatred and vitriol toward others on this thread belies your disdain for an honest open accounting of the fatcs, and you are now merely

    irrelevant

    Posted by calandra_speaksout at 04/16/2009 @ 02:38am

18. sjchermak

    the world over, GWB is recognized as an illegitimate appointed President, derived from a process outside the Constitution, and history will one day post merely an asterisk, as if, as in reality, the American people were denied their true choice for President in 2000.

    your hatred and vitriol toward others on this thread belies your disdain for an honest open accounting of the fatcs, and you are now merely

    irrelevant

    Posted by calandra_speaksout at 04/16/2009 @ 02:39am

19. sjchermak

    the world over, GWB is recognized as an illegitimate appointed President, derived from a process outside the Constitution, and history will one day post merely an asterisk, as if, as in reality, the American people were denied their true choice for President in 2000.

    your hatred and vitriol toward others on this thread belies your disdain for an honest open accounting of the fatcs, and you are now merely

    irrelevant

    Posted by calandra_speaksout at 04/16/2009 @ 02:41am

20. calandra_speaksout,

    You of course overlook the fact that all studies have indicated that even if Algore had gotten his recounts, President Bush would have still been the winner after those recounts.

    The American People got their true choice for President in 2000.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 03:56am

21. The American People got their true choice for President in 2000.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 03:56am

    Weird I was under the impression that GORE won the popular vote. He got more votes in the end nation wide. Guess the people were chosen for.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 05:42am

22. And the only thing to say to that is the obvious...that in 2000, SCOTUS did not allow the recount to be carried out according to state law, instead hijacking the process to effectively declare Bush the winner.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/15/2009 @4:32pm

    Are you familiar with the term, "self parody"?

    Bush won the first count.

    Bush won the first recount.

    SCOTUS ended the second recount when it ruled 7 - 2 that the hodge podge of different counting standard being employed to help Gore in Dem counties and hurt Bush in Rep counties were an unconsitutional violation of the equal protections clause.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Coleman should concede. But I think he should concede because it is clear he has fewer votes, not because he's a Republican like you do.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 07:07am

23. The FLSC should have been given the chance to work out a constitutionally acceptable solution, but the SCOTUS majority didn't like the way the election recount was heading

    Posted by richcarl at 04/15/2009 @ 10:06pm

    When the SCOTUS ruled there was only a week or two left before the electors met in DC to choose the next President.

    Gore asked for a limited recount of Dade. The newspaper recount showed Gore lost that standard.

    The newspaper recount showed that the only standard the put Gore over the top was a complete recount of the entire state under a certain standard of two-corner chads or something like that. But that count took the newspapers six months to complete.

    There are two possible outcomes:

    Gore gets what he asks for and the newspaper recount tells us that he lost. Result, Bush is President.

    Or Gore gets an entire recount under the one standard that puts him ahead. But it takes six months to complete. And during that time, the electors meet in DC and the FL delegation isn't seated and there is no majority among the delagation so according to the Constitution, the president is chosen by the House (which was in Republican hands) and all counts that have been completed so far show Bush won and the House elects Bush just like it did Jefferson. Result, Bush is President.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 07:17am

24. the world over, GWB is recognized as an illegitimate appointed President, derived from a process outside the Constitution, and history will one day post merely an asterisk, as if, as in reality, the American people were denied their true choice for President in 2000.

    your hatred and vitriol toward others

    Posted by calandra_speaksout at 04/16/2009 @ 02:38am

    Really? I though he won that second election by 3 million votes. In order to keep the lie alive, the bitter enders contrived some bullshit scenario where Bush stole Ohio (by stealing 160,000 votes. Yeah, right.)

    I think you've got all the hatred and vitriol you need by looking in the mirror.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 07:23am

25. The American People got their true choice for President in 2000.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 03:56am

    Except, of course, in 2000 more individuals voted for Al Gore. But, I digress.

    The folks who say at this point further delay by Coleman hurts the GOP are correct. Of course, Al Gore did what was good for the country in 2000 gracefully. Doing what's best for the state of Minn. or the country is anathema to conservatives and most Republicans. So, the circus continues.

    After the Minn. supreme court rules in favor of Franken, the nut cases here will make another excuse. Comanche may have that stroke just yet :)

    Posted by erazma at 04/16/2009 @ 07:25am

26. Don't get me wrong, I think Coleman should concede. But I think he should concede because it is clear he has fewer votes, not because he's a Republican like you do.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 07:07am

    For the record, I supported Coleman's court challenge for the same reason I supported Gore's in 2000: because in any close election, I want to know, to the extent possible, that every valid vote is counted. Party affiliation has nothing to do with it. This is also why I supported the 7-2 SCOTUS ruling (though at the same time recognizing the merit in Gore's argument that if Florida's recounting procedures were unconstitutional, so were the election laws of all states). And that's why I opposed the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling that effectively handed the 2000 election to Bush, since it ended the process whereby the actual vote count could be determined.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 07:30am

27. the world over, GWB is recognized as an illegitimate appointed President,

    Posted by calandra_speaksout at 04/16/2009 @ 02:41am

    how arrogant and deluded does a person have to be to believe they "speak" for the entire world? As if the entire world agrees on anything.

    No this is a lame debating tactic: Claiming that the entire world agrees with you so you have to be right. FAIL!

    Try agian, please.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 07:32am

28. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 07:17am

    You're misrepresenting history here a bit. It's true that Gore would have lost under his own strategy of calling for recounts in only a few counties (which was permissible under Florida law, but which SCOTUS said was unconstitutional). And he would have lost in some (but not all, depending on the standards used) strategies that recounted only undervotes statewide (the focus of his court challenges). But regardless of the standards chosen, he would have won easily with a strategy of recounting both undervotes and overvotes, in cases where the voter's intent was clear (for example, if a voter checked the box for Gore and also wrote his name in on the write-in line).

    I wouldn't even argue with your conclusion that, if the processes in place had been allowed to continue as provided for by existing law, the electors chosen by the Florida legislature or the U.S. House of Representatives would likely have voted for Bush. But we'll never know how the process in place would have functioned had it been allowed to continue. The mere possibility that the legislators could have been swayed to appoint Gore electors was apparently enough to convince the SCOTUS majority to issue its remarkable ruling. The will of the Florida voters would still have been frustrated, but at least it would have been frustrated by the electoral process in place (and the partisan nature of the legislative bodies) rather than by an extraordinary SCOTUS decision.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 07:55am

29. The American People got their true choice for President in 2000.----Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 03:56am

    I never realized the Electoral College system was "the American People"?!?!?!??

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 07:55am

30. I never realized the Electoral College system was "the American People"?!?!?!??

    Posted by Mask ======================

    It is the system in place now by the Constitution by which a President is chosen.

    And it has happened at least one other time where the winner in the Electoral college did not win the popular vote.

    This is a free country and if one thinks that the President should be chosen by popular vote, then they should start efforts to promote the generation of a proposed Constitutional amendment to that fact, and then once the proposed amendment is created, they should work to campaign for enough states to approve it such that it passes, and thus then amends the Constitution.

    But until that happens, the President is not "illegitimate" if he or she wins the electoral college and not the popular vote.

    And Mask, since the people have the ability to change laws (or make new ones or get rid of old ones) and revise the Constitution in this country - by speaking out and through their elected representatives, laws and the Constitution ARE the will of the people, and that includes the Electoral College system.

    I am glad to provide the civics lesson for you, but now you need to get me the answer about WXYZ television in Detroit that you owe me.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 08:51am

31. Posted by comancheamerican at 04/15/2009 @ 5:07pm

    "Really hilarious there Mr. Nichols! I think if you will check the vote is more like 50.00000002 to 5000000008 percent"

    Surprised nobody has picked up on this as it perhaps explains how math works in wing-nut world. Where I come from a whole is made up of 100%, no more no less.

    Posted by audacity at 04/16/2009 @ 08:56am

32. Posted by comancheamerican at 04/15/2009 @ 5:07pm

    A SUMMONS TO COMA-UN-AMERICAN:

    KINDLY REPORT TO CAMP HAPPINESS BY 1700 HOURS EST TODAY. IF YOU FAIL IN THIS DUTY, AGENTS OF OBAMANATION WILL ARRIVE AT YOUR TRAILER IN ORDER TO INSIST ON IT.

    Dear Coma,

    On behalf of the ObamaNation, I inform you that it is in your best interest to report to Camp Happiness by 1700 hours EST. Please drop whatever it is you are doing (ie, child-beating) and DO NOT pack. Your possessions will be safely held in government escrow while you are in Camp.

    We believe that you will like Camp Happiness. We have painted it in colors that will stimulate good feeling. We belive that the classes you will attend on a daily baiss will also fill in the gaps in what has clearly been the inferior education that has been an immense disservice to you in your adult life. While your stay at Camp Happiness will necessarily be indefinate, no effort will be spared for your comfort or the cultivation of you as a NEW person.

    We regret to add that this is an offer that is not be refused. If you do not report to Camp Happiness at the designated hour, ObamaNation will have no option but to escort you to the Camp via a Black Helicopter brigade. In that scenario, you will be branded on both your facial and ass cheeks with a backward "B" in the style of Ashley Tood's "assualt" by an earlier generation of ObamaNation functionaries who were not as thorough as the current, government-backed version.

    To reiterate, Camp happiness is a place for you, COMA, to explore and discover yourself and to better serve society as it confronts the challenages of the 21st century. On behalf of the other satisfied students at the camp, we look forward to your residence.

    ---The Camp Happiness Welcome Wagon Commitee

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/16/2009 @ 09:04am

33. Published on Monday, February 26, 2001 on MSNBC Tally No! Keep Counting Votes in Florida Miami Herald's Recount Results were Sloppy, Incomplete by Eric Alterman

    .

    .

    In late December, the Orlando Sentinel took a look at about 3,000 overvotes in Lake County. The paper found more than 600 valid ballots that had been ignored by the machines, with Gore picking up 130 even in this heavily pro-Bush county. In late January the Chicago Tribune reported that in 15 Florida counties with a particularly high rate of overvotes, more than 1,700 votes that showed a clear choice had been discarded. Most of the counties in the Tribune's study were small, rural and predominantly Republican. Yet even so Gore's net gain was 366 votes. And a Washington Post review of the computer records of 2.7 million votes in eight of Florida's largest counties reported that overvotes trended toward Gore at a rate of three to one.

    Add these together, even with the new undervote count, and Bush is back cutting brush in Crawford, Texas, while Al Gore is your new president.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/16/2009 @ 09:14am

34. Six Years After 'Gore's Victory'

    By Robert Parry November 12, 2007 (Originally published November 12, 2001)

    Editor's Note: Six years ago on another Veterans Day holiday, eight news organizations published the findings of their unofficial recount of Florida's disputed ballots. The recount had discovered that Al Gore would have won the decisive Florida election if all legally cast votes were counted.

    However, just two months after the 9/11 attacks, the news organizations chose to conceal the obvious "Gore Won" lead, apparently putting their sense of "patriotism" over journalistic professionalism.

    Rather than tell already-shaken Americans that the wrong man was in the White House, the big news outlets – including the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN – structured their stories around hypothetical recounts that would have excluded some legal votes and thus still would have resulted in a Bush "victory."

    To further protect Bush's "legitimacy" amid the 9/11 crisis, the news organizations mocked those who challenged these carefully structured stories as "Gore partisans" or "conspiracy theorists."

    Posted by Lillian at 04/16/2009 @ 09:16am

35. by Lillian - 09:16am

    LILLIAN,

    Fine posts as always. As you are talking at CRO-MAG rightists who cannot even fathom reason or logic, it is necessary for you to dickslap them without mercy. That is what they understand -- sort of, in their ugly and primitive way -- given that rightwingers dwell within a wholly retarded "shame culture".

    It is axiomatic that rightwingers are too densely stupid and dishonest to comprehened the distinction between a MACHINE and a HAND recount (see: their moronic comments above).

    To open up another front: WHAT IS IT ABOUT RIGHTWING RELIGIONIST HATERS THAT AFTER 7 YRS OF GEO W LOSER, HIS AFGHAN "PARADISE" IS NOW WORSE FOR WOMEN THAN THE TALIBAN?

    UK Guardian, 3-31: Hamid Karzai has been accused of trying to win votes in Afghanistan's presidential election by backing a law the UN says legalises rape within marriage and bans wives from stepping outside their homes without their husbands' permission.

    The Afghan president signed the law earlier this month, despite condemnation by human rights activists and some MPs that it flouts the constitution's equal rights provisions. The final document has not been published, but the law is believed to contain articles that rule women cannot leave the house without their husbands' permission, that they can only seek work, education or visit the doctor with their husbands' permission, and that they cannot refuse their husband sex.

    A briefing document prepared by the United Nations Development Fund for Women also warns that the law grants custody of children to fathers and grandfathers only.

    Senator Humaira Namati, a member of the upper house of the Afghan parliament, said the law was "worse than during the Taliban". "Anyone who spoke out was accused of being against Islam," she said...

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/16/2009 @ 09:43am

36. Lillian,

    You are quoting news organizations. Do you hve any sense or not if they conducted an objective review?

    We hear all about how all the votes need to be counted, according to you libs. If so, how come Algore did not want 18,000 military ballots counted?

    And why is overtime voting OK? We now have early voting in this country, but why should votes be cast after the election?

    To find out what I am talking about, read the book by Scott McClellan. You know the one, the one feted by libs last year as the supposed "expose" of the Bush administration.

    But as McClellan makes his way chronologically throught his time of work for George W. Bush, before Mr. Bush was President and then during the administration, he discusses Florida 2000.

    McClellan talked about how, as ballots were being inspected and reviewed by election officials, Democrat and Republican representatives were allowed in as part of overseeing the process.

    McClellan mentioned how he and other Republican officials at once such location at one point noticed a lot of chads on the floor.

    Chads on the floor?

    Chads come out when the cards are punched during voting.

    So how come there were chads on the floor during a review AFTER the election was over?

    I guess the election truly was going into overtime!

    If you put 2 and 2 together, if Republican officials do not know why chads are on the floor they had nothing to do with causing the chads to be on the floor.

    Thus, it is no wonder Algore wanted more recounting......he wanted the overtime votes (very likely votes for him) to be counted also!!

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 09:58am

37. You're misrepresenting history here a bit. It's true that Gore would have lost under his own strategy of calling for recounts in only a few counties (which was permissible under Florida law, but which SCOTUS said was unconstitutional).

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 07:55am

    The 7 - 2 verdict didn't say it was unconsitutional to only perform recounts in some districts, it said it was an unconsitutional violation of the equal protection clause to use a 2-chad standard in district A, a 3- chad standard in disctrict B, and a dimpled-chad standard in district C.

    The problem was that, for some people, whether or not your vote counted as a legal vote depended on whether you lived in District A, B, or C. You did not enjoy equal protections of the law.

    The 5 - 4 vote said that it was not possible for Districts A, B, and C to all agree on a single standard and re-perform the recount before the Florida's state law requirement of certifying electors before the meeting of electors in DC.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:04am

38. Stop acting like you people were vindicated by the SCOTUS; you're like a crim who plead down with a nolo and thinks he got off scot free.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/16/2009 @ 09:10am

    I was vindicated by the Newpaper consortium recount.

    It proved that if the limited recount (that could have been completed before the DC meeting of electors) had gone forward, FL would have certified Bush electors and Bush would have won the vote of electors.

    It also proved that if a state-wide recount had been approved, (irrespective of whether the particular standard showed Bush or Gore with more votes)

    1)the recount would not have concluded before the DC meeting of electors,

    2)the FL electors would not have been seated, and

    3) the House (controlled by Republicans at the time) would have chozen Bush as President according to the rules of the US Constitution.

    The Newspaper consortium recount confirmed the SCOTUS decision: At the December 2000 ruling of SCOTUS, there was no Consitutionally valid way for Gore to win.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:13am

39. Maybe that's the way to approach this.

    Given the 7 - 2 ruling that said different standards are unconsituional (and virtually all legal anaylsts agree)Please explaine how Gore could have won with a different SCOTUS ruling.

    If the imposed a uniform standard on limited recound, Gore had fewer votes.

    If they approved a state-wide recount that would have shown Gore with more votes after six months, how do you undo the House election of Bush six months later?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:18am

40. The 7 - 2 verdict didn't say it was unconsitutional to only perform recounts in some districts, it said it was an unconsitutional violation of the equal protection clause to use a 2-chad standard in district A, a 3- chad standard in disctrict B, and a dimpled-chad standard in district C.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:04am

    You're right, I misspoke there. But you're not addressing my main point that it should have been left to Florida to devise a constitutionally acceptable recounting process, then complete the recount using uniform standards. The Bush partisan/SCOTUS majority argument that under the Equal Protection Clause, an arbitrary administrative deadline trumps the right of voters to have every valid vote counted, is debateable at best, and certainly not a clear and unambiguous conclusion under Florida law (as the SCOTUS dissenters point out). Again, any ambiguity in Florida law should have been left for Florida courts to resolve, not the SCOTUS.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 10:25am

41. No.

    Given what we know now, there is only one way Gore could have been President:

    If the SCOTUS had permitted the limited recount to continue and Gore supporters altered enough ballots in those precints to overcome the 1000 vote deficit statewide. That is the only way Gore could have been President.

    Of course this isn't Constitutional, either.

    SCOTUS didn't eliminate any Constitutional Avenue for Gore to win, they eliminated Gore's supporters' opportunity the change the election by cheating.

    I call that vindication.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:27am

42. Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 08:51am

    I see...so the fact that the American People "decided" not to eliminate the Electoral College system, which gave the election to Bush (despite lower popular vote support) is "proof" that they "got their real choice for President".

    In other words, it's irrelevant that more American people voted for Gore....the fact they didn't anticipate a tied election years earlier and change the Constitution is evidence the American people actually wanted Bush to win.

    Ah...ha.

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 10:50am

43. you're not addressing my main point that it should have been left to Florida to devise a constitutionally acceptable recounting process

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 10:25am

    I believe I have addressed this. The newspaper consortium said any uniform standard on a limited recount showed Bush with more votes. Any uniform standard on a state-wide recount (which Gore may or may not have won) would have taken too long to meet the US Constutional requirement (not arbitrary) for the meeting of electors in DC.

    And you are not addressing the elephant in the room. Every time the ballots were touched, there was a very real risk that the ballots were being changed. After every recount, the floor was littered with chads. This cannot be ignored. After every recount there was less reliability that cheating wasn't occuring.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:51am

44. SCOTUS didn't eliminate any Constitutional Avenue for Gore to win, they eliminated Gore's supporters' opportunity the change the election by cheating.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:27am

    So the fact we have laws against murder is the only thing eliminating your opportunity to murder somebody, right?

    I mean given how you can look into souls and know that people will cheat in elections without SCOTUS intervention....same standard?

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 10:53am

45. Given what we know now, there is only one way Gore could have been President:

    If the SCOTUS had permitted the limited recount to continue and Gore supporters altered enough ballots in those precints to overcome the 1000 vote deficit statewide. That is the only way Gore could have been President.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:27am

    Not even close. You're forgetting that if every vote where the voter's intent was clear had been permitted to be counted, Gore would have won Florida by a hefty margin (about 50,000 votes, according to the most thorough analysis of overvotes and undervotes, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center). So of course any process that had allowed for the counting of every vote would also have enabled Gore to become president. But admitting the truth of that wouldn't fit in well with the right's mythology, would it?

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 10:56am

46. An accurately counted, rigged election is still a farce.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/16/2009 @ 10:44am

    So it was rigged?

    Please.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 10:58am

47. National Opinion Research Center

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 10:56am

    What the hell is that? I'm off to wiki

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:03am

48. From PBS:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/ media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

    MEDIA RECOUNT: BUSH WON THE 2000 ELECTION

    The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue...

    While the USA Today report focused on what would have happened had the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards...

    Under most other scenarios, the papers reported, Bush would have retained his lead.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:14am

49. National Opinion Research Center

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 10:56am

    What the hell is that? I'm off to wiki

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:03am

    I couldn't find the 50,000 figure you referenced. Given the fighting back and forth over hundred, I find it implausible that someone is suggesting one of the candidates recieved ten of thousands more legal votes than the other.

    In fact the NORC website said they only examined 175,010 ballots. Do you expect me to believe that Gore picked up almost 30% more than Bush?

    It's too fantastic to be true.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:24am

50. National Opinion Research Center

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 10:56am

    What the hell is that? I'm off to wiki

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:03am

    I couldn't find the 50,000 figure you referenced. Given the fighting back and forth over hundred, I find it implausible that someone is suggesting one of the candidates recieved ten of thousands more legal votes than the other.

    In fact the NORC website said they only examined 175,010 ballots. Do you expect me to believe that Gore picked up almost 30% more than Bush?

    It's too fantastic to be true.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:25am

51. Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards...

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:14am

    The most generous standards is a dimpled chad. It doesn't matter if the vote considered a vote and changed his mind or if the person handing out votes ran his fingernail across the chad. A dimple is determined to be "clear voter intent".

    And it was no 50,000 vote margin for Gore.

    The only thing that comes close the the 50,000 estimate was the confusion over the butterfly ballow--

    I'm sorry the disigned-by-a-Democrat butterfly ballot.

    Buchanan had about 35,000 too many votes on the butterfly ballot.

    I don't dobut than many people who intended to vote for Gore spoiled their ballots and mistakenly cast a legal vote for Buchanan instead.

    Nonetheless, Bush still had the most legal votes even if more people intended to vote for Gore.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:40am

52. Nonetheless, Bush still had the most legal votes even if more people intended to vote for Gore.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:40am

    Note, even if accepted...he should add "in Florida".

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 11:53am

53. Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 10:50am

    It's clear that Darin is at least implicitly speaking to the fact that Bush carried 60% of the states (1 less than Clinton in '96).

    Where the popular vote can deceive the overall will of the American people, is that it isn't necessarily a broad view of the electorate.

    For hypothetical example:

    California goes 85% to "Gore". That would give him an additional 3.6 million votes over what he received.

    Now add the same hypothetical to NY. Gore would have gained 1.7 million votes

    Both of these are states Gore carried. But taken solely by your context, it would appear to the casual viewer that Gore won the national vote overwhelmingly because he would have had nearly 6 million more votes.

    This is why the popular vote is not good for our constitutional republic and why we are a republic of states. The electoral college ensures that not just a few states determine our elections, but they represent the broad range of views and states.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 11:55am

54. --Mask, 04/16 @ 10:50am

    MASK,

    Think you are barking up the wrong tree with that one.

    The Electoral College, moronic and archiac as it is, was the ground rule in play on the day in November 2000. While it's counterfactaul, no doubt George W Loser's campaign would have mobilized its vast brigade of double-talking lawyers to do a Coleman and moan and whine to Clarence "Career FastTrack made to Order by: Affirmative Action" Thomas and Antonin "No Recusal for Me" Scalia. As relativistic GOP CroMags, Loser's lawyers would have whined and carried on childishly about how...(sniff sniff) the Electoral College is so (weep weep boo hoo) u-n-f-a-i-r, if the result had been in Gore's favor in the electoral college but not the pop vote.

    The better question for the moment to ask of SJ-ASSCLOWN is why he is a full-throated apologist for jihad.

    For example, SJ-ASSCLOWN supports George W Loser's GWOT 1000%. But notice that while W Loser and Dick "Protecting the country's security is a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business. These are evil people and we are not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek" Chaney were in office, more Americans were murdered in terror attacks than in the previous 42 admins, as noted by Mark Danner. And this mainly occurred during the single most spectacular terror attack in world history while Cheney was ...running a war game.

    And SJ-ASSCLOWN supports that. Just ask him. Just as he approves, without condition, of Tony Blair's stewardship of UK security EVEN AFTER more than 50 people were brutally murdered on 7-7-2005. And almost 1000 more injured in the most horrific ways to which scarred and shattered bodies and amputations are testimony.

    To repeat: SJ-ASSCLOWN is the best buddy jihadi terror could have. Ask him 'bout that.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/16/2009 @ 12:15pm

55. One factor to consider: the US Supreme Court DOES NOT have ANY binding authority over matters concerning Florida law. The ONLY grounds upon which they have the authority to overrule the Florida Supreme Court are (in this case) with respect to the US Constitution. Thus, whether the Florida Supreme Court accurately interpreted Florida law is completely irrelevant. The only relevant question here is the Equal Protection question.

    One other thing: the Electoral College argument is silly. If you're going to claim that Bush was not elected by a majority of the country, fine; then the Electoral College point is relevant. However, if you're arguing (as I think most of the anti-Bush v. Gore posters here) that the election was STOLEN, arguments about the Electoral College have no bearing.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/16/2009 @ 12:38pm

56. I know we need 'something' to convey consensus in national elections, but the EC seems like a false read and a path to giving Wyoming and Montana disproportionate representation these days.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/16/2009 @ 12:11pm

    How then do you counter the example I gave with the disproportionate result from a couple of much larger liberal states? Yet Bush carried 60% of the states.

    Should the rest of the country have to have presidents selected by just 2 or 3 states? Would that be representative of the will of the people?

    How do Wyoming and Montana have disproportionate representation? Their representation is based upon population.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 12:40pm

57. Where the popular vote can deceive the overall will of the American people, is that it isn't necessarily a broad view of the electorate.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 11:55am

    So the popular vote of the electorate (define electorate) doesn't necessarily represent the broad view of the electorate?

    Ah...ha.

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 12:53pm

58. So the popular vote of the electorate (define electorate) doesn't necessarily represent the broad view of the electorate?

    Ah...ha.

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Of course, just as I outlined. Do you deny that if presidential elections were based upon the popular vote that a few large states could control all presidential elections?

    If presidents were elected solely based upon California, NY, and say New Jersey, or Ohio, how would that reflect the will of the rest of the states?

    An opponent could win clear majorities in 40 states and still lose the election if based only on the popular vote.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 12:56pm

59. Note, even if accepted...he should add "in Florida".

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 11:53am

    Yes, yes. Although it is implied, to be clear, I should have specified in Florida.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 1:51pm

60. You know, if you take a step back, and reflect, Bush's win is astounding.

    It is an upset on par with the 1980 US Olympic Hockey team.

    Fantasic ecconomic conditions. Peace and prosperity for the past eight years. The fall of communism 3 years earlier. His opponent is the not terribly popular son of a not terribly popular past president.

    In order for Gore to lose, he had to lose his home state of Tennessee (which no presidential candiate had ever done before).

    Gore also had to blow a lead in Florida, which was hard because his running mate's sole criteria for selection as the first Jewish VP candidate was because he polled well among elderly Jewish seniors if FL.

    Gore also would have won handily if it hadn't been for the spoiler candidate, Ralph Nader whose vanity candidacy cost Gore the election.

    Finally, Gore would have been the first Democrat to get more than 50% of the vote if Monica hadn't kept the dress.

    Bush had to run the table, and he did; not becuase he was a particularly skillful politician not because he deserved it. Gore lost because Gore was spectacularly unlucky.

    Hey, shit happens.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 2:06pm

61. With any luck Franken's term will be up before he takes office, then next time Minnesotans can use their heads.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 04/16/2009 @ 2:23pm

62. Do you even READ the article before you post?

    "A new poll of Minnesota voters reveals that, by a 2-1 margin, they want former Senator Norm Coleman to quit contesting last fall's election."

    Minnesota is already of a mind to vote differently; next time Franken won't need a recount.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/16/2009 @ 2:28pm

    But it's not because they have this overwhelming support for Franken. The same poll said that only 41% said they voted for Franken, which was reflective of the election itself.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 2:42pm

63. Minnesota is already of a mind to vote differently; next time Franken won't need a recount.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/16/2009 @ 2:28pm

    There was an agonizing four years of buyer's remorse when Jesse was Governor. The XFL comentator contract, referring to the press as jackels, the Playboy interview where he said religion if for people with weak minds. He didn't run for re-election because he knew he never had a chance.

    Franken benefited from a surge in people who wanted a chance to vote for Obama. Coleman has been dragging this thing out because if he could get the SC to declare a "do over" he had about a 3 - 1 shot of beating Franken in a quick rematch because there were elements of buyer's remorse with Franken. This was especially true when Franken was losing by 200 votes and then flipped to winning by 200 votes when President Obama carried the state by more than 10 points.

    It's dragged on long enough now that people just want it over with and franken has lead by a couple hundred votes for a couple of months.

    Coleman needs to conceed

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 2:42pm

64. Posted by snowball666 at 04/16/2009 @ 2:28pm

    But it's not because they have this overwhelming support for Franken. The same poll said that only 41% said they voted for Franken, which was reflective of the election itself.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 2:42pm

    But please don't take from my previous post that I'm supporting Coleman's continued efforts. It's time to stop.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 2:57pm

65. I couldn't find the 50,000 figure you referenced. Given the fighting back and forth over hundred, I find it implausible that someone is suggesting one of the candidates recieved ten of thousands more legal votes than the other.

    In fact the NORC website said they only examined 175,010 ballots. Do you expect me to believe that Gore picked up almost 30% more than Bush?

    It's too fantastic to be true.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/16/2009 @ 11:24am

    Not if you look at the data. I admit I haven't looked at NORC's raw data, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the summary data provided in Chapter 2 of Steven E. Freeman & Joel Bleifuss's "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?" This shows that, under the most liberal standards for determining voter intent, of the 175,010 uncounted votes in Florida 2000, 13,055 undervotes would have gone to Bush, 14,332 undervotes would have gone to Gore, 24,288 overvotes would have gone to Bush, and 70,020 overvotes would have gone to Gore, giving Gore a margin of victory of about 47,000 votes. The remaining 53,315 votes were for another candidate or were otherwise unattributable to either Bush or Gore. Under narrower standards for determining voter intent, the margin of victory for Gore would have been smaller, but in all scenarios, the number of votes awarded to Gore would have been more than enough to tip the election in his favor. And this just takes into account ballots that were legally cast where voter intent can clearly be determined. It doesn't take into account other problems in the Florida 2000 election (voter suppression, the butterfly ballot, etc.).

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 3:02pm

66. Mask,

    I get your point now, and it is the point that libs have been making all along.

    You said "I see...so the fact that the American People "decided" not to eliminate the Electoral College system, which gave the election to Bush (despite lower popular vote support) is "proof" that they "got their real choice for President".

    In other words, it's irrelevant that more American people voted for Gore....the fact they didn't anticipate a tied election years earlier and change the Constitution is evidence the American people actually wanted Bush to win. ...."

    I see where you are coming from and I get the point now. If the political left wants for whatever reason to change the election law and rules on the fly, they should be allowed to do so.

    The reason would be of course to elect the Deomcrat.

    Since Gore won the popular vote in 2000, on the fly, the Electoral College should be discared and the popular vote honored instead.

    OK, OK.

    Somebody will say I am being sarcastic and you may say that is not what you mean, but fundamentally that IS what you and others on the left mean, if you or anybody harps on the electoral college.

    Since the Electoral College is the basis now for selecting the President, there is no other purpose for grinding around in a stew continuing to mention that Gore won the popular vote, unless some on the left think somehow the law should be change on the fly when they demand it.

    If it caused people to think the system should be changed, fine, you would think by now there would be some efforts by some people to do so, but I have not seen evidence of any.

    But you on the left don't necessarily want the system to be changed, you just want some authority, I guess through judges, to twist or bend it as you see fit as needed.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 3:07pm

67. PhilMcCrevice,

    You say I am a supporter of jihadi terror.

    You say Prime Minister Blair is responsible for the London attacks.

    Earth to Phil McCrevice: We were at war, and there are attacks during war.

    We were fighting war to stop jihadi terror long term. Anytime you fight somebody to stop something you do incur some losses before you succeed in that.

    The only sure-fire way to prevent ANY attacks at all, I guess, is to surrender right off of the get-go and comply with what your enemy wants.

    Then you either completely convert to what your enemy wants, or if what your enemy wants is for you to be dead no matter what, then I guess people have a responsiblity to surrender so your enemy can set about the systematic, routine killing like in the holocaust, where there are no attacks, just routine systematical factory style killing and extermination.

    So, OK... I see, Prime Minister Blair had an obligation to surrender to the enemy.....I get your point.

    You are not supposed to make your enemy angry.. You surrender and make sure to behave in a manner not to make your enemy angry. I see.

    So you have solved the problem and concern of how to stop jihadi terror. You have figured it out.

    So, I guess now we should:

    - Disband completely the American military

    - Establish socialism (oops- already done)

    - Send Jimmy Carter on a world tour to apologize, so President Obama can administer the socialism at home.

    - Ask our enemies if we can do anything that would help make it easier for them to kill us.

    Sounds like a plan, I guess.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 3:17pm

68. The electoral college ensures that not just a few states determine our elections, but they represent the broad range of views and states.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 11:55am

    The current system actually tilts slightly in favor of smaller states if you look at the number of registered voters per electoral vote per state.

    http://tinyurl.com/5kl5xa

    Posted by Hman23 at 04/16/2009 @ 4:41pm

69. snowball666,

    You have laid out a lot of things, but if you look back on my post the real issue and the only issue that I was posting about was Phil McCrevice's logic (logic is probably a bad word regarding anything he posts) about Tony Blair.

    Mr. McCrevice is mocking what he perceives to by my total support for Tony Blair and his actions regarding Iraq as the effort to stop terrorism.

    And he cites the London bombings as "proof" that Mr. Blair's actions did not stop terrorism, accoring to Phil.

    Some things about that:

    1. With regard to Phil's perception that I have total support for Tony Blair and is actions regarding Iraq - that may be the ONLY thing in Phil's world or in his mind that he DOES perceive correctly! I DO have total support for Tony Blair and the actions he took.

    2. In Phil's mind the London bombings are an example that Mr. Blair's efforts failed. But as I told him when you are in a war you wind up in fights and people die and you have attacks. We were fighting in Iraq to stop future terror, it is impossible to expect that some losses will not be incurred along the way.

    But you either fight and incur the losses in order to get the eventual win and the prevention of the much greater losses that would come if you lose or don't fight at all.....OR.... you do not fight so as not to incur the near term losses.

    But those who propose that never understand it does not work, evenutally the losses come anyway, the war comes anyway, the death comes anyway, and it is far worse when it does.

    And that is it....regarding my post... but because Phil is so spastic and idiotic and bizarre in what he posts, I decided to take my post to take it to an extreme.....

    The extreme will make no impression on Phil.... so it was just me venting again.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 4:43pm

70. Posted by Lillian at 04/16/2009 @ 12:05am: Fighting on is not costing conservatives anything.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/16/2009 @ 6:27pm

71. Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 3:07pm

    No, SJ...my point was your "The American People got their choice for President" comment was full of crap.

    As you have tried TWICE now to dodge around the issue and come up wiht BIZARRE explanations for how the American People gave Gore the most votes but "really" wanted Dubya to win.

    Posted by Mask at 04/16/2009 @ 9:38pm

72. Fighting on is not costing conservatives anything.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/16/2009 @ 6:27p

    Oh it is. You don't seem to understand that right now PR is a big deal for the conservative party.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/16/2009 @ 9:49pm

73. Posted by Lillian at 04/16/2009 @ 12:05am: Fighting on is not costing conservatives anything.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/16/2009 @ 6:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Wow...are you even paying attention?

    When the election was over, 50% of the voters favored the Republicans.

    Now it's down to 37% - and falling.

    Hello - earth to pyeatte - come in, over...

    ...it's over...and the louder Coleman whines about it, the lower Republican support drops.

    Like I said, if Coleman keeps it up and Republican support drops another 7%, Democrats not only win the state (inevitable anyway) they get to keep it for a long time!

    Thanks Coleman.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/17/2009 @ 12:42am

74. The American People got their true choice for President in 2000.

    Posted by sjchermak

    How conveniently they forget that the vote counting process was interupted by a mob of right wing loudmouths.

    This was allowed to happen by Jeb Bush's brownshirt police who were on duty at the recount center. The cops also intimidated African Americans, keeping them from the pols.

    Also, what about, unsightly Kathryn Harris, and her purging of the voter roles.

    Bush et al... behaved like a common tin pot junta and his presidency deserves the tag of illegitimate.

    As for Coleman....

    He knows the SCOTUS has a conservative majority so he hopes they'll job it for him. What a crook.

    Posted by koroviev at 04/17/2009 @ 03:36am

75. Mask,

    The American People got their choice for President. The Electoral College is the mechanism by which a President is elected, and that is by the will of the people, and thus the winner of the Electoral college is the American People's choice for President.

    My statement is not full of anything. It is simple fact.

    The issue here is your fixation about Gore winning the popular vote.

    The implication by you as well as many other leftists since 2000 is that George W. Bush was an illegitimate President because Gore won the popular vote. You and other leftists, of course, go into all the other nonsense about the Florida vote, as well.

    I can see if someone thought that the Electoral College was not the best way to choose a President and thought it should be changed.

    But that in no way changes the fact that George W. Bush was the properly and fairly elected President in 2000 according to the law that is in place now how a President is chosen.

    You say I am dodging around the issue. What issue? Your continual fixation about Gore and the popular vote in 2000?

    I engaged in sarcasm because your continual fixation serves no purpose.

    If some people were so concerned that the Electoral college is the wrong way to select the President, you would think by now you would see movements to propose a Constitutional amendment to change that.

    There do not seem to be any, of any significance.

    Thus, people like you who harp on this were never really concerned about the Electoral college in itself by itself, nor do you worry about it now.

    You just can't stand that in 2000, it resulted in a choice you did not like. Another reason for the left to carp and whine.

    Instead of obsessing about this, why don't you get going on the answer you owe me about WXYZ television in Detroit?

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 03:54am

76. Chapter 2 of Steven E. Freeman & Joel Bleifuss's "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?"

    giving Gore a margin of victory of about 47,000 votes.

    And this just takes into account ballots that were legally cast where voter intent can clearly be determined. It doesn't take into account other problems in the Florida 2000 election (voter suppression, the butterfly ballot, etc.).

    Posted by richcarl at 04/16/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person

    With a title like "Was the election stolen?" you know it's going to be a polemic an not a disinterested search for the truth.

    If NORC found a 47,000 margin for Gore, how come the NYT, the Miami Herald and USA Today didn't find those votes when they conducted a state wide review of all ballots? Under the most liberal interpretation (dimpled chad as "clear voter intent") Gore had no more than a few hundred vote lead. How is it possible for the incredibly liberal NYT to miss 46,800 votes where the voter intent is crystal clear?

    In my list from yesterday I meant to add the butterfly ballot as another item of bad luck that cost Gore the election. None of those items show Bush cheated. The ballot was designed by a Democrat in a good faith effort to make voting easier for the elderly. She failed, but her intent was pure.

    The supposed "suppression" again, removing felons from the list of voters is eminently reasonable. Some people say that it is better than 100 guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be convicted. That's not litterally true. We don't really want 100 violent rapists walking the street to prevent convicting one innocent man. One innocent man is no more than a handful of victims (him and his family). A 100 free rapists is atleast a hudred victims of rape.

    Continued

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:10am

77. If you are a Democrat you probably believe that it is better for 100,000 felons to vote rather than one legal voter be denied. (Because 90% of felons vote Democrat.)

    I think it is better that illegal voters don't change the outcome of an election.

    It is possible that in eliminating the 50,000 or so felons from the voter roles, that 1,000 legal voters were improperly prevented from voting and with a 537 vote margin, that may have been enough to change the outcome of the election.

    But to say "it is possible" that a legitimate attempt to prevent illegal votes resulted in 1,000 mistakes is not the same thing as voter supression.

    I think you know that.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:15am

78. If some people were so concerned that the Electoral college is the wrong way to select the President, you would think by now you would see movements to propose a Constitutional amendment to change that.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 03:54am

    It is more likely that they'll try to get judges to rule it is unconsitutional and write them a new law to thier likeing in the process. (See gay marriage in Iowa.)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:17am

79. Clearly the part of the Constitution that talks about the Electoral College is a vioalation of the 14th Amendment requiring equal protection.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:18am

80. Like I said, if Coleman keeps it up and Republican support drops another 7%, Democrats not only win the state (inevitable anyway) they get to keep it for a long time!

    Thanks Coleman.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/17/2009 @ 12:42am |

    You believe that Coleman will determine how people in MN vote for the next decade or so?

    They call that wishful thinking.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:26am

81. With a title like "Was the election stolen?" you know it's going to be a polemic an not a disinterested search for the truth.

    If NORC found a 47,000 margin for Gore, how come the NYT, the Miami Herald and USA Today didn't find those votes when they conducted a state wide review of all ballots?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:10am

    As the saying goes, don't judge a book by its cover (or, in this case, its title). The only real question is whether the evidence presented supports the arguments proposed, and so far I've seen nothing that would call into question the evidence presented.

    As far as the newspaper-sponosred recounts go, there were two. One, sponsored by the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, and USA Today, focused only on undervotes. Even here, the scenarios where Bush would still have won were mostly ones in which manual recounts were limited to the four counties in which Gore requested manual recounts. If the recounts had been statewide, under any of the five most likely standards chosen, Gore would have won the state by somewhere between 9 and 156 votes.

    The second independent recount was sponsored by a newspaper consortium that included the New York Times, as well as the Wall Street Journal and several other newspapers. This is the consortium that hired NORC to analyze the election data. This study focused on overvotes as well as undervotes. Among the overvotes, even by the strictest standards, Gore's total would have increased by a minimum of 847 votes, more than enough to give him a victory. And as I noted earlier, broader standards could have had him win by much larger margins. You're right that the NY Times chose to downplay this aspect of the story. Could it be that they're not as liberal as you believe?

    Posted by richcarl at 04/17/2009 @ 07:40am

82. It is possible that in eliminating the 50,000 or so felons from the voter roles, that 1,000 legal voters were improperly prevented from voting and with a 537 vote margin, that may have been enough to change the outcome of the election.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:15am

    Well, we can argue about whether there's more harm in permitting unqualified voters to vote or denying qualified voters from voting. My main point here is that, while no complete analysis of the supposed felon purge has been done, the limited information available suggests that your numbers are way off. The voter purge list contained 82,389 names. Even if the company that compiled it had stayed true to the 85% accuracy rate requested by Katherine Harris's office, that would still have resulted in 12,000 wrongfully purged voters. But the one county that tried to verify the accuracy of the purge list, Leon County, found that only 34 of the 694 names on the purge list were a match--a 5% accuracy rate, rather than the 98% accuracy rate that you're supposing.

    Posted by richcarl at 04/17/2009 @ 07:51am

83. The American People got their choice for President. The Electoral College is the mechanism by which a President is elected, and that is by the will of the people, and thus the winner of the Electoral college is the American People's choice for President.----Posted by sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 03:54am

    Yes, SJ...again, we get your "explanation". Because the American People never forsaw the possibility of a nearly-tied election and as has so RARELY been done Amended the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College....despite the fact that MORE of them voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush....they somehow "wanted" Bush to be President.

    Please keep repeating it.

    BTW, I've never said Bush was an "illegitimate President". In fact, I've blamed the Naderites for allowing votes that would have gone to Gore in Florida (and thus giving him the EC victory) to go on that fools' errand of Ralph's campaign (or atleast not smart or concerned enough to do "vote trading" in 2000.)

    But to claim that "The American People wanted Bush as their President in 2000"...when he clearly lost the popular vote...borders on insanity.

    Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 08:09am

84. You believe that Coleman will determine how people in MN vote for the next decade or so?

    They call that wishful thinking.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:26am | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    I believe Coleman acting like a spoiled jerk will do for the Republican party in Minnesota exactly what Bush acting like a spoiled jerk did for the Republican party in this country as a whole...

    ...turn them into a pitiable, maginalized, minority.

    Posted by Lillian at 04/17/2009 @ 09:13am

85. <i>Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 08:09am </i>

    So just to be clear...you ARE then differentiating "The American people got their choice for President" point (construed as "most of the country wanted Bush") from "Bush stole the election," yes? Because so long as the Electoral College exists as the legitimate means of deciding the President, the former CANNOT entail the latter.

    <i>Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 06:18am </i>

    Technically, since the Equal Protection Clause was added LATER, it would effectively overrule the stuff about the Electoral College IF there was a conflict between the two (which there isn't).

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/17/2009 @ 09:53am

86. Posted by Thrawn at 04/17/2009 @ 09:53am

    THRAWN, my whole thrust here has been on SJCHER's claim that ..."The American People got their true choice for President in 2000." (Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 03:56am)

    This is partisan contradiction of the facts, if not (as I said) borderline insanity. CLEARLY, the popular vote went to Gore and THAT is a true qualifier of "the American People's choice".

    Bush won the Electoral College by winning the State of Florida by a margin of some 600 votes or so. I have said quite often, that I put most of the blame on the Naderites, given RN got some 90,000 votes and less than 1% deciding "Yes! There IS a difference between Gore and Bush" would have thrown it to Gore in FL. (Note: The local Naderites scream like stuck pigs when I say such things!)

    SJ is a ditto-head (clearly since he can offer NO instance where he parts with Limbaugh on any issue) and as such, reality doesn't enter into his realm of thinking on many occasions.

    His attempt to reconcile "Not overthrowing the EC" with "They WANTED Bush to be their President" shows how that kind of Orwellian/2+2=5 thinking confounds logic and fact.

    But it was HE, not I, that was conflating the Electoral College result with "the will of the American People".

    Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 10:21am

87. "Earth to Phil McCrevice: We were at war,"

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/16/2009 @ 3:17pm

    SJ-ASSCLOWN has come thorough in the clutch perfectly with the farago of stupidity, mindless repititions of rightwing talking points, and inane bluster. One could not script it for him any better than he just naturally produces as a spin-off from his complete and total inferiority.

    "We are at War", ASSCLOWN blusters like a parodic version of Dick Cheney. Some questions for SJ-ASSCLOWN...Describe each of the following in the space furnished below:

    1. Itemize, in detail and leaving none out, the WMDs possessed by Saddam's Ba'athist regime after a decade of UNSCOM inspections: __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________.

    2. Describe the delivery systems that the regime could deploy with regard to (1): __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________.

    3. Cite all documents and testimonies that furnish convincing evidence of Iraq's blueprints for agression against the UK, US, and/or NATO with detailed analysis of the pluasibility of operationalizing any such plans: __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________.

    4. "We were at War": Indicate the rank(s) achieved in the prosecution of what SJ describes a THE weaponized war 4 the very future of humanity from which NO PERSON CAN REMAIN NUETRAL: __ Blog Brigade __ Keyboard Colonel __ Bluster Brigadier __ Major Verbiage

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/17/2009 @ 10:55am

88. "I DO have total support for Tony Blair and the actions he took. In Phil's mind the London bombings are an example that Mr. Blair's efforts failed." -- SJ-ASSCLOWN

    More imbelic nonsense that rightwing CroMags excrete like diarhea and then leave caked onto their asses for days until it has molded itself to the creases of their flab.

    The London bombings were caused by rightwing freaks pursuing a rightwing agenda to kill and maim as many people as they could because rightwingers love violence and hate life. This is a truism. As professionals who work in the security industries - people like Larry Wilkerson & Richard Clark - have stated clearly invading the non-agressor nation of Iraq made further rightwing terror freakery incalcuably more likely. UK's Chatham House agrees...

    7/19/2005 - SPIEGEL'S DAILY TAKE. "Report Linking Iraq-7/7 Riles Blair": A report by a respected British foreign policy think tank links London's terror risk to the Iraq war, giving Prime Minister Tony Blair yet another headache.

    A new report linking Britain's involvement in Iraq to its increased risk for al-Qaida terror may offer little that's new, but it isn't helping Tony Blair's domestic publicity machine. The publication on Monday of a report by respected international relations think-tank Chatham House has prompted a vociferous reaction from the British government after it implied that London's supporting role in the Iraq war drama had made the country a target for terrorists. Tony Blair is particularly sensitive to such accusations, given his unflinching support for the war, but the heated reaction by the prime minister and cabinet colleagues suggests they are not surprised by the accusation. But they are keen to quash it before the wider public begins to make similar associations.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/17/2009 @ 11:11am

89. "it is impossible to expect that some losses will not be incurred along the way."

    -- SJ-ASSCLOWN

    The rightwing degenerate could not more clearly exhibit the fake bluster and frankly perverse fetishim of violence any more clearly than if one had scripted it for him.

    As a rightwinger, SJ loves violence --although, like the "Other priorities" Poolside Polemic Patrol of Cheney, Bush, Champliss, etc, the righties also have a deeply effeminate side and keep their distance from violence even as they gasp and moan over the vicarious experience of it.

    This is why SJ-ASSCLOWN has revealed to us his steadfast support for the doctrine of a "New Pearl Harbor". After the rightwing sickies at Project for a New American Century -- the Geroge W Loser admin in embryo -- panted over the prospect of New Pearl Harbor, SJ-ASSCLOWN solemnly voiced his agreement & did so here on this webpage. AND THIS WAS POST-9/11. It is cetainly something to ask SJ about, to pin down some explanations for his disturbing and dangerous patterns of thought.

    SJ-ASSCLOWN loves terrorism and could not give the slightest shit about its victims since it furnishes a perfect alibi for further violence. The costs of this violence are understood to be shouldered by those OTHER people - like innocent civilians and grunt soldiers for whom the "Poolside Warrior" likes of Cheney, Bush & Champliss have total contempt.

    We love life and democracy. And public libraries lined with a riot of flowers across the street from a rousing game of baseball. Let's play two!

    They love death and fear, jihadi slogans shouted by crazed fiends in the unbreakable grip of war psychosis. And smoke emanating from burned out cars with charred limbs strewn about them.

    Could the contrast be any more obvious?

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/17/2009 @ 11:33am

90. Oh, that is rich.

    A fellow with a screen name that is an immature reference to anal sex is deriding someone else as an "ass clown"

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 04/17/2009 @ 2:01pm

91. Mask,

    You claim my posts are borderline insanity.

    But, if they are borderline insanity (in your view) then why are you reading them?

    I only ask you this because I do not understand why somebody would bother reading BORDERLINE insanity when REAL FULL BLOWN insanity is available now, on this thread.

    Phil McCrevice has posted in again. His nurses are doing a lousy job with his medications.

    If you want insanity, read his posts instead.

    Besides, and you know this and are responsible for this, I get confused myself these days because I have been looking for and I need the information about WXYZ television in Detroit.

    If you remember, I asked you for this and I still have not gotten it, and these days I find it hard to concentrate on anything because I am in a quandry why this information and analysis from you has not been forthcoming.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 2:04pm

92. But, if they are borderline insanity (in your view) then why are you reading them?----Posted by sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 2:04pm

    Because it's....funny? Seriously, you're so stereotypical and predictable, it's like a good "MASH" (Larry Linville/Maclean Stevenson era) rerun, SJ. You're like Frank Burns if he was a ditto-head....LOL.

    Somebody who REALLY believes that the American People WANTED Dubya as their President, despite him losing by half a million votes....you can't beat that satire. If I didn't know you were real, I'd swear (as noted before) that you were a writer for The Colbert Report doing a bit.

    As far as PhilMe goes, already chastized him once...and he took no notice. He IS over the top and nearly impossible to read, and would make his points better with less vitriole and ad homs.

    But for humor?.....as Michele Bachmann would say "You da man, SJ!"

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 3:10pm

93. By sjchermak, 04/17 @ 2:04pm

    For reasons already given, SJ-ASSCLOWN is the kind of CroMag who loves the sight of, and can see the potential of, a child with his legs blown off...in other words, the potential for him to be a suicide bomber (or his bro', or his uncle) which is a possibility that the likes of SJ-ASSCLOWN thrill at because they LOVE violence, they WORSHIP terrorism, they DROOL over the NEW PEARL HARBOR.

    That is what they do. That is what they are.

    But let's check in with some of SJ-ASSCLOWN's own accounts of his intellectual activity and actions.

    I asked: "1. Itemize, in detail and leaving none out, the WMDs possessed by Saddam's Ba'athist regime after a decade of UNSCOM inspections:"

    His answer:

    [null set]

    I asked: "2. Describe the delivery systems that the regime could deploy with regard to (1):"

    His answer:

    [stony silence]

    I asked: "3. Cite all documents and testimonies that furnish convincing evidence of Iraq's blueprints for agression against the UK, US, and/or NATO with detailed analysis of the pluasibility of operationalizing any such plans:"

    His answer:

    [scratches his ass covertly]

    Finally, I asked: 4. "Indicate the rank(s) achieved in the prosecution of what SJ describes a THE weaponized war 4 the very future of humanity from which NO PERSON CAN REMAIN NUETRAL: _ Blog Brigade _ Keyboard Colonel _ Bluster Brigadier _ Major Verbiage"

    His answer:

    [soft flatulence hisses out his rectum, followed by a louder, heinous belch of methane & trace gases]

    Let's recount. SJ-ASSCLOWN brays angrily for an earth-shaking solution to a world-changing "problem", the actual existence of which he cannot cite even AN IOTA of evidence. And excuses himself from ANY sacrifice.

    Yessir, ConservaLoser, it's all clear now.

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/17/2009 @ 3:11pm

94. Hey Phil,

    Your second to the last paragraph rang familiar to me because of reasons that would not be apparent to you, that's for sure. (even when the nurses have medicated you properly).

    How so?

    To show you, I will replace my name (rather, your verison of my name) with somebody else's name, and then you will know.

    ====================

    Let's recount. ALGORE brays angrily for an earth-shaking solution to a world-changing "problem", the actual existence of which he cannot cite even AN IOTA of evidence. And excuses himself from ANY sacrifice.

    =================

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 3:18pm

95. "As far as PhilMe goes..."

    Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 3:10pm

    LOL, MASK-

    As it is said to be said in showbiz'... just spell the name correctly, willya!?!?

    Your pal, -PHIL Mc (note: that is a "c" not an "e")

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/17/2009 @ 3:21pm

96. SJ-ASSCLOWN,

    I replace your replacement. Take note of the significance:

    "To show you, I will replace my name (rather, your verison of my name) with somebody else's name, and then you will know.

    ====================

    Let's recount. EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN brays angrily for an earth-shaking solution to a world-changing 'problem', the actual existence of which he cannot cite even AN IOTA of evidence. And excuses himself from ANY sacrifice."

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/17/2009 @ 3:24pm

97. The electoral college ensures that not just a few states determine our elections, but they represent the broad range of views and states.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/16/2009 @ 11:55am

    The current system actually tilts slightly in favor of smaller states if you look at the number of registered voters per electoral vote per state.

    [URL=http://tinyurl.com/5kl5xa].[/URL]

    Posted by sommoP at 04/17/2009 @ 5:32pm

98. I have figured something out here.

    Phil McCrevice is posting in with a reference to a character from the book 1984.

    In the past, on this site, Mask has posted in with references to Winston Smith, a 1984 character.

    I know that back when Mask made the posts and I asked basically who the hell was Winston Smith, Mask of course made a lot of hay out of that, I am supposed to be totally dialed into the plot of a book that I probably read in High School, a long time ago.

    But is there something more than a coincidence here.

    It would be easy for one person to have more than one logon to this site, and for what are apparently two different people to be actually one person.

    Could it be that

    Mask = Phil McCrevice

    ? Hmmm......

    The mission in Mask's life seems to be to post in and be a devil's advocate and pest....probably Mask gets a lot of amusement out of that.

    Phil McCrevice's postings are so incomprehensible that no sane person of whatever political ideology could possibly generate them......BUT.......if one is that insane would it be possible for that person to even get on a computer to begin with.

    Thus it is possible that Phil's postings are just made up for the purpose of generating amusement for the one making them up.... and seeing the reactions from others on these threads.

    So it would seem that these postings by either person must be solely for entertainment for that individual.

    So it must be the same individual!!!

    Just a theory, but can anybody prove I am wrong?

    (P.S. to Phil McCrevice... how come you have not provided me the backup I asked you for about news coverage from WXYZ television in Detroit?)

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 6:15pm

99. Dubya got a "home job" fix from his brother, Jeb, in Fla. So the electoral college arguement is moot, or as Joe the Plumber would say "it's a mute point."

    Fugly Kathryn Harris and Jeb rigged Fla. for Bush. Hence, Gore takes Fla. and the Electoral College as well as the popular vote...

    Like Joe the Plumber says "It's a mute point." (He said this on Real Time with Bill Maher last week.)

    Posted by koroviev at 04/17/2009 @ 11:55pm

100. "Phil McCrevice's postings are so incomprehensible ..." BLAH BLA BLAH

     -- sjchermak at 04/17/2009 @ 6:15pm

     Someone will have to instruct SJ-ASSCLOWN's parents to patiently pose these "incomprehensible" questions to him, perhaps interweaved into the daily lesson on getting dresed and the basics of hygiene. The already stated questions are below and furnish telling evidence about the modest threshold to be reached before SJ throws up his hands at the "incomprehensible" inquiries:

     "1. Itemize, in detail and leaving none out, the WMDs possessed by Saddam's Ba'athist regime after a decade of UNSCOM inspections:

     ...2. Describe the delivery systems that the regime could deploy with regard to (1):

     ...3. Cite all documents and testimonies that furnish convincing evidence of Iraq's blueprints for agression against the UK, US, and/or NATO with detailed analysis of the pluasibility of operationalizing any such plans:

     ...4. Indicate the rank(s) achieved in the prosecution of what SJ describes a THE weaponized war for the very future of humanity from which NO PERSON CAN REMAIN NUETRAL: _ Blog Brigade _ Keyboard Colonel _ Bluster Brigadier _ Major Verbiage"

     However, I have no fucking idea what any of this (even more bizarre than usual nonsense) from SJ-ASSCLOWN purports to mean:

     "(P.S. to Phil McCrevice... how come you have not provided me the backup I asked you for about news coverage from WXYZ television in Detroit?)

     ???

     So, my short answer to this is: SJ-ASSCLOWN, you are not a fucking a cripple in your body (only in your mind which is a total captive to the most heinous and vile rightwing excretions). So, shuddup, get off of your lazy and stupid ass and get your own gawddamn "backup" or whatever-the-fuck-it-is you're ranting about nonsensically.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/18/2009 @ 09:41am

101. Here is a shout-out for the superb contributions on this thread from RICHCARL who brought up some detailed data.

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/18/2009 @ 07:08am

     666,

     Yes, it is now apparent.

     AL GORE = EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN.

     Perhaps we may call him ... (drum roll) ... ALMANNUEL GORESTEIN.

     And if ALMANNUEL GORESTEIN did not exist...rightwing trash like SJ, ANTISOCIAL and COMA-UN-AMERICAN would need to invent him in order to satisfy their bloodthirsty rituals during the 2-Minutes Hate (extended to 2 hours while listening to the Poet-Warrior Rush). In their diseased hater minds, ALMANNUEL GORESTEIN is a ruthless & all-powerful figure who has seduced every single earth and climate scientist in the world, aside from about 5, into his conspiratorial drive to global GORESTEIN-ISTAN.

     Yet, at the same time for the sick and fevered rightist, there is hope because the otherwise all powerful ALMANNUEL GORESTEIN is at the same time a weakling. ALMANNUEL GORESTEIN's drive to ram collectivism down the whole world's throat can somehow be halted by 5 geeks in black robes named SANDRA DAY, ANTONIN, ANTHONY, WILLIAM & AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TOKEN GUY. Perhaps Maximum Leaders in waiting such as the very Reverand Sun Myung Moon or the purity of Saint Sarah may be capable of stopping ALMANNUEL GORESTEIN!

     It is sad but true that every society spawns a few untalented, resentful and disgruntled losers like SJ, ANTISOCIAL and COMA just like a mammal's body produces its waste products. They are the people who act out the part of kapo when they get the chance, shouting the party slogans about ALMANNUEL GORESTEIN as they do so. The trick is that, in the civilized society, they are kept at the margins where they belong and their disgusting fantasies are not indulged but scorned.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/18/2009 @ 10:03am

102. d) He does not excuse himself or the USA from sacrifice...that would have been Dubya with the Kyoto Protocol

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/18/2009 @ 07:08am

     That would be the same Kyoto that the Democratic led the Senate vote 95-0 in a resolution telling Clinton not to submit it?

     S98

     Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

     It was introduced by Byrd and cosponsors included Durbin, Carol Mosley-Braun, and Reid.

     So, it would seem that Bush was not only exercising good judgment, he was also respecting the view of the Senate.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 12:28pm

103. snowball666,

     You say (about Algore):

     "......c) He's cited plenty of scientific evidence, that you will not accept such because it doesn't suit you is your fault......."

     But- as you know - Algore's "scientific evidence" is not to be accepted by anybody yet who is not a scientist because there are plenty of scientists who do not agree with his concepts or many of the other concepts about global warming or "climate change" being promoted.

     Any "acceptance" would come after a through public debate, which of course hasn't happened, and may never happen.

     How come these scientists are not arguing back and forth, in a point - counter point manner?

     Instead, those scientists who do not agree with the concepts of global warming, or the cause of any climate change (whether it is man - made or natural/cyclical, or what impact there will be, if any, are condemned as deniers.

     And in public, you then see global warming discussed as a given - there isn't even a mention of any controversy.

     The political left has totally bought into this concept. Why? Who on the left is a scientist who would have the ability to find out if Algore's contentions are true or not? Very few.

     I think it is because a lot of the "remedies" are those that the political left would like to see implemented anyway, global warming or no.

     There are many non-scientific indicators here (the lack of public debate in the media, the denunciation of those who believe otherwise as "deniers" by global warming proponents that want no public debate and unilaterally declare the matter closed), that indicate some agenda is being pursued here with "global warming" (that may not even be happening) as the pretext or excuse.

     But you just buy into what the Village Idiot (Algore) says......

     Posted by sjchermak at 04/18/2009 @ 1:21pm

104. Once again, every time I make a statement in the manner of my last paragraph I feel I need to apologize to any Village Idiots out there.

     It is wrong to make a negative slam at Village Idiots, saying they are like Algore.

     Posted by sjchermak at 04/18/2009 @ 1:24pm

105. If he'd proposed a sane alternative to Kyoto, I'd accept what you say (that it was the majority of our leaders who felt that Kyoto was not in our national interest), but he did precious little to address global warming other than redact science reports and stage a free-for-all for drilling rights as he left office.

     We know we're the most egregious users of energy per capita so it wouldn't benefit us (other than to perhaps stave off extinction).

     That doesn't make our behavior any less reprehensible.

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/18/2009 @ 1:14pm

     The only sane alternative to Kyoto was to ignore it.

     I've documented that any manmade causation for increased CO2 is negligible. At the worst case scenario, man has introduced 2-3$ of the CO2 levels. And methane which has far more impact is naturally produced without any input from mankind.

     It is the height of human arrogance and ego to think that we are substantially impacting the global climate.

     Already, a number of world climatologists and others in the fields of earth science are now projecting a new cycle of cooling.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 1:24pm

106. Snow,

     Here is a scientist who's work as a climatologist for the US govt I highly respect.

     http://www.drroyspencer.com/

     Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer's work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

     Dr. Spencer's research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 1:46pm

107. Is there anything ANYTHING, even the most trivial thing, that rightwing subhuman cretins are EVER right about? Consider SJ-ASSCLOWN's characteristically stoopid boo-hooing about CC scientists "silencing" anti-CC loudmouths.

     G-Monbiot '07: In an interview four weeks ago, Martin Durkin, who made Channel 4's film The Great Global Warming Swindle, claimed that he was subject to "invisible censorship"(7). He appears to have forgotten that he had just been given 90 minutes of prime time television to expound his theory that climate change is a great green conspiracy. So what did this censorship amount to? Complaints about one of his programmes had been upheld by the Independent Television Commission. It found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" & that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part."(8) This, apparently, makes him a martyr.

     If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened & silenced & their findings edited or suppressed.

     The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints. 1. "Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,' ‘global warming', or other similar terms" from their communications. 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which "changed the meaning of scientific findings". 3. Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings..."

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/18/2009 @ 4:34pm

108. George Monbiot, April 10, 2007, London Guardian CONT'D:

     4. "The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate". 5. "New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work". 6. "Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings." They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years(9).

     In 2003, the White House gutted the climate change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency(10). It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, which suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.

     After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station to tell the programme that Knutson was "too tired" to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the "White House said no". All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes(11)..."

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/18/2009 @ 4:36pm

109. Monbiot, CONT'D...

     "...Last year the top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by public relations officials at the agency that there would be "dire consequences" if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases(12).

     Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand "the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."(13)

     At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former aide to White House who was previously working at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration(14). Though he is not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming(15)...."

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/18/2009 @ 4:39pm

110. "How come these scientists are not arguing back and forth, in a point - counter point manner?"

     --- SJ-ASSCLOWN

     You mean...once the theory has been established as true, you go into extra innings?

     We need further debate about the very truth of the HIV hypothesis (as urged by the Murdoch press not so long ago)? About gravity? About your abject stupidity that is dense even by the standards of disgruntled rightist loses?

     Once again, we see the pattern. Grunting, bestial rightwing CroMags are wrong about everything. EVERYTHING.

     -George W Loser the MBA/CEO prez will boost the economy after Clinton's hammer-and-sickle disaster.

     -Vince Foster, snuffed by Clinton.

     -WMDs in the UNSCOM-disarmed Iraq.

     -Chastity-Belt "Education".

     -Creationism.

     -The War on Christmas.

     And here, these inferior nobodies who despise humanity sink to lying not just about the science but the right's deeply-seated instincts for censorship of it.

     No wonder today's right atracts only the most disturbed young people who are addicted to self-harm and lying. The Ashley Todds. The Francisco Cavas.

     Giving a rightwinger any kind of authority, however seemingly trivial, is like giving an electric blanket to a chronic bed-wetter. Bad for the bed-wetter. And very bad for the bed.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/18/2009 @ 4:57pm

111. SJCHERMACK!!! This one is for you! This entire forum thinks you ignorant and pathetic! Your ideals are insane, unintelligent and illogical, and just lies and distortions, like just about everything else republicooks stand for. The world knows that Al Gore beat bush in the 2000 election. That Florida was stolen from us. YOU and millions of terrified, scared out of your mind cowardly republicooks simply will not ever accept the truth!!! No matter what bush and cheney and his entire family of unqualified and insane criminals have done, you and your ilk of crazy people, ie, all republicooks... Simply continue to support this frightened, pathetic way of politics... Democrats are not perfect, far from it buddy, but ANY of them is better than what your sick party has ever had to offer!!! reagan, nixon, bush, bush again.... How many times before you get how sick, unqualified and monsterous they all are???

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 04/19/2009 @ 02:11am

112. Shut up and read this...

     http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 04/19/2009 @ 02:12am

113. Here is an article which concisely sums up the situations, both in 2000 and in the Minnesota senate election now.

     =============

     APRIL 18, 2009 Minnesota's Missing Votes Some Senate absentee ballots are more equal than others. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html

     ============

     Essentially, what Gore tried to do, wrongly so, in 2000 is what Franken has successfully been able to do, so far, in this current Minnesota election.

     I am sure many on the left portray Conservatives as "hypocrites" if they say (as I do say) that Gore had no basis to keep contesting the election in 2000 but that Coleman should fight on now.

     But the issue is the same - changing Election rules on the fly after the fact....Gore wanted to do that in 2000, and if Franken's lead now is allowed to stand with no further argument, he will have successfully done that this time. His current vote count is the product of changes, on the fly, on what would and would not be deemed an acceptable vote.

     Posted by sjchermak at 04/19/2009 @ 07:11am

114. Posted by Tiger2Lover at 04/19/2009 @ 02:11am

     Another example why conservatives think many on the left are braindead.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/19/2009 @ 12:26pm

115. I was living in Minnesota when Senator Coleman's former opponent met a tragic fate. Is there something that makes it impossible for Senator Coleman to just give up graciously and show some respect for the democracy that he is sworn to protect?

     Posted by vstead at 04/20/2009 @ 3:01pm

116. "the hodge podge of different counting standard being employed to help Gore in Dem counties and hurt Bush in Rep counties were an unconsitutional violation of the equal protections clause."

     In an opinion that SCOTUS also said only counts for this one case. The sheer ridiculousness of that sheds light on what the SCOTUS majority had in mind.

     Incidentally, one can still claim that Bush was an illegitimate President because of the stolen FL electoral votes (although Nader still bears much of the responsibility).

     Posted by brunowe at 04/20/2009 @ 11:47pm