Franken Named Minnesota Winner

posted by John Nichols on 01/05/2009 @ 5:00pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (209)

Subscribe Now

After weeks of Minnesota recount wrangling over the close contest between Republican Senator Norm Coleman and Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party challenger Al Franken, the state canvassing board has certified Franken as the winner.

The canvassing board decision came Monday afternoon, after a final review of the tally, put Franken ahead by 225 votes.

The formal issuance of a certificate of election will not come for at least a week -- perhaps longer -- as legal challenges are sorted out.

But, says Franken recount attorney Marc Elias, "We are confident that since there are no ballots left to count, the final margin will stand with Al Franken having won the election by 225 votes."

That's a surprisingly solid margin, after weeks of seeing the divide between the contenders narrow to single and double digits.

Franken finished the recount process with a dramatic boost in the final review of absentee ballots.

"It took only an hour Saturday afternoon for election officials to count 933 absentee ballots that all sides had agreed were wrongly rejected. Franken won 52 percent of them and Coleman captured 33 percent (the rest went to other candidates or cast no vote in the Senate race). It was a surprisingly muscular margin that was reflected in the glum looks of Coleman staffers and the satisfied appearance of Franken's staff," reported the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "Franken started the day with an unofficial lead of 49 votes. He achieved a net gain of 176 votes on Saturday."

Coleman is vowing to delay the inevitable, however.

While the Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request from Coleman's legal team to alter the rules for recounts, Coleman lawyer Fritz Knaak says, "We are prepared to go forward and take whatever legal action is necessary to ... remedy this artificial lead that we believe is being shown now for the Franken campaign."

But it is hard to pin the "artificial" tag on a lead certified by the blue-ribbon canvassing board--which is made up of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a panel of veteran jurists from varying political and ideological backgrounds.

That hasn't stopped Texas Senator John Cornyn, a hyper-partisan Republican, from threatening to try and block the seating of Franken with a filibuster. And Democrats will probably decide to let the court battles play out before moving to seat Franken, thus avoiding this particular partisan conflict in this first week of the new Congress.

The likely delay in Washington keeps faith with Minnesota law, which specifies that a formal certificate of election cannot be issued until all legal disputes related to a contest are resolved.

The Coleman camp has seven days in which to file formal paperwork contesting the election result. If they do so, as is likely, a three-judge panel appointed by Minnesota Chief Justice Eric Magnuson will have to review and resolve the lingering dispute before an election certificate can be issued.

Coleman's lawyers put on a brave face Monday.

"We will not stop now," Knaak announced.

But the Coleman camp's options are narrowing. And even the most activist courts, in Minnesota and at the federal level, are disinclined to rewrite rules late in the game--or to try and overturn a victory that has been confirmed by a well-regarded (or, for that matter, even a not-so-well-regarded) canvassing board. As Franken lawyer Elias notes, the state's highest court has already -- with Monday's decision "affirmed the validity of the rules under which this recount was conducted."

Bottom line: We appear to have reached a turning-point day for Al Franken and Senate Democrats. Franken is not a senator yet, but the prospect that he will eventually claim the seat once held by his friend Paul Wellstone is now far greater than the prospect that Coleman will retain it.

For those like Franken (and this writer) who watched with frustration over six years as Coleman compiled a record diametrically opposite that of Wellstone, the canvassing board's decision represents a very satisfying result, for Minnesota and America.

Comments (209)

Wonder what would have happened if the Supreme Court stepped in an stopped the recount while Franken was ahead.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/04/2009 @ 12:46pm
Losing to Al Franken!

oh how far the conservatives have fallen.

Were it not Franken, t'would be a beautiful sight to behold!

Maybe Al should be seated in the "non-celebrity" section in congress, you know, the area inhabited by

Phred Thompson

Sonny Bono

Steve Largeant

Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 12:46pm
Posted by crabwalk at 01/04/2009 @ 12:46pm

It is pretty bad that Al Franken is winning a Senate seat purely off of the crappy way the Republicans have run this country. He has no legitimacy what so ever. I think Republicans should have taken this as a wake up call that they need some serious reorganization of their party. Losing to Al Franken is just laughable.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/04/2009 @ 1:26pm
Actually the Minneapolis Star has been using different numbers than the state. There are more court challenges and about 1500 absentee ballots not yet settled.

Sen Frankin.........how sick .....says more about voters in Mn than GOP... Look they gave the US Jesse!!

Gov will not certify on Monday, after all, count all the votes, right.....the military and even the 133 votes for Frankin that do not exist on the paper back ups. Lots a questions remain.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 1:41pm
Its done. The 900 wrongly rejected absentee ballots have been counted and there are no more valid ballots to count.

Posted by pwestre at 01/04/2009 @ 1:58pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 1:41pm

I don't think it matters what the Star says. I think in the end it will only matter what the state says. Just like in Florida it didn't matter what the new papers said or what the people wanted, it only matter what the Supreme Court said. Of course whenever there is a recount for a Democrat he is all of a sudden stealing votes. However when a Republican takes it through a recount it is all legitimate. Maybe you should get a brain of your own instead of parroting party slogans.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/04/2009 @ 2:26pm
I think Al Franken will make a great senator. He's not a crook. He's not a bully. He's not a wack job. He's not a liar. All of which means, of course, that he's unacceptable to Republicans.

Posted by Dwight Wall at 01/04/2009 @ 2:49pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/04/2009 @ 2:26pm I'd like to second cccomfo1 and crabwalk.

Although, I'd add: look how far the moderates have fallen. I think you'd agree that Coleman is whatever passes for a moderate in the republican party these days, and looks to be beaten by an unabashed liberal. From what little I know from the papers about MN law, the results would have to await any legal challenges before they can be certified so like Cccomfo1 says we'll have to wait for any legal challenges to resolve.

Also, I think we can agree that the people of MN can be proud of the recount their officials proceeded over. It was quite different from what we saw come out of Fl, but then again Coleman didn't have his brother as the governor and the co-chair of his state campaign the secretary of state.

And just to reminisce a bit about something Darin had said:

Further, Franken is floating trial balloons about asking the Senate to overrule the MN results and Coleman is not. Being as objective as I can, I think Franken has virtually no chance. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 4:12pm | Ah, well, you can't always be right.

And potentially 59 democratic senators, certainly an unbelievable election year for senate democrats. I thought they'd only pull out 55-57, but they managed to turn their opponents into largely the southern republican party.

Posted by hdthoreau at 01/04/2009 @ 3:04pm
I think Al Franken will make a great senator. He's not a crook. He's not a bully. He's not a wack job. He's not a liar. All of which means, of course, that he's unacceptable to Republicans.

Posted by Dwight Wall at 01/04/2009 @ 2:49pm

Really...

He is not a crook?

He was paid $ 2 miilion while Air America was going broke..sounds like Wall Street Bankers to me..same logic...

He is not a bully?..

..ever hear him speak at a fund raiser where hr thinks the cameras are off? sounds more blue than Joe Pesci in a Scorsese movie, ....a political discussion group? He is worse than a bully..he is an emotional horses ass...I have met him..

He is not a liar?

He hasn't lived in MN for 35 years...is all for the enviroment, yet flies around in a G-5..and had to be sued to pay taxes...(this could fall under crook claim)..get his campaign money from Hollywood..

he is not a wack job?

Please. If he manages to steal this election he wont last the 6 years..makes Wellstone look sane.

How about the right elect Limbaugh to the senate?

Any difference?

Both have same qualifacations...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 3:07pm
HD, "Also, I think we can agree that the people of MN can be proud of the recount their officials proceeded over. "

Actualy, they are humiliated that after Jesse, they are now linked with the idiots in Florida who can't put an X in the box next to their choice of candidate.

My family lives there, I was there the last 2 days..and I have family on both sides of the aisle...and all are embarassed..

embarassed that Frankin even has a chance...

and embarassed that Coleman even has a chance..

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 3:07pm

How about the right elect Limbaugh to the senate?

Any difference?

One rather obvious difference is that Al Franken is not a convicted felon while Rush Limbaugh is.

Posted by kvirobik at 01/04/2009 @ 3:23pm
What is this knee-jerk reflex to kick show-business people as being obviously unqualified for high office. Reagan took a lot of hits from Democrats on this non-basis basis; it was silly to say about him, and it's silly to say about Franken. As for his taking two million while Air American sank, Jay Leno is getting paid a lot more on a similar gamble, and the reason is that it's easier to hire him for millions than to put on a real prime time tv show. Entertainers are no different from anyone else who holds a job and makes money from it. Their becoming millionaires from entertaining certainly doesn't mean they're unqualified: if it did, every Senator would have to quit; they all entertain their constituents as best they can.

Posted by chessw at 01/04/2009 @ 3:31pm
The right too elect is never challeneged by anyone here...

just the judgement of those making the choices....which is my right and yours. It is not the fact they are entertainers that is the issue for me..me...me...

Yes Reagan was an entertainer...

and was also a governor, had had some governmental experience and executive experience...

Limbaugh under those circumstances would also qualify as far as excutive experience...but I wouldn't vote for him anymore than Frankin... who has nothing under his belt but celebrety....and I would question those who would vote for either..

again, no one said anything about the right to chose...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 3:38pm
Was Clinton a convicted felon?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 3:39pm
Love the Franken moment and hope he comes through. I'm really sad about Gov. Richardson. How about a Sheila Bair, eh folks? How do we create a Sheila Bair movement or a Paul Krugman alternative?

Posted by julien38 at 01/04/2009 @ 3:45pm
Chessw,

Leno made millions from and for NBC...carried his load...Frankin made millions while others didn't get paid, had to be sued to pay taxes...had to requalify to live in MN...

and the earning he did was no different from the AIG earnees...they took money while the house was losing its investors ass...with no plan for a return..

AIR AMERICA could never stand on its own leggs...no demand, so Frankin merely redistributed the donations made to keep AA on the air...to him...

pathetic when you look at the details...you will find if Frankin steals the election...that this will soon be all about him and the comedy act, which he is undoubaly suited to do and I enjoy his work...will follow him to the senate...and the reaction might not look so funny...just sad...and hopefully MN will cashier him quickly...I would love to see a recall election happen should he shit himself there...I am sure Reid will back bench his ass and duck tape his ego and mouth...a tough job..

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 3:46pm
Can't say that Franken is perfect. I have seen him talk on a number of occasions, though, and would not characterize him in the same manner as a bully (although he does not suffer fools gladly). I did once see him leave Laura Ingrahm sputtering in rage simply by calmly and rather humerously deflating her every utterance. I think on the crook scale, Coleman tips the scales quite a bit more with the cozy deals his wife has been involved in. Comparing the Air America deal with the theft conducted by our nations bankers is laughable - for one thing it was both legal, and didn't exactly contribute to the current Bush Depression. Franken, a native of Minnesota, has long maintained ties to the state. And, to quote the Star Tribune, "One does not cheat on taxes by paying them in the wrong state." Of course, that raises questions of competence, but given that the GOP has lowered the bar so far, I'm not sure this makes Franken quite the disasterous sleaze, say, a Saxby Chambliss is. Franken or Limbaugh? Give me a break. Given a choice between humor and unmitigated hatred directed at the weakest members of our society, I'll choose to laugh every time.

I hope the right does nominate Limbaugh. And Hannity. And Palin. And Savage. And every other bullying loser their sorry fevered minds can dredge up. Call me a bully as well - I'll be dancing on those graves and look forward to hearing them whine and whine and whine! Boo hoo hoo!

The American people are finally standing up to these jerks!

Posted by Dwight Wall at 01/04/2009 @ 3:50pm
Well, Jomamma, you answered me twice so I'll answer your answers. If it's not Franken's being an entertainer that bothers you, then there's no issue between us. But when you say there's nothing but celebrity under his belt, you're mistaken: he's worked for years as a writer and an entertainer, and neither of those things constitutes celebrity, though of course getting famous for them does, and at the same time proves that Franken was exceptionally good at his job. As for Reagan's being a governor first -- well, Franken will be a Senator first, and then perhaps become President. And I repeat: entertainer is a job like any other, and an entertainer who makes millions at it is not disqualified simply because he is an entertainer instead of a haberdasher or a cattle rancher. Your comments about his being a crook are not relevant to my point, though I think they are not true.

Posted by chessw at 01/04/2009 @ 4:08pm
Was Clinton a convicted felon? Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Bill Clinton is not a convicted felon, period.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/04/2009 @ 4:12pm
I love it. Al is a big laughing rat. He is chuckling like crazy right about now. Norm Coleman is the just about the slimeiest low life politician I have ever seen. He was in lock step with Bush for 6 years. The only thing amazing to me is that this election was this close. Congratulations Senator Al Franken. We all love a laughing rat, even if he is a carpetbagger. Lol.

Posted by mrsanfran at 01/04/2009 @ 4:16pm
"Comparing the Air America deal with the theft conducted by our nations bankers is laughable - for one thing it was both legal, and didn't exactly contribute to the current Bush Depression. '

Maybe, but Barney Frank, Johnson of Fanne and Freddie guys sure did...congress certainly hampered a tightening of loan regulations certainly did..

yopu can call it Bush economic collapse, but you would be a fool to just leave it there...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 4:35pm
Your comments about his being a crook are not relevant to my point, though I think they are not true.

Posted by chessw at 01/04/2009 @ 4:08pm

Check his tax history..a limosine liberal if there ever was one..

my preference is executive experience, which governorships or running a business does offer similar experiences...where one pays a price for decoisions...

this is my point...should this country fall so ar as to elect a Frankin for president, they I will indeed keep my power dry...and hit the streets...for the country would need to "water the tree with the blood of pariots"...however I miss quoted from memory...:)

then again..I am sure New York cant wait for another Senator Kennedy.....

I thought she would be senator Schlossberg...but somehow it doesnt have the same ring now...does it?

God help us all...

I want Jeb Bush...ok?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 4:41pm
The long history of the Coleman-Franken recount, which I hope is now approaching its conclusion (and a satisfying one indeed, for the Left!), can be read in detail at "Minnpost.com." I recommend it.

Posted by JakobFabian at 01/04/2009 @ 5:28pm
Jomamma--good to see that you can put down the bottle long enough to put out your senseless rants. Glad the motor skills haven't been drowned in alcohol yet.

Posted by onthehelm at 01/04/2009 @ 9:05pm
Well, as Dubya showed...

once you win...it pretty much doesn't matter HOW you won.

The GOP can scream "stolen election" all they want, but as 43 demonstrated, once you've got the office you can call it a "mandate".

Right, Republicans???

Posted by Mask at 01/04/2009 @ 9:56pm
Maybe, but Barney Frank, Johnson of Fanne and Freddie guys sure did...congress certainly hampered a tightening of loan regulations certainly did..

yopu can call it Bush economic collapse, but you would be a fool to just leave it there...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/04/2009 @ 4:35pm

Yea, that's nothing like acting like years of republican rule in both houses are nothing more than a piffle compared to the shadiness of certain democrats pertaining to the housing crisis.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and stop acting like a partisan fool. Although I'm guessing it's not much of an act.

BTW, your writing is WAY fucked up, some of the things you say are just barely decipherable. Stop hitting the sauce before you post.

Posted by TexasFlood at 01/04/2009 @ 10:32pm
What disturbs me about this situation is the fact that there had to be a recount in the first place. Obama beat McCain in Minnesota by 300,000 votes. That means a lot of Minnesotans who wanted Obama to be President didn't really care if they had a new senator who would support Obama or an old senator who wouldn't. That kind of voting booth stupidity is depressing.

Posted by kulak at 01/04/2009 @ 11:38pm
Onthehelm,

I see your point. I am having a difficult time typing on this iPhone. And that combined with my usual spelling failures does make my posts look like an after happy hour journalist.

Sorry. I will try to do better.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/05/2009 @ 12:47am
You know, the whole Country accepted Florida Secretary of State Kathryn Harris certification of George W. Bush's victory in Fla in 2000. It was bad for almost everyone but we survived and now Mr. Coleman should leave quietly by the side door.

Posted by gwats1957 at 01/05/2009 @ 04:27am
YourJomamma -> FRANKEN! (no i in it) Google Nasser Kazeminy & Norm Coleman.

Posted by iluvalfranken at 01/05/2009 @ 04:29am
I think Al Franken will make a great senator. He's not a crook. He's not a bully. He's not a wack job. He's not a liar. All of which means, of course, that he's unacceptable to Republicans.

Posted by Dwight Wall at 01/04/2009 @ 2:49pm

WTF? Is this opposite day?

He is a crook. He cheated on his taxes and was forced to publicly refile income taxes in CA because his Senate run brought attention to his hypocrisy of saying higher taxes but cheating on his own.

He is a bully. He famously tackled a heckler when some other Democrat was speaking.

He is a whack job. The last book I read was a ridiculous revenge fantasy toward President Bush.

He is a liar. He tells whatever lie is conveneint to whip up hysteria and hatred against Bush.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 08:55am
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50405S20090105

Hey, congratulations. You guys stole another senate seat. Through illegal vote creation you overrulled the voters for the third time this decade (SD Senate; WA Governor; MN Senate).

And you still bitch about 2000 when the NYT spent 8 months with the ballots and conceded Bush won.

You guys are amazing in your adherance to Stalin; The person who counts the votes determines the winner.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 08:56am
Ever willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood with hollow chest-beating war cries, the insipid poet-warrior JOMAMMA writes:

"I will indeed keep my power dry (if Franken becomes POTUS)...and hit the streets...for the country would need to "water the tree with the blood of pariots"..."

JOMAMMA need not worry about keeping this boast. And not just because the last senator to go directly from the upper chamber to POTUS before BHO was JFK in 1960. He need not worry because, as a loumouthed rightwing vulgarian, JOMAMMA is expert at assuming tuff guy poses -- but it is all gaseous excretion. As I wrote on January 3:

"JOMAMMA's instincts are revealing about the real nature of the right. In practice, JOMAMMA morphs into John Kerry on Vietnam. Kerry famously said, c. 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?". In this spirit, JOMAMMA did not go to Vietnam. Says his draft number was low, anyway -- because, you see, **rightwing patriotism has to take a number and then stand in line and wait to be called**."

So, when JOMAMMA says that he will keep his "powder dry", he really means the nose powder. Being as buxom as Marilyn Monroe, perhaps JOMAMMA will use his hairy jiggle to entertain the troops.

Finally, just what is it with these rightwingers from anti-America precincts who pontificate darkly on the prospect of armed conflict with the pro-America zones? Whether its (unelected) Ayatollah Todd and Saint Sarah with their "Alaska First!" successionism (DC is, you see, the seat of the Evil Empire and its batallions of black helicopters), or LVLIBRETY (AL HURRA) marching in lockstep behind them, these hard right bozos betray a deep-seated hatred for Americans and a chidishly petty desire to disrupt its unified functioning.

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/05/2009 @ 09:33am
Posted by comanchenation at 01/05/2009

COMMANCHE !!!!

As this is a Christian nation by definition, and you are a Christian, do you belive that young children should be sent to the Jeffs-Koresh compound to save them from the grasp of the gawdless public schools? Or, if no compound is in the vicinity, should the children be chained to the radiator (for their own good) so that they may hear the word of the lawd through some home-made home-skoolin' from respected adult authorities like their sometimes semi-sober parents? Answer below...

__ Yes, I believe

__ No. I think. Is this a trick (librul) question?

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/05/2009 @ 09:40am
That kind of voting booth stupidity is depressing.

Posted by kulak at 01/04/2009 @ 11:38pm

I love it! The moral vanity of believing that your vote is a simple function of your intelligence.

I mean, only an idiot could support one Democrat and not another. My God, how can people be so stupid as to diagree with my values?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 10:00am
He is a liar. He tells whatever lie is conveneint to whip up hysteria----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 08:55am

You mean like "We know Saddam has reconsitutted his nuclear program" and "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"?

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 10:13am
""JOMAMMA's instincts are revealing about the real nature of the right. In practice, JOMAMMA morphs into John Kerry on Vietnam. Kerry famously said, c. 1971, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?". In this spirit, JOMAMMA did not go to Vietnam. Says his draft number was low, anyway -- because, you see, **rightwing patriotism has to take a number and then stand in line and wait to be called**."

Wrong...

draft number 311 ..1972 war ended by Nixon as well as draft ending..

I am glad in hind sight I didn't go to VN..the libs ran the war for 12 years and at best tried to lose it. Should be an example to all history to keep libs and military apart...

BTW,what was your rank?

as to your mumblings about Christians and Koresh...

he wasn't a Christian by any definition I can imagine...

and you definately show symptoms of having been chained to a radiator yourself...maybe even under water...

You need a vacation..get yourself checked out...

you must have a dangerously high blood pressure level...may I suggest some higly salted pocorn for treatment?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/05/2009 @ 10:44am
You mean like "We know Saddam has reconsitutted his nuclear program" and "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"?

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 10:13am

Yeah...looks like Saddam lied...and paid for it...so will FrankEn...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/05/2009 @ 10:47am
Thank God it's over, I hope Franken will do a good job and for those who will start on about him being a "comedian"...well the Republicans had Fred Thompson running for President and he was an actor....now there was a grand choice!!!

Posted by Caj at 01/05/2009 @ 11:06am
Fred? a mediocre actor and an absolute disaster as a candidate. he made McCain seem smooth by comparison.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 11:18am
Jefferson Quote:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people."

Says it all!

Posted by JamesJoyce at 01/05/2009 @ 11:35am
With the regularity of a severe case of chronic diahrrea, JOMAMMA acts the dutiful rightwinger and drags out "stabbed in the back":

"the libs ran the war for 12 years and at best tried to lose it."

With this kind of half-assed rightwing cliched drivel, JO purports to have a grasp on fact and detail of the matter.

Questions, JOMAMMA. Questions about why you believe what you say you believe...

1. Which tactics and strategies are you specifically referencing above? Was carpet bombing with more ordnance than was dropped in all the theaters of WWII an effort to "lose"? Be very specific now, we really do want to see you display all of your vast knowledge.

2. Which libs in particular are you referring to? Westmoreland, the Marxist-Leninist pamphleteer? McNamara? Nixon? Kissinger? Don't forget now, about half the casaulties occured on Nixon's watch after January 1969. Please describe, again, in grim detail, the closet pacificism and hidden hippydom of the Nixon team.

3. By the way, what role did those ungrateful bastard Vietnamese play in all of this conflagaration? Do you suppose that, maybe, they fought with ardor for their nation's self-determination?

4. Since you will be saying this in a few years anyway, if not sooner, please rehearse for us which "liberals" will be assigned "stabbed in the back" blame for George W Loser's Vanity Elective Invasion? W Loser himself? Dummy? DarthDick? Or, lemme guess, you will ape the revisionist and relativizied history where *Clinton* invaded and occupied Iraq, under the command of the all-powerful State Senator Obama, with troops in the field commanded by the Ghandi-style pacifist Daschle and his disciple Barney Frank.

You rightwing freaks will be saying all this soon enough, so start practicing your lines...

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/05/2009 @ 11:37am
actually it says very little. the US during Jefferson's time was almost exclusively agrarian. sorry, no valid comparison can be made here.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 11:38am
you would not seek a comparison with a doctor and his methods from Jeffersonian america. or ask a blacksmith how to fix your Lexus.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 11:40am
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/05/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

you're very kind here. like one would speak to a child. very apropos.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 11:43am
More gut-grinding convulsions of chronic verbal diahrrea from JOMAMMA:

"looks like Saddam lied...and paid for it...so will FrankEn...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/05/2009 @ 10:47am"

Gotta explain this one a little bit further, JOMAMMA.

Are you saying that in 2002-2003, almost up to the moment that shock and awe commenced, that Saddam's Ba'athist regime was telling Blix's UNMOVIC the lie that ... it was armed to the teeth?

Errr, why then did UNMOVIC find no such weapons that, as a dutiful rightwinger making dumb-wrong-stupid-shit up as you go along, you insist Iraq was actually lying about possessing? And even though Dummy said -- on camera -- "we know where they are" while MushroomCloudCondi was talking up nucleur winter on national TV (which should have helped UNMKOVIC find the WMDs, if it were true).

Could it be that...the NeoClowns were the ones that were lying in effort to scare the fuck out of the public about a totally disarmed and beaten nation? What do you think, JO-MAMMARIES?

And we will not even bother discussing that Iraq was desperate to prove to the world that it had no weapons to get out from under the economic sanctions that went back to 1990 and had decimated the country. Not that that would have any bearing on whether Saddam's regime was actually being more forthright than W Loser's team of neoClown freaks.

You do get that, right, JOMAMMARIES? That the ass-wiping failure George W Loser, who carried out a viscous assualt on American values and governance from the inside and that you twice voted for, was actually LESS TRUTHFUL than Saddam? Now that's setting standards abysmally low -- and then failing to meet them. But that is the rightwing way of failure, and always has been, with W Loser as a particularly vivid case.

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/05/2009 @ 11:57am
Further, Franken is floating trial balloons about asking the Senate to overrule the MN results and Coleman is not. Being as objective as I can, I think Franken has virtually no chance. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 4:12pm | Ah, well, you can't always be right.

Posted by hdthoreau at 01/04/2009 @ 3:04pm

Well, you may think this is a "gotcha" but it is clear that I didn't think there was any way for Franken to win if the vote were fairly counted. And clearly they weren't.

In many areas, the vote totals are higher because ballots were counted twice and where that helps Franken, they are counted. In the 133 where they know ballots were counted twice on Elction night, they are counted to help Franken. Where things hurt Franken the courts rule in Franken's favor.

Franken stole this seat. Bitch about 2000 all you want, but the NYT recounted for 8 months and said Bush had more legal vote under any scenario the courts considered. The only scenario Gore won was the count that took 8 months and there was no Consitutionally accepted way for Gore to win.

Franken's a thief.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:07pm
Further, Franken is floating trial balloons about asking the Senate to overrule the MN results and Coleman is not. Being as objective as I can, I think Franken has virtually no chance. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/03/2008 @ 4:12pm | Ah, well, you can't always be right.

Posted by hdthoreau at 01/04/2009 @ 3:04pm

Well, you may think this is a "gotcha" but it is clear that I didn't think there was any way for Franken to win if the vote were fairly counted. And clearly they weren't.

In many areas, the vote totals are higher because ballots were counted twice and where that helps Franken, they are counted. In the 133 where they know ballots were counted twice on Elction night, they are counted to help Franken. Where things hurt Franken the courts rule in Franken's favor.

Franken stole this seat. Bitch about 2000 all you want, but the NYT recounted for 8 months and said Bush had more legal vote under any scenario the courts considered. The only scenario Gore won was the count that took 8 months and there was no Consitutionally accepted way for Gore to win.

Franken's a thief.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:07pm
Al Franken, OJ of the Senate.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:08pm
Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 11:43am

EMILE,

You are being too kind about the kindness.

But, as we saw yesterday (to cite just one instance), SJCHERMAK ran off boo-hooing about that big, bad, meanie mean question posed to him. Specifically, SJ was asked if he could just list a few positive accomplishments that Bush can claim after almost a decade in office.

And then, he just ran away with a big boo-boo...

JOMAMMA is less likely to run away and sulk. When asked to defend what he has said in plain sight, I predict that he will spastically kick up alot of fecal dust and change the topic to, oh, I dunno...maybe the Vincent Foster "assassination", or filegate, perhaps the mere fact of Barney Frank, even Michelle Obama's deeply subversive undergrad "thesis" (manifesto???) at Princeton. Just about any laughable psuedo-scandel peddled by the right across the past 40 years will do.

Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 01/05/2009 @ 12:10pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:07pm

Gotta love this irony. 8 years later and now REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES are the ones complaining about "stolen elections".

Ergo, Franken should do what Dubya did....call it a "mandate" and not budge one inch on his agenda!

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 12:11pm
Ergo, Franken should do what Dubya did....call it a "mandate" and not budge one inch on his agenda! Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 12:11pm

Of course they are. Politics is rife with hypocrites. They are all just a bunch of partisan idiots who can't see past their party slogan.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/05/2009 @ 12:23pm
or ask a blacksmith how to fix your Lexus.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 11:40am

If you need a new axle forged, or a new forged camshaft blank, or need your tires/oil/fluids changed, need something bolted off/on, need metal body work replaced or need wheels trued...

we blacksmiths would be happy to do it.

From buggy wheels to turbo props, we do it all.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 12:24pm
Gotta love this irony. 8 years later and now REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES are the ones complaining about "stolen elections".

Ergo, Franken should do what Dubya did....call it a "mandate" and not budge one inch on his agenda!

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 12:11pm

How is that ironic? Gore tried to use lawyers to alter the outcome of an election an failed. Franken tired to use lawyers to change the outcome of an election and succeeded. You find it ironic that I distinguish between these two things?

Do you distinguish between the thief and his victim?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

no aspersions against blacksmiths. when's the last time you used your I'm sure prodigious skills on a car? that is my point.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 12:28pm
Let's see, Chimpy McFlightsuit saw a threat (that did not exist) and reacted with a trillion dollar war.

Chimpy saw a threat, the bursting bubble of real estate loans, but was incapapble of fending off his own party while they controlled congress, then was unable to fend of the strong arms of Pelosi and Reid to fix Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Meanwhile he went out and spoke about "ownership society", encouraged us to spend our way out of the war/recession.

Clearly the blame lies entirely with the liberals in congress (a small minority)and the people that lost their jobs and can no longer pay the mortgage.

Why was Saddam an easier target than Fannie Mae and the liberals in congress?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 12:30pm
when's the last time you used your I'm sure prodigious skills on a car? that is my point.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 12:28pm

Sunday Jan 4, 2009. Forged a new muffler bracket and worked on the end piece of the muffler to open it up.

(note to self: do not back into things that offer more resistance than 16 ga tubing)

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 12:33pm
Al is intelligent and I assure you that you don't want to debate a comedian. If his ADHD doesn't take hold, he will be a good Senator for a long time. My worry is that he will lose interest.

Posted by DuffyShort at 01/05/2009 @ 12:33pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm

I want to read about the "trunk ballots" again.

You were so cute, all red in the face, asking us about "shame" and being cockroaches...

till it turned out you were spreading false propaganda...again.

Do you think Chimpy will find some Iraqi wmd as he cleans out his office? Maybe he could get a another good chuckle over the whole "misunderstanding".

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 12:38pm
Do you distinguish between the thief and his victim? Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm

Actually the recount was automatic last I checked. So Frankens lawyers didn't have to do much. And since recounts are apart of most states voting rules I don't see why you hold everyone who calls a recount as being a fraud.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/05/2009 @ 12:43pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/05/2009 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

suffer. and repeat after me, senator Franken.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 1:14p

President Barak Hussein Obama

You know, to read someones liturgy against Gov Ventura (supported strongly by conservatives BTW!) and soon to be Sen Franken...after that person supported Chimpy McFlightsuit for 8 years with hardly a breath of dissent...

well, it leaves me laughing my ass off. It is like someone supporting a draft dodger over a decorated veteran while declaring we should "support the troops"...oh wait, it is not "like" it IS...

hypocrites to the max. We need no further proof than Darin to know that ideology trumps common sense with the 29%ers.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 1:20pm
Is blacksmithing irrelevant in todays technology driven world? Don't let the common misperception drive your ideology...

"Feat manufactures a wide range of closed die forgings, to the highest technical specifications and most complicated of shapes in carbon, stainless, titanium and super alloy steels, raw and machined from 0.2 lbs. to 1,000 lbs.

Over 25 years of experience in supplying steel forgings to the petrochemical, mining, agricultural, earth moving, automotive, rail, nuclear and lifting industries.

ISO 9002 approved. Material, manufacturing and quality accreditation from leading international institutes including TUV, NKK, DNV, and Lloyds Register. In the process of developing QS 9000 Accreditation. All dies are constructed in house using CAD/CAM.

Feat Group's other divisions produce precision forgings of carbon and alloy steel with hatebur hotmatic presses, forged carbon, stainless and alloy steel fittings, lifting devices, machining services on CNC lathes and milling machines."

We do it all. We made the indsutrial revolution possible, we invented vice grips and we can make you a nice camisole out of sheet metal to boot! (chastity belts on request, single or multiple keyed locks)

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 1:30pm
I am a life long Minnesotan and I am proud that Al Franken will be my new senator. Al has worked very hard for the past 2 years, meeting thousands of Minnesota voters, listening to our concerns. He will do a fine job, I am confident of this. He is a very smart man. He ran for the job because he wants it, he could be living the good life in Hollywood but that is not Al. I am proud of him.

Posted by windyjean at 01/05/2009 @ 1:32pm
WIND, hope you are correct. It will be a nice change of pace to see a buffon for hire playing a senator, instead of the other way around.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 1:47pm
I doubt that Franken won this election fairly. But maybe he did. We will never really know the truth.

Either way, his rubber-stamp impact on the US Senate will be immaterial. He's a good fit with the rest of the democratic culture of corruption. At least he didn't have to buy his seat. Well, as far as we know anyway.

I've read all of Franken's books, but never met the man personally. Based only on the content of his writings and interviews I've seen broadcast, I don't consider him a person of character. Sarcasm is his only strength. Now, I love good sarcasm, but I don't think sarcasm is a virtue to people who are actually responsible for important things.

Like the pompous food critic who can't cook, Frankin might find real life in the kitchen very uncomfortable.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 1:51pm
I would be proud to call Al Franken my Senator!! I fyou have ever spent the time listening to his talk shows you would know he stands up for culpability in Government. Meaning he won't stand for corruption whatsoever. So he has an odd sense of humor? Good for him, some of the best people I know have one.

Posted by Guitar Man at 01/05/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm

Darin, WHO was the first to sue....Gore or Bush?

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 2:07pm
Darin, WHO was the first to sue....Gore or Bush?

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 2:07pm

Bush won the first recount. Bush won the second recount. (Bush won the newspaper recount as well.)

Who sued first is immaterial. The only pertinent question is who was trying to overturn the will of the people and who was trying to protect it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 3:08pm
Who sued first is immaterial.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 3:08pm

Gore tried to use lawyers to alter the outcome of an election an failed.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm

Rather material to THIS statement, Darin. If BUSH was first (yes, LL, coming to you), then it was BUSH who first "tried to use lawyers to alter the outcome of an election"....wasn't it?

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 3:13pm
Actually the recount was automatic last I checked. So Frankens lawyers didn't have to do much. And since recounts are apart of most states voting rules I don't see why you hold everyone who calls a recount as being a fraud.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/05/2009 @ 12:43pm

It's not the recount, it's having your lawyers determin the ballots.

The increase in votes for Franken were much much greater than the increase in votes for Obama, and every other Democrat on any ballot in the state combined. That just doesn't happen by chance.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 3:15pm
Obama +31 Smith -12 Dog catcher +2 Jones -3 Sanchez +7 Johnson 0 Anderson -1 Franken +520

Yep, Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 3:18pm
LVLIB-

November 8: A series of early-morning events set the stage for a protracted presidential battle. First, by about 2:15 a.m., the major networks call Florida and the election for Bush. Gore, hearing that he probably will lose Florida by about 50,000 votes, calls the Texas governor and concedes.

45 minutes later, Gore retracts concesssion.

By 4:15 a.m., the major networks are forced to pull the estimate that Bush is the president-elect.

BUSH and Gore's campaigns respond by sending teams of lawyers to Florida. The close race triggers an automatic recount of ballots under state law.

November 9: Gore's team, led by former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, requests a hand recount of ballots in four Florida counties -- Palm Beach, Dade, Broward and Volusia -- and a circuit judge orders Palm Beach County not to certify its results.

November 10: The Florida machine recount is completed. Unofficial results, gathered by the Associated Press, give Bush a lead of only 327 votes out of nearly 6 million cast.

November 12: Palm Beach County officials vote to conduct a full hand recount of presidential votes; Volusia County begins its own hand count; Bush's legal team, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, goes to federal court seeking to block manual recounts.

November 13: Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris says she will not extend a deadline of 5 p.m. EST on November 14 for receiving all state election results except for absentee ballots coming from overseas. Gore's team promises a legal challenge. A federal judge turns down the Bush team's attempt to stop manual recounts.

November 14: Harris delays certification of the state's votes until 2 p.m. EST

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 3:19pm
November 8: A series of early-morning events set the stage for a protracted presidential battle. First, by about 2:15 a.m., the major networks call Florida and the election for Bush.

Mask, I'm working from memory here, but if I remember correctly, FIRST, they called the state for Gore. CBS did this at about 7:20 pm when the polls were still open in the heavily Republican Florida pan handle. After the polls closed in Florida, networks were forced to withdraw their projection of Gore in Florida.

The soonest anything you mentioned was SECOND.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 4:12pm
military absentee ballots counted. Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/05/2009 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

nice try. the issue was military ballots which were postmarked late. they should not have been counted.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/05/2009 @ 4:12pm
Rather material to THIS statement, Darin. If BUSH was first (yes, LL, coming to you), then it was BUSH who first "tried to use lawyers to alter the outcome of an election"....wasn't it?

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 3:13pm

The "outcome" after the first count was Bush. The "outcome" after the recount was Bush. Have you been drinking the Kool Aid so long that you think Bush is so stupid he tried to change the result of an election he'd won (meaning he was trying to get his lawyers to cause him to lose?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 4:15pm
WHAT! the "liberal media" called for Bush?

WOW, how did that happen?

Oh yeah, A Bush working at FOX. Funny about that "librool media"!.

I could be wrong, but I remember that it was Bush's crowd of non-lawyers (tee hee) that asked the Supremes to decide. Also, it was the Bush team that tried to stop the recount, was it not? Didn't they actually burst into a room of canvassers and DEMAND the counting STOP!

--The only pertinent question is who was trying to overturn the will of the people and who was trying to protect it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 3:08pm ---

Yes, we know that the republicans have a loooonnggg history of making sure that all that want to vote can and do. It is well documented, in the revisionist history books.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 4:16pm
So, if the MN canvassers declare Franken the winner, after recounts allowed, nay commanded by law, then according to Darin the election was ...stolen? Even after everybodies lawyers and staff had access to everything everybody had access to?

But Florida, with it's tens of thousands of "felons" illegaly removed from the voting ballots, confusing ballot structure, republican Sec of State and head canvasser, a league of high priced lawyers and a republican Supreme Court under questionable legal standard that DID NOT set precedent (which is what the Supremes are SUPPOSED to do)...

is the example of how it SHOULD work?

neo-con logic at it's finest.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 4:25pm
HURRAY !!!!!!

Finally a liberal that is not a namby-pamby. Calling O'Reilly a liar to his face endeared Al to me forevermore. This guy is smart and tough.

The title of his book says it all !

Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

I LOVE IT and am really looking forward to seeing Al in the Senate. There are going to be some memorable moments in the next 6 years.

Posted by SK9 at 01/05/2009 @ 4:25pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 4:15pm

Darin, I know you're rapidly trying to change the subject, but let's get back to what the point was...

"Gore tried to use lawyers to alter the outcome of an election an failed."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm

As is becoming quite clear to those with memories....or even you....that is not what happened. Gore AND BUSH sent teams down to Florida....Gore's wanted a manual recount, Bush's wanted to STOP a recount.

Later, Bush's lawyers tried to sue to prevent the recont.

So once again, your "Dems-bad, Repubs-good" partisanship gets hoisted on its own petard of....the facts.

Want to try an old MARYBRETBRAD "walk-back" where you now say "Okay, I'm not saying BOTH sides didn't do it!"????

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 4:47pm
BTW....good time to repost this again (given DTT on this thread)--

"The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn't play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will "do anything" to win.

The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself."----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 1:00pm

A Well-Deserved Prize for An Outspoken Liberal posted by Christopher Hayes on 10/14/2008 @ 10:46am

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 4:49pm
Thank God it's over, I hope Franken will do a good job and for those who will start on about him being a "comedian"...well the Republicans had Fred Thompson running for President and he was an actor....now there was a grand choice!!!

Posted by Caj at 01/05/2009 @ 4:58pm
what's with this anti-hollywood nonsense conservatives put out all the time?

their hero is ronald reagan!

Posted by urmygyro at 01/05/2009 @ 5:02pm
I doubt that Franken won this election fairly. But maybe he did. We will never really know the truth.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 1:51

That's just how we felt about Bush in both elections....no fun is it?

Posted by Caj at 01/05/2009 @ 5:02pm
The increase in votes for Franken were much much greater than the increase in votes for Obama, and every other Democrat on any ballot in the state combined. That just doesn't happen by chance. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/200

Weren't Coleman's lawyers determining the ballots too? Or is that completely ignored? They got to choose what they wanted counted as well. You don't think they played the same exact game? Please Darin. Get it together this hyper-partisanship is ridiculous. The facts are right in front of your face yet you choose to ignore one sides indiscretions in order to attack the other. They are both ridiculous. The fact that Franken won is a sad statement about the Republican party because Franken shouldn't have even gotten close enough to force and automatic recount. Coleman more than likely would have had to step down soon anyway.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:07pm
"He's a good fit with the rest of the democratic culture of corruption."

This statement is really funny to me. Consider for a second that Republicans have Richard Nixon, one of the greatest examples of Presidential corruption in the history of this country amongst their ranks. Then take into account other Republicans up on criminal charges right now INCLUDING Coleman and then explain to me how you can make that inane statement with a straight face? Politicians are corrupt whether they are Democrat or Republican.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:09pm
the partisan bickering here will never end. sometimes i think it's sad that you people spend soooo much time arguing over things you have no control over. then i think - well, they could be up to worse. let them think this matters.

Posted by urmygyro at 01/05/2009 @ 5:18pm
Posted by urmygyro at 01/05/2009 @ 5:18pm

I could agree with you, except that we are the"voters" in question, and the citizens that have to abide by these decisions and policies. We should have control.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 5:23pm
This is what I need help understanding;

the IL governor has appointed a replacement Senator according to state law.

the gov has not been convicted of a crime

the replacement senator has neither been convicted nor implicated in any wrongdoing.

The Senate (dems included) do not want to seat the replacement.

They would have seated Ted Stevens, a CONVICTED felon.

I understand wanting to remove your body from an ongoing scandal, but it looks like Blogoyovich has followed the rules. On what basis will the Senate deny the replacement a seat? Bad vibes?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 5:28pm
Posted by Caj at 01/05/2009 @ 5:02pm

Well, it is certainly no newsflash that's how democrats felt about Bush's two elections Caj. I'm glad we can agree it is no fun for any of us.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:09pm

CC, the corruption on the democratic side of the aisle is too easily ignored here on the Nation's blogs, so I often feel compelled to remind everyone. We are in total agreement that corruption in our current federal and state governments is non-partisan and out of control. My reference to the culture of corruption in the democratic party is not an attempt to absolve the republicans. It is to point out the futility of us saying "our side isn't corrupt."

We're both screwed.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:34pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:34pm

1 more party than China.

Still think we are the shining beacon of democracy?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 5:38pm
I liked the comic who suggested that members of Congress should dress like NASCAR drivers. You know, in suits sporting the logos of their corporate sponsors. Would add a nice layer of truth to the CSPAN feed...

We are being herded into a world government. The destruction of our Constitution is an inside job.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:48pm
Franken is a thief - period.

I doubt that this will bother many on the left because, as a species, they have no concept of shame (or honor) but the fact remains that this election is being stolen just as the governship in WA was (and the 2000 presidential election was attempted to be).

I hope every time Franken attempts to speak on the floor of the Senate that someone forcefully reminds him of his illegitimate status. I propose refering to him as "the Indistinguished Gentleman from Minnisota". It won't happen of course but it would be highly amusing if it did.

Oh, and p.s. - he's a thief.

Posted by vertigoskippy at 01/05/2009 @ 5:55pm
Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 5:38pm

Hi Crab, I get what you mean, but my global travels have led me to dread the thought of a world without the United States. Despite our many faults.

But as I stated before, our country, our liberty is being destroyed from within. Our current "economic crisis" is going as planned for the people who created it and are now chartered with our rescue.

Americans have only our ignorance to blame.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:59pm
Oh, and p.s. - he's a thief.

Posted by vertigoskippy at 01/05/2009 @ 5:55pm

And just when I thought the assclowns couldn't get more assy, along comes you!

The sad part is, Franken is a clown. Your statements do nothing but make me compare him to yourself and people like you, and realize how much better he is compared to the alternative.

Good job ass!

Posted by TexasFlood at 01/05/2009 @ 6:08pm
How sad is it to realize that a republican incumbent was beaten by....the voice of Air America? How does that make the so-called conservatives (and by that I mean the neo-conservatives, aka socialists) feel deep inside their corrupt and dishonest souls? That one of your own was beat by Stuart Smalley???

LOL! How's that free market working out?

Posted by TexasFlood at 01/05/2009 @ 6:12pm
I'll also wait for the "left" to spew annoying and patronizing "stop picking on Al" speeches.

I think the message coming from all of this nonsense is: Abandon ship!

Posted by TexasFlood at 01/05/2009 @ 6:16pm
One strange thing about Frankin. He's not a career politician.

Also, he's a cum laude Harvard grad, which really isn't that easy.

Maybe he'll be a pleasent surprise and upset the left wing koolaid chuggers even more than Obama has already.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 6:34pm
I still don't understand why the DNC didn't put forth a little effort in the Georgia senate runoff.

A couple of visits by Obama and Chamblis would've been toast.

Posted by bleedingheart at 01/05/2009 @ 6:54pm
Panetta will now guide the CIA

reporting to the mamaloving Blair

and we can rest assured that come what may

he's going to give it to us fair and square.

Posted by chinpoko at 01/05/2009 @ 7:27pm
To YourJomamma (it hurts to type that), the person who declared that Franken "has no legitimacy," and the guy who claims, without explanation, that Franken is "a thief," two words:

Ha. Ha.

Posted by Citizen54 at 01/05/2009 @ 7:58pm
Car54,

After all the discussion here today and all you cough up is, "Ha ha" ?

You have found a home here.

But for shits and giggles, you should take a look at how many votes were counted for Al twice , how the voters intention was determined, who was on canvassing board, which SC judges were on he commitees, which jdges will now decide their own talleys in a court challenge, how many votes "appeared" days after the elections in trunks, how all of them went Franken, and how votes were given to Franken when the paper back ups do not exist.

Who wouldn't sue?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/05/2009 @ 9:21pm
I hope every time Franken attempts to speak on the floor of the Senate that someone forcefully reminds him of his illegitimate status.-----Posted by vertigoskippy at 01/05/2009 @ 5:55pm

8 years later...but that SURE sounds familiar!

LOL

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 9:26pm
Why do people think the idea of "Senator Franken" is so strange or lacking in legitimacy? It's not like this is particularly weird for US politics:

1. Bush won in 2000 with less popular vote, and he ran a baseball team 2. Republicans nominated and elected an actor twice to the presidency (Reagan) 3. A habberdasher has become President (Truman) 4. An exterminator has become Speaker of the House (DeLay)

What's so illegitimate about a comedian as Senator? I don't think his "satire" is particularly funny (mainly because I think we have a different idea of what satire is, in the UK), but why should that delegitimize his candidacy and election?

I also agree that "Ha. Ha." is hardly the most winning of debate arguments. Way to make the democrats' case...

Everyone seems to be very angry on this thread.

- Fabius

Posted by safergus at 01/05/2009 @ 9:33pm
Posted by safergus at 01/05/2009 @ 9:33pm

Just a correction...Tom Delay was House Majority Leader, not Speaker.

(Though given Hastert, you may nominally be correct...heheh)

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 9:42pm
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 4:47pm 

This is a bad response because it misses the point. You don't disrupt the system simply by sending lawyers; you send lawyers so that if the system goes wrong, you're ready to respond. Darin's point is that the operative status quo was that Bush was winning, so the claim that Bush was the first to try altering the system is just bizarre.

You also, curiously, don't respond to another important point (one that makes Michael Moore's "Fox thesis" look ridiculous): Florida was called initially for Gore, while the polls were still open in heavily Republican areas. When they called it for Bush, all the voting was done.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/05/2009 @ 9:59pm
I liked the comic who suggested that members of Congress should dress like NASCAR drivers. You know, in suits sporting the logos of their corporate sponsors.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 5:48pm

uh, that was me, frei.

well,

i think politicians should wear NASCAR style jackets with all their corporate sponsors logos......

that would be transparency.

and given people's need to feel "branded" (ouch!),

it would probably be good for business.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 1:11pm 

comedian? the gall!

Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2009 @ 10:05pm
LANDSLIDE!! Well at least Sandra Day O'Conner isn't the deciding vote.

Posted by winyahn at 01/05/2009 @ 10:06pm
I still don't understand why the DNC didn't put forth a little effort in the Georgia senate runoff.

A couple of visits by Obama and Chamblis would've been toast.

Posted by bleedingheart at 01/05/2009 @ 6:54pm

Are you serious? Obama lost GA big time. If he couldn't win GA (or most the south for that matter..) what makes you think a "few visits" from him would have cost Chamblis his re-election?

Posted by ACook at 01/05/2009 @ 10:35pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/05/2009 @ 9:59pm

1. Darin's point was that "Gore tried to use lawyers to alter the outcome of an election an failed."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm

That is not ture. He was asking for a recount, the BUSH people objected to such a recount and sent in their lawyers to stop it. How does recounting the votes automatically mean "altering the election"...unless you (or Darin) want to say that Gore was going to cheat (a charge Darin didn't make...but I'm sure would, if he hadn't left in the face of the quote I threw out of his minutes later!)

Gore's "use of laywers" in no way meant "altering the outcome of an election", but fighting for his rights as a candidate THE SAME AS BUSH did.

But see, Darin wanted to make his partisan point (as he always does...he's basically a slightly more soft-spoken version of RIO/RED/COMANCHEE...whereby "Dems are always evil)....and it was flawed as it usually is, because it only harshly cricitizes ONE side, then (in his previous MARYBRET mode) he backs down and tries to sound "bipartisan" and "okay,okay...BOTH sides do it!" (to try to save face)

Which, by the way, is similar to YOUR usual modus operandi, which is to project an intellectual objection ...but always in support of the Right or right-wing posters, while claiming to eschew their same partisanship.

2. The calling of Florida for Gore was based on geographic ignorance of the Media, by which they included ALL of Florida in an EAST COAST closing of the polls at 7pm. They ignored the Panhandle which is both on Central Time AND (like much of northern Florida) a Republican area.

Like much of "Florida-2000" this was taken as a "conspiracy" and run with....this time by the Right and the Republicans.

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 10:47pm
Posted by ACook at 01/05/2009 @ 10:35pm

ACOOK, bleeding is a GOP poser. He's a conservative like you, trying to pretend he's a "liberal Naderite". He was "outed" as such back in the Fall.

He gave himself away several times before the election, trying to slip in a "You know, REAL progressives should vote for Nader" and "Obama's going to be a sell-out"...but not in the way CRABWALK or BKOOL did....and then using right-wing talking points and even a few conservative issue stances, exposing his REAL agenda.

Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 10:50pm
the NYT recounted for 8 months and said Bush had more legal vote under any scenario the courts considered. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:07pm |

The NYT/Miami Herald also stated that, had every eligible vote in every county in Florida been counted, Al Gore would have won Florida and thus, the White House. Al Gore's mistake was to not have requested a full state recount. Hindsight is 20/20.

Posted by Merckx61 at 01/05/2009 @ 11:10pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/05/2009 @ 10:05pm

My sincerest apologies Frosty for my not remembering where I'd first read the NASCAR quip. It is such a good one and I should have remembered the proper source.

Hey, on the upside, it shows I read your stuff. :-)

Thanks for setting the record straight.

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 11:17pm
Comedian? I meant, uh, poet!

Posted by freiheit1 at 01/05/2009 @ 11:19pm
- http://mediamatters.org/items/200811190019

-------- From the November 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight: Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman was certified the winner in his race against Al Franken today. Coleman won by a mere 215 votes. ... to support Coleman, a stunning statistic.

--------

Oh this is so rich.

FuxNews is a Big Fat LIAR.

Shut up, O'Rudely, shutupshutupshutup

-

Posted by Meremark at 01/06/2009 @ 12:11am
"... the NYT recounted for 8 months and said Bush had more legal vote under any scenario the courts considered. The only scenario Gore won was the count that took 8 months ...." - Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:07pm

That's hilariously stupid. And false. That combo is the GOP base.

www.BushWatch.org/gorebush.htm

ConsortiumNews.com - Foreground: Gore's Victory By Robert Parry - November 12, 2001

The Actual Findings

... a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

"Full Review Favors Gore," the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split ....

The new, fuller study found that Gore won

. . regardless of which standard was applied . .

and even when varying county judgments were factored in. ... This core finding of Gore's Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs ....

www.BradBlog.com/?p=6769

GOP 'IT GURU' DIES IN SOLO PLANE CRASH ... interview with OH attorney Arnebeck, who had sought Connell's protection after reported threats from Rove ...

www.WayneMadsenReport.com December 22-23, 2008 --

... learned from knowledegable Republican Party sources that Mike Connell, the GOP's information technology maestro who was killed in a suspicious plane crash ... was involved in a high-tech operation targeting ... Gore in 2000.

And --

E-mail to Mukasey: Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 Subject: Report of Rove threats against witness To: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Posted by Meremark at 01/06/2009 @ 12:58am
How soon they forget. Does anyone remember that the GOP staged a riot in Fla. to scare the officials from recounting ballots?

Also, didn't the Republicans have some actor from that horrible '70's tv show, The Love Boat, in the Senate for years?

Regardless, the best example for someone serving in an office for which they are clearly not qualified is W. He is not the caliber of intelligence required for POTUS and he proves it just about every time he speaks in public.

Posted by koroviev at 01/06/2009 @ 01:01am
Obama +31 Smith -12 Dog catcher +2 Jones -3 Sanchez +7 Johnson 0 Anderson -1 Franken +520

Yep, Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 3:18pm

LOL

And what is it about you that tells me you brushed off all mentions of fraud and shady dealings in Florida in 2000 as nothing more than nonsense perpetrated by the "left"?

BUT OBVIOUSLY, that tyrant of a man, Al Franken, with all of his money and power (lol!!!) using his lawyers to stick it to the little guy. Are you for real? The guy couldn't even figure out how to dodge $4,000 in taxes and he's twisting the arm of the MN voting works...

Excuse me if it's difficult to take you seriously.

Posted by TexasFlood at 01/06/2009 @ 02:07am
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 10:47pm 

There are really two points to respond to here. The first is "my MO," apparently. I actually don't think I fit snugly in either of the parties currently; I would consider myself more skeptical of military spending than many Republicans and perhaps more open to government spending for poverty than many Republicans, but also more socially (and to SOME extent, economically) conservative than many Democrats. To say otherwise, I think you'd have to ignore, for instance, the fact that my criticisms of liberal posters don't prevent reasonably frequent criticisms against more conservative posters like Liberty. A desire to find partisan motives in every poster does not a partisan motive create.

The second, and ACTUAL issue, is the election question. What I'm saying is this: both candidates brought lawyers down to Florida so that they could be prepared to assert their rights in case the situation deviated from what they believed was fair. Your response said that BECAUSE both sides brought lawyers, they intervened in the process at the same time. The crux of my response was pointing out that this is a bad standard; the standard isn't the BRINGING of lawyers, but the actual filing of suits. By that more rational standard, Gore was the first to act.

The only remaining question is whether the lawsuit constitutes intervention with the process. That also seems pretty clear. If the current status is X, and you're trying to compel a change of the status quo, you're therefore trying to alter the process. That isn't a judgment on whether your intervention is justified, but it is clear that it IS intervention.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 02:18am
Posted by Mask at 01/05/2009 @ 10:47pm 

As for the Florida point...I don't really buy the "anti-Bush conspiracy" argument, because I think it's pretty weak. It does, however, blow a pretty big hole in Michael Moore's argument, as I've pointed out without any contest.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 02:20am
But for shits and giggles, you should take a look at how many votes were counted for Al twice , how the voters intention was determined, who was on canvassing board.etc, etc...

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/05/2009 @ 9:21pm

Where were you in Florida 2000? The country sure could have used a guy like you.

The way this recount has been going, it's a near certainty that just as many votes for Coleman were counted twice as were Senator Franken's. So let's just let go and let Al, shall we?

Posted by ficheye at 01/06/2009 @ 04:55am
Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 02:18am

THRAWN, again 2 points-

1. Your critiques of the Right on this board border on the non-existant. But as soon Obama starts cutting out some nuclear weapons programs, SDI, or a few F-22 Raptors....and the Right here scream "He's gutting our defense!!!!!!"...

I'll await your response (and feel I'll keep waiting!)

2. How did Gore "intervene in the election" by asking for a recount in a close election? And how is trying to PREVENT that (by the Bush side) NOT "intervening"?

Darin's point is still flawed.

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 07:23am
Hey Mask, Shut up (he explained).

The law called for a recount and Bush won. End of story.

Oh, I guess not. Gore tried to use lawyers to get a second recount. Then he tried to use lawyers to alter the terms under which the second recount was conducted.

The statutorily required recount was finished and Bush was the winner by 1000 votes. Gore tried to use lawyers to change the rules after he'd lost. Bush was forced to use lawyers to prevent Gore from stealing the election.

Bush got 7 US Supreme court members to agree that the second recount was violating the equal protections clause of the US constitution by subjecting ballots to different standards depending on whether they benefited Gore or not.

The first recount produce a result. Gore didn't like it so he tried to change it. That's not Bush's fault that he needed lawyers to prevent Gore from cheating.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 07:51am
2. How did Gore "intervene in the election" by asking for a recount in a close election? And how is trying to PREVENT that (by the Bush side) NOT "intervening"?

Darin's point is still flawed.

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 07:23am

Mask, Gore got his recount and he lost. So he sued to change the results of the recount by changing standards to be more favorable to him. That's called cheating.

Franken got his recount and he sued to changed the standards to be more favorable to him (election night totals if they favored Franken, recount totals if the didn't.) Coleman failed to prevent Franken's cheating.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 07:54am
And you all still refuse to admit there was no way for Gore to win according to the Constitution.

According to the NYT recount, The only standard Gore won was a state-wide recount of every ballot using a definition of dimpled chad that favored Gore.

But this recount was physically impossible to accomplish before the Dec 20 meeting of electors (It took eight months). According to the Consititution, if Florida electors weren't seated, the House would have had to determine the President and it was a Republican House supporting a President that has more votes on election night and after the first recount.

Either way, Gore loses. The 5-4 decision that said there was no Consititutionally acceptable remedy to recount all state-wide votes in the time allowed just put an end to the fighting that could never have produced a different result.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 08:01am
The right hates Franken with a passion. And some on the left. Weird. How could anyone dislike a Wellstone Democrat? If anyone ever bothered to listen to Franken on Air America over the years maybe they might think differently.

I am a truck driver and listen to XM radio obsessively. Mainly because I have a lot of time to think as I watch the panorama of the American landscape whiz by my windows. I almost ran out of things to think about years ago, until satellite radio. I had already solved all the worlds problems and was languishing in a stale depressing state of mind.

When The "Al Franken Show" would come on, I would think "Oh no not him again.." Droll and Boring with a certain irritating monotone voice that seemed to think it was witty. Drove me nuts. But with nothing else to do I listened. And despite myself I started to realize that this guy really understands the issues. That he had a grasp on the reality and truth of American politics not heard by me from many others.

I don't really like the guy. But I think he will make an outstanding Senator. And I love the way the Righty Tighties hate him. Nuff said.

Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 08:04am
Oh and I didn't say shit about Dems or Reps. I talked about Gore, Bush, Franken, and Coleman.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 08:04am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 08:04am

Regardless of whatever bullshit you produce. Gore won in 2000. It's a fact, get over it. We got a Supreme Court elected Moron in the White House as a result. Who pratically destroyed this country. And then in '04 Kerry won. It's a fact, get over it. And the Moron got a chance to really do damage.

I hope you and your kind are proud of the fact that you participated in the destruction of your country.

But this is a new day, and as usual we will clean up your mess.

Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 08:41am
Darin, none of that was your point or my point ON your point...

You said "Gore tried to use lawyers to alter the outcome of an election an failed."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/05/2009 @ 12:26pm

That was false.....I showed it to be false. You now want to change the subject to "recounts" and the Supreme Court decision and "who really won".

BOTH Bush AND Gore had teams of lawyers. BUSH's lawyers were the first to sue...to stop the recounts.

But you wanted your "Lawyers tried to steal the election for Gore" point (probably a talking point you heard and liked to repeat)...when it was about RECOUNTING the votes...a right all candidates in close elections have.

And BUSH using lawyers.

oh and here's this again-

"The first resort of a sore loser is to gripe about how the game itself was unfair, how the other team doesn't play nice, how the very act of winning is all the proof necessary that the other side will "do anything" to win.

The second resort is to simply make junk up about the other guy that makes you feel better about yourself."----Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 10/14/2008 @ 1:00pm

A Well-Deserved Prize for An Outspoken Liberal posted by Christopher Hayes on 10/14/2008 @ 10:46am

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 09:32am
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 07:23am 

To the first I would say only that your attention to this board seems slightly less than I had previously believed...if you have missed out on, for instance, critiques of Liberty (or, in fact, defenses of Obama), you seem to have been less attentive than I thought.

As to the second...again, I'm not going as far as Darin is to actually make a judgment. I'm simply saying that when the status quo result is X, and you sue to get not-X, you're intervening in an attempt to alter the status quo. Did Bush do that as well? Yes! ALL I'm saying is that the "they both did it at the same time because they both brought lawyers down" doesn't make sense.

Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 08:41am 

Two responses:

1) I think you're on at least SLIGHTLY shaky ground when you claim Gore won, but your ground for then asserting that KERRY won is even weaker.

2) Get over it? Isn't that usually said by an individual or group that has, well...succeeded? I don't understand "Gore won, get over it," when...he didn't assume the office of the Presidency. I thought gloating was usually reserved for the one who, for all MEANINGFUL intents and purposes (i.e., getting to make the presidential decisions) wins.

This isn't to say that I'm gloating...but that I'm puzzled you are.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 08:41am

You claim Gore and Kerry won, and that these statements are facts. I don't think you know what a fact is.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 09:45am
Have you ever heard of a "pyrrhic" victory?

In the big scheme of things, what difference will Franken make in a Senate that already has 58 Dems?

Franken is an "ugly" Democrat. Not in the aesthetic sense, but in the sense that he, like Limbaugh and Coulter, like to pretend that politics is life and death. He's not in Politics to make the world a better place, he is in politics because he represents the forces of good and light and he hates the evil and is going to impose justice on the hateful opponents who only want to destroy the world.

It is a childish worldview, You'd be better off without him.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 10:02am
Franken hates Bush. He hates Cheney. He hates Rove. He hates Coulter. He hates Limbaugh.

Hate really isn't a reason to get into politics and it won't make a very good Senator

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 10:08am
.."But with nothing else to do I listened. And despite myself I started to realize that this guy really understands the issues. That he had a grasp on the reality and truth of American politics not heard by me from many others. "

Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 08:04am

Sounds like the perfect description of self brainwashing...congrats...you have managed to do to yourself what Madrassas do to children...

You have seen the light!!

And...

ALGORE won in 2000!!!

Yup, Franken is your man.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 10:18am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 10:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

I advocate following the rules.

I don't hate the suckers, I hate those who sent them.

and you, you are in love with force and killing. just like YOUR christ.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 10:20am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 10:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

I advocate following the rules.

I don't hate the suckers, I hate those who sent them.

and you, you are in love with force and killing. just like YOUR christ.

I don't believe soldiers are the crown of creation.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 10:21am
Chairman Chaosen,

I suggest that when you fill up on diesel, let someone else do the pumping...you have already been destroyed by the fumes.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 10:27am
Hate really isn't a reason to get into politics and it won't make a very good Senator.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 10:08am

Good thing you don't hate Franken, huh...or that might be hypocritical.

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 10:33am
I'm simply saying that when the status quo result is X, and you sue to get not-X, you're intervening in an attempt to alter the status quo. Did Bush do that as well? ----Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 09:36am

THRAWN, what is the "status quo" equivalency?

Was "Bush won it" the "status quo"...or was "Gore asking for a recount of a close election" the "status quo"?

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 10:36am
Good thing you don't hate Franken, huh...or that might be hypocritical.

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 10:33am

I don't hate Franken. He's just not my choice and he's stealing the election. That doesn't mean I hate him.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:26am
Was "Bush won it" the "status quo"...or was "Gore asking for a recount of a close election" the "status quo"?

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 10:36am

Gore got his recount, but he lost, so he wanted to change the standards used in the recount. He wanted any dimple what-so-ever to be counted as a vote since the standard of three corners detached caused him to lose (etc.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:29am
That doesn't mean I hate him.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:26am

Reading Franken's books didn't even cause me to hate him. His impeachment fantasy at the end of the last one way chlidish, but not hate-worthy.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:32am
Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 10:20am 

Before I say anything of substance here, I just want to caveat in that I know virtually nothing about the military ballots controversy.

That said...Liberty's complaint seems to be that although military ballots were postmarked late, they should still be counted, not only because the lateness wasn't their fault, but also because the GOVERNMENT was responsible for them being late. I could be wrong, but if I send my ballot in through the mail, the government loses it, and then they turn it up a couple days after the election, it should clearly still be counted. The entire rationale behind having a process (i.e., conforming individual behavior to specific limits) is still met, AND the government now has an additional incentive not to screw up on its end.

Now, me not knowing the rules, it could be that they refuse to count late ballots no matter why they're late. If that's the case, then I think Emile is unfortunately right. If that rule exists, it should be changed, but until that point, I think we have to follow it. This is also, by the way, why I think that the lack of a specified Constitutional right of at LEAST non-felon/non-imprisoned citizens (and arguably them as well) to vote is problematic.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 11:49am
I understand wanting to remove your body from an ongoing scandal, but it looks like Blogoyovich has followed the rules. On what basis will the Senate deny the replacement a seat? Bad vibes?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/05/2009 @ 5:28pm

Crab, I couldn't agree more. Blogoyovich sounds like a scumbag via what the press has told us, but he hasn't been found guilty of a crime. He's also still the govenor of Illinois and by law appoints a replacement senator. I don't get this. If the dem. senators don't find him suitable for office, then they'd better have a better reason than they don't like the sitting gov. appointing the replacement senator.

In the senate rules, the senate body has the right to purge a senator from the senate once he's a senator, but I don't think there's anything saying they can stop a legitimate appointment.

On the Franken thing, I find this somewhat amusing. What did the rethugs accuse the dems of complaining about in 2000? Now, the tables are turned, and they think a full flipping investigation should be run, a new vote run and the works...for a senate seat, not the presidency no less. What a bunch of hypcriticial jack-asses.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 11:50am
Right now the status quo is Franken won, therefore any attempts to change the outcome via an "activist court"...

would be "theft", right Darin? Is that what you are saying?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 11:51am
I advocate following the rules.

I don't hate the suckers, I hate those who sent them.

and you, you are in love with force and killing. just like YOUR christ.

I don't believe soldiers are the crown of creation.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 10:21am

Well said Emile.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 11:53am
Gore got his recount, but he lost, so he wanted to change the standards used in the recount. He wanted any dimple what-so-ever to be counted as a vote since the standard of three corners detached caused him to lose (etc.)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:29am

lol, cuckoo!

Posted by TexasFlood at 01/06/2009 @ 11:54am
Thanks Wolf, why are you the only responder to this question, though? I would think that rather than go over the 2000 "election" ad nauseum we could discuss why the democratric and republican leadership are so hell bent on flouting IL state law. I submit that the sheep in congress are more concerned with persona than legality, shocking I know! Too bad they climbed all over themselves to be more patriotic killers than the next guy for the last 7 years. Just think if "we" had actually lowered AQ's membership in that period. What a concept.

sigh, congress is manned by the outcasts from the Ship of Fools. (and one guy from Love Boat)

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 11:58am
I don't really like the guy. But I think he will make an outstanding Senator. And I love the way the Righty Tighties hate him. Nuff said.

Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 08:04am

You should read the book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Say Them...or along those lines. Al wrote that book quite a while ago, but the boy was spot on with the Bush administration and the corruption within. He even had Karl Rove nailed before most people knew who the hell Karl Rove was.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 12:01pm
I want my Senator to wear his AIPAC fireproof suit! Maybe a nice burning Bush as a back logo

wait, wait, before you go nuts, my Sen is Carl Levin.

(According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Levin is number two ($1,390,594) in campaign contributions from pro-Israeli groups, second only to Senator Lieberman ($2,005,778) since 1990. For the past three re-election cycles, Levin has been the top recipient in the Senate of pro-Israel contributions - receiving $573,773 in 1990, $371,157 in 1996 and $331,304 in 2002. In this election cycle of 2008, Levin is also leading all Senate candidates in donations from pro-Israeli groups with $84,910 in contributions, which is more than double the amount of all other Senate candidates.)

Would that count as a corporate sponsor?

Great idea FROSTY!

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 12:10pm
why are you the only responder to this question, though? I would think that rather than go over the 2000 "election" ad nauseum we could discuss why the democratric and republican leadership are so hell bent on flouting IL state law.

Crab, This is my humble guess on the matter. Most people are sitting on the fence waiting to see how things pan out. If the gov. is found guilty of charges, his appointment will be hammered into oblivion even though the appointee did nothing wrong and has a clean record from what I've read and heard.

That is one of the problems with this country. People, including our leadership, can't seem to think or reason for themselves. They look to their appointed political God's to tell them how to think, and then from there, they'll go balls to the wall in favor of something with little or no thought put into the matter.

....congress is manned by the outcasts from the Ship of Fools. (and one guy from Love Boat). Captain Stubing or whatever the hell the guy's name was,would have been run out of congress in a heart beat. He actually listened to the people in his crew and his constituents (his customers). Too bad our leaders can't do that.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 12:11pm
That doesn't mean I hate him.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:26am

No, of course not, Darin...only Democrats and liberals hate people.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:29am

And Bush wanted to STOP that recount and used lawyers to try to do it. Again...you were wrong.

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 12:12pm
Now, me not knowing the rules, it could be that they refuse to count late ballots no matter why they're late. If that's the case, then I think Emile is unfortunately right. If that rule exists, it should be changed, but until that point, I think we have to follow it. This is also, by the way, why I think that the lack of a specified Constitutional right of at LEAST non-felon/non-imprisoned citizens (and arguably them as well) to vote is problematic.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 11:49am

And it is the exact opposite of the argument Franken made. Since he lost he wanted as many rules changed as possible and including all absentee ballots was one of the things Franken sued for and won even if they were postmarked after the election.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 12:13pm
http://info.lib.uh.edu/sca/digital/ship/introduction.html

Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 12:16pm
Right now the status quo is Franken won, therefore any attempts to change the outcome via an "activist court"...

would be "theft", right Darin? Is that what you are saying?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 11:51am

If a theif steals your car, he is in possession of it. After he possess it, returning it would change the status quo. In that case, it isn't a bad thing.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 12:16pm
Does anybody know where Darin has stashed the goalposts? not on the field, nor in the parking lot. I checked the locker room, all I found was Larry Craig.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 12:19pm
That doesn't mean I hate him.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:26am

No, of course not, Darin...only Democrats and liberals hate people.

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 12:12pm

I never said that and you know it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 12:19pm
Does anybody know where Darin has stashed the goalposts? not on the field, nor in the parking lot. I checked the locker room, all I found was Larry Craig.

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 12:19pm

Franken stole this. Everyone knows it. Franken's vote total changed by 500 and nobody else in the state changed by 50. But like OJ, Franken stole it with the Court's assistance so it is legally his.

And I say big deal. He won't matter. There's no difference between 58 and 59. Turning out a moderate Republican for an embarassing Democrat will ultimtely hurt you guys.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 12:24pm
Turning out a moderate Republican for an embarassing Democrat will ultimtely hurt you guys.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 12:24pm

Turning out an indicted republican for a sucessful funny business man hurts who?

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 12:31pm
Gore got his recount, but he lost, so he wanted to change the standards used in the recount. He wanted any dimple what-so-ever to be counted as a vote since the standard of three corners detached caused him to lose (etc.) Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 11:29am

Kind of like how Coleman lost the recount so now he is trying to use his lawyers to get the recount rules changed?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 12:32pm
"Franken stole this. Everyone knows it."

It is well documented, in the official filings of the MN canvasser.

Also, "everyone knew" Saddam had 20,000 liters of Anthrax ready to go in his drone planes capable of reaching Kansas, guided by the meeting between Atta And Iraqi intelligence services in Prague. "It is pretty well proven"-Dick Cheney

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 12:34pm
"everyone"also knows:

Plame was not covert, because a judge never said so

torture is the best way to gather intel and saves lives

the DoJ under Gonzales broke no laws noe violated any policies

the GWOT will reduce Islamic terrorism

black women with cadilacs are the largest recipient of welfare funds

It is known.

I think Darin, that you need to find a different "everybody".

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 12:37pm
Whoops!

no goalposts, but I found a piece of The Cross out by the hot dog stand.

oh, look, a piece of candy!

oh, look, a piece of candy!

oh, look, a piece of candy!

oh, look, a piece of candy!

oh, look, a piece of candy!

oh, look, a piece of candy!

oh, look, a piece of candy!

oh, look, a piece of candy!

(ten points to those that get the reference)

Posted by crabwalk at 01/06/2009 @ 12:40pm
Oh, by the way, one sidenote:

The "make politicians show off donors like NASCAR" actually came from the movie Man of the Year. It was proposed by Robin Williams, playing a sort of Jon Stewart-type character.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/06/2009 @ 11:58am 

Right, and I think I would agree here. I'm just saying that if the rules say differently, I think the Minnesota officials have little choice but to follow them. Again...a good reason, I think, for the recognition (by Constitutional amendment) of some scope of a Constitutional right to vote.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 12:55pm
Hey crabman, gloat all you want. We both know Franken stole it and he won't matter.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 1:08pm
CRAB, your James Woods imitation is almost as funny as Franken getting elected to anything but a bad Saturday Night Live skit.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/06/2009 @ 1:18pm
Hey crabman, gloat all you want. We both know Franken stole it and he won't matter.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 1:08pm

Durwood, Two things. One, you haven't proven Franken stole anything. All you've done is rant on and on.

Secondly, nobody knows what Franken will do as a senator. Remember a very bad Hollywood actor who ended up becoming the GOP version of FDR? I recall people saying that Governor Reagan was going nowhwere....as a matter of fact, Nixon and Kissinger thought Ronnie was an idiot. They were right, of course, but he's the GOP poster boy.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:30pm
Franken stole this. Everyone knows it. Franken's vote total changed by 500 and nobody else in the state changed by 50. But like OJ, Franken stole it with the Court's assistance so it is legally his. And I say big deal. He won't matter. There's no difference between 58 and 59. Turning out a moderate Republican for an embarassing Democrat will ultimtely hurt you guys. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 12:24pm

Actually OJ stole it with the prosecutors assistance. If they hadn't have messed up so bad he would have been prosecuted. Come on fudging evidence on a case that was THAT open and close?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:58pm
Hey crabman, gloat all you want. We both know Franken stole it and he won't matter. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 1:08pm

You realize you sound as crazy as the left yelling about Bush stealing it that you seem to despise?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:30pm

An old DTT manuever..."Everybody knows it...you guys just won't admit it!!!!"

Sort of an ego booster for ol' MARYBRET so that he never has to admit he's in the minority...or wrong.

See, it's not that he's in error...it's that the REST of us won't admit "the truth", which is what he believes!

or his other SOP, which is to attack Democrats, then when called partisan to either say "No, I'm saying BOTH sides do it" (even though he didn't) or even to DENY it entirely...example-

"Like when you said my original point was dems are worse than Reps when obviouly that was your original point stuffed into my mouth because my original point was Bush was called worse names than Hillary."----Posted by marybretbrad at 06/4/2008

"Democrats are far worse when it comes to personally attacking candidates than Republicans are."---Posted by marybretbrad at 06/3/2008

Hillary's Exit Strategy posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 06/03/2008 @ 1:55pm

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 2:16pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:59pm

The Right will now become what they claimed they hated during Bush.

They'll attack Obama's strategy on military matters....which under Bush, they called "not supporting the troops" or "wanting us to lose".

They'll demand fiscal responsibility and competent government, leaping on the most minor of scandals or failings....while they remained silent or even defended the likes of "Heckuva job, Brownie" and 5 trillion in new debt and the first war in US history paid for with a credit card.

And they'll criticize (even legitimately in some cases) Obama as President....where under Bush they called it "Bush Derangement Syndrome"!

Posted by Mask at 01/06/2009 @ 2:20pm
Mask,

from what you have read....

do you think Frankens vote tallys are....kosher?

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 3:02pm
With something like 25 precincts having more ballots than registered voters...smell rotten fish?

Posted by pyeatte at 01/06/2009 @ 3:09pm
A great excerpt from EJ Dionne: Republicans would do well to pay attention to another trend: The young are leaning left. Voters under 30, according to the exit poll, are the only age group in which liberals outnumber conservatives, by 32 percent to 26 percent.

And the last four years of the Bush presidency clearly turned this generation off to the GOP. In 2004, 18- to 29-year-olds tilted only narrowly Democratic, 37 percent to 35 percent. In 2008, 45 percent of the under-30s called themselves Democrat; only 26 percent called themselves Republican.

Right-wing loyalists can talk all they want about how President Bush's problem was that he wasn't "conservative enough," but the numbers show they are misunderstanding their party's problem. Obama and Kaine are appealing to a moderate country moving gradually in a progressive direction and have a party behind them prepared to grapple with the realities of politics now.

Whoever takes the helm of the GOP will have to persuade a very conservative following that we are not living in Ronald Reagan's America.

Nate Silver has an analysis of the republican talking points concerning Al Franken's victory: "There are 25 precincts with more ballots than voters? I'm not sure this is actually true. There were certain precincts with more votes counted during the recount than there were on Election Night -- which is not surprising, considering that the whole purpose of a hand recount is to find votes that the machine scanners missed the first time around. I have not seen any evidence, on the other hand, that there are precincts with more votes than voters as recorded on sign-in sheets. And the Coleman campaign evidently hasn't either, or it presumably would have presented it to the Court, which rejected its petition for lack of evidence."

Posted by hdthoreau at 01/06/2009 @ 4:54pm
Durwood, Two things. One, you haven't proven Franken stole anything. All you've done is rant on and on.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 1:30pm

I can never prove it, but reasonable people can figure it out. It's like the guy who was in charge of the national lotter in a latin american country. His wife won the lottery... twice!

Now, I can't prove that he cheated, but then, I don't have to. A rudimentary understanding of probability is all I need to convince someone that he cheated. All the other Democrats on the ballot had changes that combined were less than 100, and Franken "finds" 500?

Yeah, sure.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 4:54pm
With something like 25 precincts having more ballots than registered voters...smell rotten fish?

Posted by pyeatte at 01/06/2009 @ 3:09pm

Do you have anything to back this up?

You guys are acting like Minnesota is a state dominated by democrats. That is definitely not the case.

Durwood, So, where did Franken get the money to pull of this off? He's not a highly connected insider with tons of cash flowing in his coffers. There aren't any Catherine Harris types in Minnesota looking out for Franken in high places.

If the blocked recount in 2000 was good enough for W, then this recount in 2008 should be good enough for a senate seat. You can't have it both ways. Let's put it another way. If this somehow ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the found in favor of Coleman, we'd know the whole damn system is rigged because the Supreme Court would be going against it's own ruling of 2000. You do recall Justice Scalia saying that the biggest thing they wanted to do was bring an end to the situation because we (the U.S.) were looking like a bunch of idiots who couldn't run our own elections. Same crap applies here I'm afraid.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:17pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:17pm 

Right off the top...I think there's a little hypocrisy going on all around (and I hope Mask isn't going to call "gotcha!" here). Liberals are dismissing claims of election theft and conservatives are leaping to them. Are the facts here different from 2000? Obviously, yeah. I just think the trends are amusing.

One question for you, by the way...is the "Durwood" thing a reference to Durwood Cable (a character in Runaway Jury)? It may be a stretch, but I'm just curious.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/06/2009 @ 5:24pm
Soldier worship. WWII Memorials that look like Albert Speer designed them. Paid professional mercenaries. The term "homeland" (where the hell did that come from?) A massive bureaucracy lubricated by arms manufacturers. Lotsa bread and circuses.

See where I'm going here?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 01/06/2009 @ 5:57pm
If the blocked recount in 2000 was good enough for W, then this recount in 2008 should be good enough for a senate seat. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/06/2009 @ 5:17pm

The moral equivalence here is awful. My neighbor to the right, who's been married for 5 years, is expecting his first child with his wife. My neighbor to the left, who is 60, knocked up his 12-year old step-daughter.

But I can't distingush between the two. If I'm happy for one I have to be happy for both otherwise I'm a hypocrite. I mean, they both just knocked someone up, right Mask? There's no difference here.

When you look at the problems of 2000, the most glaring one is the butterfly ballot. This Democrat-designed ballot confused people into casting a legal vote for a candiate they didn't intend to vote for.

That's a problem with the process: That is not a sign that Bush cheated.

When you have an election as close as 2000, a simple thing like counting standards can make a difference in the outcome: If a chad has two corners detached vs. three corners might make the difference between Bush and Gore.

I accept that. I don't accept Lawyers counting the chads and figuring out which standard helps candidate A and then running to a sympathetic judge to get him to change the standard after the votes have been counted once to favor one candidate over the other.

In 2000, the Supreme court put an end to changing the rules after the votes had been counted once. In 2008, Franken got the the panel of judges to change the rules until he won.

I am not hypocritical for distingushing between these two outcomes.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 6:02pm
And if you go back, that is what the 7-2 decision was about. All the different standard in the the different precincts were determined to be a violation of the equal protections clause. Two corner chads helped Gore in precinct A so his lawyers fought for that standard and three corner chads in Precinct B helped Gore so his lawyers fought for that standard there.

The Supreme courts said, "No".

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 6:16pm
I certainly do. NichtmehrsoschnellerJohannes

Posted by emile duBois at 01/06/2009 @ 6:28pm
Wolfgang1: About more votes than registered voters? My evidence is only news reports plus the filing of a lawsuit by the Coleman campaign today. The courts will have to sort it out. I presume they are honest in Minnesota...

Posted by pyeatte at 01/06/2009 @ 7:21pm
Darin the Troll -- history will someday record an asterisk where the 43rd POTUS once resided...

period.

Posted by calandra_speaksout at 01/06/2009 @ 8:25pm
Darin the Troll -- history will someday record an asterisk where the 43rd POTUS once resided...

period.

Posted by calandra_speaksout at 01/06/2009 @ 8:28pm
Al Franken is a verbally abusive person who will prove to be an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Senators refer to one another as "gentleman" and "gentle lady,".... Al Franken is no gentleman!

Posted by uPay2Play1 at 01/06/2009 @ 8:38pm
Shopuld Frankem be seated, they will try to keep him in the back bench and his foul mouth shut. He will be taken even less serious than Wellstone, and equaly dismissed...by both sides...he is anm arogant buffon and will quickly offend everyone.

My guess would be 6 and out, if not recalled first.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 9:41pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 9:41pm

I know it's a bit immature, but all I can say to you pugs is NEENER NEENER NEENER! I'm just tickled pinko.. LOL. Payback is a real bitch. HaHa chuckle snort guffaw..

Posted by chaoszen at 01/06/2009 @ 10:20pm
Chap,

This ain't payback... This is going to hurt you more than me because you actually BELIEVE in the Franken types.

I am already pre prepared for the next 4 years.

Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 11:40pm
Wolfgang1: About more votes than registered voters? My evidence is only news reports plus the filing of a lawsuit by the Coleman campaign today. The courts will have to sort it out. I presume they are honest in Minnesota...

Posted by pyeatte

I hope Coleman saved some extra lawyer money to defend the CORRUPTION and BRIBERY charges.

Posted by koroviev at 01/07/2009 @ 12:48am
Franken types. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/06/2009 @ 11:40pm

What exactly is a "Franken Type"? What an inane remark. So I guess the majority of voters in Minnesota must be Frankentypes.

And it won't just be the next 4 years. You had better pre prepare yourself and gird your loins for decades of progressive politics. Your ideology is dead, and it would be a good idea to bury it. It's beginning to stink..

Posted by chaoszen at 01/07/2009 @ 04:40am
Success is always the best revenge. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Chappie.

Posted by chaoszen at 01/07/2009 @ 04:49am
What exactly is a "Franken Type"? What an inane remark. So I guess the majority of voters in Minnesota must be Frankentypes.

Posted by chaoszen at 01/07/2009 @ 04:40am

First, Franken didn't get a majority, his lawyers got him a 225 vote plurality; 300,000 (10%) behind Obama.

Second, a "Franken-type" politician has two identifying characteristics:

The first is the childish conceit that his opponents are evil. Then are not misguieded. They are not mis-informed. They are pure evil and are completely deserving of the candidate's hate and rage.

The second characteristic is a belief in the We're-all-in-this-together form of politics.

I believe that political associations should be voluntary. (Governments derived their just powers from the consent of the governed.) Franken believe that Government provide a guarantee of non-failure. No matter what you do, no matter how irresponsible you act, no matter how many anti-social outbursts you commit, the government will always, always, alwasy, provide you with everything you need, and to back this guarnatee, it will confiscate the resource of people who are "a little too successful" whether they like it or not.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/07/2009 @ 07:05am
Actually the Supremes would have a tough time using the 2000 precedent, because they said it DID NOT SET PRECEDENT. I am not sure they have EVER done that. It is their job to set precedent. Also, at least 2 of the Supremes have come out publicly and said it was a bad decision.

Coleman lost to Al Franken. Coleman is also under investigation for corruption. What a fine man to create such nice followers as Darin and JOMAMAMA. Is this the "type " you usually glom onto? Looking back a few years, it sure looks like it.

Libby-convicted

Safavian-convicted

Brown-incompetent

Poindexter- convicted

shall I continue?

CHIP, of all people I thought you were far too erudite to watch Family Guy!

Posted by crabwalk at 01/07/2009 @ 07:30am
Jefferson-- not convicted yet

Blogavich- not convicted yet

Spitzer- got away with it

Franken- going to get away with it

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/07/2009 @ 11:32am
I can never prove it, but reasonable people can figure it out.

Now, I can't prove that he cheated, but then, I don't have to.---Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/06/2009 @ 4:54pm

"truthiness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:14pm
The first is the childish conceit that his opponents are evil.

"You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror."---Dubya Press conference, with President Jacques Chirac of France. (November 6, 2001)

The second characteristic is a belief in the We're-all-in-this-together form of politics.

"We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."-----Dubya Acceptance speech for second term (November 3, 2004)

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/07/2009 @ 07:05am

Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:20pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 01/07/2009 @ 07:05am | ignore this person | warn this person

I have been following your comments on this with a GREAT deal of amusement, Darin. But this one was really, really funny!!

.

"...a "Franken-type" politician has two identifying characteristics:

The first is the childish conceit that his opponents are evil."

.

Sure...like your "childish conceit" that the "evil" Democrats have stolen elections in the past...and now are trying to steal this one!?!

.

"The second characteristic is a belief in the We're-all-in-this-together form of politics."

.

We're NOT "all in this together", Darin?!?!

BTW, the last paragraph of that post was pretty much incoherent babbling based on the astoundingly moronic assertion that "Franken believe that Government provide a guarantee of non-failure."

Darin, you've posted some pretty dumb stuff before in the past but your posts on this thread have really sunk to new lows.

Thanks for the laughs though.

Posted by Lillian at 01/07/2009 @ 12:27pm
Is 225 votes a sweeping progressive mandate?

Posted by sntauri at 01/07/2009 @ 12:32pm
Is 225 votes a sweeping progressive mandate? Posted by sntauri at 01/07/2009 @ 12:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

has anyone claimed this, or is this your strawman?

Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by sntauri at 01/07/2009 @ 12:32pm

How much did Bush win the Presidency by in 2000, snt?

Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 12:38pm
For some reason, The Nation seems to have one of the largest, most vocal groups of rightwing nutjob regulars than any of the other progressive sites I visit. The most amazing thing about this is that The Nation is also one of the few sites that has an "ignore" option. One might think that this would enable intelligent, discerning progressives to disregard the inane ramblings of those who obviously need an entire team of proctologists to find their heads.

I love The Nation, and I also find many bloggers to have wonderful things to say. However, I mostly don't even read the posts on the blogs due to the incessant responses to the rants of the likes of LV Liberty and Darin the troll. There may be one or two lucid comments from these critters, but they are few and far between.

As soon as I see an indication of a love for the Shrub, support for the Iraq occupation, excessive jingoistic and misguided patriotism, or fundamentalist fake Christianity, my ignore list gets another name to keep the others company.

It's nearly impossible to see a coherent flow of conversation with all the neocon comment snips and responses. I keep writing these objections, and they keep being totally ignored. I guess I'll go back to reading the articles and skipping the comments. Too bad, because there are some great people here that have many worthwhile thoughts to share. Just not enough to overcome the futile arguments with those whose minds are already made up.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/07/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/07/2009 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person | warn this person

fair enough. there is another feature of the Nation's blogs. they allow posters to engage one another. many blogs only allow comments on the article they publish.

this has its ups and downs, but it does provide for some entertainment. in that it is more of a chat room than just a comments blog.

I for one am always glad to see your comments around here.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 2:04pm
Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/07/2009 @ 1:53pm

You forget your Sun Tzu, LeeAnn.

Posted by Mask at 01/07/2009 @ 2:09pm
Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/07/2009 @ 1:53pm

You make some very good points. The Nations format is set up in way that makes it irresistible for the neocon loonie tunes regulars to disrupt a coherent discussion of the issues.

On the other hand that is the formats strength. Most of those koolaid chugging neocon bots are given their marching orders and "talking points" from on high to target the Nation. Many of those talking points filter into the MSM. So it does give us a heads up on what the other side is cooking up.

And it is entertaining to get a peek into the mostly vacant air space between their ears. Like everything it has it's plus side and minus side. Hence the "ignore this person" option.

Posted by chaoszen at 01/07/2009 @ 5:00pm
Posted by LeeAnnG at 01/07/2009 @ 1:53pm Posted by chaoszen at 01/07/2009 @ 5:00p

Also, its not just the anonymous, open format that is tempting for some of the rightwing posters. The Nation since 1915 has captured the zeitgeist of the left in the US, and by their own description is the flagship of the left. What better site is there for a rightwing citizen to troll? Feminist blogs and sites have a huge problem with trolls and some of them have come up with innovative ways of combating it.

For those interesting on trolls, here is a short sociology thesis on internet trolls: http://www.io.com/~zikzak/troll_thesis.html#3 just for fun I think that Darin would be considered the 'Abstract' type: "They are known to produce long, stream of conscious rants that frequently appear to devolve into utter nonsense."

Then again I could be wrong.

Posted by hdthoreau at 01/07/2009 @ 6:10pm
all in all, we libs, arrgh, are remarkably kind to right wing posters, not to say nutjobs. you should try to post something on right wing sites. then you'll see some vitriol. I speak from experience having posted on the Washington Times website.

Posted by emile duBois at 01/07/2009 @ 6:20pm
Thank you LeeAnnG for so eloquently putting into words what has been in the back of my mind as I read threads like this. I think the "nutjobs" enjoy aggravating those who don't share their (often bogus) point of view. Reading the nutjobs' posts is kind of like watching a car accident. You don't want to, but it's hard to look away.

Posted by Merckx61 at 01/07/2009 @ 6:43pm
I find the notion of a conspiracy from on high rather amusing. Though I can't remember the last time I've heard Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any of them talk (it's been a LONG time), I'm not aware of any such "targeting campaign." I would say, however, that this seems like a convenient justification to ignore reasoned arguments that are put up.

Let me make an important caveat, though. I'm not saying that every post by a conservative is rational. To be completely blunt, I've seen some pretty crazy stuff, not only in terms of extremism, but also in terms of a willingness to replace actual argumentation with assertions and mocking. It should also be pointed out that this is not unique to either side.

One of the things I've actually enjoyed the most about the Nation is precisely the kind of dialogue that many of you have noted. Though I would classify myself as moderate-conservative (i.e., overall a bit right of center), and I think that's evolved somewhat, I have almost always enjoyed the conversations with those on the left side of the aisle.

I honestly believe that the "ignore" option should only be used sparingly; the list of people I've ignored, for instance, tends to just include those like Rese or Plunger. Maybe you think that some people's views are extreme, but I'd ask that if you truly believe in free discourse, that you give them a chance. Give them a chance to engage you, and give yourself a chance to engage them. As some of you have even said, wisdom may come only sparingly from these posts...but occasionally it does come. And yes, this applies equally for conservatives. Don't just assume liberals are wrong; dialogue with them. Democracy's about discourse, and that's one of the Nation's greatest virtues. Please don't waste it.

Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2009 @ 01:21am
I think that you all know in your heart of hearts whether you like it or not, this will all play out in Franken's favor.....it's just a matter of time and a little more futile legal maneuvering. The bigger and more important question is what we're all going to do to help Obama clean up the unprecedented mess that he's inherited from eight years of Bush and his cronies. I don't know about you but I'm more concerned about how I'm going to recoup the 40% that my 401K lost, how I'm going to find a new job after getting laid off, finding affordable health insurance that I lost when I got laid off, how I'm going to get my car fixed, and how I'm going to make my next mortgage payment. Any ideas?

P.S. Did you hear the latest about political contributions to Coleman's campaign being funneled through his wife who has a questionable job at some insurance agency in Minneapolis? What's up with that? Does this crap ever end?

Posted by theprofessor at 01/09/2009 @ 10:19pm