Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Asked by the Star Tribune whether the same standard would be applied to Franken, as well, Reid initially equivocated, saying "the states of Illinois and the states of Minnesota are two different animals."

Exactly -- the state of Illinois has appointed a Senator, while the state of Minnesota has not elected one.

Now that's making Lemonaide out of Lemons right there!

Adding to the dilemma is that Coleman is just. . . . odious. Kind of like those gushy, smiling televangelists that turn out to be sucking dicks at the bus station odious

.

BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Nah, that just means turnout was high. High turnout is good, right?

BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

What a twist!

ZAZ: Exactly -- the state of Illinois has appointed a Senator, while the state of Minnesota has not elected one.

.......that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the politicians, shall not perish from the earth.

So, Coleman is going to throw every lawsuit he can think of and 15 more besides now that he has abandoned the position of "Whatever the voters say" and adopted his new one of "WAAAAH GIMME."

BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Of course, those "extra" votes, assuming they exist and you're not just talking out your tukhis, certainly MUST be attributable to democratic voters, right? I mean, if there are extra votes, they couldn't be attributable to votes for Coleman; all are clearly the result of Democratic shenanigans.

kronicfeld: BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Of course, those "extra" votes, assuming they exist and you're not just talking out your tukhis, certainly MUST be attributable to democratic voters, right? I mean, if there are extra votes, they couldn't be attributable to votes for Coleman; all are clearly the result of Democratic shenanigans.

I missed the part where BillCo. mentioned ANYTHING about Democrats being responsible for this.

Your agenda has been duly noted.

/blames the green party

BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

BunkyBrewman: I missed the part where BillCo. mentioned ANYTHING about Democrats being responsible for this.

Your missing it doesn't mean it's not there, chief.

BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Hm. Why is it that asshole Neocons only ever get all up-in-arms self-righteous about contested election results when they favor the Democrat? Where were these dickheads in '00 and '04? Ohh...That's right. Cheering on Dumbya and waving around "Sore/Loserman" signs and Swift-boater books.

Your tears, they nourish me.

BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Show me a validated news story about it. I'll wait.

BunkyBrewman: I missed the part where BillCo. mentioned ANYTHING about Democrats being responsible for this.

You're either being intentionally obtuse or you've never seen BillCo troll before.

MaxxLarge: BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Hm. Why is it that asshole Neocons only ever get all up-in-arms self-righteous about contested election results when they favor the Democrat? Where were these dickheads in '00 and '04? Ohh...That's right. Cheering on Dumbya and waving around "Sore/Loserman" signs and Swift-boater books.

Your tears, they nourish me.

Yes, extra votes are bad, but precincts that report negative votes for a Democratic candidate (see Volusia County, FL, in the 2000 election)? That's just fine.

bulldg4life: BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Show me a validated news story about it. I'll wait.




Second.

ZAZ: Asked by the Star Tribune whether the same standard would be applied to Franken, as well, Reid initially equivocated, saying "the states of Illinois and the states of Minnesota are two different animals."

That's the smartest thing he's said all week. A deer is much different from a gopher. You win a point Harry.

How so, isn't there a Democratic majority? Or does it have to have 2/3 approval?

/doesn't understand this stuff

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: How so, isn't there a Democratic majority? Or does it have to have 2/3 approval?

The state's paperwork on the election is not complete. Paperwork, just like what they said for Burris.

Before we export any more democracy we really should figure out how to do it.

Its ridiculous that in this time period it can take a state 3+ months to figure out how to replace or elect a Senator.

They'll seat him. This is the most ado about nothing in a long time.

All because Reid has a big mouth and poor political nose.

Franken won. Get over it

According to MN law (you know, the law that the Republicans either cling to or deride depending on the current vote count), Franken cannot be certified as the winner until all legal actions have run their course. The Senate would certainly be within its rights to not seat Franken until he is certified.

/He is certainly certifiable.
//Works better with Groucho glasses and cigar.

Both Burris and Franken should be seated. Burris was appointed by the governor. Franken was declared the official winner.

What is the problem?

MaxxLarge: Hm. Why is it that asshole Neocons only ever get all up-in-arms self-righteous about contested election results when they favor the Democrat?

Wait are you saying that if Coleman had won instead you would not be up in arms and contesting the results? Imma gonna call BS on that one. Psst your hypocrisy is showing.

According to MN law, Franken cannot be certified as the winner until all legal actions have run their course

I didn't know this.

Cyborg77: Before we export any more democracy we really should figure out how to do it.

If Iraqis are taking notes on how our process works, I would assume they threw away their notebooks mid-December out of confusion.

I'd like to thank all the Republicans who have watched this election so closely to make sure every vote was properly counted no matter how long it takes.

/BWA HA HA HA HA HA

Cyborg77: Before we export any more democracy we really should figure out how to do it.

Its ridiculous that in this time period it can take a state 3+ months to figure out how to replace or elect a Senator.

You in a freaking hurry? I live in MN, so this actually has an impact on my representation in Congress and I am not worked up about this. There is a clear-cut procedure in place and it is being followed. This is not a situation that is likely to happen often.

/I do wish Coleman would pack it in. Even our former Republican Governor is telling him he doesn't have a shot.

vernonFL: Both Burris and Franken should be seated. Burris was appointed by the governor. Franken was declared the official winner.

What is the problem?

Neither of them can currently present the Senate with the complete required paperwork, being certification signed by both the Governor and Secretary of State of their respective states. So it's just a procedural hang-up at this point.

Jesse White still has to sign for Burris, which if he doesn't do on his own, Burris will probably drag him into court to force him. Tim Pawlenty sure as hell isn't going to sign off on Franken's certification until Coleman has exhausted all of his legal options.

Lundah: Jesse White still has to sign for Burris, which if he doesn't do on his own, Burris will probably drag him into court to force him.

No, Obama needs to drag White out behind the woodshed and make him sign it. It's a craptastic rule that the Senate invented, this signature thing, that has no legal basis from what I have heard.

Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude: How so, isn't there a Democratic majority? Or does it have to have 2/3 approval?

/doesn't understand this stuff

It's the Democrats who are spearheading the push to not seat Burris (and possibly Franken) until all controvercies are resolved. It's a difficult situation for them, because using their majority to just seat these two will undermine their credibility nationally, while leaving IL and MN underrepresented indefinitely will hurt them in those states. In any case, these are the problems that come with winning a majority. I'm a Democrat, and I completely prefer these sorts of troubles to the satisfaction of self-righteous rage from the minority side.

lunchinlewis: It's a craptastic rule that the Senate invented, this signature thing, that has no legal basis from what I have heard.

Yeah, cuz who cares if some Joe Schmoe who's buddies with the Governor just shows up with a note saying he's the new senator. They should just let him in. There'd never be anyone who'd abuse that power, right?



oh, wait....

GAT_00: So, Coleman is going to throw every lawsuit he can think of and 15 more besides now that he has abandoned the position of "Whatever the voters say" and adopted his new one of "WAAAAH GIMME."

If only we actually knew what the voters said.

GameSprocket: Cyborg77: Before we export any more democracy we really should figure out how to do it.

Its ridiculous that in this time period it can take a state 3+ months to figure out how to replace or elect a Senator.

You in a freaking hurry? I live in MN, so this actually has an impact on my representation in Congress and I am not worked up about this. There is a clear-cut procedure in place and it is being followed. This is not a situation that is likely to happen often.

/I do wish Coleman would pack it in. Even our former Republican Governor is telling him he doesn't have a shot.

Speed isn't so much the issue, but rather the integrity of the process. Its one thing to have a slow process but to have a count, then a recount that reverses the result and now a potential lawsuit that could swap it around again completely destroys any faith that the citizens actually got the representative most of them wanted. After the 2000 presidential election mess there really needs to be clearer rules in all states about when a recount is allowed, how it is conducted, which ballots count and which don't, and most importantly make that recount the final determination without appealing it up to the Supreme Court.

Cyborg77: then a recount that reverses the result

I don't believe that is true. The recount simply included the ballots that each side contested, and Coleman contested more. Did I read that incorrectly?

Lundah: Jesse White still has to sign for Burris, which if he doesn't do on his own, Burris will probably drag him into court to force him. Tim Pawlenty sure as hell isn't going to sign off on Franken's certification until Coleman has exhausted all of his legal options.

Why does the Governor have to sign for Franken? He's not being appointed. Is that a Minnesota rule or a Senate rule?

Lundah: Yeah, cuz who cares if some Joe Schmoe who's buddies with the Governor just shows up with a note saying he's the new senator. They should just let him in. There'd never be anyone who'd abuse that power, right?

Damn, you've discovered my plan!

kronicfeld: BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Of course, those "extra" votes, assuming they exist and you're not just talking out your tukhis, certainly MUST be attributable to democratic voters, right? I mean, if there are extra votes, they couldn't be attributable to votes for Coleman; all are clearly the result of Democratic shenanigans.

"If you can't win the election, obstruct it." It's the Republican mantra.

Algebrat: It's the Democrats who are spearheading the push to not seat Burris (and possibly Franken) until all controvercies are resolved. It's a difficult situation for them, because using their majority to just seat these two will undermine their credibility nationally, while leaving IL and MN underrepresented indefinitely will hurt them in those states. In any case, these are the problems that come with winning a majority. I'm a Democrat, and I completely prefer these sorts of troubles to the satisfaction of self-righteous rage from the minority side.

Also, in the case of Burris, having him as the incumbent and the presumable Democratic front-runner for the 2010 Senate race in Illinois, leaves nasty Blago-stench in the air in Illinois, and leads to a non-zero chance of a Republican Senator from Illinois in two years. Whereas, if Burris was appointed by Blago's replacement, he'd probably win handily in 2010.

The Dynamite Monkey: Cyborg77: then a recount that reverses the result

I don't believe that is true. The recount simply included the ballots that each side contested, and Coleman contested more. Did I read that incorrectly?

Don't forget the ballots that they counted in Minneapolis, even though they were unable to actually be located.

mksmith: kronicfeld: BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Of course, those "extra" votes, assuming they exist and you're not just talking out your tukhis, certainly MUST be attributable to democratic voters, right? I mean, if there are extra votes, they couldn't be attributable to votes for Coleman; all are clearly the result of Democratic shenanigans.

"If you can't win the election, obstruct it." It's the Republican mantra.

If you can't win an election, just keep adding votes until you do. It's the Democrat mantra.

Cyborg77: Speed isn't so much the issue, but rather the integrity of the process. Its one thing to have a slow process but to have a count, then a recount that reverses the result and now a potential lawsuit that could swap it around again completely destroys any faith that the citizens actually got the representative most of them wanted. After the 2000 presidential election mess there really needs to be clearer rules in all states about when a recount is allowed, how it is conducted, which ballots count and which don't, and most importantly make that recount the final determination without appealing it up to the Supreme Court.

The recount was triggered by a law that was already in place. The recount was conducted according to rules that had already been established. The canvasing board stated that it did not have the authority to make a determination on whether to include some ballots, so that decision went to the courts. Now the law states that either candidate can challenge the decision within a certain time period of the canvasing board's findings.

So, unless you think that there can be a specific law to directly address every event that may happen in the future, I don't see the problem here. Most people I have talked to in MN are more upset about the Vikings blowing their playoffs.

Scerpes: If you can't win an election, just keep adding votes until you do. It's the Democrat mantra.

Don't question why those votes weren't counted in the first place. It's the Lizard People mantra.

But there was an election in MN, and none in IL.

Cyborg77: Speed isn't so much the issue, but rather the integrity of the process. Its one thing to have a slow process but to have a count, then a recount that reverses the result and now a potential lawsuit that could swap it around again completely destroys any faith that the citizens actually got the representative most of them wanted. After the 2000 presidential election mess there really needs to be clearer rules in all states about when a recount is allowed, how it is conducted, which ballots count and which don't, and most importantly make that recount the final determination without appealing it up to the Supreme Court.

We are not florida. MN law is very clear. We have actually gone through this before. And the law has been followed to the letter. What is a ballot or not was clearly defined and where there was ambiguity then it was punted to a bi-partisan panel that reviewed those ballots. That process is finished. Coleman has a right to contest the election which he has. Our law covers that as well. We also cover a tie which is a simple coin toss (last used in some school board election last election).

Here is what is important about this process - its been working but flaws have been encountered. This is a Good Thing. We can now address those flaws in future legislation.

BunkyBrewman: kronicfeld: BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Of course, those "extra" votes, assuming they exist and you're not just talking out your tukhis, certainly MUST be attributable to democratic voters, right? I mean, if there are extra votes, they couldn't be attributable to votes for Coleman; all are clearly the result of Democratic shenanigans.

I missed the part where BillCo. mentioned ANYTHING about Democrats being responsible for this.

...and apparently you missed the part where Norm Coleman is on the losing end. Congratulations, Norm. You're Al Gore 2008.

Scerpes: "If you can't win the election, obstruct it." It's the Republican mantra.

If you can't win an election, just keep adding votes until you do. It's the Democrat mantra.

Can we not agree by this point that it is every losing candidate's mantra, at least in close races? And, most likely, sometimes in races that aren't so close.

Does anyone really think that only one political party plays the system? Or if a Ralph Nader victory in 2000 (try not to laugh) had hinged on a few hundred thousand arguably corrupted votes in Florida?

Really.

Scerpes: mksmith: kronicfeld: BillCo: Golly, just because there were a few more votes than actual voters is no reason to think that anything was done wrong. No sir, not at all. Nothing to see here folks, go on home.

Of course, those "extra" votes, assuming they exist and you're not just talking out your tukhis, certainly MUST be attributable to democratic voters, right? I mean, if there are extra votes, they couldn't be attributable to votes for Coleman; all are clearly the result of Democratic shenanigans.

"If you can't win the election, obstruct it." It's the Republican mantra.

If you can't win an election, just keep adding votes until you do. It's the Democrat mantra.

This is fun.

"If you can't win the election, find an activist court to furnish a one-time, non-precedent-setting, hotly contested one-vote decision based on an incorrect (or incomplete) reading of State law by that State's governor." It's the Republican mantra.

// seat Burris; maybe Reid can get him to "agree" not to run in 2010
// I'd like to have Franken seated by court order as a provisional senator (pending the results of the lawsuits), but state law says no one sits until the judge rules

evilgreg: Or that we wouldn't have seen court battles if a Ralph Nader victory in 2000 (try not to laugh) had hinged on a few hundred thousand arguably corrupted votes in Florida?

Damn it.