« Newt Gingrich's Twitter media domination | Main | Offensive sign wars »

April 14, 2009


Gee, and I thought the Minnesota GOP was just persuaded by Al Gore's entreaty to Count Every Vote. Soon enough we'll have to abide Al Franken's smarmy punim; even a brief respite is precious.

Has there been polling on how Minnesota Republicans feel about Republican Coleman's shenanigans?*

Suggesting that "the Minnesota GOP" only includes a half dozen of it's top leaders misses a bigger story.

If the Minnesota Republican membership is still behind having only one Senator, which, while it hurts Minnesotans, might 'help' the national Republican Parties games, than that would be interesting to report.

That the Republican leadership has fallen in lockstep behind supporting a Republican's election shenanigans, well, what's new(s) about that?

*A link to a poll that has recently asked Minnesota Republicans if they supported and still support Republican Coleman would be helpful if anyone knows of one.

If I recall correctly, Coleman won the original election by a narrow margin. The recount including legal actions initiated by the Dems has resulted in an apparent Franken victory. Since the Dems were the ones who first went to court to undo the original vote count, it seems churlish for them to criticize Coleman for continuing the court action.

Brendan warns us not to attribute motives, but here goes. It seems that some Dems believe that recounts and court review of an election are always proper when the Reps have more votes than the Dems. However, if a point is reached when the Dems are in the lead, then all re-counts must stop and further court review would be inappropriate and ugly.

If I recall correctly, a recount was mandated by Minnesota law due to the narrow margin of the election day tally. It would have been required if Coleman's original advantage had been as much as 15,000 votes.

In the original count, Coleman was ahead by less than 200 ( less than one-hundredth of one percent of votes cast ).

"jinchi" is correct, the recount was automatic in Minnesota.

"David" is just spouting nonsense.

So to fix the false assertions of right winger "David" :

"It seems that some" Republicans "believe that recounts and court review of an election are always proper when the" Dems "have more votes than the" Republican. "However, if a point is reached when the" Republicans "are in the lead, then all re-counts must stop and further court review would be inappropriate and ugly."

That's now a true statement. It reflects the reality of the 2000 Presidential Election, the 2008 Minnesota Senate Election, and also the New York election where the Republican just tried to have New York Senator Gillibrand's vote thrown out.

Republicans have had a pattern of churlishness when it comes to elections in our democratic republic.

When the election results are inconvenient, they want do-overs (see: Republican Palin's insisting on a do-over election for the Alaska Senate seat) or turn to the courts looking to overturn the election.

Churlish, indeed.

Yes, the Minnesota recount was automatic. However, the decision to go to court and litigate over the recount procedures was a choice made by the Dems. The Dems did more aggressive, more effective litigation than the Reps, which is to their credit, I suppose. But, for that reason, they have less moral basis to object to Republican litigation now IMHO.

BTW I cannot agree with News Reference's description of the 2000 Presidential election. As I recall, Bush initially led the vote count. Gore went to court and asked for a re-count, which was not automatic. When Bush still led, Gore went back to court and secured a recount under different rules. Bush still led under that third vote-counting basis.

"David," you should have stuck with ONE false assertion. When you add additional false assertions you go from 'well maybe he made a mistake' to 'this guy is a liar.'

At this point, "David," I'm leaning towards the later.

At this point, your 'humble opinion' is worth zilch. Kind of like the fact that Gore 'won' by over a half a million votes meant zilch. All that mattered was Republican Bush's shenanigans in front of the right wingers on the Supreme Court.

Gore win of over a half a million votes was ruled out by one (1) Supreme Court vote. And even then, the Republicans didn't want the votes counted, instead, the right wingers on the Supreme Court just ran the clock out in Bush's favor.

And as for your false assertion that Minnesota legal games are somehow the Dems fault, BRRZZZZT. Sorry, you lose. Republican Coleman has already repeatedly lost and is now just being litigious to prevent the Dem from being seated.

The Republican 'plan' according to TEXAS Senator Cornyn was to jerk around Minnesota until 'World War III.'

David, you are peddling fictions.

Shame, shame, shame on you.

Gore win = Gore's win

BTW, remember the right wing's 'Brook Brothers Riot?' It was a faux 'populist' riot that the NATIONAL Republican leadership set up to STOP THE VOTES FROM BEING COUNTED IN FLORIDA.

"David," why do Republicans really hate our American democracy?

"News Reference," just so we don't distort "history" by giving an "inaccurate" rendition of Bush v. Gore, let it be noted that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the different vote counting standards being applied in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause. That's a margin of five votes--or as you might put it, a margin of five (5) votes. As to remedy, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that there was insufficient time to remand the case to Florida for a brand new recount, in light of the statutory deadline for completing the count. But the holding as to a Constitutional violation was 7-2.

"Rob" : "the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that there was insufficient time to remand the case to Florida for a brand new recount"

Exactly. The Supreme Court ran the clock out for Republican Bush.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Republican Bush by one (1) vote.

The Supreme Court's ruling was a repudiation of democracy.

The absurd falsehood that there wasn't "time" enough to count the votes for President of the United States was an invention to help Republican Bush.

As was noted above, REPUBLICANS use the courts with the complicity of right wing activist Judges to subvert America's democracy.

"News Reference," you persist in saying the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush by one (1) vote, but the fact is that seven (Seven!) (7) (VII) members of the Supreme Court held that the procedure that had been employed in the Florida recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment. That seven (7) vote majority included Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer. This troublesome fact may not fit comfortably in your worldview, but them's the breaks.

I enjoyed your overcaffeinated WEBSITE, however. It put me in mind of John Nash's scribblings in "A Beautiful Mind." One (1) cannot help but admire your TENACITY.

"Rob," the critical ruling, as you yourself pointed out, was that "the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that there was insufficient time to remand the case to Florida for a brand new recount[.]" A one (1) vote reprimand of democracy.

Though you point out something equally as important with the "Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment[.]" If the Supreme Court consistently applied that Amendment there would be a LOT of changes in election processes that could possibly significantly benefit Democrats.

But the Supreme Court's right wingers don't want the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to be vigorously enforced with regards to elections and arguably precisely because it would benefit Democrats. That's why they made the farcical claim that it couldn't/shouldn't be used as a precedent.

"Billmon" makes a fascinating argument about the convenience of 14th Amendment waving right wingers:

"But if we're really going to start vigorously applying the 14th Amendment to how votes are cast and counted in this country, then a whole bunch of GOP-friendly election realities are going to be open to constitutional challenge. How, for example, is it "equal" for poor and urban precincts to have 1/5th the number of voting machines per capita as wealthy surburban ones? Is it "equal" for election officials to routinely deny elderly, undereducated or inexperienced voters the assistance they need to understand complex, confusing and/or poorly constructed ballots? Is it "equal" for prosecutors to aggressively pursue registration fraud cases against ACORN, while generally ignoring those against GOP-leaning groups?"

"Can you say "disparate impact"? How about "protected class"?"

So, Rob, if you want to push enforcement of the 14th Amendment you will find me as your primary color loving ally while the right wing will likely be arrayed against you.

The comments to this entry are closed.