Tell the fat lady to start warming up!

Unfortunately the law doesn't see it that way.

And for all your whining about what Coleman said two months ago BMD, BOTH camps acknowledged in the past two weeks that the loser of the recount would in all likelihood seek legal actions.

Fruiten opposed the 650 absentee ballots in court and will continue to do so. Why does he not want those votes counted? Why did he even object in the first place?

I haven't been following this story very well. I never liked Franken and don't like to think about him. I sort of hoped if I ignored him long enough he'd eventually go away.

Anyway, wasn't Franken able to successfully include 1500 votes that were tallied on election day but could not be found after an exhaustive search? For all anybody knows those weren't actually votes, yet they were counted, if my memory is correct. All of that hullabaloo over every vote counting by Democrats apparently doesn't apply to Republican rich precincts.

sodbuster wrote:Well it sounds like they will certify Franken later today.

Then he will be seated.

If there are no more delays.

But wasn't it you who said that once someone was seated it would be "hard to root them out" on another thread.

sodbuster wrote:I'm saying if someone is certified and seated it will be hard to root them out.

Why yes, it was you who said that. So you want Fruiten to be seated because you think it will be hard to root him out once he's seated, correct Sodbuster!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6580694&page=1

Well Steph the above link has a pretty thorough summary of events. It seems to be pretty well stated compared to some other reports, since it does not include anecdotal tales or urban myths. Just facts.

However it is understandable that the loser of such a close race will be a little bitter and skeptical about the results.

Especially when he has political partisans urging him on and trying to convince him that further obstructionism is not futile.

I suspect that if Coleman had come out the winner some Democrats might share your attitude and keep clinging to their perceived hope instead of just accepting the result and moving on.

It is understandable, and it will take time for the disappointment to be accepted and hurt feelings to heal.

God forbid they spend years crying about the election being stolen.

When you think about it, Coleman lost to a professional wrestler, edged out a dead man, and is in a statistical dead heat with a failed comedian. Maybe Harry Reid is right... Nah!

It will be impossible to replace Wellstone.

So Franken really needs to knuckle down and get to work.

I'm not sure what he can do to stay in the loop during this period of political purgatory, but he should go ahead and move to Washington and just let his lawyer handle things back home.

Nobody is irreplaceable - even social justice liberals.

I'm sure Franken will make a fine failed comedian and talk show host. He'll probably be about as good as Coleman if he can get certified.

Fruiten won by 225 votes. From your summary of events article so none of this is ancedotal.

The legal process could take weeks. Coleman's suit will focus on three key areas: those 654 rejected absentee ballots, an additional 150 ballots from Democratic-leaning areas that the Coleman campaign claims were double-counted for Franken and 130 ballots that were lost after election night but were included in the final tally after the recount.

If the 130 votes that were lost (how can we be sure they were all cast for Fruiten after all-and what does the law call for when this happens) are tossed that reduces the margin of victory to 95 votes.

If the lost votes are not tossed but the double counted 50 votes are overturned that would reduce the margin of victory to 75 votes.

In the first scenario, Coleman would need to win 57 %, or 375 of the absentee ballots. In the second, he would need to win 56% of the absentee ballots to win. Given that the ballots are from largely Republican districts that have voted as high as 75% Republican in the past, why would he not challenge the results in court?

If neither of those scenarios’s occurred, Coleman would have to win 67% of the absentee ballots. Considering by law the recount board cannot legally count ballots that were rejected and stated that the place to determine if the should be included was a court of law so why wouldn’t Coleman take that action?

just let his lawyer handle things back home...

Including his failure to pay workers comp and withholding taxes?

Norm Coleman to speak to media in St. Paul

Now that Senator Franken is the certified winner of the election, will former Senator Coleman do what he said he would do if he trailed in the vote?

Or will he waffle?

What are the former Senator's true colors?

Any particular reason you want him to drop this BEFORE it is resolved BMD? Seems to me that your afraid of what will come out in the courts.

Especially since the canvassing board was not allowed BY LAW to consider the 650 absentee votes. Nor were they allowed to disqualify the 150 double counted votes and they were forced to to count the 130 missing votes.

When each of these items was challenged by Coleman during the recount, it was the canvassing board that said those issues would have to be settled in court.

ohio county wrote:

just let his lawyer handle things back home...

Including his failure to pay workers comp and withholding taxes?

As I recall, Senator Franken's "problem" was NOT that he didn't pay his taxes, it was that he paid them to/in the wrong state. Given that Senator Franken has worked in various states around the country (making paid appearances as a speaker, performer, etc.) it's not too surprising that his state taxes could get screwed up over the years.

My wife and I had a similar "problem" several years ago when I worked at a couple of different marine labs, and I was paid by institutions in other states (we lived in state A, I worked in states A, B, and C, and I was paid by institutions in states A, B, and D). The whole thing drove our tax guy kinda' batty. So I can see how Senator Franken's tax advisor(s) got things a bit messed up.

Aaron wrote:Any particular reason you want him to drop this BEFORE is resolved BMD?

...yada...yada...yada...

So why don't you want those issues resolved?

I'm just pointing out what former Senator Coleman, himself, said he would do in such a circumstance. Why do you fail to recognize his hypocrisy??

Well hopefully he will see the handwriting on the wall.

The former republican Governor has faced reality and recognizes that drawing this out and spending a pile of public money will only hurt republicans in the future and label them as sore losers.

[b]""I don't think it's winnable," said Carlson, who served from 1991-99.

He said a court fight by Coleman contesting a recount that favors Democrat Al Franken could hurt the Republican's image.

"I think there will be a tremendous amount of public anger, I think it will hurt his reputation," Carlson said. "I think he's got to get on with his life. .. At some point you've got to recognize, it is over."[/b]

From your link:

If Coleman decides to contest the election, Franken can't be certified as the winner until the legal process runs its course.

If Franken is not certified, is Coleman a hypocrite?

Where did he say that if the contest were this close and the canvassing board told him the ONLY way to resolve challenged ballots was in a court of law that he wouldn't challenge those ballots but would instead concede the election?

That's just absurd and you know it. The law required an automatic recount because of the original margin of victory in which Coleman won just as the law requires a court to detirmine the absentee ballots.

I recognize hypocrisy BMD, each and every time you post.

If Fruiten was worrieb about the cost or completely resolving this issue Sodbuster, why didn't he concede the original election when Coleman was the winner?

I was just posting what the former Republican Governor said.

Like willie says if you want to keep tilting at windmills then knock yourself out.

It will only hurt the republicans though.

No, Arne Carlson said, "It will only hurt the Republican's image". That would be one republican - probably Norm Coleman. I've already shown that Coleman lost to a professional wrestler, edged out a dead guy, and then got into a dead heat with a fellow who wore a diaper and bunny ears for a laugh. How's it going to hurt his image? Make him look like a loser? Well, he already is.

And as I'm not a republican, I don't really care.

But even so, I don’t see how would it hurt Republicans if Coleman wins his challenge and ALL votes cast by Minnesotans are counted and thus Coleman the Republican wins the election.

Hell, even if he loses the election but the absentee votes are counted, then all Minnesotans, including Republicans win.

Like it or not and regardless of what anyone said 2 months ago, the canvassing board and the Minnesota Supreme Court backed them up when they said the canvassing board does not have the legal authority to consider the 654 absentee ballots Coleman believes should have been counted, nor could they address the double count issue of 150 ballots or the 130 lost ballots.

All three issues, BY LAW, must be resolved by a court. I've said that at least 3 times today alone but all you and BMD can do is say Coleman should concede.

The thing is that through all of your and his blustering, neither of you have given one decent reason why Coleman should concede BEFORE the issue is resolved.

Personally, I don’t really care as regardless of the outcome here, democrats can’t force cloture and run roughshod over the Senate like sister Nan is in the house.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of those of you on the left. As I recall, when Coleman won back in November, none of you guys was calling for Fruiten to concede then.

As for any Minnesotans image being damaged regardless of party, could it really get any worse???

Aaron wrote:...all you and BMD can do is say Coleman should concede.

Aaron, do you have vivid hallucinations or are you just willfully lying about what I write? Seriously. Show me where I stated that former Senator Coleman should concede? NOT where I have pointed out what former Senator Coleman, himself, has said about how HE would "step back" if he were trailing.

If your best debating tactic is to make-up what others state, so that it suits you imagination and/or arguments, and then address such a fiction, I suggest you let the adults discuss the issues and save your imaginary arguments for your imaginary friends.

Aaron wrote:Personally, I don’t really care as regardless of the outcome here, democrats can’t force cloture and run roughshod over the Senate like sister Nan is in the house.

Oh yes they can, if they use Trent Lott's "Nuclear Option". The GOP set the precedent on this matter. What's good for the goose...

bmd wrote:Aaron, do you have vivid hallucinations or are you just willfully lying about what I write? Seriously. Show me where I stated that former Senator Coleman should concede? NOT where I have pointed out what former Senator Coleman, himself, has said about how HE would "step back" if he were trailing.

If your best debating tactic is to make-up what others state, so that it suits you imagination and/or arguments, and then address such a fiction, I suggest you let the adults discuss the issues and save your imaginary arguments for your imaginary friends.

So do you then think he should concede or are you comfortable with him resolving this issue in a manner it should be which given the current situation is a court of law?

Quit dancing around the issue and answer the question.

bmd wrote:Oh yes they can, if they use Trent Lott's "Nuclear Option". The GOP set the precedent on this matter. What's good for the goose...

As I said on the other thread, you need to do some reading because you clearly don't know wtf you're talking about.

No precedent was set as the "Nuclear Option" was never voted on, a point of order was never made and there was no ruling so Cloture is still the rule of the Senate.

Who sets the rules of each house, Aaron?

Aaron wrote:So do you then think he should concede or are you comfortable with him resolving this issue in a manner it should be which given the current situation is a court of law?

Quit dancing around the issue and answer the question.

As I said earlier, that's not the point I was making. I don't particularly care what YOU want to debate. I was just pointing out former Senator Coleman's hypocrisy on this matter.