home

If The Shoe Were On The Other Foot . . .

I hate this type of hypocrisy - TPM and JedL are criticizing Norm Coleman for exercising his legal right to contest the Minnesota Senate election (and Bowers joins the hypocritically ignorant train.) Excuse me, when Coleman was asking Franken to concede when Franken was trailing by 600 votes (Franken now leads by 49 votes), TPM and JedL (and me) were criticizing Coleman for what they are now doing.

Coleman has the right, I would argue he has a duty to his supporters, to make sure he really lost the election before he concedes. Minnesota law does not allow for certification of a winner until an election contest is resolved. No one wants to see Franken in the Senate more than I but this whining about Coleman exercising his legal right to an election contest is blatantly hypocritical and extremely unseemly. And stupid to boot. Coleman is going to contest the result and the Democrats in the Senate can not seat Franken until he is certified as the winner of the Minnesota Senate election. Let's follow the rules please.

Speaking for me only

< Report: Gov Ritter To Name Denver Schools Chief To Replace Salazar | The Rule Of Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hypocrisy? From a blogger!?! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:28:47 PM EST
    Surely you jest.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:30:30 PM EST
    We see it all the time now.

    Nonetheless, I will keep criticizing it.

    Parent

    As you should (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    Ah, yes, Jed L (none / 0) (#69)
    by lambert on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 06:07:18 PM EST
    From the primaries, one of my very personal favorites...

    Parent
    There's no hypocrisy! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    They're supporting Democrats - in all regards and without concern for petty consistency about anything other than supporting Democrats.

    I'm sure if the choice was between Blago appointing his talking dog to the Senate and a Republican, they'd go with Blago's talking dog.

    Shoot, my dog is smarter than some senators and more active than a lot.

    But, they're being wholly consistent.  

    I think BTD... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:51:09 PM EST
    ...had the revolutionary idea that people should have, you know, actual principles rather than mere blind party loyalty.

    Parent
    So sad that sarcasm (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    doesn't come through that well in text.

    Shoot.  No one even looked at the dog pics....

    Parent

    I Looked (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:46:27 PM EST
    But I thought that you had an irish setter, not a gordon setter..

    Parent
    Nope. Mine's a Gordon. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    A real dog's dog and a companion of the first order.

    Parent
    Really Fine Looking Animal (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    Irish setters are too hyper for me, I have met a few gordon's and they seem to have a much better temperament.

    Parent
    Absolutely - (none / 0) (#46)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    Mine's quite mellow around the house, good around kids (even toddlers), waits to get to the dog park to raise a rumpus, and plays well with others.  Likes to talk, too.

    Wonderful pets, but they have a lot (LOT!) of energy, need lots of walking long distances, like their open space, disregard everything (including traffic) when they get a scent in their nose, and are on the Top 5 list when it comes to slobbering.  I think they just miss the Top 5 for shedding, but I have to deal with tumbleweeds of fine black hair all the time.

    Wouldn't trade mine for anything.

    Parent

    I just did ;-) (none / 0) (#56)
    by bridget on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    fabulous looking dog

    had no idea what kind of dog it was - now I know - thanks.

    Parent

    Mine's sweeter than pretty, (none / 0) (#61)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:46:19 PM EST
    and that's saying something....

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#24)
    by Amiss on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Yup. So simple. So basic. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:21:47 PM EST


    These issues (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    have been a weak spot on the blogs the entire year.  Consider the furor over counting FL and MI and seating them at the Dem convention.  Consider the disregard for the Senate's power to refuse seating Burris - and the potential need to take this to the Supreme Court.  

    It's really disappointing that some bloggers punt when careful consideration is warranted.  For instance, that's what I think Jane is doing here by saying Reid is rejecting the Rule of Law...when what he is clearly doing is embracing an interpretation of the Law.  Instead of arguing that he's wrongly interpreting the Constitution, she attacks Reid on various fronts.

    I don't think Reid should've called Ill SoS White, but that's a separate issue from whether the Senate can decide to reject Burris.

    What I Said Last Night (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    Here and here.

    Please don't bring up the "you shouldn't cite yourself" argument - I just want to refer you to what I wrote earlier rather than retype it all again.

    Parent

    Fighting it out in a courtroom (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    seems to me the opposite of rejecting the Rule of Law.  It is embracing the Rule of Law.

    I think that's what you're saying.  If so I agree.

    Parent

    And Reid pushing the Ill. Sec'y of State (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:33:35 PM EST
    to refuse to execute the appointment and thereby forcing a suit is... ... ...

    compelling Burris and Blago to go to the Courts and sue  and ... ... ...

    thereby make the Rule of Law work.

    Like I said:  The system only works if you make it work.  Bush and his cronies, clowns and crooks (primus inter pares, here) have gotten us so used to shortstopping and dodging making the system work, that a lot of people seem to have forgotten how.

    Parent

    what I am hearing (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    from some in the blogs is, "We don't even know if the Senate can do that!  So why are they doing it!"

    Go to court and find out.

    It isn't as though Harry Reid is saying his secret memo tells him that he can refuse to seat Burris.  The Democratic Caucus is offering the Consitution for all to see.

    Parent

    My own view (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    is that Reid did not need to urge that and should not have urged that.

    The case would have been forced if the Senate refused to seat Burris.

    Parent

    There is merit to your view, but (none / 0) (#36)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    I think what I noted also in my extended comment last night also obtains:  to build a unified party, the lower-level officials (e.g., Ill. SoS) need to know that the higher-ups have their back (or don't, as the case may be).  It's often quite difficult to discern what to do to further the big picture when one only sees the small picture that lands on their desk.

    Plus, this whole "running things" is a bit of a new business for the Dems, so I'm willing to give a pass on them knowing what and how to do it without being told.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:52:56 PM EST
    I ahve a post responding to that waiting (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:04:28 PM EST
    In fact I'll put it up now below TChris'.

    Parent
    I knew this would be (none / 0) (#8)
    by Fabian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    agonizing, slow, tedious and full of challenges and legal maneuvering.

    So far, I haven't been surprised or outraged at anything that has happened.  At most, I've been annoyed.

    Sometimes it seems the blogosphere is full of Valley Girls going "OMG! Can you believe that?".  Yes.  Yes I can believe that.  I not only believe that, but there are people who predicted it would happen.  

    Some people are perpetually surprised and outraged.

    If Franken goes down (none / 0) (#10)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    I put a lot of blame on Cong. Betty McCollum, of the metro area. This MN Progessive blogger sums it up for me:

    Ten Worst Political Persons in MN 2008

    #9. Betty McCollum/Patricia Lord Faris. If I really and truly thought that Betty McCollum's criticism of Al Franken's writings was based on some moral principle, then she would not be on this list. But I don't think that. Betty's objection was a callous attempt at an eleventh hour influence of the endorsement process. As a supporter of Mike Ciresi, she would not get on board in support of Al Franken...and even after the endorsement, her support was lukewarm at best. It was the type of criticism that turns a simple partisan GOP attack into a relevant media storyline with bi-partisan angles. McCollum has been around long enough to be well aware of that, yet just as the convention is about to render its decision, she is willing to risk such a divisive tactic. As we sit here and watch Minnesota try to determine its next Senator through a laborious recount process, you have to wonder how much of this was affected by McCollum's meddling. I think it was enough to warrant her inclusion on this list. As an extension of McCollum's interference, the candidacy of Priscilla Lord Faris was the coup de grace. With a campaign mantra that simply said "Franken Can't Win" (which would be ironic if he ends up winning anyway), Faris invested a tidy sum of her own money into anti-Franken commercials that would have made any GOPer proud. Here's hoping her brief candidacy was a one shot deal.

    I would add: where were McCollum's fem-props during the primary re the Hil-attacks? Crickets.

    FYI, the above referenced Ms. Faris mounted a challenge for an primary election held in Sept., after Franken was endorsed by the DFL convention. She previously had not been running, had no campaign presence at the caucuses or any level of party conventions.


    The Color of Our "Team" Jerseys. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Faust on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    JedL and TPM are cheerleaders and face paint wearers. Their hypocrisy is a direct result of their allegiance to their jersey color over and above their interest in the principles their jersey color supposedly represents.

    And in this respect they are no different from the vast majority of our electorate.

    It's not hypocritical to tell someone to put (none / 0) (#13)
    by magster on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:14:20 PM EST
    his $ where his mouth is.  I can't find Coleman's exact quote, but he did say something to the effect that if he were in Franken's shoes, he'd concede for the good of MN at this critical time.  

    The shoe is on the other foot now.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    I am reminding TPM and JedL of what they said then.

    It is hypocritical of them just as it is of Coleman.

    If they wrote a post calling Coleman an hypocrite, I would not object. That is not what they did.

    Parent

    Bowers just weighed in (none / 0) (#30)
    by magster on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    and I think Bowers' point is something that Jed was trying to get at, which is: why are Senate Dems not acting like partisans?  I'm not so sure all these other bloggers believe that Coleman is not entitled to drag this out, it's why aren't the Dems standing up for one of their own?  


    Parent
    what would you have them do? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    What Klobuchar proposed (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:57:45 PM EST
    Force the Republicans to actually filibuster what the public will perceive to be the duly elected Senator from Minnesota.  Show the Republicans to be the obstructionists they are right out of the gate. Let the GOP further embarrass itself.

    As far as Franken, do you think he could get an injunctive relief to be seated if Coleman's arguments are indeed as frivolous as they appear?

    Parent

    You mean try and illegally seat (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    Franken with out a duly issued certificate of election?

    So much for the rule of law ay?

    Parent

    Rule of law (none / 0) (#52)
    by magster on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    US Constitution, Art I, sec. 5 "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members."

    If the Senate judges the election fair, that's their perogative.  Seating him provisionally and deferring to the MN courts is frankly a concession they don't have to make.

    Parent

    That's absurd (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    Minnesota would not have even submitted its certification of election.

    My gawd, the hypocrisy stinks from some of you in the worst way.

    Parent

    Sorry -- I disagree (none / 0) (#16)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    Fraken's position all along has been "let's count the votes"  The only reason Coleman had a lead on election night was because Coleman had make hundreds of frivolous objections, and he wanted to create a presumption of victory (like, ahem, Florida) to pressure Franken.

    When all the votes were counted (except for improperly rejected absentees), Franken was ahead. PDF's of all the ballots that the candidates had objected to were made, put on-line, and we can see that Coleman had the lion's share of frivolous challenges.

    Franken still has no objection to counting all the improperly rejected absentees.  But Coleman only wants to count about half of them -- oh, gee, what a coincidence the half that comes from bright red districts.

    There are also PDF's of every improperly rejected absentee on-line.  Anyone (and the Star-Trib has, as well as many in the public) can go through them and see that if they are all counted Franken's lead only gets bigger.

    Anybody's who's been following this closely (read Minn Star-Trib for more detail backing up this claim) knows that Coleman has lost.  All he's doing now is dragging it out.

    "Knowing" someone will lose (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    is not the same as someone having actually lost.

    Finish the process.

    Parent

    Your comment is a nonsequitor (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    as well as inaccurate.

    Coleman led on election night not because of objections but because of machine error, human error and voter error.

    After the recount, Franken will lead.

    but that is irrelevant to my post.

    Parent

    "After the recount, Franken will lead." (none / 0) (#23)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    "After the recount, Franken will lead."

    If you're so sure of that (fwiw, I am also sure of that, and so is the Star-Tribune), then what's Coleman's point?  Appealing just because he can?

    Parent

    Coleman's point is (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    he disagrees with the determinations made by the Canvassing Board.

    Parent
    but those disagreements... (none / 0) (#29)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    are obviously frivolous.  Anyone who looks at the PDF's can see that.

    Further, Coleman is also seemingly trying to extend the process for no good reason.

    As JedL points out, the Star-Trib wrote: "Sen. Norm Coleman's campaign asked the Minnesota Supreme Court late Wednesday to scrap the reviews of wrongly rejected absentee ballots underway across the state and instead have all such ballots reviewed by state and campaign officials in St. Paul."

    This is the opposite position he took just two weeks ago.

    All it does is stall the process.

    Parent

    First of all (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:43:18 PM EST
    Frivolous is in the eye of the beholder.

    One challenge Coleman will make is the counting of the 133 missing ballots. I think the Canvassing board made the right decision. I think it is possible a court will disagree.

    Another challenge is this question of duplicate counting where the original is missing. I think the Canvassing Board was right but I think a court might not agree.

    And of course, there were certainly a fair number of close calls on determining voter intent. When the margin is only 49, who is to say what is frivolous.

    49 votes. Sorry, if Coleman did not contest, it would be rather absurd of him.

    Parent

    Frivolous is . . (none / 0) (#34)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:47:51 PM EST
    ... indeed "in the eye of the beholder.", and also (in this case) in the eyes of a whole lotta people that have looked at the PDF's, and the analysts at the Star-Trib.

    Mark my words: when all the improperly rejected abentees are counted, Franked will be up between 200-300.

    Those 133 missing votes give a net gain to Coleman of a couple a dozen.

    Parent

    Why mark your words? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    My words are the same.

    Here's the difference - I know the difference between the value of our words and the words of the adjudicator.

    Can you let the process be completed or not?

    Would you rather Franken be seated illegally, without a lawful certification?

    Parent

    Why won't that stupid Republican quit? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    then . . . (none / 0) (#40)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:54:57 PM EST
    I know the difference between the value of our words and the words of the adjudicator.

    No need to get personal.  I know the difference, too.

    Can you let the process be completed or not?

    My objection is frivolous suits that delay the process.  Just because another suit is potentially legaly possible, doesn't mean it should be filed.

    Would you rather Franken be seated illegally, without a lawful certification?

    No, I'd rather Coleman and/or his lawyer take an honest look at the ballots remaining, realize he's lost, and concede.


    Parent

    49 votes (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    I am amazed at your assurance of the result.

    I wish I had your confidence.

    Parent

    because I've looked at some of the PDF's (none / 0) (#64)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    ... and trust the Star-Trib.

    Let's bet a "virtual beer" -- my contention is that Franken will win by over 200 votes.

    Parent

    Why would I bet against my own view? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    Don;t you see you make my point? this is not about who is ultimately right, it is about following the legal process.

    Parent
    and my point is that... (none / 0) (#73)
    by A DC Wonk on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    ... one can also abuse the legal process.  We all know that frivolous suits are filed all the time.  The question here seems to me to be: at what point are Coleman's suits crossing the line from desperate to frivolous.

    And, my further point: just because Coleman can file a lawsuit, doesn't mean that in every instance he should.

    Parent

    you are also wrong in saying (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    the "improperly rejected absentee ballots are online."

    They have not been opened yet.

    It is expected they will favor Franken.

    Parent

    looking for citations (none / 0) (#20)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:29:17 PM EST
    Coleman said that if he were in Franken's shoes he would "step back" and concede the race to save MN the cost of a recount (ignoring the fact that it was mandated)

    from the St. Paul Pioneer Press reporters' blog:

    Coleman said that if he were in Franken's shoes he would "step back" and concede the race.

    Later:

    Sen. Norm Coleman says that if he knew the morning after the election that his lead over Al Franken was going to shrink significantly, he probably wouldn't have urged Franken to concede defeat.

    During a visit Friday to an Xcel Energy facility in Monticello, Coleman told reporters that his lead at the time was substantially larger than now and that he hadn't slept in 36 hours.

    Hilarious.

    I posted on it at the time (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:30:22 PM EST
    I had meant this to be a reply (none / 0) (#60)
    by DFLer on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    to magister #13

    re the exact quote...sorry for any confusion

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    that the result cannot be certified until the Canvassing Board has resolved the contest, but I don't know if that also means the certification must await the results of any judicial appeal of the Canvassing Board's decision.  And even after the election is certified, the loser still retains the right to collaterally attack it outside the context of the contest proceeding, by bringing an equal protection claim or somesuch.  So it's entirely possible that Coleman will continue fighting even after the result is certified.

    That said, it's hard to see how that isn't his right.  We all would love to freeze time right at the moment where our guy is ahead, but that's not how it works.  Other than the fact that Coleman is guilty of hypocrisy, it's hard to see how he's under some obligation to stop fighting at a particular moment in time.  And it's not like the country is going to be paralyzed while the court battle plays out - most likely, Franken will be provisionally seated, and life will go on.

    After the contest is resolved (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:17:38 PM EST
    when is it resolved is your question. I think the answer is when it is fully resolved.

    A collateral attack does not mean the contest is not resolved.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:27:55 PM EST
    let's say it's certified, and Coleman continues fighting in court.  Would you find it appropriate for Josh and friends to criticize him at that point?

    Parent
    Depends what means he uses (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    I think the more important issue is is Franken seated then? the answer is yes.

    Parent
    The usual procedure (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:24:11 PM EST
    is to seat without prejudice. Of course, that happens after a winner has been certified.

    Parent
    Won't Coleman be (none / 0) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:12:50 PM EST
    asking for an injunction to stop certification?  

    Parent
    Does not need to (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:53:09 PM EST
    No certification can be issued under Minnesota law while a contest is pending.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by Lora on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    Coleman absolutely should exercise his right to go to court.

    Fair, accurate, and legal elections must work for all, not just for one party (duh).

    Again I will point out that without paper ballots, if only a machine vote-and-count was used, there could be no verifiable recount.  We'd have to take the error-prone, easily hackable, easily manipulated, voter-confusing machines' word for it.  It would have been at best no more than a faith-based guesstimate of the real count.

    Now, if need be, the court can examine the ballots themselves.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#53)
    by Crusty Dem on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    TPM and JedL always based their opinions on the possibility of the final vote recount awarding the election to Franken (particularly JedL), they never got into the legalese and only criticized Coleman for trying to block a recount.  In fact, Jed put the odds of a recount awarding the election to Franken at >50%.

    There are legal challenges that Coleman can use to stall the certification of Franken, but they are not going to alter the final results of the contest.  If you think that blocking a recount = blocking final certification, then calling TPM and JedL hypocrites is valid.  But where BTD sees hypocrisy, most will see pragmatism, which I think that's pretty much the status quo.  BTD, if you think Coleman's legal challenges have any likelihood of overturnign the results, that might be an interesting post.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    since you already know that "There are legal challenges that Coleman can use to stall the certification of Franken, but they are not going to alter the final results of the contest[,]" no more need be said.

    Good to see you all can sound like coleman did during the recount and know precisely how a court will rule on the decisions made by the canvassing board.

    You do realize you sound precisely like Coleman supporters did before the recount?
     

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Crusty Dem on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:07:00 PM EST
    Do you have any reason to think there's any chance of overturning the recount?  I'd love to hear it, I've looked on both sides and seen nothing that looks remotely likely to have any chance of succeeding.  If you have a reason to think otherwise, I'd love to hear it.  But it sounds like you'd just rather sling mud at TPM and JedL and anyone who'd dare defend them..

    Parent
    I have no reason to expect it (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    I had no reason to expect that Franken would necessarily catch coleman in the recount.

    I am not the fact finder or arbiter of the legal rulings made.

    That's the freaking point.

    Parent

    I sling hypocrites (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:28:42 PM EST
    with the charge of hypocrisy.

    And let me tell you something, at my site, in my threads, you treat me with respect or you do not comment.

    you can rip me back at daily kos.

    Parent

    not a GOS fan... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Crusty Dem on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:10:54 PM EST
    I just find the charge of hypocrisy to be a step too far.  Neither the TPM article nor the Bowers post are in any way critical of Coleman (I was wrong about JedL, having confused him with Nate Silver, someday maybe I'll get names straight).  I do not see why you call them hypocrites.  Where do they cross the line?  I assume it's not just for suggesting that Coleman is unlikely to overturn the recount results?  I'm legitimately confused where you're going with this.

    Not critical of Coleman? (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    you must be joking.

    Conversation over.

    Parent

    TPM not (hypo)critical (none / 0) (#66)
    by Lora on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    Bowers is another matter.

    But I think Crusty Dem has a point about the TPM post.  The article does not say or imply that Coleman should be blocked from resolving the matter in court, nor does it suggest that Coleman should not exercise his right.  It simply explores how Coleman's court case could make things difficult for Democrats.

    Examples:

    Al Franken could be declared the winner of the Minnesota recount as soon as Monday, but due to the peculiarities of Minnesota election law, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) could keep the seat bottled up in the courts for weeks or even months before a decisive resolution to the race, making it harder for the Democratic majority in the Senate to seat Franken on even a provisional basis.

    And...

    The bottom line here is that even if Coleman ultimately loses the recount plus the formal court contest, he could be able to drag out the seating of Franken for quite some time, well beyond next week's swearing of the 111th Congress.

    Next point:

    Secondarily, does Coleman have a realistic chance of winning an election contest? Probably not.

    Finishes:

    All of these are long shots to various extents, and in order to win Coleman would need to sweep every last argument, denying Franken a favorable resolution on any single thing. That is highly unlikely to happen. But it sure could take a while to sort everything out.

    Sorry, I don't see hypocrisy in this one.

    Parent

    I do (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    but in fact, Crusty was defending JedL.

    But TOM was clearly criticizing coleman.

    and in hypocritical fashion.

    Parent

    Actually I was defending TPM (none / 0) (#68)
    by Crusty Dem on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    I wrote "I was wrong about JedL".

    Here we go again... (none / 0) (#72)
    by JohnRJ08 on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    Another gridlocked, useless, partisan Congress that is more worried about political advantage and ideology than addressing the major problems the country is facing.

    Absolutely obscene.