« ST. CLOUD TIMES EDITORIAL: “OUR VIEW: GOAL SHOULD BE TO MAKE SURE EVERY VOTE COUNTS” | Home | PORN-O-RAMA’S PAIN STILL LINGERS »
WSJ: “A TALE OF TWO WOULD-BE SENATORS”
By Ryan Flynn | January 9, 2009
Al Franken began this week a man loved. It didn’t matter he had produced material that ought to offend any liberal in good standing. It didn’t matter that, under Minnesota law, he can’t receive a certificate of election until Sen. Norm Coleman finishes his appeal, and so has no right to a seat.
Mr. Franken was also created out of scandal — though, fortunately for him, the type that is today considered politics-as-usual. Mr. Franken has been manipulating the socks off the Minnesota system, turning what had been a 700-plus vote lead for Mr. Coleman into a 225-vote lead for himself. This was primarily accomplished by litigating back to life absentee votes that had been rejected on Election Day. (Source: Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2009).
To Read the entire article click here.
###
This is a great article looking at the parallels of Roland Burris and Al Franken as it relates to the United States Senate. Bottom line, Roland Burris has been legally appointed, Al Franken has not legally won anything.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 15 Comments »
15 Responses to “WSJ: “A TALE OF TWO WOULD-BE SENATORS””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:16 AM
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/37334654.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU
Where’s Swiftee claiming the majority of Minnesotans believe Coleman won?
January 9th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Ahem, Franken would have won the recount without the absentee ballots. But don’t let pesky facts get in the way of your spin.
FIGHT, FIGHT ON!!! Minnesotans are loving it! *grin*
Flash
January 9th, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Ah yes, a whoopin’ margin of 7% makes it such an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans. And the margin of error is 4.5%
If that 49% that think this should be over were paying attention to how Franken stole this thing, they’d have a different opinion.
By the way, its almost evenly split between ‘move on’ and ‘want a new election/want a new recount’.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Don’t you wonder why people publish things in newspapers (and websites) that are obviously untrue? Did Al Franken begin this week as a “man loved”? I suppose there are people who love Al Franken, but the fairly undisputable fact of Minnesota poltics is that not very many people like Al very much. It’s just what seems to be emerging from the recount process, is that by an excruciatingly thin margin, more Minnesotans seem to like Norm Coleman less.
Use of pejorative words like “manipulating” doesn’t change the fact. And the fact is the election day results did not tally all votes, and as it turns out, more of those untallied votes were for Franken. This is a reality that ill-informed pieces in national newspapers cannot change.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:24 AM
PlymouthDem, I see nothing that would make me believe otherwise in the story. Just because people want him to stop the challenge doesn’t mean they think he lost. They are just tired of the BS that people like you keep spewing.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Oy, I can’t believe the WSJ doesn’t fact check. What a hack piece. If I had written this in J-school, I would have gotten a poor grade.
“litigating back to life absentee votes that had been rejected on Election Day.”
Whatever.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:12 PM
“Ahem, Franken would have won the recount without the absentee ballots.”
Sure he would have, Flush.
With ballots; without ballots; extra ballots; ghost voters, whatever way you slice it Franken wins.
Soros is no fool.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Pete…
They think Norm won, but they just want the challenge to stop. Right.
What a doubting Thomas… does every little shred of uncertainty have to be proven to you with links??????????
“I see nothing that would make me believe otherwise”
Come on man, get real!
January 9th, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Just because the world is round doesn’t mean that Erik Paulsen is dishonest. I just don’t see anything to make me believe otherwise.
Sheeeesh!
January 9th, 2009 at 1:09 PM
danbrome, I see once again you expect people to take your word for it. With your history I certainly wouldn’t hold my breath.
I met Erik Paulsen at a dinner a month ago. Very nice honest guy. The voters made a wise choice in voting for him.
You on the other hand are a tool of the DFL. You speak their talking points everytime you open your mouth.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Erik Paulsen is a nice guy. He just lacks honor, seriously.
Do we have to review the reasons why still again?
January 9th, 2009 at 7:54 PM
danbrome. You lack honor. Erik Paulsen does not. You also lack decency but why state the obvious…
You are truely a DFL butt boy danbrome.
January 10th, 2009 at 5:03 PM
This was primarily accomplished by litigating back to life absentee votes that had been rejected on Election Day.
On the radio today you were saying that Franken doesn’t want to count votes. You were refering to rejected absentee ballots. This article seems to be saying that rejected absentee ballots shouldn’t be counted.
Does the WSJ article want to disenfranchise voters, and if so, why did you call it a great article?
January 11th, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Pete…
So let me get this stright.. you think Erik Paulsen is an honorable man?
January 12th, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Yes danbrome I do. You seem to have missed the part about you NOT being an honorable man.
One little but important fact you need to remember danbrome, what you think does not matter to me. Your post nothing but opinions and lies, no facts.
You are a disgrace to rithmetic majors everywhere.