« MPR: “TWIN CITIES MAYORS ARE EYEING THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE” | Home | AP: “WHO WON SENATE RACE? MINNESOTA STILL DOESN’T KNOW” »
COLEMAN FOR US SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “COLEMAN VICTORY IN SUPREME COURT, FRANKEN DENIED ELECTION CERTIFICATE”
By Ryan Flynn | March 6, 2009
ST. PAUL – Ben Ginsberg, legal spokesman for the Coleman for Senate campaign, released the following statement regarding the Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling that denied candidate Franken an election certificate.
“The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision is a victory for Minnesota Law and Minnesotans. This wise ruling will ensure that Harry Reid, Al Franken and Chuck Schumer cannot short-circuit Minnesota Law in their partisan power play.
“We have proven that there are serious issues with the vote count in this election. There remain thousands of wrongly rejected ballots that must be counted. There are hundreds of votes that have been counted twice. And, the Contest Court’s Friday the 13th ruling now has created a new set of rules so that potentially thousands of similar illegal votes are included in the current election day and recount totals. The court must resolve these potentially fatal problems if the court is to fulfill its obligation to certify the number of ‘lawfully cast ballots’ for each candidate.
“Despite Al Franken’s efforts to disenfranchise thousands of Minnesota voters, Norm Coleman is committed to ensuring a legal and fair election. This ruling stops the Franken/Reid/Schumer power play in its tracks, and puts the decision back in Minnesota where it belongs.â€
###
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 108 Comments »
108 Responses to “COLEMAN FOR US SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “COLEMAN VICTORY IN SUPREME COURT, FRANKEN DENIED ELECTION CERTIFICATE””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:55 PM
How exactly does the Minnesota Supreme Court “short-circuit” the Senate’s plenary power to seat Franken if it sees fit? In fact, the decision explicitly recognizes this power.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:07 PM
“Electin Certificate”? Franken can’t he provide proof he’s paid his taxes.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Plydumb … how short is your memory:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37213339.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUs
March 6th, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Angry Al is trying to get the Supremes to force the SOS and Gov to ignore the law. That’s what this is all about. Not surprising, from a Democrat. For Democrats, laws are for suckers.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Well said D. Disgusting sleeze thru & thru is the Mr. Frankin, & we already have enough of those down Washington way – who are also tax evading SOB’s!
March 6th, 2009 at 3:50 PM
It’s not so much a victory for Coleman as it is a victory for the rule of law.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Hey MOUTHdem, are you implying that the Senate can seat anyone it sees fit? That’s novel. Maybe at some point, the Senate should boot Harry Reid and seat Ron Jeremy in his place.
As long as Nevada’s going to be represented by a dick, they may as well have a professional.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Let’s flip a coin. Only fair way to resolve this.
How about a mud-wrestling match? Al vs. Norm, winner take all. Target Center for charity?
March 6th, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Ron Jeremy’s approval rating is much higher.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Gee chestnut, for a republican, you sure know a lot about 1980s male porn stars.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:23 PM
AC, I don’t think Chestnut meant to offend.
We all know that you, danbrome, and Leroy (the jackass) are the experts in male porn.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:48 PM
A coin flip would be fine, as long as Mark Ritchie calls it for the DFL after it settles on the floor.
March 6th, 2009 at 4:53 PM
“As long as Nevada’s going to be represented by a dick, they may as well have a professional.”
That is pretty funny.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Chesty,
Yes, that’s what I am saying. The Senate can seat franken without a certificate.. that was largely the basis for the Court’s rejection of Franken’s supremacy arguments: namely, that Minnesota’s certification laws do not prevent the Senate from conducting his Federal right to seat senators. At the end of the day, the Senate has plenary power.
Chile,
The Burriss situation proves my point, he was seated regardless of what the state attorney general was going to do.
As I said on the day this case was submitted to the Court, Franken’s arguments were weak. It’s no shock he lost this particular motion. But, it also will have little consequence on the ultimate result.
As I said before, if the panel affirms the election there is little ground for a viable Coleman appeal and T-Paw isn’t going to burn much national political aspirations with a partisan move of witholding a certificate.
March 6th, 2009 at 5:59 PM
danbrome, certainly you don’t think Ritchie is going to bend over and pick anything up with you in the room.
Or, maybe he would.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Plydumb.
“In announcing a new agreement with Burris, Reid said an election certificate is a “vital” requirement of the Senate that has never been waived in modern history. ”
The Burriss situation proves you are wrong. Why do you lie?
“But while Illinois statute doesn’t appear to require Secretary of State’s signature, the Senate rules do, according to the interpretation of Senate Democratic Leadership.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/01/09/1738459.aspx
March 6th, 2009 at 6:23 PM
“The Senate can seat franken without a certificate.. ”
Fascinating. So elections are worthless with the Obama administration and the fascist liberals in charge of both houses of Congress.
There’s change we can believe in.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:25 PM
The country should be more concerned with one party rule in Washington. Democrats have exceeded any moment in history with the level of arrogance, ignorance and greed in their one party control.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:42 PM
Chestnut-
For somebody who was so outraged at Al Franken’s quote “porn career” during the campaign, I am shocked that you even know who Ron Jeremy is.
You see, I’m a sleazy, smutty, smelly, porn loving Democrat. It only makes sense that I know who he is. But for a good, moral, upstanding, god fearing ReBublican such as yourself, I am surprised that you know that name, much less what he does for a living. Are you really a Democrat disguised as a ReBublican??
March 6th, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Integrity, I realize you use the “B” in Republican in order to be a smartass of some kind but doesn’t it help if people know what the hell you trying to say? Please explain how that is supposed to irritate a ReBublican?
March 6th, 2009 at 8:13 PM
No need to repeat your self..
“You see, I’m a sleazy, smutty, smelly, porn loving”
March 6th, 2009 at 9:59 PM
The world is watching and history is recording for the public. These records will stain the Franken and Democrats forever. If the courts choose to carry out injustice instead of Justice and with all eveidence recorded and for public viewing and studies (like the punch card ballots in the 2000 election contest)then A Franken seating would benifit the GOP overall nationally then if Coleman were to have a fair remedy ordered from this tribunal and later MN supreme court. This stain on the Democrats and all the documented follies coming forth from this election, with Franken’s enormous always gaining file of material would implode. The Democrats are riding high just before the huge crash just as the housing market did. I don’t want to see failure for this country but during the next few election cycles I’m sure hoping for a good Republican kick-ass.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I have just been contacted by the Obama administration…they tell me that my posting blogs of the nature of my just previous blog was hateful and inappropriate. They wrongly accuse me of being recorded on the Rush Limbaugh show for this weeks Monday broadcast. ‘I said no that was not I who called the stimulus package a monstrosity…they wouldn’t believe me…
…and told me to watch my step and shut my mouth…that my audacity was absolutely shocking and so…inappropriate.
I said no!! I will continue to beat my breast and blog to save democracy!!
Disclaimer : this posting was a creation of the author’s strange imagination and absolutely none of its content is true. Again, this fiction was created from the author’s own strange mind…nothing more nothing less.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:40 PM
ReBublican refers back to our new representative from the 3rd, Erik Paulsen. I’m glad that he is our new representative given that he can’t even review his own campaign adds and spell the name of his party right. I’ll take a guy like Al Franken representing me over Erik Paulsen any day…Democrat or ReBublican…I don’t care what kind of jokes he’s made. Erik Paulsen is a wet blanket who doesn’t even have a position on the Iraq war. He will be lucky to be re-elected in 2010…the DFL will take back the 3rd after over 50 years of ReBublican control, I am confident. Erik Paulsen is no Jim Ramstad as he would have us all believe he is. Does that answer your question concerning my use of the word ReBublican?
March 6th, 2009 at 11:10 PM
Sad, but true. This guy is my representative.
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6416/image004hz4.jpg
March 6th, 2009 at 11:57 PM
So true danbrome…it is sad…thanks for the photographic support…
March 6th, 2009 at 11:57 PM
The country should be more concerned with one party rule in Washington. Democrats have exceeded any moment in history with the level of arrogance, ignorance and greed in their one party control.”
I guess the Democrats have had a good teacher in the GOP all these years then.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:33 AM
Kathy,
Who taught the Democrats how to evade taxes, I know it wasn’t Republicans. It’s epidemic with your party as Obama’s appointees have shown along with Franken. I guess it’s like charity, they expect you to give, but they don’t do it. Gore, Obama, Biden are all cheapskates when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are. They funny thing is that they have no level of embarrassment or shame about it.
All talk and no action which pretty much sums up the Democrat Party. The party of hypocrisy.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:49 AM
Thanks AC. Thats funny.
No Republican will have difficulty getting elected in 2010. Obama and the Democrat lead congress are leading this country to ruin with all thier spending.
My friends who voted for Democrats are shaking their heads and regretting their votes these days. They are realizing that they fell for the old bait and switch routine of the Democrat party.
Who would of thought that the party that complained about deficit spending would attempt to destroy this country with extreme deficit spending to bail out their big business friends.
March 7th, 2009 at 7:50 AM
“Who taught the Democrats how to evade taxes, I know it wasn’t Republicans.”
I learned how to evade or at least avoid taxes from the movie “The Wheeler Dealers”. One upside of a down economy is that our tax bills are going to be way down. Let’s see if that stimulates the economy.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Hiram get his tax advice from movies – Al Franken did not teach him how to cheat on his taxes.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:35 AM
We need Franken desperately. He’ll help us supply the antidote to those loathsomely high Down Jones averages. It’s mighty hard to further the cause of Democrat governance if that Dow keeps getting away from us.
November 1992: Clinton elected President – Dow = 3240
November 1994: Republicans retake control of the House and Senate – Dow = 3807
June 2001: Jim Jeffords gives control of the Senate to the Democrats – Dow = 10,990
November 2002: Republicans retake Senate – Dow = 8537
November 2006: Democrats retake control of House & Senate – Dow = 12,342
November 2008: Obama elected President – Dow = 8943
Today, four months since Obama was elected President – Dow = 6626.
Let’s review. During the first two years of Clinton, while the Democrats retained control of the House and Senate, the Dow increased but was relatively flat.
In 1994, the Republicans took control of the House and Senate. The Dow exploded, increasing at an annual rate of almost 18% per year for the next 6 & 1/2 years, the entire period while the Republicans remained in control.
In June 2001, the Democrats gained control of the Senate. The Dow then plunged at an annual rate of almost -16% until November 2002, when the Republicans regained control of the Senate.
From November 2002, until November 2006, the Dow increased at a rate of over 20% per year, until the Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate.
In November 2006, the Democrats regained control of both the House and Senate. During the first two years of Democrat control (from November 2006 to November 2008), the Dow plunged at an annual rate of almost -15% per year. Since the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in November 2006, the Dow has dropped over 46% or a total of over 5700 points.
Since Obama was elected President, the Democrat controlled plunge in the Dow has accelerated, and the Dow is now down over 25% in the four months since election day.
The demise of capitalism: we think it’s a beautiful thing.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:38 AM
…. now there’s Change we can believe in !!!
Do you think Franken’s handlers have tried explaining to Angry Al what the DOW even is ???
March 7th, 2009 at 10:42 AM
It’s about time something goes right for Norm in this seriously flawed recount circus. We need to either award Coleman his original victory or do a revote. More people in Minnesota favor a revote than those who don’t.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Excellent post Richard J Daley redux!
March 7th, 2009 at 11:58 AM
“Fascinating. So elections are worthless with the Obama administration and the fascist liberals in charge of both houses of Congress.”
Jesus Chestnut, I didn’t think you were this stupid. Yes, it’s Obama that structured the Constitution which grants the Senate plenary power to seat Senators. The same Constitutional authority recognized again by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Fortunately you aren’t quite as dumb as Chile:
“The Burriss situation proves you are wrong. Why do you lie?
‘But while Illinois statute doesn’t appear to require Secretary of State’s signature, the Senate rules do, according to the interpretation of Senate Democratic Leadership.’”
First, Chile, was he seated? Yes.
Second, who the hell do you think sets the “senate rules?” Perhaps the SENATE?
March 7th, 2009 at 12:00 PM
“More people in Minnesota favor a revote than those who don’t.”
And yet the majority of Minnesotans don’t support a revote. Nice play on the statistics. Nor is there any statutory or state constitutional mechanism for a revote. Nor should we be forced to pay for a revote. Accept the fact your guy lost.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Dare-
You are delirious…even the “scientific poll” that Ryan posted doesn’t show that more people favor a revote? Why isn’t one of your options “award Al Franken the victory he has currently earned”? Get with the program before you post; the people here won’t let you get away with a thing.
There is no scientific evidence to show that Obama and the Democrats are causing the DOW to drop. There is the same amount of evidence for that as there is that God is causing it to fall…fools, using any shred of “evidence” you can to bring down the leadership of our country…
March 7th, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Integrity..
To this bunch, all that matters is the Dow. Everything else is irrelevant. That’s the mentality that brought us to this crisis in the first place.
Can we all agree on this?
March 7th, 2009 at 1:07 PM
The polls they showed on KSTP reported this:
Revote YES 46%
Revote NO 44%
Undecided 10%
The “recount” is seriously flawed and needs to be tossed out. The original tally in which Coleman won the race is much more accurate, but if that’s not good enough for the lib’s, lets have another vote and be done with it.
“There is no scientific evidence to show that Obama and the Democrats are causing the DOW to drop.”
When has Socialism ever helped an economy Mr. Integrity?
March 7th, 2009 at 1:48 PM
“Revote YES 46%
Revote NO 44%
Undecided 10%”
And yet, we have yet to see the questions, or, for example, the sample was informed of the cost of the recount. More importantly, these numbers show that there is not a majority of Minnesotans who favor a revote.
“The “recount†is seriously flawed and needs to be tossed out.”
I’d like to hear your basis because Coleman surely has not proposed some legally recognized reason why it was flawed or should be tossed out. Face it, you people would say it should be tossed out no matter what route leads to Franken leading.
Here’s a hint, election officials lawfully applying the discretion granted to them by law and rule is not a reason to toss out an election.
“When has Socialism ever helped an economy Mr. Integrity?”
Putting aside the idiot talking point that Obama is a socialist, show me how the trajectory of the Dow was changed by Obama becoming president. Come talk to me, say, at least a month after the guy has had his policies in place. Maybe then you have a basis to claim that Obama, and not the administration before him, has shown signs of failure.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:22 PM
“And yet, we have yet to see the questions, or, for example, the sample was informed of the cost of the recount.”
This would be a rare example of taxpayer dollars spent wisely.
“I’d like to hear your basis because Coleman surely has not proposed some legally recognized reason why it was flawed or should be tossed out.”
I would say that votes being counted twice in left leaning precincts and unequal methods of counting ballots between precincts should be enough of a basis alone, even for liberals.
“show me how the trajectory of the Dow was changed by Obama becoming president.”
History shows that liberals are bad for the economy, and Obama’s socialist policies (increased taxes, massive spending, Hillary care, Cap & Trade, etc.) are scaring the hell out of investors. Of all the Presidential candidates we had to choose from, we ended up with the absolute worst one. The problem is that most Obama voters don’t know who Jimmy Carter is and don’t understand the severe damage he and his democrat Congress did to the economy. Obama is like Jimmy Carter on liberal steroids.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:26 PM
“I would say that votes being counted twice in left leaning precincts and unequal methods of counting ballots between precincts should be enough of a basis alone, even for liberals.”
The only evidence Coleman presented on the dupe issue was the discredited testimony of a hack witness who wanted to be coached by Coleman’s lawyers. That’s it. There is zero chance that the panel buys Coleman’s duplicate ballot issue. And, even if there was a duplicate issue, Coleman has only offered testimony on some 10 ballots. We should have a revote because instead of winning by 275, Franken would only win by 265? Stupid.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:28 PM
“History shows that liberals are bad for the economy”
The only thing History has shown is that during the last three Republican administrations we’ve experienced severe economic contraction. Reagan spent us into the ground, Bush I was ousted precisely because of the economy, and Bush II got us where we are now.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:32 PM
“The only evidence Coleman presented on the dupe issue was the discredited testimony of a hack witness who wanted to be coached by Coleman’s lawyers.”
And, notably, the hack witness wasn’t even involved in the alleged duplicate counting. She thinks she overheard it at another table and just happens to not know who the judge was that was involved (don’t you find it slightly odd that Coleman’s lawyers couldn’t find this mystery judge and call them to tesify).
It’s time to realize your side is full of sh*t.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:35 PM
“Reagan spent us into the ground”
Reagan pulled us out of the severe Carter recession.
*****************************
“Bush I was ousted precisely because of the economy”
Bush I was ousted because he raised taxes
*****************************
“and Bush II got us where we are now”
Bush II pulled us out of the Clinton recession despite 9-11 and Katrina. Things started going down the toilet only after the Dem’s took over the HOUSE AND SENATE, and nuts like Barney Frank were able to block Republican efforts to fix Fannie and Freddie before things got so out of control.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:42 PM
“Dem’s took over the HOUSE AND SENATE”
Could someone on the right decide whether it’s the PRESIDENT or the CONGRESS who is responsible for the economy? Because, it’s sure as hell can’t be Obama’s fault if, for the last 30 years, it’s only been Congress’s fault that the economy has gone south.
And yes, Bush really saved us from that Clinton economic boom (recession?) Those last several years of Bush II have been like the roaring 20s. Except we were roaring in the wrong direction.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:46 PM
“Could someone on the right decide whether it’s the PRESIDENT or the CONGRESS who is responsible for the economy?”
The only thing we know for sure is that a democrat President with a democrat Congress spells DISASTER!
March 7th, 2009 at 2:55 PM
“The only thing we know for sure is that a democrat President with a democrat Congress spells DISASTER!”
And yet you lack any basis to make such a ridiculous claim. Typical of the right.
March 7th, 2009 at 2:58 PM
“And yet you lack any basis to make such a ridiculous claim”
There is no better example than the Carter administration and his House and Senate controlled by the democrat party.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:13 PM
The right’s sole reliance on Carter is dumb. The economic issues Carter faces (largely inflation) were spurred by massive war spending in the mid 1960s (sound familiar?). That inflationary pressure was then exacerbated by the second major oil shocks. What most of you tools forget is that Nixon/Ford experienced as bad of inflation in ’74 as was experienced under Carter.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Plymouth Dem,
If I hear you complain one more time about Reagan spending us into the ground after what your Congress just passed and your president just signed onto, I’m going to puke. If you cared about reckless spending, you’d surely be up in arms about a $1.75 trillion deficit your Congress and president just handed to the next five generations. And that’s just for this year. What about the next three years of his administration? Projections from the non-partisan CBO show that Obama is set to nearly double the national debt over the next four years.
danbrome,
You’re as bright about economics as you are picking political parties. The stock market didn’t get us in the mess we are today. The stock market is a result of the mess we’re in today, but more importantly, the mess we’re going to be in over the next several years. Every time Obama announces a new economic program or package, the stock market tanks. It’s gone down over 3,000 points since Obama was elected. That’s a loss over over $3 trillion in the economy. You better be concerned about Wall Street because nearly everyone in our country is invested in our economic success — either through 401(k) accounts, IRAs, pensions, jobs, etc. The only ones who really aren’t invested in our economic success are government employees. Maybe that’s your line of work?
March 7th, 2009 at 3:26 PM
PlymouthDem,
You’re as bright about economics as danbrome is. While there was some inflation during the Nixon and Ford years, we didn’t get have stagflation which we had under Jimmy Carter. We didn’t have double digit inflation combined with double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates. Barack Obama is pursuing the same reckless fiscal policies of the Carter administration and we’re all going to pay for the result.
By the way, if spending on war causes inflation and economic collapse, why didn’t we have inflation and economic collapse after WWII or the Korean War?
March 7th, 2009 at 3:32 PM
P.S. PlymouthDem,
Defense spending in the 1960s was over 10% of GDP. In the 1970s, it went down to 5.9% of GDP and today it’s only 3.4% of GDP. So much for your idea that it’s defense spending which causes inflation.
March 7th, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Good point Chris. Obama wants to cut the defense even more to pay for his massive expansion of the welfare state. This sounds dangerous to me.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Then how come republican presidents are responsible for 74% of our current national debt?
Everyone here needs to go read Edward Lotterman’s piece on deficit spending. Here are the highlights:
– Inflation-adjusted national debt stayed very constant from 1948 through 1981. Four Democratic and three Republican presidents during this time. However, Democrats controlled both houses for 29 of these 33 years. Congress was never split during this time.
So some of the arguments I read constantly here on MDE about Dems being horrible at all things financial appear to be bunk.
–Only four-tenths of 1 percent of our 2009 debt comes from Kennedy-Johnson era deficits. Together, Nixon and Ford contributed 3.3 percent, while Carter reduced the real debt slightly.
Wait, I thought Carter was an idiot? Any rebuttals?
Reagan appears to be the biggest contributor to our debt…
–Nearly 24 percent of our current debt comes from his presidency. George H.W. Bush contributed another 13.6 percent and Bill Clinton added 4.8 percent.
–George W. Bush is the champ, however. More than 36 percent of the total came from deficits between his first budget year, fiscal 2002, and February 2009.
And in all fairness…
–So while the three most recent Republican presidents oversaw deficits equal to nearly 74 percent of our debt, they should not bear all the blame alone.
Full article:
http://www.twincities.com/lotterman/ci_11734974?nclick_check=1
March 7th, 2009 at 9:06 PM
“Then how come republican presidents are responsible for 74% of our current national debt?”
If this is true, it won’t be for long with Obama spending like a drunken sailor. I’m starting to wonder if he isn’t trying to destroy our economy on purpose.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Chris..
You are one pompous fool.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:35 PM
AC,
First, I find it amazing that budget deficits are only blamed on Presidents (Republican or Democrat) when it’s Congress — specifically the House of Representatives, which proposes budgets and spending. I didn’t know Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were in Congress while being President.
Second, you’re focusing on one issue — the deficits and debt. With respect to the Carter administration, the deficit was the least of our problems. The main problems (besides the shame of having our hostages taken by Iran for 444 days) were: double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates. All combined, it was called stagflation. Ronald Reagan turned around the stagflation and our economy had sustained significant economic growth with low inflation.
Third, I did not support the budget deficits of the Republican Congress and President Bush. One cannot blame Bush or Congress for the 2002 deficits as that was post 9/11 and we were doing everything possible to keep our economy from tanking on the uncertainty of the terrorist attacks. Beyond that, I think Republican Congresses spent money just as poorly as Democrats.
Last, President Obama and the Democratic Congress has run up a $1.75 trillion deficit in just one year. That’s more than four years of Bush deficits combined. They propose to double the national debt over the next four years — according to the non-partisan CBO. If you want to bitch about deficits, maybe you should contact your Democratic Member of Congress and write to your president.
danbrome,
Nice comeback. It’s always amazing to see people lose the argument and call names. You don’t contribute any knowledge or ideas here — just propaganda. Go spread your foolishness somewhere else — like in my neighbor’s corn field (if you catch my drift).
March 7th, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Ok Mr. Know-it-all.
I repeat, you are a pomous fool. Doyou even know what that means?
March 7th, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Not to meantion a pompous fool.
March 7th, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Not to mention a pompous fool.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Chris..
Do you think we should tighten out belts right now when the economy is in a free fall?
Are you saying you would not take any action, so as to preserve the strengthening calamity?
Can you blame the Obama Administration for aggressively attacking a crisis that could wipe out everything this country has built over the past 200 years, and put our very liberties at risk?
Do you really blame them?
March 8th, 2009 at 8:10 AM
danbrome,
Obama is making the situation much worse with his aggressive attempt to turn us into a Socialist nation. Does it make sense now why Obama surrunded himself with leftist radicals like terrorist Bill Ayers who bombed the Pentagon?
March 8th, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Chris,
Good points, unfortunately danbrome proves once again that he doesn’t have a clue, and blindly listens to the BS that BO continues to spew.
With that joke of a stimulus package of $800 billion, and now the bloated budget with approximately 8,000 earmarks, some of which Obama included himself last year, even Democrats are starting to worry, and are thinking about their re-election bids. Bayh and Conrad are good examples. The budget will spend about 12.7% of GDP, and is 4 times the largest defecit that Bush racked up. Brome, I’m sure you are happy that MN is getting a snow making machine, and San Francisco is saving a swamp mouse (rumor has it that the pet stores in SF are running out of gerbils), but wasteful spending is stupid action that you seem to support and it will not turn the economy around, it will only make things worse and bloat the size of government which is part of Obama’s plan. You do have one point correct, our liberties are at risk thanks to the clown in the white house.
Increasing taxes on the so called wealthy is another idiotic policy that your “messiah” seems to think will help pay for his bloated spending. Wrong, it will do nothing but slash more jobs. Have you looked at the recent unemployement numbers brome? They’re getting close to double digits you moron.
Obama compared the DOW to a political poll this week, and people like PlyDumb don’t think he’s responsible for the market being down 3,000 points since he was elected? Meanwhile, retirement accounts continue to lose billions, if not trillions of dollars. Topping it all off are truly stupid statements such as “energy costs are too low”, uttered from the WH Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel. No wonder there is zero confidence in this administration and the strategies they are undertaking. I love how the Democrat party is already worrying about the mid term elections in 2010. They can already see the handwriting on the wall, and know that 2012 will bring about “change we can all believe in”, thank God!
I’ve noticed that we haven’t been hearing from the historical revisionists lately that were touting FDR policies and comparing Obama’s stimulus package to their hero. I guess they needed reminding that unemployment was at 20% in 1940, and his policies failed miserably also. Obama’s problem is that he won’t have a world was to save his ass like FDR did.
Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will go down in history as the dumbest trifecta we’ve ever had in charge but will have a bright side to it all. Liberals will be out of power for quite a long time after this debaucle.
March 8th, 2009 at 8:23 AM
Typo “world war” in second to last paragraph
March 8th, 2009 at 8:59 AM
It is congress that approves the budget.
Hey, AC .. bash Reagan all you want, but Democrats had control of the House for all 8 years he was in office. Democrats controlled the House and Senate 100% of the time, during the Nixon and GHWB years.
Carter had full control of the House and Senate during his four years. Together, they created the highest misery index since the Great Depression.
Clinton had full control of congress his first two years. The voters took note of this faulure … Republicans took control of both houses the next six years.
GWB, we all know how things have gone to hell since Dems took control of the House and Senate in 2007.
2009: The first two months of The Chosen One and a Democratic push for socialism have been a disaster. Do you really want socialism?
March 8th, 2009 at 9:07 AM
danbrome, Obama is “aggressivley attacking” capitalism and democracy. With Obama, it is our 200 years of freedom, that is at risk.
Every time Obama opens his mouth, the stock market declines and more people are laid-off. He knows this, but doesn’t care. His mission is to make us a socialist nation.
* Obama is a known associate of terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama is soft on terrorists world wide.
*Obama was voted the most liberal member of the senate – http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc#results
* Obama is on record as favoring “redistribution of wealth”, and calls it “economic justice”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
* Obama gave ACORN, $833,000 during his campaign, to assist in their voter fraud efforts.
Obama: Socialist-Fascist
March 8th, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Seems like Obama’s new policies are having some unintended consequences out there. Have any of you been out buying new guns or ammunition lately? Cabelas, Fleet Farm, and Sportsman’s Warehouse have all had a run on guns and/or ammo since the election.
There are certain caliber ammo that is almost impossible to find right now including .40, 9mm, and .44′s and the prices are going up. As soon as the dealers get shipments in, people are buying multiple boxes of ammo. Cabelas got 5 assault rifles in the other day, AR15′s and AK47′s and they sold out in 1 hour. An older couple came in a week ago and bought $2,000 worth of shells, and one guy bought $10,000 worth of various guns. Is there something we should know about, or are people stocking up just in case? Would like to know what everyone thinks is going on.
The other cool thing I saw yesterday was at a couple of car dealers. I test drove new cars at 3 dealers yesterday who informed me that other small business owners had the same idea I did about not being a victim of extortion at the hands of the Obama administration. Rather than pay half of your salary to taxes, people are looking to buy expensive cars in an effort to stay under the $250K income threshold and use them as write offs. I still don’t know if leasing or buying is the way to go, and what the rules are but one thing is for certain, thanks to Barry, I’ll be driving a vehicle I never thought I would own or my wife would let me buy!
Gun dealers and foriegn car dealers are doing great. Way to go Obama.
Hey dan or Leroy, what color car do you suggest?
March 8th, 2009 at 11:13 AM
The Second American Revolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
This is worth watching.
March 8th, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Thank goodness I’ve still got a basement full of ammo from Y2K…..
March 8th, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Dash, danbrome and Leroy would prefer a pink car. They’d slap a rainbow sticker on the window, a green sticker on the bumpers, and down the road they’d go. (danbrome, if you bought a bright yellow hybrid, it might catch Aswhin’s eye!)
KIS, danbrome is thankful that he has a basement full of KY.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Chile,
Thanks for the laugh! Pink would definitely suit them. I saw a pink handled .38 revolver yesterday at Cabela’s that they would like.
March 8th, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Dash, I first learned of “pink guns” a couple of years ago when the media had a hissy over Gander Mountain’s stocking of them. They were upset that guns were being marketed to women and people of danbrome’s ilk.
If danbrome or Leroy take your advice, Subaru should pay you a commission.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:46 PM
This election burger has been ruined. Time for a redo!!! Don’t worry Democrats…trust me we can afford it. We will use some of that stimulous money.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:58 PM
“Time for a redo!!!”
I agree, but the libs are afraid of this because they know they would lose.
March 8th, 2009 at 3:59 PM
danbrome,
You make think my certainty in economic theory is pompus, but you are the one who is the fool. Barack Obama’s policies are what’s wrecking the economy. Taking trillions of dollars out of the private economy (via tax increases, printing more money or borrowing money) is what’s wrecking the economy. Here’s just a brief laundry list of Obama initiatives that have caused the Dow to plummet and three trillion dollars of wealth to be destroyed:
1. Proposal to raise personal income taxes.
2. Proposal to raise corporate tax rates, which are already the highest in the western world.
3. Proposal to raise capital gains taxes.
4. Proposal to lift the cap on taxable income for FICA and Medicare taxes (which hits not only the individual wage earner but also their employer and double hits the self-employed).
5. Running up a deficit of $1.75 trillion in one year with a doubling of the national debt over four years.
6. Cap and trade, which has crippled the European economy and sets to do the same here.
7. Card check.
8. Unemployment mandates for part time workers.
9. Bailing out mortgages for people who couldn’t afford their house in the first place and owe more than the house is worth today.
10. “Clean” energy initatives which, in Obama’s own words, will “necessarily cause energy prices to skyrocket.”
Danbrome, you can call people pompus and whatever kind of names you like, but the facts are that Obama is causing massive amounts of wealth to be destroyed. If you think it’s better for the government to spend money instead of individuals, then I’d like to put one of the bureaucrats I know in charge of your checkbook and see how you like it.
March 8th, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I forgot #11 and #12:
11. Capping the mortgage deduction on higher end homes, the construction of which has helped fuel the economy for the last decade or so.
12. Eliminating charitable deductions for higher income wage earners.
March 8th, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Mexican cartels infiltrate Houston:
Recent arrests in a mistaken killing point to the perilous presence of gangs
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6299436.html
We have this in Minnesota right now as shown by the recent Latino gang shootings at Southdale. Liberal mayor R.T. Rybak is making the situation worse with his Illegal Alien Sanctuary City policies.
We really need to start cracking down on illegal immigration, good luck with all that though with Obama in charge who got an F on illegal immigration issues from Numbers USA. I’m sure Franken would be pro-illegal immigration as well.
grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=IL&VIPID=1162
March 8th, 2009 at 5:27 PM
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=IL&VIPID=1162
That’s better.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:05 PM
SAVE AMERICA
STOP OBAMA!
March 9th, 2009 at 6:13 AM
I was critical of Franken’s legal strategy here, seeking a certificate of election that he probably wouldn’t get. It seemed to me he was setting himself up for a loss. But Al may have gotten the victory he needed. That is, the Supreme Court at least suggested that he would get a certificate once state proceedings are concluded, that he would not have to wait for final action on any parallel federal proceedings. I don’t think he could have reasonably expected much more.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:29 AM
Angry Al will follow every strategy he can to stop legal votes from counting ….. and keep the illegal votes in the count …. he’s just such a pig.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:45 AM
Just to keep things simple, at some point, the proceedings have to end. We cannot spend the six years of this current senate term searching for and arguing over votes.
Every day Minnesota goes without a senator, we are being deprived of our rights. The clock is ticking here. Surely, Norm Coleman should be allowed the right to litigate to he heart’s content. If he ultimately prevails in the federal court, the seat will quite properly be his. But in the interim Minnesotans need and have a right to a second voice in the U.S. Senate. And when the Minnesota proceedings are concluded, the leader in the popular vote, whether that’s Franken or Coleman should provide that voice until all the legal proceedings are over.
March 9th, 2009 at 11:51 AM
If you are really so concerned Hiram then why not suggest that the Govenor appoint someone to fill the position until this is over?
March 9th, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Chris-
In case you didn’t notice, the economy is bad, and getting worse every day. If your proposal is to do nothing and see what happens, I can’t even begin to argue with you.
Historically, when the taxes on the rich are lowered, and the money coming in is less, the economy gets worse. Likewise, when the taxes on the rich are at a moderate level, the economy does well. When wealth inequality is high, the economy is poor and politics becomes polarized, as it is now. When wealth inequality is low, and politics is not polarized, as in the post WWII boom, mainly in the 50s and 60s, the economy does well. Those are indisputable facts.
Specifically talking about the income tax increases that Obama is proposing, they will put the taxes on the rich back to where they were before Bush was president (when the economy was doing well), from their current place at around 31.1% to the 2000 level of 33%. That means that the people at the top will pay an extra $19.00 for every $1,000 of income. Are you honestly going to say that the top 1% of earners can’t afford this? That this extra $19.00 will crush the employers and kill all the jobs? That it will send the rich to the poor house? Get real. The Bush tax cuts cost the country $10 trillion over 10 years. At times like these, we can’t afford to not have that kind of money.
It’s a fact that the country needs the rich to help finance the government. Think of it this way, if you need to borrow $5.00, do you talk to your friend who you know has $1000 or your friend who you know has $2? Times like these call for bold and decisive action. Everyone has to take part. Close our eyes and see what happens is not an option here.
The president is willing to work with all sides to get the economy moving again, but won’t wait for the other sides to decided to step up to the table and work things out. He’ll go it alone if he has to, but would rather have a plan based on compromise. The GOP’s current plan is to vote no on anything that Obama puts on paper. That’s not teamwork, that’s childish “take my ball and go home” menatlity.
Finally, your mention of card check. Laughable. I support the rights of workers to organize in any way that they want to, just like Al Franken. That’s why we support the Employee Free Choice Act. Why don’t you (and please refrain from the fallacy that it takes away the right to a secret ballot, because we all know that it doesn’t)? Here is another area where a quick history lesson would be good for you. When unions have been strong, the poor and middle class do exceptionally well. The rich also do well, just not at the same rate percentage wise as those in the lower classes. The opposite is true when “union busting” happens and fewer workers are involved in unions. So again, why would you want to deny workers the right to organize in any way that they want to?
I’ll have to stop there, this post is gigantic already. If you have any other silly theories about how Obama is ruining the world let us know. As I said earlier last week, there is about at much proof that God is causing the stock market to fall, as there is evidence that Obama is causing it to fall. Lets get away from the politics of distraction and get back to the business of the people and fixing our broken economy. Our future and the future of the next several generations depends on it.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Sorry Integrity, I’d rather “take my ball and go home”, rather than partner up with this insanity. Like I said in previous posts, I would rather take a cut in pay than be a victim of extortion by the government. And yes, I do plan on buying a company car that is ridiculously priced, and I’m not the only business owner with the same idea.
Next year it will be new computers, equipment, the car, cell phones, and walking away from business in order to stay under the $250K threshold if need be.
I’m thinking the Porche 911 Cabriolet or the Audi A8. What do you think?
March 9th, 2009 at 6:50 PM
AC, The Democrat congress for two years and the election of Obama in November has caused the economic problems we are seeing today. There is only one fact required to prove this and that is the Democrats have been in charge since the beginning of this problem.
Democrats own this problem. Now stop making it worse.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:36 PM
The problems we are dealing with today are more than two years old. The housing crisis, the banking industry, etc. go back many, many years. It all went unchecked by democrats and republicans for too long.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Integrity,
Your post raises so many issues that I don’t know where to begin. First, your version of wealth inequality is basically the same thing that has been preached by every Socialistic regime in the history of the world.
Your revisionism of the Bush and Clinton economies is also absurd. While we had gains in the stock market under Clinton, we also had gains in the stock marker under Bush when it peaked at 14,000 and change. While we had low unemployment under Clinton, we had low unemployment under Bush. Bush had similar levels of quarterly economic growth. In 2008, the economy grew overall. The idea that raising taxes on the rich is good for the economy and that cutting taxes on the rich is bad for the economy is pablum.
You claim that the top 1% can afford a tax increase. That may be true, but what you don’t understand is that the top income earners arejob creators. Punishing job creators is a hell of a way to lower unemployment. How many people in the lowest tax bracket employ someone else?
Moreover, your comment that the Bush tax cuts cost our country $10 trillion is assenine. The Bush tax cuts put $10 trillion into our country. If you want to know who is causing wealth to be lost by our country, it’s Obama. Since Obama was elected, over $3 trillion has literally been destroyed. The reason for the stock market collapse is because businesses have no confidence in the policies that are being articulated by our president and Congress. The stock market is about the future, and the future of tax increases, crippling regulations and the other issues I raised is bleak.
As for the card check and unions, card check most certainly takes away the right of the worker to make the decision to join a union in private. If unions are so good for workers, why has private sector union membership plummeted over the last 30 years? All card check accomplishes is allowing union bosses to intimidate workers into joining a union.
Finally, I’m so sick of people saying that Republicans don’t want to do anything to help the economy. It’s not that we’re unwilling to do something for the economy, it’s that we know the policies being advocated by the president and Democrats in Congress will hurt the economy and not help it. If you wanted a three bullet point cure for the economy it would be this: (1)Stop reckless spending and borrowing and bailouts of failed companies. Let them go bankrupt and re-organize. Quit printing money from nowhere (which leads to inflation) and stop borrowing our country into oblivion with $1.75 trillion deficits. (2) Cut personal, payroll and corporate tax rates. Cutting personal and payroll tax rates puts money into the hands of consumers who will spend it. Cutting payroll taxes is also a tax cut for businesses and makes it cheaper for them to hire an employee. Cutting corporate tax rates puts more money into the hands of businesses which hire people and buy goods and equipment. (3) Cut capital gains taxes. By cutting capital gains taxes, you encourage private investment in new and existing businesses. It creates an incentive for someone to take the risk of investing in business.
March 9th, 2009 at 8:59 PM
P.S. Integrity,
It’s not your money! Do you know what the difference between Bernie Madoff and Nancy Pelosi? Bernie Madoff is going to go to prison for stealing his clients money.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Chris..
Just goes to show that ELECTIONS MATTER.
We tried it your way for 8 years and it didn’t work. There is a new sheriff in town, and his committed leadership and bold aggressive actions are a refreshing change from his impotent and often confused predecessor.
By the way, kudos to Integrity. His message of hope is quite a contrast to all the GOP hand wringing. Bravo!
March 9th, 2009 at 10:58 PM
danbrome, there is a “new sheriff in town”, but unlike blazing saddles, this isn’t funny.
Obama’s Hope = Socialism
March 9th, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Don’t any of you get tired of all the crying?
March 10th, 2009 at 5:43 AM
brome, you are delusional. You want to revisit failed policies from the past and label them as “bold agressive action”? Even Democrats are starting to turn on the messiah knowing that his spending proposals won’t work and are out of control.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:53 AM
Chris,
I thought the Bush tax cuts were supposed to improve the economy? Then how come, after eight painful years, unemployment went from 4 to about 7.6 percent? The economy lost 3.6 million jobs in 2008. The number of people living in poverty went up from 12.7 to 17 percent since those tax cuts. In 2001, 17 million Americans relied on food stamps. In 2008, 30 million Americans rely on food stamps.
So I ask you, how exactly did the Bush tax cuts – about 50% more costly than the Obama Stimulus – help our country?
March 10th, 2009 at 8:47 AM
AC..
I’m sure Chris has another 1,500 word reply that will successfully hit all the GOP talking points on taxes.
Be patient, he will be sending shortly.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:08 AM
AC,
Your 8 painful years analogy is just another lie. Bush’s avg. unemployment rate was better than Clinton’s through October 2007:
Bush – 5.2049%
Clinton – 5.2052%
In addition, the GDP constantly increased from 2001 through 2008. The economy did not start tanking until the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, but don’t let the facts get in your way.
They never do.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Dash – lets talk about Clinton’s last 6 years. The last 6 years where Republicans held the House and Senate. The economy did well.
Had Republicans not gained control of congress in 1995, HillaryCare would have been shoved down our thoats. Bill has Republicans to thank.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Chile,
Correct. I wonder how the village idiots will try and spin that one?
March 10th, 2009 at 12:18 PM
The funny part of all this is that both President Bush’s had higher approval ratings at this point in their administration than Obama does yet the media is playing it up like it means something special.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Chile and Dash;
No need to spin. Just the truth.
Jobs created under Clinton = 23.1 million
Jobs created under Bush = 3 million
Source: US Department of Labor – Department of Labor Statistics
And who cares what the unemployment rates were at some random point during Bush’s tenure? I’m sure I could counter with a random point in Clinton’s term where his numbers were better. You have to look at the full eight years. But I’ll throw you a bone and cite a source from FOX News from Jan. 2007 for you:
“Job Growth Under Bush Much Slower Than Under Clinton and Reagan”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html
Average Monthly Unemployment Rates
Clinton = 5.2%
Bush = 5.27%
(Keep in mind the population has grown and so has the workforce)
Source: US Department of Labor – Department of Labor Statistics
Average GDP Growth
Clinton = 3.71%
Bush = 2.23%
Source: International Monetary Fund
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/02/weodata/weoselgr.aspx
And why did the GDP increase from 2006-2008 if those horrible democrats were in control in Congress? Using your logic and past posts, shouldn’t it have started to slide on election day as soon as control changed hands in 2006? You all think that is the case with Obama, right?
March 10th, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Pete, what was the economy and the overall state of the country like when Bush took office in 2001? Especially only two months in. MUCH better. That might be why his approval ratings were higher. Duh.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:27 PM
AC,
Even your smart enough to know that it takes Democrats a little while to screw things up, and as a result, there is the lag effect.
Speaking of sliding on election day, Obama has done a great job of ruining the financial markets from day one. 3,000 points down since election day isn’t something to be proud of.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:34 PM
“Even your smart enough to know that it takes Democrats a little while to screw things up, and as a result, there is the lag effect.”
Then how come you are all bashing Obama for the current mess we are in? Wouldn’t we still be in said lag effect?
So which is it? I’ll give you all some time to get your stories straight.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:15 PM
AC,
What I’m saying is that Obama has been f*&ing up since day one. Even liberals admit it, so he is an anomaly that has actually impacted the markets from day one. Jim Cramer, and avowed lib has been taking him to task regarding the markets. In return, he’s getting beat up by the Obama thugs.
It usually takes a little time before a Democrat screws the pooch, but not the “messiah”, he did it right away.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:27 AM
Obama’s poll numbers are now lower than President Reagans at the same point in his administration.
His numbers are dropping fast as people are beginning to realize they elected a idiot to lead the country. Obama couldn’t manage his kids lunch money much less deal with the economic issues.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Game over.
I hope Norman is asking his PR/Lawyer team to explain the media coverage in the morning. Note to the former senator: you will be laughed at even further if you keep this up. Minnesotans want a senator seated. As painful as that may be to you, you should concede after the ballots are opened April 7.
Wall St. Journal:
Ballot Ruling Favors Franken in Senate Battle
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854611413476215.html
Associated Press — international/national/state wire story:
Court cripples Coleman’s comeback chances in U.S. Senate race
http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=2&a=392265
Star Tribune:
Coleman all but concedes, but will appeal court ruling
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/42221767.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUdcOy_nc:DKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Twin Cities Planet:
Ruling further diminishes Coleman’s election contest prospects
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2009/03/31/ruling-further-diminishes-coleman%E2%80%99s-election-contest-prospects.html
Reuters newswire (International/national), including Washinton Post:
Ruling on uncounted Senate votes favors Franken
http://www.reuters.com/article/peopleNews/idUSTRE52U8M720090331
NY Times:
Minnesota Court Ruling a Setback for Coleman
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/minnesota-court-ruling-a-setback-for-coleman/
The Hill:
Court hands Coleman defeat in key decision
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/court-hands-coleman-defeat-in-key-decision-2009-03-31.html
And surprise, here’s the Fox News headline (can you say down-low play?:
Panel Allows Review Of 400 Ballots In Minnesota Election
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/panel-allows-review–ballots-minnesota-election/