« FROM THE STAR TRIBUNE: DFL SENATE BUDGET PLAN MAY “EVEN FIND OPPOSITION AMONG HOUSE DFLERS” | Home | DID MADOFF’S MILLIONS FUND ANTI-COLEMAN ATTACK ADS? »
COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “AS TRIAL ENDS, COLEMAN POISED TO BE RE-ELECTED”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 13, 2009
FYI – This memo was released earlier this afternoon.
###
All -
The Minnesota Senate election contest trial is now in the hands of the three judge panel. Please see the attached memo [posted above] from Ben Ginsberg, legal spokesman for the Coleman for Senate campaign, about how Norm Coleman is poised, on two tracks, to be reelected to the U.S. Senate.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 57 Comments »
57 Responses to “COLEMAN FOR U.S. SENATE PRESS RELEASE: “AS TRIAL ENDS, COLEMAN POISED TO BE RE-ELECTED””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:52 PM
please, for all the people of Minnesota, tell me that Norm doesn’t plan to take this any further…the people of Minnesota are waiting for equal representation and they deserve it now…
March 13th, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Norm has a duty to take it all the way.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:39 PM
We are better represented by an empty seat then even a powerless republican. Norm would have voted the way I wanted to but the slight chance that he might not would give the Democrats the courage to toss another 50 billion in the stimulus
March 13th, 2009 at 9:28 PM
With his website breached for lack of security regarding Credit cards and Security codes, it will be difficult for Norm Coleman to raise even more millions to take this all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Should the Judges rule against him, Coleman should take it like a man and step aside. Why waste more time on this?? His reputation is already in question concerning Senate Ethics.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:04 PM
1) Coleman won the original tally
2) The “recount” is seriously flawed
3) Franken could never win a recount in a million years.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:06 PM
That should say a REVOTE, sorry.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Can Ginsburg not even count to two? He says there are two paths to Norm Coleman being sworn in and yet only identifies one.. the hail mary approach of the three judge panel actually siding with Coleman.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Minnesota’s reputation is on the line here. Who really cares about Norm or Al? Maybe we elected a wrestler and maybe we tolerated Al and Norm as candidates, but if we cannot do a legitimate recount beyond question, what does it say about Minnesota? I think the court has to count all the votes by the same standard. There is no shortcut to the right result.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:41 AM
No statewide election in state history has been this accurate. When judges are reviewing ballots multiple time to make sure they are counted properly, it is very hard to argue that the process has been anything but fair.
To the set all that aside and revote just because a handful of über partisans are not happy with the vote? I doubt it.
But then again, I would kind of like to see either Norm lose in a landslide, or win and then watch democrats sue to overturn his election by arguing that not all ballots were counted exactly the same by all 87 counties, meaning we need a re-re-vote. Then we could keep revoting it until one side either conceedes, or we lose the second seat permanently.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:54 AM
“No statewide election in state history has been this accurate.”
Prove it. This election is fucked up, courtesy of ACORN’s Secretary of State, Mark Richie.
“it is very hard to argue that the process has been anything but fair.”
Yeah, it’s really fair when the liberals in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties use no judgement and throw in hundreds of illegal ballots, while the rest of the state follows the law and does not.
Still, Coleman lost this thing a long time ago.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:27 AM
“This election is fucked up”
Exactly. The lib’s know that their only hope of pulling this whole scam off is with the flawed recount. They woukld get their ASSES HANDED TO THEM in a revote, because they wouldn’t be able to ride the Obama wave of idiot first time voters for Obama also choosing Franken simply because he has the same “D” next to his name. The democrat vote fraud group ACORN wouldn’t have as much of a presence either.
In any case, this “recount” is seriously flawed, and only in the liberal People’s Republic of Minnesota could things have gone on this long without it getting tossed out.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:02 AM
I’m not sure how left leaning the judges deciding who will be our Senator are, but we’ll soon find out. Hopefully they’re not Commucrats like Al Franken and ACORN goon Mark Ritchie who ran this severely flawed “recount” circus.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Integrity, if you have a problem with how long the process is taking, call SOS Ritchie and tell him so.
Ritchie has allowed this thin to drag on so long because he realizes the public will grow bored and be less concerned about the antics of Ritchie/Acorn.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Again. Tons of allegations, and no facts.
Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean the process was unfair.
If you want to be taken seriously, provide facts.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:35 AM
“because they wouldn’t be able to ride the Obama wave of idiot first time voters for Obama also choosing Franken simply because he has the same “D†next to his name.”
I don’t think it was first time voters who were stupid enough to vote for the EEOC candidate. A lot of moderates were sucked into his fraud.
Your conclusion is dead on though. The level of buyers remorse around the Obama pick, as well as the growing awareness of the arrogance, ignorance and recklessness of the Democrat congress, would not play well for Franken — a hate mongering, Leftist fuck.
All that said: Coleman is a spineless prick.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:36 AM
“Again. Tons of allegations, and no facts.”
That’s a good way to sum you up, Leroy.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:37 AM
“If you want to be taken seriously, provide facts.”
Good advice, Leroy. Take it.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:37 AM
“Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean the process was unfair.”
Huh. That’s pretty funny coming from Leroy.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Chestnut-
Do
March 14th, 2009 at 11:33 AM
you
March 14th, 2009 at 11:33 AM
have
March 14th, 2009 at 11:33 AM
a
March 14th, 2009 at 11:34 AM
point?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I do not think the judge panel fully grasps this complex case. I don’t blame them, but they need consulting help just like anyone else would for a case based on such a narrow area of expertise. Smart judges ask for the resources they need so as to wield true justice. This is sad, because all the information is available except for a few missing ballots. This case calls for a forensic scientific manner of remedy. It’s not that it’s impossible or too hard to do. I tell all of you this is a disgrace. A study by experts will eventually be done and then if we find out whom really one and it isn’t the sitting Senator then can you imagine what a lame duck that Senator would be. Hire a panel of experts to assist these busy judges who do not have expertise nor the time and man power for a forensic search such as this. Remember people this will be in all basic academic law text books. Do you Franken supporters really want to risk having Al’s picture in most of these introduction to law books along with his lawyers smiling, Coleman with his lawyers not smiling and have the caption say that Al Franken definitely lost this election. What if the truth came out after only two (starting from the normal sworn in date) years after the election with the public knowing this for the remaining 4 years of his term. Is it really worth it? Can you imagine the damage to the Democratic Party?
March 14th, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I would like to see this process be over tomorrow. However, I am not saying that Norm has the right to take this as far as he can. However, just because he can take it to the next level doesn’t mean that he should.
Unfortunately for Norm, the burden of proof was on his attorneys, and as it appears, they haven’t been able to provide proof of much of anything to support their claims.
In my mind, both Norm and Al should accept the decision of the 3 judge panel, whatever it is. As it looks, Al Franken will be declared the winner, and finally Minnesota will have their full compliment of Senators again.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:47 PM
You bet Leroy. My point is that you’re a fat, stupid, hypocrite piece of shit.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:49 PM
“However, I am not saying that Norm has the right to take this as far as he can.”
Who gives a shit whether you say he has the right. The Constitution and the volumes of state and federal law say he has the right.
“Integrity”… that’s a poor handle for someone as blatently dishonest and stupid as you.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Also, the Republicans were the ones to pass the Voting rights act and now we need to pass more oversight as to have elections free of fraud cover-ups. We need State oversight and a mandatory Drivers license or other ID card (paid by the state) for a person to vote. This is election reminds me of the South when Democrats conspicuously stuffed the ballot boxes and tallied phantom votes. This behavior to a certain extent is still happening and it’s not cute. We are going to have trained paid State worker professionals recruited from each party to oversee the counties operations to insure that any data-bank incompleteness of updated registered voters or discrepancies between voter roll signatures count (including absentee signatures on those that are included in the count) and actual machine votes which are recorded on tape. We can do better today with the technology we have.
MN spends millions each year to recruit business and tourism I don’t think many people understand what the effect of de-facto negative advertising is and what damage it does to that entity. This election process if not followed through in a just manner will hurt MN. The world is watching and Time Magazine and numerous others are waiting for the next big story. Be ensured that independent groups will be itching to do their own studies to find out the truth and when finished more likely than not a firm consensus will be met. Imagine if the Bush Gore studies by major newspapers found that Gore as the election rules were ordered would have won. This is solidly agreed upon. If Gore had gotten what he had wanted he would have lost plain and simple. There was a time when Bush was very popular and a finding such as this would have hurt his political capital during 2002-2004. Can you imagin the headlines if Gore had technically won? It would have been an earthquake!
This is 2009 we have evolved as a people too high to enable the traditional liberal ballot box stuffing.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Sorry, typo in my last post. I meant to say that Norm has every right to take this as far as he can. That doesn’t mean thats what he should do though.
March 14th, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Chestnut has every right to apologize for calling each and every Democrat here dishonest and stupid.
However, he won’t because he is too dishonest and stupid himself.
Just wanted to clear that up.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Why should he danbrome? He is right. You are, as usual, wrong.
I said it so it is true. Deal with it.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Pete, get over yourself. And you think I have a big ego. pfft.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:20 PM
“Chestnut has every right to apologize for calling each and every Democrat here dishonest and stupid.”
Why do you say that, stupid, dishonest fucker, danbrome. Does the truth hurt your stupid, dishonest diseased ass?
March 14th, 2009 at 6:22 PM
“Sorry, typo in my last post. I meant to say that Norm has every right to take this as far as he can. That doesn’t mean thats what he should do though.”
Well sure… and homosexuals have every right to take their pathetic quest to be validated by the government all the way to the Supreme Court. … but that doesn’t mean that they should.
Go fuck yourself, non-Integrity. You really are a stupid, dishonest, diseased wad.
March 14th, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I agree with PR that we need better voter ID requirements. I have no problem with photo ID for voting. I have to show a photo ID when I go to Blockbuster for crying out loud!
March 14th, 2009 at 7:50 PM
As long as the state can provide the photo ID for those who don’t already have one, fine.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:53 PM
“Well sure… and homosexuals have every right to take their pathetic quest to be validated by the government all the way to the Supreme Court.”
So… they are pathetic because they are gay, and therefore not eligible to be validated? Sounds kinda bigoted, doesn’t it?
What other types of people do you not approve of?
March 14th, 2009 at 8:56 PM
“pathetic quest” danbrome. Do you skip over words by accident or because you are a pathetic idiot?
March 14th, 2009 at 8:57 PM
The Republicans last bill allowed for photo ID’s to be provided to anyone who needed it. Call your friends in the DFL and tell them to pass a bill that requires a photo ID.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:53 AM
danbrome, a state ID costs $16.25 ($11 for seniors and 50 cents for the disabled).
You can’t legally get a job in this country without providing proper ID, it has been that way since 1986.
Democrats are opposed to the idea of voter ID requirements because it would make it more difficult for them to cheat.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:07 AM
The only reason liberals are against having people identify themselves with an ID at the polls is becasue it would cut down on voter fraud, and the lib’s depend on that to win.
The liberals are also against using E-Verify in jobs created by the Porkulus Bill so that illegal aliens can cash in on them as well. I wish the liberal media would expose this more.
March 15th, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Coleman supporters are becoming increasingly disconnected from reality, a sign that the end is getting nearer.
March 15th, 2009 at 10:00 AM
I want to know why republicans won’t accept Tribal ID as a valid form of identification for voting purposes.
Could it be that the goal of this bill is to disenfranchise the native vote, which breaks overwhelmingly against republicans?
March 15th, 2009 at 10:20 AM
‘The only reason liberals are against having people identify themselves with an ID at the polls is becasue it would cut down on voter fraud, and the lib’s depend on that to win.”
Actually, the reason liberals are against voter ID is that we feel our voters are less likely to have ID and more likely not to want to present it.
I am just opposed to voter fraud as anyone else, and am willing to consider a number of proposals to prevent it. In particular, I am in favor of tightening up the registration process.
If Republicans are so concerned about voter fraud, why is it they only talk about voter ID, among the least effective places to stop it, and not about voter registration where changes can be far more effective? Could it be that voter mis-identification isn’t their real concern?
March 15th, 2009 at 10:37 AM
I want to know why Democrats allow Native Americans to have a monopoly on casinos.
Could it be that goal of the casino monopoly is to ensure a steady stream of cash flowing to the DFL?
March 15th, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Democrats don’t allow Native Americans to have a monopoly on casinos.
A compact signed between the state and the tribes provided that.
And sure, the tribes may have created 12,000 jobs without a single TIF district or other dollar from the state. And sure, the casinos may be the biggest employer in every county they are in minus St. Louis County. And the payroll and benefits that they provide are major drivers in rural economies in every corner of the state.
This may all be true, but I think it is high time we start breaking up the only functioning version of rural economic development the state has ever stumbled across. If we do this, we can probably almost make enough money to cover all the added expense that will come back to the state when the rural casinos lose market share to the state casino and are forced to lay off workers. Rather than having the Indians provide health insurance, I am sure the state would be more than willing to use its take from the state casino to provide these benefits to the displaced workers. And as the rural economies constrict and more and more providers of services to the rural casinos find their income shrinking, I am sure the state will be more than willing to help them out also. Plus, imagine all the new gambling addicts we can create if we throw a casino right downtown. The state would make a killing off of this. Sure, there may be a slight uptick in embezzlement by problem gamblers, but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, can you?
Using gambling to pay for government sounds just like the sort of thing a socially conservative republican party with no real tether to its core beliefs would want to explore.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:42 AM
What on God’s green earth is Leroy saying (or trying to say)?
That gambling is good AND bad?
That monopolies are the only way indian casinos could possibly survive?
That indians using gambling proceeds to pay for health care is good, but the American government using proceeds to pay for healthcare is bad?
That rural casinos are good but urban casinos are bad?
Me thinkum that as always Leroy speakum with forked tongue.
Ugh..
March 15th, 2009 at 12:15 PM
The idea of a three-judge panel awarding Coleman the election on the basis that, had more votes been counted, he could have won, is ridiculous. Coleman’s lawyers can argue all they want, but at the end of the day, they approved every disputed absentee ballot that was counted, so they can’t complain. Maybe it’s true that the Franken lawyers dominated the recount process, and that’s why we see the result we did. Whatever the case, I think it’s clear that, if you counted every ballot cast, Franken is definitely the winner in this contest. The question for Coleman’s team was always whether or not they could get “their” ballots counted without any others being counted.
Didn’t happen. No Judge can overturn this election based on arguments lacking a factual basis. You can’t argue what was inside an envelope, you can’t argue which ballots a machine “may have” counted twice, and you can’t argue that state officials have been in bed with Franken, which is why no credible Conservative has ever suggested that.
This election is over, again. I only hope it’s over for Coleman, too. Our state needs representation now.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Proud Republican-
I don’t want to get into this, because I already did once on another thread here. But there has only been one study conducted (by the National Opinion Research Center) examining what would have happened in Florida in 2000 if a statewide recount had been done. That study showed that Gore WOULD have won. People frequently site studies and those people say what you said: “these studies show that had Gore gotten what he wanted…”
No, the studies you are referring to examine what would have happened if the “undervotes” had been counted. The undervotes were just the ballots set aside because the machine tallied a no-vote on them. Those studies, reported on widely and most prominently by USAToday and the Washington Post, showed four ways the undervotes could have been counted, one of four had Gore winning. But counting the undervotes was NOT “what Gore wanted.” The Supreme Court shut down a recount, not the counting of the undervotes.
There has never been any study that showed “Bush really won” or “Gore really won.” What makes me so angry about this is that people like you continue repeating false claims because you are incapable of dealing with the fact that it is very possible that Bush lost the election in 2000, and much more importantly, Bush DID steal the election. The Bush team won by arguing that the votes were not worth counting because it would be too hard. Of course, now we have the same neocons running around saying that if we don’t count every vote, we’re going to turn into a facist nation.
This is very important. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem. I think the Republican party has such a terrible problem right now because its members are in another world where they are incapable of being wrong and the past is edited a la 1984. When Republicans are lobbying to put electronic voting machines with no paper trails in every precinct, it’s hard to believe you’re concerned about election fraud due to voters not having to show ID. It’s hard to believe you think this election is a sham when you say the election in 2000 got it right. Consistency is very important in politics. Learn that, maybe?
March 15th, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Well now, it really doesn’t matter if theoretically Gore would have won if the votes had been recounted over the whole state does it, since that’s NOT what Gore requested when he asked for recounts. He only wanted recounts in the “liberal” precints. And those showed that Gore lost.
And if we can talk about this “theory” we can also talk about all those who would have voted for President Bush in the panhandle if the lib media hadn’t “mistakenly” already called it for Gore.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:34 PM
2000 is very much ancient history now. Nothing can change the past. What matters now is the lessons learned. What Democrats learned is the importance of counting all the votes as widely as possible. The fundamental mistake Gore made in 2000 was in asking for a recount in selected counties only, not statewide.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:35 PM
“There hasn`t been a study done that shows that Bush won.” Has there been a study done that shows that Obama won? Please offer proof on how Bush stole the election. Remember, the Florida Sec. of State declared Bush the winner. It was Gore who went to court over it, and, of course, lost. In my dictionary “stole” means “taking something from another person that they don`t own.” Seeing as Bush “owned” the election( the official results from Fla.), he couldn`t steal anything from anybody because he already had it. The only person who could steal in that situation would have been Gore. He was the one to take it all the way to the Supremes, where in one of the decisions, lost 7-2.
March 16th, 2009 at 2:25 PM
If you guys think that our SOS in Minnesota is partisan, you should really take a look at the SOS from Florida in 2000. Katherine Harris is about as partisan as they come. With Kitty running the recount, and Jeb Bush as Governor, there was a slim chance that Bush would lose the election in Florida. If you guys are allowed to claim that Al Franken stole this election from Norm Coleman, I think it is also fair to say that Bush stole Florida from Gore.
That said, Hiram is right. 2000 is over, nothing we can do about it now. He is also correct in saying that we need to learn from that recount, just as we will have to learn from this one. Once Norm finally calls it quits, you guys can sit back and evaluate how you lost to Stuart Smalley.
http://michiganredneck.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/stuart-smalley-posters.jpg
March 16th, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I don’t think Ritchie has to be partisan. The system in Minnesota is designed to favor recounts, and the aggressive search for votes. Because for various reasons, Democratic votes then to be more problematic than Republican votes, aggressive recounts tend to favor Republicans over Democrats. Merely by enforcing the law as written, Ritchie, and subsequently the courts are making decisions that favor Democrats.
March 16th, 2009 at 10:34 PM
I just wish this thing would end.
I’m dying to know if my estimate of Franken by 503 is exactly right or not. I feel pretty good about it…
Has anybody heard if Erik Paulsen has introduced a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution yet? He said that was high on his list of conservative priorities, and I’ve heard he is a man of his word.
Oh wait, that was Ron Carey who said that.
Nevermind!
March 17th, 2009 at 8:07 PM
danbrome, do you save your various posts in Word then just cut and past them randomly through out the week?
danbrome = has had three thoughts and repeatedly posts them at random.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:54 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/