Al Franken vs. Norm Coleman

[SkinWalker]

Al Franken may have been declared the winner of the Minnesota Senate seat, but Norm Coleman is clinging on with a law suit.

 

Coleman alleges that "irregularities left Franken with a 225-vote lead." Coleman wants the court to reconsider the absentee ballots that were rejected.

 

Apparently both camps have gone back and forth in wanted them counted or rejected in opposing step like some strange dance. Coleman's apparently at the courthouse while Franken is on vacation. Franken's attitude is that the Coleman camp is going through a "formality" and that Franken is the victor as it should be.

 

At least some of the ballots were rejected because signatures were illegible. Minnesota law requires a signature that is not a smudge or a scribbled, faint, small, unreadable mark.

 

The Coleman camp put a voter on the stand whose ballot was one of the rejected. This is what he testified:

...perhaps my signature is not quite as good as it once was. ... Things have changed a little bit. My vote's worth nothing anymore. Maybe I'm worth nothing - I don't know. I'm entitled to my vote - Gerald Anderson

 

I suppose Coleman wanted everyone's eyes to tear up with examples of people whose ballots were rejected, but if they aren't to the quality required, why should they count? Is there some expectation that Coleman voters are more competent than Franken voters? Perhaps.

 

Coleman went to court, Franken went to Florida; How do you get to D.C.?

[GarfieldJL]

Well there is ballot issues in Minnesota, the reason that Gore lost the 2000 election had to do with violating the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

 

In this case Coleman may have a strong case, whether or not the courts side with him is the situation.

 

There is substancial evidence of fraud, and duel standards in the ballot counting, ballots magically appearing, etc. The number of these are all votes for Franken, and this throws into doubt the recount's validity.

[SkinWalker]

There is substancial evidence of fraud, and duel standards in the ballot counting, ballots magically appearing, etc.

Fraud would be bad. If that's the case, I hope there are jail terms for those responsible. I am curious, however, do you have citations or links to this "substantial evidence?" I'm interested in reading more.

[GarfieldJL]

Fraud would be bad. If that's the case, I hope there are jail terms for those responsible. I am curious, however, do you have citations or links to this "substantial evidence?" I'm interested in reading more.

 

Yeah I'll try to find them again.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html

 

Is an opinions article but it outlines some of it.

 

http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S651416.shtml?cat=10217

 

That's an ABC affiliate.

 

Anyways I can't find the article with examples of the Ballots, but those are what I've found thus far that aren't blogs.

[SkinWalker]

I see what you're saying and there is definitely some discussion in some of the media, particularly those media outlets that specialize in pandering/catering to conservative audiences. But I didn't seen any "evidence" discussed in either of those links.

 

You did say "evidence" of fraud. In fact, you said "substantial evidence," which leads one to believe that there is at least enough that one can review it.

 

The first link mentions Fraud twice: once in the title (which turns out to be misleading) and once near the end when the article claims that "Minnesota was facing vote fraud problems even before the election." But the author doesn't specify where the alleged fraud is, making his title more like Chicken Little's fearmongering among the bought-in conservatives.

 

The second link states, "[t]here are questions of possible voter fraud by both parties at the polls," but there is, again, no evidence presented for fraud in either case -only that there are "questions."

 

I'm still interested in the allegation and if there is, indeed, fraud, then jail time is due for whichever side and for whomever is involved. But you'll have to forgive me, I'm a scientist and have a slightly different definition of evidence, particularly when it's prefaced by "substantial."

[GarfieldJL]

I stated the first article is an opinion piece:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html

 

At the bottom of the article there are some examples.

 

 

Another Article no sure as to the validity of the source but:

 

Coleman's legal team had intended to submit copies of thousands of ballots as exhibits, but the judges disqualified them as evidence Monday because campaign workers had marked on some envelopes. On Tuesday, much of the panel's time was spent with state officials, lawyers and court staff working out a plan to get about 11,000 rejected absentees to St. Paul from counties throughout the state.

-- http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090128/D95VS4P82.html

 

Anyways the article shows a classic case for a 14th Amendment Violation. Due to using differing standards in each county it violates the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, it is why the Supreme Court ruled against Al Gore in 2000, and could render the recount invalid.

[SkinWalker]

In the first link we see examples of ballots that have various markings, but only the word of Fox News that these are contested or "fraudulent" ballots.

 

"Substantial evidence" would include an assessment or report issued by a legal entity. Its a good thing the issue is in court -perhaps Coleman can get justice (assuming that it is deserved).

 

But neither link seems to be showing evidence of fraud but, rather, inconsistency in counting or hypersensitivity to rules such as omitting ballots with extraneous marks on envelopes.

 

Fraud would include a deliberate and intentional effort to sway an outcome. For that, there simply isn't "substantial evidence." At the end of it all, the court may rule it exists, but this is up to the legal system not pundits on Faux News or by-standers. The best they can do (and should do) is ask questions.

[GarfieldJL]

But neither link seems to be showing evidence of fraud but, rather, inconsistency in counting or hypersensitivity to rules such as omitting ballots with extraneous marks on envelopes.

 

Phony ballots and deliberately changing the standards as to which votes go to who to favor one candidate is a form of fraud and is cheating.

 

 

Btw, Fox News is a valid news source if you mean to tell me that the media during the election aside from Fox wasn't in the tank for Obama, I've got some land to sell you on Saturn.

[SkinWalker]

Phony ballots and deliberately changing the standards as to which votes go to who to favor one candidate is a form of fraud and is cheating.

 

Well, then thankfully there is a court looking into the allegations. It could just as well be that the images you presented by Fox News were completely fabricated in photoshop by someone at Fox. The word "evidence" for me has a somewhat higher standard. I'll accept that it has a redacted meaning for you if you would like.

 

Btw, Fox News is a valid news source if you mean to tell me that the media during the election aside from Fox wasn't in the tank for Obama, I've got some land to sell you on Saturn.

 

Well, then. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

[GarfieldJL]

Well, then. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

 

"A shiver running up my leg?" -- Chris Matthews

 

 

Excuse me, there was some serious problems in the media coverage in 2008.

[SkinWalker]

Perhaps. I personally don't give a rat's... Media reporting is always problematic. It always will be. People are motivated by false conclusions, affected by compartmentalized thinking, afflicted by critical thought failures, and hampered by superstition where reason and reality should prevail.

 

News media are invariably biased to one side of a political argument or another and rarely come down in the middle. The failing of Fox news is fear-mongering, hate-propagation and ignorance. The failing of more liberal news outlets is trusting the human condition, pandering to ignorance, and ignoring issues of reason in order to avoid confrontation. And so on with both.

 

Which is why I set my standards of evidence higher than the average reader/viewer of Fox News or any other news source. Which is why I'll wait until the courts are done with the actual evidence in the matter and decide which of these two clowns gets to be a Senator.

[GarfieldJL]

Excuse me?

 

 

Seriously, your accusations towards Fox News is more than a little out of line, I really don't want to get into a major media bias issue here, but we're looking at multiple problems in Minnesota including ACORN, which is under investigation for fraud.

 

 

The situation is that Al Franken has failed to pay some of his taxes, he's also been getting large donations from California to pay for his campaign in Minnesota and his legal team. Then you have the ACORN factor, which is a far left organization.

 

There is a very good case for fraud, and a very good 14th Amendment case here. Coming from what I studied in Constitutional History.

[Vikinor]

I don't see anything wrong with being "right wing". I'd actually commend him for sticking up for what he believes because it seems pretty obvious that he's outnumbered.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I don't see anything wrong with being "right wing". I'd actually commend him for sticking up for what he believes because it seems pretty obvious that he's outnumbered.

Go read his posts in the Kavar's Corner section of the KotOR forum, he spouts off the same thing in almost every post about how there's a vast left wing media conspiracy then goes on to cite blogs and Fox News, and he's even denied the latter when it disagrees with him. I don't have a problem with anyone being right wing -- my father is a fiscal conservative -- but he refuses to acknowledge anything that doesn't jive with his world view and turns 90% of the threads he posts in to how every media outlet in the world except the blogs he subscribes to and half of what Fox News says is a lie.

 

I don't want a spur of the moment comment to turn into this big thing, but I can and will back it up.

[Samnmax221]

I was hoping Franken wouldn't win, so I wouldn't have to listen to his ****ty jokes for the next 6 years. You may find this hard to believe but many years ago Saturday Night Live was funny, and had a talented cast, with the exception of Al Franken. How the constituents in my state forgot this is beyond me.

[GarfieldJL]

Technically, SNL could be in trouble too for letting Franken write scripts for them while running for public office.

 

@ jmac

 

You mean to tell me having Keith Obermann hosting for MSNBC's coverage of the Republican Convention doesn't raise any red flags?

[Rogue Nine]

Technically, SNL could be in trouble too for letting Franken write scripts for them while running for public office.

Al Franken hasn't appeared on SNL since 2002 and hasn't been associated as a regular for them since 1995. Check your facts before you start spouting garbage.

 

@ jmac

 

You mean to tell me having Keith Obermann hosting for MSNBC's coverage of the Republican Convention doesn't raise any red flags?

I like how this isn't a denial of anything that jmac said (which is all true, by the by).

[GarfieldJL]

Al Franken hasn't appeared on SNL since 2002 and hasn't been associated as a regular for them since 1995. Check your facts before you start spouting idiotic garbage.

 

I said he wrote Scripts, I didn't say he appeared on it, appearing on it doesn't mean anything, writing the scripts does.

 

I like how this isn't a denial of anything that jmac said (which is all true, by the by).

 

You guys still have yet to explain how news crews chanting for Obama at Obama rallies, writing fraudulent stories concerning McCain (which the story I'm referring to was proven false), and I've just gotten started on what all I can bring up concerning the media.

 

Now there is a difference between bias and being in the tank, and many media outlets have gone to the in the tank so deep they have run out of line for their air hose.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

You guys still have yet to explain how news crews chanting for Obama at Obama rallies, writing fraudulent stories concerning McCain (which the story I'm referring to was proven false), and I've just gotten started on what all I can bring up concerning the media.

 

Now there is a difference between bias and being in the tank, and many media outlets have gone to the in the tank so deep they have run out of line for their air hose.

You act as though this somehow impeaches everything they say regardless of the subject, I could find times when Fox has displayed blatant bias and probably find errors in the blogs you love so much as well.

[Vikinor]

Media can be good or bad. It can have positive and negative efffects.

 

Personally, I don't watch FOX because I think it is way too biased towards viewpoints I don't agree with. I'm not saying being biased is bad, as long as they don't say anything that is false.

[Rogue Nine]

I said he wrote Scripts, I didn't say he appeared on it, appearing on it doesn't mean anything, writing the scripts does.

Franken hasn't written anything for SNL in years.

 

You guys still have yet to explain how news crews chanting for Obama at Obama rallies, writing fraudulent stories concerning McCain (which the story I'm referring to was proven false), and I've just gotten started on what all I can bring up concerning the media.

You will not crap on this thread with all your 'media in tank for Obama' garbage, I will not allow it. Everything you post about the media being in the tank for Obama in this thread from this point on will be deleted.

[SkinWalker]

You will not crap on this thread with all your 'media in tank for Obama' garbage, I will not allow it. Everything you post about the media being in the tank for Obama in this thread from this point on will be deleted.

 

Or perhaps split to another thread, right? Such comments would clearly be off-topic and can be deleted as such, but creating a new thread is also within our capability. Indeed, if Garfield feels the topic is discussion-worthy, I'd suggest the new thread rather than posting Obama-media comments in a "Franken-Coleman" thread.

[SkinWalker]

Mod note: posts constituting the side discussion of whether or not Al Franken authored or contributed to a late night television comedy series have been deleted as off-topic. Should anyone see potential for a viable and serious discussion they are free to start a separate thread.

[Darth Avlectus]

People around Coleman who can reject him are waiting for him to slip up in some way so that they can have even the smallest excuse to kick him out of the race--that is totally what's going on here now.

 

I was hoping Franken wouldn't win, so I wouldn't have to listen to his ****ty jokes for the next 6 years. You may find this hard to believe but many years ago Saturday Night Live was funny, and had a talented cast, with the exception of Al Franken. How the constituents in my state forgot this is beyond me.

 

On top of that, he's an arrogant jerk. The reason he probably doesn't shake hands with very many people anymore I would guess is probably because someone tweaked his hand for mouthing off to them. Wouldn't surprise me.

 

S***ty jokes and basically uncivilized dimeanor. Yeah he'd be funny ...until the novelty wore off and people saw through his attacks.

 

The way I see it, he's going to be a civil servant--yet he is only civil to others when it suits him. Certainly not a sport to anyone on the opposite political side--regardless of whatever reason. THIS absolutely reflects on what kind of character he has.

 

True being polite you cannot expect things to go your way, but, eventually you'll **** with the wrong person and it'll crash down on you.

 

I don't see anything wrong with being "right wing". I'd actually commend him for sticking up for what he believes because it seems pretty obvious that he's outnumbered.

 

Agreed. However it seems like things have been screwed up for almost anyone in this category in politics. Oh sure it won't be like that forever. Still, it would stand to reason that the climate generally is now a bit more hostile towards those to the right.

 

Media can be good or bad. It can have positive and negative efffects.

 

Personally, I don't watch FOX because I think it is way too biased towards viewpoints I don't agree with. I'm not saying being biased is bad, as long as they don't say anything that is false.

 

That's what research is all about: taking some stance which definitively means you have some inherent bias, using facts by way of inductive reasoning to support your claim.

 

I'd say that the media generally is not always factually reliable. Find the sources, find an opposite viewpoint, then look at it all again with more scrutiny.

 

Whatever the slant media will find someone to the opposite in the political spectrum do an interview, and cut out excerpts in just such a way that it makes the person seem like they are saying something that they're actually not--relative to given subject. That goes for all, regardless of slant.

 

That and in high school I did amateur TV production. It became apparent to me I was headed in the wrong direction. Most the people I knew were scumbags.

 

---

 

Franken himself? --The only thing funny, now, is how I can go to a dollar tree and find his books practically flooding the book aisle. Charisma (the correct kind that doesn't smell afoul and drive your audience away) is only half the qualification. Leadership experience is the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_franken#Political_action

Leaving radio fairly recently to run for politics??? I'm sorry, we already have enough jokers in office. Unless he has something else real in the last 5 years OTHER than being a commentator for political stuff, I would not say he is qualified. (EDIT: commentating on something and actually doing that something are a world of difference apart).

 

Qualified: Actually involved in managing public money, making/revising policy, dealing with laws, making sure education isn't just a daycare for adolescents, working on tax policy, stuff like that. I mean other than just spectating from the sidelines about it, doing whatever it is that he's been doing.

 

If we're going to make it popular to put celebrities in office regardless of qualification (or lack thereof), then I daresay we are playing russian roulette wit our government's power which hardly seems wise.