oldslabsides wrote: 
Hey, that was the interview with Michele Bachmann on 360 last night! She refused to answer any of Cooper's questions! 

 oldslabsides wrote: 
*bump*

 Painted_Turtle wrote: 
Yes, I think Norm should pony up from out-of-pocket to cover the costs of Minnesotans' non-representation. It would give him a chance to not be a hypocrite by letting the private sector take responsibility instead of looking to the Federal government for help, just as his party so vigorously advocates.

 Inamorato wrote:
I think Jeff Rosenberg from MNpublius.com has a good idea

Restore MN Court staffing by having Norm Coleman reimburse Minnesotans

from his blog:

"WCCO's Esme Murphy has been devoted to an interesting cause lately:

"My theory is that since Minnesotans are paying taxes to support two US Senators we should get a refund for the days that we have only had one."

She now calculates that so far, the cost is approaching $1 million, counting since the day Al Franken should have been sworn in:

"By my calculation that's about $8,000 a day that we, as taxpayers, shell out for offices in Washington, D.C. and in Minnesota. (As far as I can tell from the 2,000-plus page report, all senators get about the same amount of money.)

Right now we have not had a senator for 107 days. At $8,000 a day, that's about $856,000 we, as taxpayers, have funded for a Senate office that doesn't exist."

Murphy thinks the rebate should come from the Federal government, but maybe Norm Coleman should have to cover a part of the cost, since he has clearly lost but continues to deny us full representation.

 Since Coleman is taking up so much of our courts' time, maybe the $1 million could go towards restoring courts' staffing.

 It won't be enough to completely restore service from our beleaguered court system, but every bit helps."

All I know is that this is really getting old....sigh....Slimy Norm, once again, puts his political party & his own money interests before the common good of Minnesota Citizens

 

 Inamorato wrote: 

From the current issue of Newsweek:

dionysius wrote:

The Daily Show had it right. When Coleman was ahead, he called on Franken to "do the right thing" and bow out. Now that the three-judge panel has declared Franken the winner, Coleman and the Republicans will spare no expense while taking it to the Minnesota Supreme Court. It's a good thing they have deep pockets because the court ordered the Coleman campaign to pay for Franken's legal expenses. I get the feeling that they are just trying to forestall Franken being seated to keep the Democratic majority from growing.

 Inamorato wrote:
I loved the bit The Daily Show did on this dispute...months ago. After it was announced Norm was going to contest the results, they ran video of him from immediately after election day, when it seemed as if he was ahead of Franken by a few votes. Then, he called upon Al to be gracious and drop out, like he would in a similar case. Shoe on other foot, looks like Norm Coleman is a hypocrite. He has no hope of winning this case; he's only in it now to delay seating Franken as long as possible. Now, that's gracious for you!

More than five months after the election, it's still not settled.

 

REUTERS/Eric Miller

Democratic senatorial candidate and Saturday Night Live comedian Al Franken (DFL-MN) and his wife Franni (L) speak to reporters after a three-judge panel dismisses Franken's opponent, former incumbent Senator Norm Coleman's (R-MN) attempt to reverse Franken's lead in a vote recount, outside his home in Minneapolis, April 13, 2009. A Minnesota court panel ruled on Monday that Franken beat Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in the long-fought contest for a U.S. Senate seat and said the comic turned politician should be certified as the winner.  

Norm Coleman says he will appeal the ruling of the three-judge panel to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

 dionysius wrote:  
 

   Be careful what you wish for....

 Alpine wrote: 

Is there such a thing as being too stupid to be in Congress? I mean, look at the current membership...

 Mugro wrote: 
If Franken is challenging this, he's too stupid to be in congress.

 islander wrote: 

Welcome to the Purple Reign!

 MonkeyPod wrote: 
How about we put Al and Norm in a fenced yard, then toss a quarter in there with them. The first one to emerge with the coin wins. We could let about 50 3rd graders in too to liven things up...nah, they would probably come up w/ reasonable solution, better just to let Al and Norm fight it out.

 islander wrote:
 
I doubt Norm and Al would be that civil at this point in the process.

oh, and this commenton that site is gold:

 Mugro wrote: 
The real issue is that when the difference is within the margin of error for the method of tallying the ballots. Margins of error tell you how much variance you can have within the result. If your difference is within that, then no matter how many times you recount, you are not going to be able to tell who really won.  Might as well toss a coin, or draw for high card (I think there are some city/county elections that have come down to the card method). Either is equally as legitimate.

 Mugro wrote: 

If we were living in a parliamentary democracy, calling a quick snap runoff election wouldn't be a problem. The logistics in our system (and the deadlines involved) make it nightmarish. It can't be accomplished before the new Senate sits. So, shall we let the courts decide? Lots of us (left and right) have a problem with that, too. A better voting system—but not a paperless electronic one!—is certainly needed when we have an electorate so closely divided.

 dionysius wrote: 
I know that they are necessary for democracy, but recounts suck. They become an absurd circus, as we saw in 2000. But, there is not much of an alternative unless you hold a separate runoff election.