Why Are the Democrats Letting Franken Twist in the Wind?
The election took place on November 4th, 2008. It was always close. It remains close, with about 200 votes out of MANY still in Franken's favor. Weekends passed with normal people checking out ballots. Their conclusions were evaluated by a bipartisan group, which decided that Al Franken was still the winner.
But Norm Coleman, who obviously wants to put off his other legal problems (stealing money), is getting a ridiculous amount of respect from the Minnesota Courts. Why? Because I don't think they ever intended that their laws would delay their state from seating a senator for three months while a silly man and his lawyers fought silly battles.
But that is all beside the point. Does anyone wonder what the republicans would be doing if the shoe were on the other foot? Does anyone wonder what level of outrage would be leveled at the State of Minnesota if they were refusing to seat the rightfully elected REPUBLICAN?
So What Is Wrong With The Democratic Senate? Why don't they act at least a little protective about Al Franken? How should Al take this when he is finally seated?
But Norm Coleman, who obviously wants to put off his other legal problems (stealing money), is getting a ridiculous amount of respect from the Minnesota Courts. Why? Because I don't think they ever intended that their laws would delay their state from seating a senator for three months while a silly man and his lawyers fought silly battles.
But that is all beside the point. Does anyone wonder what the republicans would be doing if the shoe were on the other foot? Does anyone wonder what level of outrage would be leveled at the State of Minnesota if they were refusing to seat the rightfully elected REPUBLICAN?
So What Is Wrong With The Democratic Senate? Why don't they act at least a little protective about Al Franken? How should Al take this when he is finally seated?
Advertisement
Perhaps I am misunderstanding Franken's situation. But, as I see it, this is the problem.
Senate Rule II requires a Senator-designate or Senator-elect to present proper credentials to the Senate certifying their designation or selection.
Franken does not currently have said credentials (which, in his case, would be a certificate of election, signed by Governor Pawlenty and SoS Ritchie).
Both Pawlenty and Ritchie have refused to sign Franken's election certificate until Coleman's appeal is done. This is, as I understand, in full accordance with Minnesota electoral law.
Now, Reid *could* try to seat Franken without the certificate. However, that would be tricky, to say the least, and rather embarrassing should it not work. Plus, the Senate would effectively be overriding the election laws of Minnesota.
My conclusion: Franken will win this court battle, and then he'll get his election certificate signed. In an election as close as the one in Minnesota, I'd rather dot all the i's anc cross all the t's.
February 12, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states couldn't impose term limits on federal officials, that overrode state elections laws, too. Not to mention Gore v. Bush. Bottom line: the feds (and I think this includes the Senate) can override state election law.
February 12, 2009 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't Federal law, it's Senate rules, and as noted yesterday in one of the many TPM-DC posts this has generated, changing Senate rules (needed to seat Franken without certification from his state) requires not a 3/5 majority vote, rather, it requires a 2/3 majority vote. That is a highly unlikely prospect, given the lockstep (goose-step?) tendencies of Republicans led by troglodytes such as Cornyn.
It's good to remind people here that Cornyn was the Senator who spoke of "understanding" the use of violence against the judiciary by those who disagreed with it. The man needs to be institutionalized.
February 12, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why a change is needed in the Senate Rules. Rule II doesn't specify what credentials are required. That leaves open the possibility that, under the existing rules, the Senate could accept the state canvassing board's declaration of the results as the proper credentials.
February 12, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to seat Franken now - without ANY signatures from MN state officials - wouldn't pass the smell test, especially when considering the row Senate Democrats made about Burris's credentials. They made it clear what "proper credentials" would be.
Burris had been legally appointed to the seat, by the only person in the state of Illinois with the power to make that appointment. As the Illinois Supreme Court ruled, the SoS signature wasn't even needed for his certification.
Franken's election certificate has not been signed, and the state officials who have refused to sign it are acting in accordance with state law. A credible argument for seating Franken without those credentials, therefore, simply doesn't exist.
February 12, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Franken has a certification from Minnesota state officials declaring that he received the most votes in the election: the declaration issued by the State Canvassing Board on January 5 certifying the results of the election. That's really all that the Senate needs. The Constitution is very clear that the Senate - not the state courts - is the judge of this election.
Nothing in Senate Rule II states that the certificate must be signed by the Governor or the Minnesota Secretary of State. The rule only provides a recommended form that includes their signature and provides for their names to be recorded.
The Roland Burris precedent supports seating Franken. True, Harry Reid made a mess of things by initially claiming that the rule required a signature from the Illinois Secretary of State. Ultimately, however, the Senate seated Burress without the Secretary of State signing the actual election certificate. (The Secretary of State instead signed a separate document certifying that he was providing a true and accurate copy of the election certificate.) Thus, the Burris precedent supports the conclusion that the form provided in Senate Rule II is only recommended, not required.
I agree that its currently not politically feasible to seat Franken. I would hope, though, that changes if the Minnesota proceedings drag on too long. The Minnesota statues could be read to prohibit an election certificate until the all the appeals are exhausted, something which could take [i]years[/i]. That can't be the proper result under the Constitution.
February 12, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The VERY long-standing interpretation of Senate Rule II has been properly signed certification from the state of the Senator-elect. It is simply implausible to believe that they will change the application of that rule in this instance.
The Senate *could* make the rule whatever they wanted. They could also simply ignore the rule, if they so chose. After all, it is a rule, and not a law. However, Senate Rule II falls under the same category as the filibuster - it's a "third rail" for Senators. They won't go near it.
I agree that MN election law *could* be read as providing for infinite appeals. However, I strongly suspect that the MN Supremes will pull the plug on the election after this hearing, regardless of result. No state likes being the laughingstock of the country.
One last thing...I categorically disagree that the Burris precedent somehow supports seating Franken. The difference is that Burris had a certificate signed by Blagojevich. The Senate did have a leg to stand on in refusing him due to Jesse White's signature being missing. However, it was not the certified copy of the other document that got Burris over the hump. Once the IL Supremes said White's signature was not needed, Reid basically backed off not admitting Burris. Even before that, just the threat of a Burris lawsuit - which he stood an excellent chance of winning, had it come to that - was making Reid and Durbin publicly moonwalk away from their initial hard line against Burris.
Franken's situation is totally different in that all he has is an unsigned election certificate. There's just no way the Senate would provisionally seat Franken without some sort of document that would comply with their long-standing Rule II interpretation. Could they do it? Sure. Would there be a big political cost? You betcha!
February 12, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very longstanding interpretation? How often has this question actually arisen since 1912? I don't know the answer, but I'm guessing there haven't been that many occasions when a state failed to issue a election certificate before the session starts. The many occasions when a state does issue an election certificate tells us nothing about the interpretation.
Also, as I pointed out above, Franken has more than an "unsigned certificate." He has a signed declaration of the election returns from the canvassing board. All the Senate needs to know is the result of the election. That's what the canvassing board's declaration tells them.
February 12, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it matters how many times it's come up (though, if my legislative history is intact, this rule predates 1912). The very wording of the first two paragraphs of Senate Rule II provide the guidance the Senate has used.
I would very much like to see Franken seated ASAP. However, I *really* don't want to give Coleman decent grounds for an appeal. The cite you provide here is good, but to even go down that road is probably not something this panel is going to do.
I can't imagine the GOP thought the Minnies would give Coleman THIS much latitude. They've got to be chuckling to themselves. Definitely, this whole thing needs to be wrapped up soon.
February 12, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment was supposed to go after this. Oops.
February 12, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that if the question hasn't arisen before, then there hasn't been an interpretation of Rule II on this issue. The 1912 date is actually a typo. I meant 1913. That is the year when Amendment XVII was ratified. Before 1913, all Senators were chosen by state legislatures and this issue, therefore, couldn't have arisen in the Senate.
February 13, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing you left out is Sen. Cornyn's threat to filibuster any attempt by the Democrats to seat Franken before Pawlenty and Ritchie certify a win.
And after making such a big deal about the certification for seating Burris, the Democrats can't turn around and try to seat Franken without one. It's the little things that come back to haunt, and this is one of those haunting times.
February 12, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who can argue with a driving puppy? :) (It certainly helps that you're completely correct.)
February 12, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The puppy likes you!
February 12, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the driving puppy too and that cat ain't bad either.
February 12, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The driving puppy is honored and enthusiastically wags the tail in agreement.
February 12, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is really the fault of Minnesota election law that allows an election contest, filed by any interested party for any reason, to prevent the issuance of a certificate. theoretically until all appeals are exhausted.
In any other State, Franken would already be the sitting Senator.
This seems to be a problem unique to Minnesota, which is now the new "Florida".
February 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. Constitution assigns the decision about what to accept as the proper credentials to the Senate, not to Minnesota. I agree that it makes the most sense to defer to Minnesota law at this point, but I think the Senate should revisit that question if the courts allow the issue to drag on excessively.
Also, Senator-elect Franken has a decent argument that the Minnesota law delaying the certificate of election doesn't apply to elections for U.S. Senators. The question is currently pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
February 12, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waiting on the Senate to revisit that question - ESPECIALLY after the Burris precedent - is an exercise in futility.
And Franken's current argument is likely to fail. I understand why it's being made, but it would be tantamount to asking Minnesota to cede control over its Congressional elections. I simply don't think that's going to happen.
Franken's in a very unique situation. The way I think of it is, if Franken and Coleman had their positions reversed, I think many people would be demanding that Franken exhaust every possible legal remedy. I don't see the problem with giving Coleman the same leeway, especially since he's trying the legal equivalent of climbing K2 in flip-flops.
February 12, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I argued above, the Burris precedent actually favors Franken. It established that the Secretary of State's signature is not necessary. When we're dealing with an elected senator, there's equally no reason to require the Governor's signature. All that the Senate needs to know is the result of the election. The declaration of the state canvassing board provides that.
IMHO, the only thing that stops the Senate from seating Franken is public perception. Without a ruling from the Minnesota courts, and an election certificate, Democratic Senators will fear a backlash, and Republic Senators will be empowered to filibuster. If something happens that changes perception (like the court ruling in Franken's favor, but the Governor still refusing to issue an election certificate until appeals are final), then I think the dynamic changes as well.
I think that you understate the possibility that the Minnesota Supreme Court might conclude that an election certificate can not be issued until the appeals are final. I don't have ready access to Westlaw's N.W.2d digest, but look at this annotation from Minn. Stat. Ann. 209.7: "Authorized official shall issue certificate of election only after final judicial determination of contest when time for appeals has expired. Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 264 Minn. 417, 120 N.W.2d 336 (1936)."
February 12, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious. Have you ever heard of Bush v Gore?
February 12, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am uncertain how that case relates to the remark you quoted, unless you're somehow trying to tie Gore's giving up the ghost in December 2000 to this situation.
The two situations, though, aren't analogous. The Senate can do without one Senator. The country can't do without a President. Gore still had legal angles available, but IIRC, he stopped fighting to ensure the smooth transition of power.
February 12, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The country wouldn't have had to do without a President, since the inauguration isn't until January 20th.
Just curious. Is your other name Eddie Haskell? You seem to have a lot of his "qualities."
February 12, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush v. Gore was decided, IIRC, on Dec. 12, 2000.
Gore could have challenged two things in this process: the 5-4 SCOTUS vote on Dec. 9, 2000, and ordering the statewide manual recount halted, the refusal by Katherine Harris to let three counties finish their recounts.
This litigation would have gone past January 20, 2001. And that is the biggest reason why Gore didn't pursue it.
You seem to specialize in being insulting. I've managed to argue my points on this blog, all without drawing demeaning comparisons or being snotty. I'm sorry you weren't able to do the same.
I apologize for commenting on your blog. I promise, it shan't occur again.
February 14, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd
You are fighting the good fight here. I wish you well.
The constitution gives the states the right to chose there representatives to the senate and allows the states (their citizens) the right to decide on the process. The senate has constitutional authorities for ensuring the the members chosen my a state are qualified (age, residency, etc) but does not give the constitution does not give the senate the right to chose a state's senator (on behalf of the citizens of the state). .
Many of the TPM crowd -- high on emotions -- does not seem to understand that according to Minnesota election law, the election process has not played itself out here.
Given the fact that the process is still in play -- and therefore no candidate has official been declared the winner -- it would be inappropriate for the U.S. Senate to "select" anyone to be seated as Minnesota's junior senator.
THE BASIC IDEA HERE IS THAT THE PEOPLE OF A STATE SELECT THEIR SENATORS --- SENATE HAS NO BUSINESS SEATING ANYONE WHO HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY SELECTED by the CITIZENS. Al Franken has not yet be official selected (chosen) as the winner --- and for this reason, he can not be certified as the winner. Good luck in trying to win this argument here at TPM. I have given up.
February 12, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen - Thanks for the comments. For what it's worth, I clearly agree with you.
For the record, I don't seem myself as *arguing* with people here. It's more like a debate - but without the winking and programmed answers. :-)
February 12, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are letting him twist in the wind because he's a real, live liberal Democrat (a.k.a. a troublemaker and general shitdisturber). When Franken gets his seat he's gonna start asking questions and making all kinds of noise about doing the right thing and so on. Who would want someone like that spoiling all the fun the centrist Democrats are having on their knees while servicing every corporate John that comes their way?
February 12, 2009 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you would stop calling the current crop of corporate democrats "centrist" as it isn't really all that accurate. I would say they are much further right than the true center. Independents are centrists. I am a centrist. The people that disgust you in Congress are only looking out for themselves, which makes them opportunists not centrists.
February 12, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear! The congress is filled with business opportunists which has nothing to do with left or right, conservative or liberal. Jefferson said that the divide is always between aristocrats and democrats whether you call them whigs and tories, Federalists or Republican Democrats. The divide will always come down to those who use the people and those who work for and believe in the people.
Mussolini called the blending of government and corporations fascism. The coup took place already.
We are all Chileans now.
February 12, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great points. The artificial divisions they have created amongst all Americans, right and left, is how they have controlled us so completely these last four decades. Seems to me that Orwell was just about spot on with his predictions, even if reality was a bit more subtle than his book.
February 12, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone like Franken in the senate worries people. Senators are very powerful people and not all have come by that power in an honest way. Nor do they play by a set of rules that anyone could objectively call ethical. And then there is the money. It creeps me out when I think of all the shit that goes on there. If it is even possible for an honest person to be elected to the senate, once they are there, they are so screwed. The 100 persons who reside in the senate are very much among the top .000001 % of the worlds most corrupt people. As scoundrels, crooks, liars and such go, they are the elite. No question.
February 12, 2009 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP would be going APESHIT.
Yes, the Dems are following the rules, waiting for the courts, but it IS amusing as hell how we don't see the TV's burning up with talk about how much easier getting 60 Senators behind the Stimulus Bill would be if the Dems had Franken.
The GOP would be OUTRAGED, that at this critical time for so many millions of Americans, these frivolous, ridiculous, challenges were coming from the Dems.
Personally, I can't think of one Senator I wouldn't mind seeing replaced by a comedian. That they aren't barefaced mocking some of the braindead comments coming out of that club is absurd.
Hurry up, Al.
February 12, 2009 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are just playing it cool
Franken will eventually be seated and the rethuglikkans will be seen for what they are, an obstructionist fascist regional racist party
This plays well for the 2010 elections
February 12, 2009 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate is a strange place, indeed. If you watch on CSPAN very closely, you can see hints of the purple robes.
There are sensibilities and protocols and civilities working in this mosaic.
I know that they need a couple of reps even if they had 59 dems. Even at 60 which is not present, they would need some so called moderate reps and there are only three of them. Phlssten makes a really good point also.
February 12, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because they are cowards.
February 12, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. See my reply to Kenneth Thomas above. They do not have the votes to change the Senate rules to provisionally seat someone who does not have proper certification.
And the "cowards" stuff is, to put it nicely, completely unhelpful.
February 12, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are things they can do besides provisionally seat him. They aren't raising so much as a peep. The very minimum they could do is state very clearly that they consider Franken the winner and that Coleman is simply trying to delay his entrance into the Senate. They won't even do that. They won't even stand up for their guy, and that is because they are cowards.
It's not helpful to pretend that they're not cowards. It's not helpful to be in denial over just how weak and inept the Congressional leadership is. Political matters are not settled by courtesy, politeness, or decorum. They are settled when one side wins. You can't win if you won't even fight the propaganda war.
February 12, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, our Congressional history indicates that political matters are often settled as a direct result (or as a byproduct) of courtesy, politeness and decorum. There are three major 20th-century examples I can think of.
Most prominent would be the "Board of Education", the longtime House post-session enclave started by Republican Speaker Nick Longworth, and ran through Democratic Speaker Sam Rayburn. (I think Joe Martin (R-MA) didn't do the "House" when he was Speaker for two years, but that was it.) A great deal of the sausage got made over cards, music, bourbon and branch water.
Also, LBJ got much of what he wanted through Congress, in large part because of his famous glad-handing skills. Politesse, combined with a disarming frankness and a an endless supply of "good-ole-boy" anecdotes, were his trademarks.
Finally, from the dark side...Ronald Reagan had a Democratic Congress, yet managed to get most of his programs through. Yes, he used the bully pulpit to great effect - but he also did a LOT of personal appealing to Democrats in both houses. Tip O'Neill *hated* Reagan, but ruefully admired his political skills.
I suspect this sort of thing is what Obama is looking to replicate with these Wednesday night cocktails at the White House. I am skeptical that he will be successful in changing a lot of votes, but I think domestic diplomacy is a proven-yet-forgotten part of legislative success, so it's good to see him at least trying it.
February 12, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say all of these examples demonstrate the use of social tactics as instruments of power, not as alternatives to it. All this glad-handing would not have been useful if the other side knew that the power behind it would never be used. This kind of approach won't work for Reid and Pelosi, because everyone knows that they won't use their power effectively when necessary.
But, again, the goal is to turn proposals into laws, not to improve the atmosphere of the chamber. An issue is not actually settled until the measure in question is defeated or becomes law. It seems that many Obama supporters see this "change of tone" as a goal in itself. Changing the tone, whatever that means, is useless if it doesn't get the Democratic agenda enacted.
Perhaps most importantly, Reid and Pelosi aren't dealing with Nick Longworth or even with Ronald Reagan, and I think Reagan was a complete bastard. There is no honor among these present-day Republicans. They don't care about the people and they don't care about the country. They see anything but brute force as weakness and never hesitate to exploit any opening. And they are so radical that none of their ideas are any good to begin with. Compromising with them is like losing voluntarily.
Even if I agreed that decorum was once a very important legislative tool, that just isn't the case now. These Republicans need to be bullied, ignored, and attacked. The sooner the current Democratic so-called leadership figures out that they can't be reasoned with, the better.
February 12, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll have to agree to disagree about the usefulness of diplomacy with today's Republicans. I think it's useful on two levels: you can get moderates on the close votes, and you can use the opposition's general intransigence against them in coming cycles.
I am inclined to agree with you about Harry Reid, if for no other reason than I've never seen him take a stand that didn't rival Larry Craig's for width. I do disagree, though, about Nancy Pelosi. Her background, political career and rise through the House all point to a politician who is neither uncomfortable with nor afraid of wielding power. She will have no problem freezing out "Democrats" like Shuler and Kanjorski.
As for simply not even trying to reason with the current crop of Republicans, such an approach would have a heavy cost, both in Congressional gridlock and in the court of public opinion.
Look at 2010. The Dems are THISCLOSE to having 60 seats in the Senate, and a number of pickup opportunities exist. These midterms will be especially important as a referendum on the Obama Administration.
I understand the philosophy you support. And I believe it has its place. But I think it's best applied as part of the "carrot/stick" approach: "We tried to work with you, and you refused. So now, we'll do what we need to do without you. When you want to be reasonable, let us know."
February 12, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
All very sensible. We must not forget the people that gave us this majority and delivered the White House are not interested in divisive politics. That way of governing brought us War and Economic ruin. Time for a return to civility, pragmatism, and getting shit done for the good of the country.
Franken will be seated when the legal process runs its course. In the meantime, we have more important things to worry about.
February 12, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
My friend~ divisive politics and uncivil debate did NOT get us into this mess, it is republican policy that got us into this mess. The reversal of these policies is what will get us out of this mess, and I will be happy to fight, fight, fight to get the policy right!
The republican obsession with rewriting every rule and law to benefit the already rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged is what drove us to this meltdown. They will absolutely never ever give an inch on this, it is like gospel to them and they are true believers. Just look at what they were putting up as policy in the stimulus debate ..... just pure supply side bullshit. It will always take a fight to stop this march to corporate fascism and as soon as you sit down and try to play nice they will try and steal the chair you just say down on.
Essentially you are fighting over money with some very greedy people. Being nice means getting robbed ..... everytime!
February 12, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am inclined to agree with you about Harry Reid, if for no other reason than I've never seen him take a stand that didn't rival Larry Craig's for width.
Dems Force Closed Senate Session: Senators Force Unusual Closed Session To Spotlight Iraq Intel
This happened in 2005 and to my knowledge was Reid's first and only last stand. (Judging from your cute picture, you may have been too young to judge his stance that day!)
February 12, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That picture is of my son. I, sadly, have a face that's made for radio.
I stand corrected on Reid's absence of stands.
February 12, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any entertainer knows his audience, so predictions of what Al Franken would be like as a Senator will prove wildly inaccurate. He will neither discredit himself as a buffoon, nor will he emerge the populist "troublemaker" that oleeb is pining for. Like any freshman Senator, he'll backbench, observe, and figure out the best way to fit in. He'll respect the decorum of the institution, in otehr words.
February 12, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with most of this comment, though the first sentence left me a bit non-plussed.
You can look at how Franken conducted his campaign as a good barometer of how he'll present himself in the Senate.
During the campaign, Franken ditched the SNL stuff and became, well, almost wonky. I wouldn't expect any Stuart Smalley impersonations on the Senate floor.
I would expect him to use some of his comedic ability to forge personal relationships with the other Senators, but THAT particular revolution will certainly not be televised.
February 12, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because he's Al Franken, and even the Democrats don't want to be associated with him.
February 12, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I repeat myself, but if the Senate (or the court) were to move overly quickly with Dems beating out a filibuster (fairly unlikely), they'd be tempting Justice Scalia and three yes men he knows to put in the fix, a la Bush v. Gore. It would be unconstitutional to intervene in Senate membership issues, but they'd love to scheme up some cockamamie rationale to convince Kennedy that it somehow isn't so, then try to bluster their way through separation of powers issues (pity that Cheney, Scooter Libby, etc., are not around to help with those arrangements).
Anway, it's black history month: MLK had a dream? Well, Scalia's got one too! Kennedy came through last time -- the secret is to appeal to his vast ego, i.e., that the Republic stands or falls based on the Great Justice's historic vote. Will he have the strength at such a dark hour, to hold steadfast with Scalia and together save the nation?
February 12, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scalia, like his father before him, is a fascist.
February 12, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scalia got a high rating on this list of America's 50 most loathesome persons,
http://buffalobeast.com/134/50mostloathsome2008-full.html , with top honors going to the eponymous SarahPAC.com's founder.
February 13, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never meant to imply that the Senate should just over-ride the manipulations going on in Minnesota. My point is that they are completely silent, as though they have absolutely no opinion on the absurd mess that is going on there.
If votes can be counted in one day to elect a President, why is it taking 3 months to do the work to review these other ballots? It is ridiculous, and since they manage to opine on everything else, including doping scandals, etc, it just infuriates me that they won't step up to the bat on this.
And BTW, I will just bet that the relevent laws will be changed in Minnesota once this farce is over with. I don't think they meant for such foolishness to go on under the cover of their laws.
February 12, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Franken's delay in being seated in the US Senate is due to the Minesota court system. That leaves us to wonder in the Minesota judges invoved in this case are biased towards Al Franken. The judges don't seem to want the Democrats to have their 59 US Senators. This shows that the GOP and Coleman are desperate to come up with anything to delay the seating of Franken. The GOP has to admit outloud that THEY LOST THE ELECTION IN 2008 BIG TIME. GET OVER IT!
February 12, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
...the R's just trying to steal another election, kind of like, oh may be like 2000....
February 12, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rank and file congressional democrats are letting him 'twist in the wind' because the scandalous methods and legal maneuvering he used in securing a 'majority' of votes were so over the top the greater part of the public's eyebrows are raised six inches over the top of their heads.
February 12, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Examples? Citations? Or tell us another story.
February 12, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
geez spriche did you pay any attention to the proceedings at all?
...or did you just pull this out of your ass like a good republican talking point?
February 12, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right........what were you drinking or smoking when you wrote this line?
February 12, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
They aren't.
February 12, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You basically have it wrong. The Minnesota Democrats (DFL Party) are doing a much better job of supporting Franken during this court case than they did on election day.
Many of my normally DFL voting friends told me they voted for Norm but failed to give a coherent reason for their abhorrent behavior (they admitted that Coleman's behavior as a Senator did not reflect their views). My son-in-law is among them. Many of my friends who are active in DFL politics would not even say whether they had voted for Franken. Minnesota types are just too "polite" to just say what's on their mind when their decision is based upon personality -- I suspect many just concluded that Franken was just not "nice" enough to be a Senator.
Let's face it -- in Minnesota, in 2008, Franken should have won by nearly as large a margin as Obama. The problem here is the Al Gore problem -- in 2000 Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennesse. Franken has failed to win by a large margin because he failed to win the hearts and minds of a large slice of the DFL voters.
If he prevails in court and serves his term, Al Franken will be the darling of the DFL in 2014.
I personally find all of this puzzling. I have met Mr. Franken, believe that is a man of substance and integrity and I hope he wins and serves in the Senate.
February 12, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sense is that the Democrats have time on their side, and the Republicans don't.
February 12, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Franken has been in Washington for the last two days, in meetings in the Senate, getting him oriented and briefed:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/02/mr_franken_comes_to_washington.html?hpid=sec-politics
February 12, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what Mr. Franken is doing to earn a living at this point. From listening to him on Air America, I got the idea he was not a multi-millionaire. His family are all hard-working and he seems to have only one home.
Does the Democratic Party support him while he sits in limbo?
February 12, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should get back pay -- good point! I wonder what health insurance he has. The Senators have a pretty good deal -- does Coleman still have his coverage? I would love a big expose on the health care coverage of former Congresspeople -- do they have it forever? Why don't we know?
I am going to see the link above about Franken getting oriented to the Senate. Haven't done it yet, but hopefully it is good news.
February 12, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille: They and their spouses (and their children, while minors) had coverage for life in the 70's. I don't know if that is still the case.
February 13, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I care about is how much longer this ass clown Coleman and his lawyers can drag this out before a decision is rendered? At some point teh stupid must stop.
February 12, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortuantely Deomcrats are Democrats and behave like them -- that is, wimpy.
February 12, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
AHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh
I seriously can't take this case anymore, I never ever want to hear about that crook Norm Coleman again, and frankly Al Franken has never been that funny.
I am afraid that the only sensible policy is for Minnesota to just forfeit a senator. They will have to make do for a term with just 1. They should be okay they once went a term without a governor (Ventura, Jesse). The senate should just amend their rules so that 59 is the new 60.
February 12, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken has never been that funny? Did you hear the one about the penis growing out of the guy's forehead? The guy is a comic genius, and also a really smart dude! He SO needs to be the next senator from Minnesota!
February 12, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I never heard the one about the penis growing out of the guy's forehead...sounds hilarious...
Yes, I agree he is smart, and even sometimes funny. And I agree with his politics, but most of the time he is really really annoying.
February 13, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If I put myself on the ballot and even 50 people voted for me it'd be a travesty. So I wrote a book instead"
- Al Franken, 1999
It's too bad he didn't stick to his word.
If only Jesse Venture were still around to give Franken a good beating
February 13, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink