From the AP article: "At the same time, centrist senators, including Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, are seeking to cut tens of billions of dollars from the legislation. They're operating with the blessing of Democratic leaders, who hope a successful effort could attract some GOP votes for Obama's plan."

"Obama summoned Collins to a White House meeting Wednesday afternoon, a Collins aide said."

Already some efforts made at improvement -- Elana Schor reports:
A glimmer of hope for something other than business-as-usual legislating emerged in the Senate last night. The proposed "repatriation" tax break, a major gift for multinational corporations with questionable stimulative value, was defeated on a 42-55 vote.

Read her post and you will see that Conrad and Feingold and Snowe and Schumer voted NEY were as Reid and joined in with the Republicans.

Steve, need to get a life. You are not God's gift to truth. Senators like Conrad are not "brain dead". Your major contribution to TMP seems to hurl invectives at people with whom you disagree -- and thereby cut off discussion.

If the Democrats in the House had shown some self-discipline, we would not have the mess we are now in. You should have spent less time at whacking the wingnuts and more time helping to bring the members of your own blogging community up to speed. The stimulus package is not "progressive"; it stinks.

From the Washington Post 02/03/09

Sen. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE (Maine), a moderate who has been considered the most likely GOP vote in favor of the plan, said yesterday that she cannot support it until items that would not do enough to stimulate the economy or create jobs are dropped. "They should scrub it," said Snowe, who voted for the tax-relief portion in the Senate Finance Committee last week. She said many of the provisions were jammed into the legislation by members of the Appropriations Committee who were "trying to short-circuit the normal legislative process." Sen. KENT CONRAD(D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the centrist group led by Nelson and Collins would target programs that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would not spend their funding quickly. He said the list includes a number of proposals that will spend only about 10 percent of their funding in the next 18 months. "These become immediate candidates for review," Conrad said of the provisions.

First, his legal team has been seeking to have the Election Contest Court rule against counting various votes which the Canvassing Board tallied in Franken's favor. (So far, this attempt to negate Franken votes not seem to be working all that well).

Second, the Coleman teams seems to have been seeking to obtain a ruling from the Election Contest Court permitting a review of wrongly rejected absentee ballots (with the goal being "as many as possible" up to around 12,000).

The Coleman team seems to have been laying the groundwork for its case by implying that failure to allow for a review of all rejected absentee ballots would constitute a violation of the "equal projection clause" (the idea being that each and every voter should have the equal right to his or her vote reviewed in order to ensure that the vote was "legal" and that the intent of the vote was "accurately tallied".

My assumption is that if there were grounds for believing that each and every vote had not been given "equal project", then there might be grounds for an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court (and beyond) which could lead to a nullification of the election and an ensuing constitutional crisis -- a crisis because Minnesota election law does not have a provision for a "re-vote".

Perhaps with the equal projects concern in mind, the The Election Contest Court ruled today that a universe of 4,797 rejected absentee ballots would be made available for review. Note: only those that rejected because of errors made by election judges would be consider for recount. See Jay Weiner's report in MNPost for a report on the ruling

What does this ruling mean? It means that depending of the number of ballots that are found to have been wrongly rejected and depending on whether they are ballots for Coleman, Norm Coleman "may" have have a better chance of winning the election -- than he would have had if the Court had allowed for only 650 or so.

Will the wrongly rejected fall in favor of Franken or of Coleman? We do not know for certain. But if the ballots are from precincts that trended towards Franken, then Franken may see his lead actual grow. Today at Kos, The Big E has a dairy that provides a through and seemly solid analysis of the the universe of ballots under consideration -- and provides reasons to believe that more wrongly rejected absentee ballots are likely to break for Coleman than Franken. Also, jpmassar at Kos also did a post exploring the odd of Coleman winning under various conditions. Given their analysis, it would seem Coleman is grasping for straw.

The good news about the process is that it will if Franken does win, it will be very difficult for Republican wingnuts to make any hay with the idea that the election was "stolen" or that Franken's victory was "not legitimate". In other words, not only Franken, but also "electoral integrity" will be the winners. That's my hope.

A parenthetic note: if I remember correctly, the Coleman team wanted have the Court allow for the review of up to 12,000 ballots-- which is far less than the 4,797. I do not know why the Election Contest Court ruled for the smaller number; however, if in the Court's view of significant number are found to have wrongfully rejected ballots, I wonder whether -- in the name of equal protection -- the Court might wish to expand the universe of ballots under consideration to the 12,000 or so which the Coleman team had be arguing for.)

What about the big idea that Eric Kleefeld raised on Feb 2 (and the made its way over to Kos): "Is Coleman Aiming for a Do-Over Election?" I, myself, would like to know ... does that idea have any creditability given the fact that Minnesota election law doesn't allow for a re-vote.

Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. Was one of Obama's guest for watching the Super Bowl. Is a Unitarian. More later.

Good point.

Kent Conrad has concerns about the "bag for the bucks" question and the only thing the Josh Marshall types can do is label him "a blue dog". Name calling, rather than analysis. And the rabid dogs of TPM have running around snapping madly at Tom Daschle. Such is life.

I do think a very good case can be made for Daschle, but it is not all that easy when there is a rush-to-judgment mentally out there. I hope to do a blog with a bullet point case for why any progressive should be supporting Daschle.

You seem to be practicing in a kind of Judge-Jury-and-Executioner lynch-them-up-to-the-nearest-cottonwood journalism advocate my Newt Gingrich. Good job! Who's your hero? John-shoot-first-ask-questions-later-Wayne . Guilt-by-Associate McCarthyism!!! Is that your standard? Is that the standard of TPM? If you have a case against Daschle, put your money where you mouth is. Make your case! What we do not need now is a reincarnation of Manichean politics of the righteousness right.

The change Obama is trying to bring to politics is, in part, a change in the tone of public discourse. It is antithetical to kind of character-assassination you have put on display. I protest!

My understanding is that most Minnesotan's want the process to play itself out. How long. Probably not that long. My assumption is that the Election Contest Board will rule in favor of Franken, that Secretary of State Ritchie and Governor Pawlenty will - in concordance with Minnesota election law -- immediately sign the election certification and Franken will be seated. In the mean time, Coleman could take his case to the Minnesota Supreme Court and then to Federal District Court where his chances of winning would be next to nil;

I also believe the the glitches in Minnesota election law will be rectified so that we will not have the same problems with absentee ballots that we had this year.

This election was a rare bird. Three million votes and a 250 or so vote difference. I think we did pretty good given the tightness of the race.

One other note, the Canvassing Board was not in a position to review rejected absentee ballots and told Coleman's team that and the the proper place for such a review would be in another venue (the Election Contest Court). So the Coleman team is, in fact doing what the Canvassing Board said he had a right to do. NO?

PS: I am not a lawyer and have no particular expertise in election law. My great disappointment with TPM is that they were not able to find anyone to provide the legal context for understanding the legal in's and out's of the recount and contest processes.

There is a diary at Kos by WineRev where I have found some interesting discussion on the legal framework by persons who have some understanding of election law. I do recommend it. Sorry to go on for so long
Stephen

I disagree with you regarding the stupidity of the law. There are several glitches which will be addressed after the recount. But all in all, the law is designed to ensure that the person with the most votes wins (it is designed to ensure electoral integrity and prevent voter fraud). Minnesota electoral law is consider top tier because it is designed to prevent the problems that took place in Florida and Ohio. Fairness requires that there is no rush to judgment. And remember -- Coleman could still win -- not because of an legal hooky-poky, but because the discovery process in the legal contest (at the Election Contest Court)determines he has the most votes.

I don't agree that Coleman has run roughshod over the will of the voters. The will of the voters has not yet been determined.

As I understand the process, Coleman is acting within his rights as he contest the judgement of the Canvassing Board the Franken was the winner. If Coleman were to engage in actions outside his rights, I am sure the the Minnesota Elections Contest Court would let him (his lawyers) know in no uncertain terms.

With regards to Franken's being seated, Minnesota law would not allow for that until after the Election Contest Court made a ruling the Franken was the winner.

I moreover, I not sure that the Senate has the constitutional authority to seat Franken even on a "provisional" basis. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (a Jim Hightower populists) referred to Senator Harry-speaks-without-thinking-Reid's idea for a provisionally seating as "horse-pooy". If it is true that the citizens of a state are responsible for selecting their senators using the states own established electoral law, the I would tend to agree with Ritchie that the idea of a provisionally seating has the status of "horse-pooy". Some have pointed out that the Senate does have the constitutional right to seat its members -- but those rights are fairly circumscribed (and revolve around criteria established in the constitution (such as age, place of residency, etc>)

Giving Coleman the right to make a challenge at the Minnesota Election Contest Court is a means helping ensuring electoral integrity.

Reviewing wrongly reject absentee ballots may be a way for helping to ensure that the declared winner is the contestant who has received the most validly cast votes.

With regards to your example of the hanging chads, the problem there wasn't that different types of machines were used; rather it was that the machines were mechanically flawed. Correct?