GOP Launches New Public Attack Against Minnesota Election Officials
Here's the latest move by Republicans to discredit the Minnesota recount as things keep going downhill: The state GOP has now put out a statement attacking the canvassing board for allowing a local liberal site, The Uptake, to provide a live video feed of the meetings.
The statement from state GOP chairman Ron Carey says the board's decision "calls into question the judgment of those who made the decision for this partisan website to be the sanctioned broadcaster of these important proceedings."
But here's the real tell: The Uptake has been taping these meetings since last week, when they volunteered to step in after the state's cameramen were given the holiday season off. But the GOP is only seeing fit to complain about it now. Combined with the language shown above, this really shows how the GOP is laying the groundwork to dispute the whole result in court.
...weren't the Uptake proceedings streamed from cell phones?
Could the canvassing board have stopped that even really if they'd wanted to? :P
December 30, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do they realize that nobody cares?
December 30, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, let them keep it up. We'll win more seats in the state legislature in 2010.
December 30, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the legal traction. Politically they are looking silly (to be polite). This is a lose-lose move for Coleman and the Republican Party if they don't drop him fast.
December 30, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think theuptake.org was involved before last week since I recall watching the recount go through the challenges (Franken then Coleman) a couple weeks ago. From the above statement by Eric Kleefield, I believe the Coleman camp is complaining about the live video feed, which has been going on for a longer period of time.
December 31, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The people at The Uptake go out of their way to be evenhanded in their coverage. And for their efforts, they're constantly refused press credentials by the Coleman campaign. I guess if it's not corporate media, the GOP can't control it.
The Uptake is to the Minnesota Republican party what MediaMatters.org is to Bill O'Reilly. The righties call it "smearing" when someone quotes them verbatim, or worse, shows videotape of them.
December 31, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uptake had a press release yesterday which just makes the MN GOP look silly:
http://theuptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/blog.details/id/3734/
My favorite line: "We are extremely pleased that the Chair of the Minnesota GOP watches The UpTake and was able to enjoy today's State Canvassing Board hearing through our live coverage."
December 31, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Minnesota absentee ballot issue of "matching signatures" is a rather loaded one.
When a Minnesota resident votes at the polls, she signs the voter roll next to her printed name. Few get their names, as reflected on the voter rolls, wrong. After all, the "correct" name is there in front of them.
Unfortunately, the absentee ballot process (I voted absentee in this election) may involve going to the county government center. The clerk will inspect the driver's license and compare it to the voter roll. I don't recall actually seeing my name printed on the register voter roll. Then the process involved additional signatures. As I recall the last was on the envelope into which I had placed my ballot. For me, this probably did not present a problem (assuming that my name on the voter roll does not have a spelled out middle name in the signature).
However, for others, especially women, this may present a problem. My spouse (who also voted by absentee ballot) is, I suppose, rather typical. She sometimes signs her signature using her middle name (or its first initial) and sometimes signs her signature using her maiden name as a middle name (or its first initial). She is not certain which signature she actually used and which middle name (or initial) is actually imprinted on the registered voter roll.
The comparison of signature, if overly officious, can result in many voters actually being disenfranchised. The impact is likely to fall disproportionately on women who are somewhat inconsistent in using either a middle name or a maiden name as a middle name.
Cest le guerre.
December 31, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink