Coleman's Lawsuit: This Whole Election Stinks -- And I Won
The complaint ignores the existence of counter-evidence, employs one maneuver when it is self-benefiting and opposes the same maneuver when it goes against them, attacks not just the recount but votes that were counted for Franken all along, and overall throws everything against the wall to see what sticks.
So it could take a while for courts to sort through everything. In the meantime, here's a quick rundown:
Re-Challenging The Challenged Ballots
Coleman wants to re-litigate the awarding of disputed ballots by the canvassing board weeks ago, re-challenging ballots that were awarded to Al Franken, plus ballots that were not awarded to him. If this works on even one ballot, it would open the door to the Franken camp getting to do the same.
Double-Counted Ballots
Coleman claims that damaged absentee ballots were duplicated so they could be fed into the machines on Election Night -- a standard procedure in Minnesota -- but a number of duplicates weren't properly labeled and so both they and the originals were counted during the recount. In all fairness, this is probably Coleman's best argument, because it can't be ruled out that this happened to some extent -- but nor can it be proven that it was in any way significant enough to undo Al Franken's 225-vote lead, and they're relying on the next argument we're coming to.
"More Votes Than Voters" -- Shifting Definitions
Coleman claims that multiple precincts had "more votes than voters," a potential irregularity if we understand that as being more ballots than people who signed in on the register. But Coleman has another definition: When the votes tallied in the recount were more than were counted on Election Night, with no reference to what was on the voter register. The whole point of a recount is to find votes that the machines failed to pick up at first.
Tainted Election Day Numbers, And The Secret Ballot
Coleman says those Election Night numbers were bad, too, and wants even more votes for Franken thrown out from absentee ballots that he claims should never have been counted, based on errors on the envelopes. But the envelopes were separated from the enclosed ballots months ago, and he can't prove whom these people voted for. He just wants to throw out Franken votes by fiat.
The Missing Ballots
The Coleman campaign is challenging the canvass board's decision to revert to the Election Night totals in one precinct where 133 ballots are said to have gone missing. The complaint says there was no evidence of the ballots being missing. But they totally ignore -- not rebut, but ignore -- the local officials who say ballots were placed in envelopes marked "1 of 5," "2 of 5," etc., and the "1 of 5" went missing. It is also ignored that there were over 130 more people on the precinct's voting register than ballots in the recount.
Rejected Absentee Ballots -- Yes For Me, But No For Thee
The Coleman complaint wants to force the review and inclusion of 654 absentee ballots that local officials in both blue and red counties say were properly rejected, and which come almost entirely from precincts that Coleman won. They also re-reject the 930 absentee ballots that were counted this past Saturday, which gave Franken a net gain of 176 votes, saying those ballots were wrongly deemed to be legal and erroneously opened.
But remember: Under the terms laid out by the state Supreme Court, the Coleman campaign is on the record saying that this past Saturday's ballots were legal and should be counted. Now they want a do-over.
Equal Protection
The Coleman campaign has said that in re-challenging the disputed ballots, or opposing the counting of the missing ballots in Minneapolis, they are pursuing an Equal Protection argument. But check their proposed remedy for this whole election: Order a new recount -- but only in the precincts that the campaign picks out, with a view towards redoing the totals to increase Norm's votes and decrease Al's.
The Bottom Line
The Coleman campaign alleges that the whole election was tainted, from Election Day through the recount, and the numbers should be changed so that the race is awarded to him. If it doesn't happen, they could potentially appeal for a long time, and then take the dispute all the way back to the Senate if they lose.
And let's not forget the words of lead Coleman lawyer Fritz Knaak yesterday: "Technically, we could actually redo the entire recount. I'll let you know right now that's not in the plans."
That Norm is such a kidder.
January 7, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smilin' Norm? (I thought he looked familiar...)
He's been reading the warning printed on the bottle;
"...if you have an election that lasts more than four hours, contact your supreme court immediately!"
January 8, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep it up Norm!! You're going to destroy what's left of Minnesota's Republican Party.
January 7, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so sad. We could have had Paul Wellstone for the last six years, and no ethics cloud hanging over this Senate seat. Former Senator Coleman has a fleet of lawyers, and he is going to need them once the FBI finishes its investigation of his dealings. In the meantime, the Minnesota courts should do a smackdown of this lawsuit so our state gets it two rightful Democratic senators ASAP.
January 7, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mean to say we could have had Walter Mondale for the past six years. He stepped up to run when Wellstone died.
January 8, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that ivy means that if his plane hadn't crashed, Wellstone would have gone on to win, and none of this Norm Coleman mess would be staining the reputation of our state.
That's why it's "sad" instead of "surreal".
January 9, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of these sounds like there is even any sniff of evidence of wrongdoing by the election officials or the Canvassing Board or the courts. They are just throwing the same arguments that failed the last three or four times they made them. They will fail again, and quickly, because there is no evidence of wrongdoing or bias towards Franken, and every argument Coleman is making is obviously biased toward getting him more votes and taking away Al's, NOT anything to do with accurate vote counting.
I hope these lawyers put him in the poorhouse but they really look awful without presenting any better arguments.
January 7, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does this proceed?
Straight to the supreme court or does do lower courts have to summarily dispose of it first?
January 7, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like it's an 'it'. It looks like there will be many separate pieces floating around the courts.
Will it go as a package to the higher courts once it gets there or will each problem be solved separately? Either way, Coleman's many-headed hydra is going to suck up the time. Bet the courts will be extremely sick of it, and soon.
January 7, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't worry overmuch about the inconsistent pleadings...that's SOP...all a plaintiff needs is one to work out
Apparently this is tried within 20 days to a 3 judge panel. Beyond that, the length depends on what trial procedures the court decides to adopt. Then I would imagine direct appeal to the SCt.
Franken can probably prevent a lengthy trial of fact but I am not entirely sure on that
January 7, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope it actually is short. Swearing in was Monday, and we've still a lot of time to go until this is done.
January 7, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only word that comes to mind when I read this and think about Norm Coleman is "pathetic".
January 7, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can not begin to describe the contempt I have for Norman. His behavior is making four-year-olds throwing tantrums look positively tranquil by comparison.
Norman, will you please take your football, or hockey stick, or whatever, and just go home already?
Or at least try to make it entertaining by holding your breath and stamping your feet.
January 7, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
One has to wonder at the people who could vote for such a schmuck.
Almost like asking how people could ever vote for such a four-year-old as Bush.
(I think that Bush took nine minutes after being informed of the WTC attacks because "The Pet Goat" was so enthralling and he wanted to see how it came out.)
Norm Coleman - did he ever DO anything as a Senator? Rubber-stamping Bush power grabs doesn't count as doing anything - just doing as he was told. . .
January 8, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to be seen standing up for Former Senator Ferretface's lawyers, but all civil complaints "ignore the existence of counter-evidence, employs one maneuver when it is self-benefiting and opposes the same maneuver when it goes against them," and plead for relief under alternative legal and factual theories. That's what a complaint is. That's what it does.
January 7, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's not true. A well written complaint should acknowledge counter-evidence, and then refute it.
January 7, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're a lawyer, then, for the sake of your clients, I hope that you have an experienced senior partner taking a red pen to your complaints before you file them.
January 7, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're serving your client's interests by attempting to refute potential counterarguments before the other side can bring them up (or before the judge can think of them). Counterarguments aren't going to go away if you ignore them. You're just going to waste the judge's time, which generally goes over really well. If you can't satisfactorily dispose of the most obvious counterarguments in your complaint, you have no business going into court.
January 7, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
If you don't address, and destroy (or at least bring plausible doubt) to the opponent's arguments, you leave them unrefuted.
Coleman's attorneys have not impressed.
January 8, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is obviously a philosophical difference, i.e. one with no right answer (notwithstanding my unnecessarily snarky response) and one that's terribly OT here. Additionally, there are always exceptions--times you would ignore a possible counter argument and I would address one in a complaint.
So, now that I've given myself permission to threadjack:
a) There's no good reason to let opposing counsel use your brains to think up counterarguments. Maybe he/she is as smart, or smarter, than you, but often he or she is not. How would you feel if opposing counsel thanked you for addressing a counterargument in a case because it's what put him or her on the trail of the witness who killed your case or the argument that won as summary judgment?
b) The complaint is always the first thing the judge reads. It inalterably colors his understanding of what the case is about. Ditto the judge's law clerk if he or she has one. The complaint is a priceless opportunity to prejudice the judge against the defendant, one of the great advantages of being a plaintiff. It is your sole, private domain. If you address possible counter arguments, all you are doing is allowing the Defendant to intrude into your domain.
c) Worse, no matter how thoroughly you think you demolished a counterargument in the complaint, the judge is, consciusly or subconsciously, going to discount it because he knows that you are in control of both sides of the argument. He may, in other words, dismiss your great response as swatting at strawmen. Your great response will have a lot more impact if you are actually responding to an actual argument from an actual defense lawyer because that way the decider's peception is that you won a fair fight.
d) If you telegraph your response, you give the other side longer to duck and hit back. Legal arguments are the only kinds of surprises we're allowed since the end of the days of trial by ambush. Why, then, would you give the other side more time to think up ways to get around your response? Isn't it better to preserve the possibility that opposing counsel will hear your devestating response for the first time at oral argument(or read it in for the first time in your reply to their response to your motion for summary judgment)? You completely give up the possibility that it will be a surprise if you plead your response to a counterargument in the complaint.
e) If you have the other side completely blocked on a possible counter-argument, at least give them the opportunity to spend time, money and brainpower developing it. Every minute, every dime, and every page of a page limited brief they spend pursuing an argument you can demolish is a minute, dime or page they can't devote to one that could kill your case.
f) There are almost certainly counter-arguments that are obvious and not so easily refuted, particularly at the pleadings stage. If you spend time in a complaint addressing counter-arguments that you can refute, your failure to address the ones that you cannot--or the relative weakness of your effort if you make the attempt--becomes uncomfortably conspicious to both the judge and opposing counsel. You could easily replace opposing counsel's sinking feeling of dispair and/or the judge's nodding agreement with an "ah-ha" moment that affects the outcome of the case.
(Damn, I hope I didn't just give this discourse to to someone who is drafting a complaint against one of my clients.)
January 8, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't or can't refute your opponents argument on a factual basis you are sunk. If you don't refute it then it goes down as an acknowledgement of the opposing argument. You have to contrast the two argumnts and clearly demonstrate where yours is logically and factually superior.
January 9, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please read the detailed and knowledgeable explanation provided above by the lawyer formerly known as NCSteve. Are you a practicing attorney?
January 13, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Technically, we could actually redo the entire recount. I'll let you know right now that's not in the plans."
It sounds like that this is actually the plan.
January 7, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make no mistake about this. This is not just Norm Coleman. The is the entire Republican party. They are the ones paying Coleman's tab and they are the ones advising him.
If you recall, it was the Republican's who made Wellstone's service out to be a national spectacle and this was the only thing that got Coleman elected. Today again the Republicans are trying to create another false spectacle, only this time it includes all of Minnesota, not just the DFL. And I believe this time their actions will come back bite them in the ass!
Just keep it up. This will do more to destroy the Minnesota Republican party than anything else.
January 7, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're quite right: this is really about the greater Republican Party, not just Norm himself. Part of it is a real scrambling and fear of losing yet ANOTHER seat in the Senate. As obvious a thing as that may be, I don't see it being discussed much in response to Coleman's actions concerning this recount.
The Republicans are in a very, very bad place right now. Worse than many really realized directly after the election.
January 7, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with both of you. They're also great ones for drawing "lessons from history" that are short-sighted and self defeating. I suspect they think 2000 taught them that victory goes to the side that's the toughest, the scrappiest and the least scrupled, without much thought to how well that worked out for them in the long run.
What's remarkable to me here is how eager the Republicans seem to be to saddle themselves with a senator who's is so clearly likely to be publically and messily indicted for arrogantly and stupidly blatant acts of corruption before the next eleciton cycle.
January 8, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today the Chief Justice bowed out of appointing the required three members of the special court to handle the case at the district level, as he was on the Canvass Board, and some of the issues Coleman raised deal with decisions of that board. So it has been handed off to Alan Page since he is the Senior Justice on the Court.
They have a 20 day period to begin hearing the case under Minnesota Law. Prior to that both sides will bring motions -- as soon as three judges are appointed to process them. I suspect many of Coleman's claims will be dealt with in the early motions.
The process is much like a civil action with a bench trial. Both sides can introduce testimony, documents, evidence, witnesses and so forth supporting or in opposition to the claims. They are, in effect, in the discovery phase now. But they have a Statute defined time limit, twenty days from yesterday when Coleman files.
Once the trial court makes the record and findings, then it probably goes to an appeal. I don't know whether they will skip the appeals court level, and go straight to the MN Supreme Court, but in any case, I expect them to move fast on it.
Important to remember that throughout this process, Coleman has the burden of proof. I don't know what level they use, but he will have to prove his claims. Because he brought the suit as Coleman v. Richie, he is clearly trying to prove that Richie and his subordinates somehow did not administer Minnesota Law fairly and appropriately. That will be a tough one.
People I am hearing from want this over and done with, most saying they are impressed with the process thus far. Richie is coming in with a list of reforms he wants to see the Legislature take up this year -- the Legislature came in yesterday, and will be in session till May. The State Senate has already started hearings. Last year there was a bill to simplify the Absentee Voting System, and Pawlenty vetoed it. The House Committee Chair intends to bring it back this year. The Republicans came in with a bill about requiring Photo ID at the Polls. Had nothing to do with this election, but that is their hobby horse. Republican Governor, Strong Majority for the DFL in both houses. So it has begun....
January 7, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The contest is captioned Coleman (contestant) v. Franken (contestee). The claims must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the burden is on Coleman—the election is presumed to be regular.
January 7, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bet the trial panel could dispose of this within a week. If there is an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court, there could be a final resolution within 60 days or so, a WAG
January 7, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
January 7, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
seconded. Good synopsis.
January 7, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sara said:
"Today the Chief Justice bowed out of appointing the required three members of the special court to handle the case at the district level, as he was on the Canvass Board, and some of the issues Coleman raised deal with decisions of that board. So it has been handed off to Alan Page since he is the Senior Justice on the Court."
Is this the same Alan Page who chased my Roger Staubach all over the football field? Seriously, this guy was the absolute best defensive tackle pass rusher in the history of the league.
An argument that could be made to Page is Coleman trying to have a redo is the same as the Minnesota Vikings wanting a redo of the play where Drew Pearson caught the winning touchdown from Roger Staubach in the final seconds of the 1975 divisional playoff game.
Seriously, can Page (or the Supreme Court) issue an order that would seat Franken to his rightfully earned Senate seat
January 8, 2009 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is the same Alan Page, senior Justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court.
January 8, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drew Pearson clearly pushed off Nate Wright on that 'touchdown' -- it's on the videotape.
On the other hand, the recount process was similarly transparent and there was no pushing off.
January 8, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he did and I can't believe they didn't call it
But then again, the Cowboys really did outplay the Vikings and was only behind because of a stupid rookie play on a punt or kickoff early in the game
I doubt you guys would have destroyed the Rams in the NFC Championship like we did and played the Steelers to a virtual tie
Anyway, always liked the Vikings. I used to live in Tulsa, OK and they would practice there.
I am glad you guys are a real blue state unlike my native Texas but where I grew up, in the Valley, Obama took 72% of the vote. He also took every major metropolitan area in Texas except Fort Worth (won Dallas big).
Anyway, my Cowboys are just as pitiful as the Republicans now.
February 16, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first interesting thing I noticed when I started reading the complaint is this line:
"Contestant Norm Coleman ("Coleman") is a Minnesota resident qualified as an eligible voter under Minnesota elections law and United States Senator from the State of Minnesota."
Except, of course, that he isn't. He hasn't been a Senator since Monday, and this was filed Tuesday.
January 7, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presumptuous?
January 7, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman was in a position where he could have made a difference.
He could have stood up and said: We cannot let ten percent of the war treasury go to the VPs company.
He could have stood up and said: This war is based upon lies.
He could have stood up and said: War mongerers are making a fortune on the blood, sweat and tears of our soldiers.
He was a nothing. Nothing but a goddamnable lackey for the most criminal executive in a hundred years.
He could have made history.
January 7, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now he is history. Or soon will be.
I have had the extreme displeasure of encountering the scumball in person on more than one occasion, and in different capacities on my part.
If he shakes your hand, count your fingers.
January 7, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks about like I expected.
Keep in mind a civil complaint is where you have to make all your allegations. If you miss an allegation, and want to raise it later, you can't, so they were going to throw in the kitchen sink. Franken's answer will read "1) denied 2) denied 3) denied" and then the Coleman campaign will be obligated to actually prove their allegations.
As I see it, the equal protection obsession could be a real test of Minnesota's statutory contest procedure. The statute was drafted long before Bush v. Gore, and if Bush v. Gore stands for the proposition that you can't treat like ballots differently without violating equal protection, then there is a serious problem with a contest procedure that permits a candidate to identify select precincts for disparate treatment.
It may just be a matter of which campaign chooses to press this issue...
January 7, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
who's paying his attorneys, and what does he stand to gain or lose by obstructing MN's senator from taking office. I leave these as an exercise for the reader.
In partial answer:
The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) is the nation's leading Republican group fighting for a fair vote in Minnesota....They desperately need to raise funds as the Minnesota recount comes down to the wire.
On the equal protection thing, please, Jesus, let it not be...There will be 99 senators until 2010.
January 8, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Franken will be seated once the state process unfolds. Norm can go to federal court, but after the trial court rules (and maybe an appeal to the MN SC), under MN law Franken is the winner.
January 8, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that occurs to me from this is that if Al Gore had shown this sort of tenacity in contesting the Florida election results in 2000, we might have been spared eight years of Dubya.
January 7, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hindsight...
January 7, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, yeah, because of the first 4 years of court proceedings.
January 7, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a question for Eric. Since Coleman is essentially trying to relitigate points he's already lost before the Minnesota Supremes, is he expecting to lose and then kick this up to the U.S. Supreme Court where it (a) might languish for ages or (b) might get a 2000-Bush-Gore outcome?
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
January 7, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MN S. Ct. explicitly stated they weren't ruling on the merits of Coleman's claims because the proper forum was for Coleman to bring an election contest and establish an evidentiary record.
January 7, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman's problem is that he really has no evidence to speak of - it's all hand-waving. You can make all the allegations you want but when it comes to a trial, you have to present facts, and when it comes right down to it, Coleman doesn't have any. This could turn out to be a really short trial if all Coleman can present is shadow puppets.
January 7, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
a really short trial
but potentially a long appeal
Sometimes the ability to delay a final decision is all you need.
Especially given that Franken is not merely one of the sacred 60 needed, (granted you peel off collins or snowe or spector), he will be the next--stay with me now, and put the image of those tights r-r-r-right outta' ya' mind--Liberal Lion of the Senate.
January 8, 2009 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
but potentially a long appeal
Coleman only appeals after he loses his civil suit. In the meanwhile, Franken will be certified and seated. Coleman's appeal would have to argue mistakes (e.g. improper exclusion of evidence) by the three-judge panel to go forward.
As it stands, the complaint implies bad faith on the part of a canvassing board struggling to follow the law and the directions of the MNSC, and local officials (average people) who tried their reasonable best. Good luck with that approach!
I believe this will be over soon. When the court applies the smell test, Norm would have a better chance submitting an old Gorgonzola encased in a pure mercaptan atmosphere.
January 8, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
after he loses his civil suit
No, I'm thinking he tricks up a jurisdictional issue out of the equal protection thing, such that until he has definitively been slapped down he has a procedural beef with how the facts were determined, not what the determination was.
It would go up, I guess, as the equivalent of a writ of mandate after you lose your motion to quash service of process. In such a case, until that issue has been fully tested on appeal you can't proceed with the case in chief.
(Trust Me: I have tormented landlords this way more than once...)
January 8, 2009 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
January 8, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
* Sigh *
I miss the good old days, like when Norm's 81 year old father was caught having sex with a 38 year old behind Savoy Inn Pizzeria in St. Paul.
Now I'm just waiting with bated breath, for the Laurie/Norm/$75K/Hays debacle to come to fruition.
Go, LAWYERS!!
January 7, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
and people still believe the end of this country as we have known it is not unfolding in front of their eyes.
paying attention to this garbage and missing the rest.
a year from now it wont matter who is in the senate.
January 7, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the moral relativism conservatives rail against when it is "practiced" by non conservatives. Hypocrite.
January 7, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
He forgot to mention counting the votes of the unborn. As an ardent, anti-abortion candidate he's certain that all of the unborn would have voted Republican if that had the chance to be born, register and vote. Counting the votes of the unborn would put Coleman way over the top. Oh, wait! He's already way over the top.
January 7, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, the unborn don't qualify because of age discrimination. the undead on the other hand don't have that problem. i have no trouble believing norm would put a stake thru al's heart with the vampire vote.
January 8, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
to refute potential counterarguments
My civ pro prof always used to say :"Don't plead yourself into a corner"
Which is to say, you only want to plead ultimate facts, not evidentiary points.
But that's normal litigation--here, the complaint is more of a press release/talking points memo (sorry...) thingee, than a serious marker for future litigation on which your credibility will rise or fall in front of some trial judge two years and 200 hours worth of discovery from now.
That said, they are to be expected to go to threat level: kitchen sink and not wait for a Motion To Compel Bill of Particulars.
January 8, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. This is no 2 year trial with the likelihood of settlement all along the way, this is a 20 day sprint.
"Discovery" ought to be interesting.
January 8, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a rare case where the attorneys get to litigate facts they themselves have been involved in creating.
January 8, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I guess a concession won't ever be in the cards for Norm "Cole-mentum" Coleman...I have no doubt that his frivolous lawsuits will see their time in court and that none of them will actually change the outcome. Franken won, fair and square. I think Coleman's carrying the Republican party on his back with this one, it doesn't seem like something a former Senator would do on his own, especially if he wanted his political career to continue.
January 8, 2009 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Norm Coleman is right about one thing: the election IS tainted - by the inclusion of Norman Coleman in it. What a typical Repugnican crybaby!
January 8, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every third grader knows the language, which so far in this or any other discussion of the hassle has been missing: "Normy is a Sore Looser!"
January 8, 2009 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Norm Coleman achieved the level of succes that he did in the election only because Dean Barkley was in the race. In Minnesota Republicans typically need the "hybrid" candidated in the race to win over a Democrat; Dean Barkley , in my opinion , fulfilled that role.
January 8, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just like indie Peter Hutchinson's presence in the 2006 MN gubernatorial race allowed Pawlenty to squeeze by with a thin reelection margin. "Republican success story," my ass. More like Perot '92 / Nader 2000 redux.
January 8, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone asked earlier if Alan Page is the former great NFL football player. The answer is yes. I kind of get a kick out of the fact that the presiding judge is an NFL Hall of Famer who knows s___ from S______. Coleman will get a fair hearing but I doubt if the Court is going to horse around very long with specious arguments.
January 8, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a sense Coleman inadvertently outlined what John Dean outlined in his book, Conservatives WithOUT Conscience.
Coleman has said that he does not believe in democracy and elections and the public's will. He only wants the rubber stamp of superficial of an election and that by entitlement he is provided every advantage to get the votes he needs without consequence of actually how they are accounted.
It is in a legal brief the difference between the corporate plutocracy and its Republican Party and the rest of us. You all must follow the rules and if we don't win than we change the rules and accounting until it fits....
It is after all in the end a brief that expects that the fix is in and thus putting the pressure on the court to see if the fix is in. It will be interesting to see if it is or not.
If the court dismisses the suit, than it will be appealed and if it hits the wall we can take a breath that the fix at least here is not in.
January 8, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Ashcroft has many faults, but he set a standard of gracious losing when he conceded to Jean Carnahan. He said he hoped her late husband's election would assauge some of her grief.
Al Gore, of course, was quite gracious when he finally conceded to Bush. I wanted him to keep fighting, but respected him for doing what he felt was best for the country.
Norm Coleman needs to learn a lesson from these two men.
January 8, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: cherry-picking precincts.
Cherry-picking counties was the Gore mistake that let the f'ing Supreme Court into the FL'2000 election, under the guise of Equal Protection.
Maybe Worm Coleman's trying to sucker someone in the state into acceding to this argument, so that, regardless of the results, the Justices with family incomes from the Heritage Foundation (Thomas) and Gibson,Dunn&Crutcher,LLP (Scalia), both of whom made money off the prospect of Bush winning the FL recount, will get another chance to earn a commission from the GOP (Grasping, Obstructionist Party.)
January 8, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon lighten up people.
Don't you like watching old Normie slowly twist in the wind before his political death?
Franken is doing the political equivalent of putting a gorilla suit on him, and letting him sit in the baggage compartment for awhile.
January 8, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The former senator from Minnesota is getting on my nerves.
January 8, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can see this is going to be very popular in Minnesota, arguing that the whole State is basically a third world country that can't be trusted to run an election. I suppose his effort to win the election by hopeing he lucks into a friendly judge instead of through getting more votes than his opponent is a good example of the modern Republican view of what courts are for - punishing Democrats.
January 9, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink