See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. 2010 Watch: The Comeback? « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
2. Breaking: Blago Appoints Roland Burris to Senate Seat; Update: Reid Rejects | The American Pundit
3. PFB Blog » Blog Archive » The Blagojevich Saga
4. PAXALLES
5. Blago names 71 year old Roland Burris to Obama’s senate seat in race-baiting | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
6. Blagojevich’s Coup In Appointing Roland Burris to Obama’s Senate Seat… : P.U.M.A
7. Blago the Belligerent « America, You Asked For It!
8. Blagojevich Names Successor To Obama’s Senate Seat « Jane Q. Republican
9. BlagoGate III: Disgraced Illinois Governor Appoints Former Illinois Attorney General And Gubernatorial Candidate Roland Burris To President-Elect Obama’s Vacant Senate Seat | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
10. Rhymes With Right
11. University Blog
12. Senate shock as Blago makes his surprise move « Wellsy’s World
13. Blago you magnificent bastard! < jimreport.com
14. That’s a damn shame; everyone is now against Roland Burris | A Nutter's Prattle
15. Barack Obama: Don’t Seat Blagojevich Appointee « Goodtimepolitics
16. Barack Obama: Between a Rod and a hard place « Goodtimepolitics
17. Blagojevich’s Circus Is In Town « Mcnorman’s Weblog
18. ButAsForMe! » Blago surprise: Here comes his Senate replacement; race-card circus; Obama says no
19. Should Republicans Block Burris from the Senate? « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
20. Playing the Race Card in Burris Case « America, You Asked For It!
21.   Blago Taps Burris for Obama’s Seat - Reid: “Not on my Watch!” by Macsmind

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #580160
   On December 31st, 2008 at 9:05 am, chapoutier said:

   Flyoverman,

   As I am sure you are aware, in Minnesota, when someone votes, they sign in on a ledger of some sort and then cast their ballot. That way, they can be sure that the number of total voters that showed up equals the number of ballots recorded in that precinct.

   When all the precincts were recounting, there was only one major issue with these two wholly separate tallys not matching up in a particular precinct. And guess what? That had to do with about 112 ballots that were LOST. Not “found”, mind you, but that had clearly been lost by election officials. Of course, since these lost ballots favored Franken, Coleman argued that rather than simply use the election night totals, which did include these ballots, that these voters who, again, did nothing wrong, should not get their vote counted.

   Fact of the matter is that those “found” ballots you find so suspicious were legitimate errors. Why did they favor Franken? I don’t know, but I do know that urban precincts (i.e., ones that would favor Franken) always tend to be understaffed and underequipped as compared to rural and suburban districts, thus causing more potential for error. But it is interesting that, with Coleman throwing every legal challenge imaginable out there, not one of them has to do with any argument of fraudulent ballots showing up out of thin air. Wonder why…

   Maybe you should have looked up and cited some sources that were a little more up to date on the actual status of the election.

2. #580222
   On December 31st, 2008 at 10:20 am, roadrage said:

   Right now I would prefer a Blago crony to an Obama crony.

   What’s the difference?

3. #580268
   On December 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am, DBNinKY said:

   Say what one will against Blago’s political ethics, but for a man of his age, he’s got one terrific head of hair!

4. #580306
   On December 31st, 2008 at 11:41 am, Mister P said:

   Right now I would prefer a Blago crony to an Obama crony.
   What’s the difference?

   Huh? Obama and Blago may be alike, but one is not impotent, and the other accumulating power.

5. #580308
   On December 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am, Mister P said:

   Reid just spoke at a press conference, they won’t be allowing the Burris, appointment. Interesting.

   Reid has no standing. He can not stop it.

6. #580468
   On December 31st, 2008 at 2:41 pm, governmentdrone said:

   Chap:

   You might find this interesting –

   That margin — 133 votes — happens to be the same number of ballots that Minneapolis election officials are currently missing. The initial vote tally in one Democrat-leaning precinct counted 133 more ballots than officials have been able to find for the Senate recounts. The Minnesota canvassing board decided on Dec. 12 to allow Minneapolis simply to ignore the recount and go with the original number. This provided a 46-vote boost for Mr. Franken, about the same as his current projected lead. The board also “requested” that counties reconsider rejected absentee ballots, a new and novel part of the recount procedure that is also expected to favor Mr. Franken.

   Something is wrong when a victorious candidate owes more thanks to vote counters than to voters. Such was the case in Washington in 2004, and Minnesota is poised to follow in its footsteps in 2008.

   Link Here

   I have no doubt that both sides in this “contest” are trying to gain the most favorable conditions possible to gain “victory”, however for you to posit the opinion that all of the fraud is being committed by the Coleman side is either disingenuous, lazy, or the comments of a purely partisan hack.

   I’ve not come to know you from your posts and think that you are either disingenuous or lazy. I had hoped that you weren’t a purely partisan hack either.

   Reagan was a RINO. The Republican Party in it’s current state is what the Republican Party has always been. Think about it before you identify yourself as a Republican. —- governmentdrone, 12/31/08 2:40 et.

7. #580478
   On December 31st, 2008 at 2:54 pm, chapoutier said:

   I have no doubt that both sides in this “contest” are trying to gain the most favorable conditions possible to gain “victory”, however for you to posit the opinion that all of the fraud is being committed by the Coleman side is either disingenuous, lazy, or the comments of a purely partisan hack.

   I never said, nor do I believe that, Coleman is committing any fraud. Neither is Franken. And of course Coleman has the right to make whatever argument he wants, but consistently his lawsuits and stances have sought to exclude votes. I can’t think of an equivalent stance for Franken.

   I do get very annoyed when someone claims Franken is stealing this election based on what? That article you linked to is wrong. The analogy between this race and Washington 2004 is simply not there. It is not an instance of losing the recount and then demanding another. The one and only recount in MN isn’t even finished yet. And the swings in votes from Coleman +700 to Franken leading were entirely predictable (and in fact predicted by many sources) based upon how the logistics of the recount worked. There was nothing nefarious. It was simply a matter of whose challenges they dealt with first, and who challenged what type and how many of each ballot. Coleman was much more aggressive in challenging Franken votes. Those were therefore not added in until after the board ruled on them. That is what caused the big swing.

   And btw, I had predicted Coleman to win the recount.

8. #580491
   On December 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pm, governmentdrone said:

   Chap:

   You assert that the article is “wrong”. You then go on to make numerous statements that you obviously intend to be taken as “fact” yet you provide no evidence to back your claims.

   I find this very annoying, and something that posters on this board generally let you slide on. You constantly challenge others and ask for links and “evidence” yet you seldom – if ever – seem to provide links or “evidence” to back up your opinions. And yes, without documentation, they must be classified as opinion.

   I generally find your arguments to be well thought out and articulate – hallmarks of a fine barrister. However, I would like to see you provide some corroborating testimony.

   BTW, I don’t claim that the article I linked to should be taken as gospel truth. It is an opinion piece, which frankly holds as much weight as your opinion.

   However, it is a DIFFERENT opinion on what is going on in Minnesota than yours. I find it interesting that your reaction was “it’s WRONG”. Beyond the parallel he’s trying to draw between Minnesota ‘08 and Washington ‘04 (which may or may not be valid) he does offer an insight into the so-called “missing votes” that sheds a little different light on them than what you have done in earlier posts on this thread. And without corroborating evidence to back your argument, it is just as valid an opinion as your own.

   Should you wish to provide evidence to back your opinion from credible sources only please (i.e. no partisan blogs), I shall be most happy to look at them, at which time I shall also be most happy to continue this discussion. (Please keep in mind that the New Year’s holiday is upon us, so time constraints may preclude any lengthy discourse.)

   Reagan was a RINO. The Republican Party in it’s current state is what the Republican Party has always been. Think about it before you identify yourself as a Republican. —- governmentdrone, 12/31/08 2:40 et.

9. #580510
   On December 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pm, chapoutier said:

   I am on an iPod right now, thus hard to link to anything, but what exacty do you want me to corroborate? That this is the first recount? That Coleman challenged far more votes? That the challenges were handled in such a way so as to cause the type of swings? I will be happy to do so, but in general fivethirtyeight.com and theuptake.org have done excellent analyses of the process.

   I do take seriously any reasonable request for corroboration and of course would expect me to be held to whatever standard I would ask of anyone else, so give me some time to review my posts and we can certainly continue his throughout the holiday.

10. #580511
    On December 31st, 2008 at 3:50 pm, governmentdrone said:

    Chap:

    To expand on this a little, you said

    That had to do with about 112 ballots that were LOST. Not “found”, mind you, but that had clearly been lost by election officials. Of course, since these lost ballots favored Franken, Coleman argued that rather than simply use the election night totals, which did include these ballots, that these voters who, again, did nothing wrong, should not get their vote counted.

    Coleman seems to have a valid argument here. If you can’t produce the ballots AT ANY POINT IN THE PROCESS, then why should they be counted?

    The WSJ opinion piece states:

    The Minnesota canvassing board decided on Dec. 12 to allow Minneapolis simply to ignore the recount and go with the original number. This provided a 46-vote boost for Mr. Franken, about the same as his current projected lead.

    So the canvassing board DID decide to go with the election night totals. Nobody disenfranchised here. But in so doing, they in effect counted votes that they could not substiantiate by producing the actual ballots purportedly cast on election night. Net gain for Franken.

    The WSJ opinion piece states:

    Such was the case in Washington in 2004, and Minnesota is poised to follow in its footsteps in 2008.

    He doesn’t say there is a direct parallel. He states his opinion that the possibility exists.

    Not wrong. Just different.

    Reagan was a RINO. The Republican Party in it’s current state is what the Republican Party has always been. Think about it before you identify yourself as a Republican. —- governmentdrone, 12/31/08 2:40 et.

11. #580515
    On December 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm, chapoutier said:

    With respect to the missing votes. They knew that those ballots had been cast and that they were lost sometime between election Night and the recount, so its not like they had NEVER been accounted for. They had been processed and tabulated on election night.

    So they could a) use the election night totals, which MAY have had SOME variation from the actual totals or b) use a tally that everyone KNOWS and admits discounts OVER 100 voters. Recall that they know how many ballots were cast by the voter records they have as people come in, so its not like they are just guessing that those ballots were cast and then lost. Neither choice was perfect, but one clearly was closer to the truth (i.e., what was in fact cast) than the other.

12. #580518
    On December 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm, chapoutier said:

    Also, the article’s assertion that Franken is requesting rejected absentee ballots to be counted is disingenuous. Franken is asking that absentee ballots that were WRONGLY rejected be counted. For example, a canvasser may have rejected a ballot because the voter did not date the ballot. There is no statutory requirement for such and that voter’s ballot should and would count if not for human error.

    I think it would be obvious that such votes should be counted. When the canvassers went through and identified about 1600 such ballots, the Franken campaign said “Okay. Let’s count em all.” Coleman basically said “We are challenging every ballot from Democratic leaning districts but not going to provide any basis or rationale.” And mind you he is not challenging the STANDARD by which ballots are supposed to be judged, he is simply challenging the ballot.

13. #580527
    On December 31st, 2008 at 4:21 pm, governmentdrone said:

    Ahh, and therin lies the rub. Truth can be such a subjective thing. Yes, they “know” that 133 “votes” are missing when they compare the number of ballots on hand to the number of signatures on the books.

    Are the signatures on the books open to scrutiny in the re-count process? I don’t know. I haven’t seen anything that indicates they are.

    Are the 133 “missing” ballots in fact legitimate votes, or did they belong to the opening day rosters of the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Yankees? Again, I don’t know. Does anyone? Including the Minnesota canvassing board?

    Yes, I concede that these are a little “out there” as far as theories go, but with our current state of affairs in the election process, who’s to say?

    And before you say it’s impossible to tell which votes belong to which voter, I would ask you to consider this: Our “secret” ballot process is not really “secret”. In my jurisdiction (as I’m sure is the case elsewhere), it is quite easy for anyone with access to the records to see how someone voted. When you sign the books to indicate that you have voted, you are given a number. That number is recorded next to your name in the books. You give that number to an official who hands you a ballot – also numbered. That official makes a notation as to which voter number was given which ballot number.

    In a little more realistic light, this is supposed to be a “re-count”. The ballots are being scrutinized as to their authenticity and are being “interpreted” for the “voter’s intent” (remember the images of the ballot that any reasonable person would have said was a vote for Coleman that the Franken camp challenged and said it was really a vote for Franken?).

    If you can’t produce the ballots, then how can you possibly include them in a re-count? There has been no opportunity to either scrutinize them for authenticity, nor to try to determine the voter’s “intent”. The possibility exists that these very votes were “hand picked” by what could very well be a partisan election official with the intent of providing a set number of votes for their favored candidate. And in such a close race, every vote does indeed make a difference.

    I think that Coleman has a reasonable argument for the exclusion of these particular ballots – the ballots that have provided Franken with his current projected lead in the re-count process.

14. #580531
    On December 31st, 2008 at 4:29 pm, governmentdrone said:

    For example, a canvasser may have rejected a ballot because the voter did not date the ballot.

    Supposition on your part.

    There is no statutory requirement for such

    Do you know this to indeed be fact in Minnesota? Or is this fact in your place of residence? Or are you guessing?

    Coleman basically said “We are challenging every ballot from Democratic leaning districts but not going to provide any basis or rationale.” And mind you he is not challenging the STANDARD by which ballots are supposed to be judged, he is simply challenging the ballot.

    Is he required BY LAW to provide any basis or rationale, or does the law simply state that ballots can be challenged by parties involved in the election? And why shouldn’t he be allowed to challenge the ballot? Why should he be limited to challenging the STANDARD of the recount?

    Alas, I must take my leave for today. Should you like to continue, please feel free to post other comments in this thread and I shall continue to monitor it when possible over the next day or so.

    I am truly enjoying this discussion with you. It’s nice to have reasonable discussions with folks from “the other side” without it degenerating into name calling and hostility.

    Best wishes for a safe and happy celebration tonight.

15. #580541
    On December 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm, Bill Grant said:

    Rep.Bobby Rush, monosyllabic, idiot, brain-dead, drooling fool, grievance whore, moron that he is… needs to be pelted with a sock full of manure.

    Rep. Bobby Rush of, you guessed it, Americas cesspool: Chicago… is truly profoundly retarded. If you want to hear someone who makes Cynthia McKinney sound like Stephen Hawking listen to this idiot shamelessly play the now threadbare race card for whatever he can grab.

    “Rep. Bobby Rush”… God help us.

16. #580649
    On December 31st, 2008 at 9:24 pm, DanGrantTx said:

    Grab the popcorn. This will be fun!