Blago surprise: Here comes his Senate replacement; race-card circus; Obama says no
An end-of-the-year gambit from Blago.
Voila (via Sun-Times):
Gov. Blagojevich today is expected to name former state Comptroller and Attorney General Roland Burris to Illinois’ vacant U.S. Senate seat, a knowledgeable source said this morning.
Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, 71, had lobbied the governor for the position in recent weeks.
Burris made a previous attempt at the Senate seat in the past — unsuccessfully. In 1984, he was beat out for the Democratic nomination by Paul Simon.
Burris is a reliable Blago crony.
He’d also be the only black member of the U.S. Senate, putting Harry Reid in a spot, as Allahpundit notes.
What to do? What to do?
***
Update: Dems say no.
Video of Blago’s race-baiting caberet!
Enjoy the show!
***
Update: Obama weighs in. Don’t seat Burris.
RAAAAACIST!!!
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsThe SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Obama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsObama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Of Course: MF Global COO Still Listed as EPA Financial Adviser
December 28, 2011 11:01 AM by Doug Powers
30 Comments
Categories: Corruption
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Betsys Page
» Cruising the WebPundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad joke
Why not appoint Michelle Obama or Jessie Jackson Jr. instead? Or maybe the Reverend Al Sharpton?
***
John Bibb
What is wrong with you people and this attention paid to Blago?? Don’t you know that Obama is on the Hawaiian beach??
Blago should’ve appointed himself right before the impeachment vote. That would’ve been awesome.
Not too fast on his feet, eh?
BTW, I thought the IL state legislature voted to strip him of the authority to appoint a replacement.
OOPS, my bad…that might lead to a special election with a Republican taking the seat. We can’t have THAT now, can we?
Why can’t Blago conduct his own internal investigation? He can then produce a self-exonerating report, and announce it at a news conference. Ta-da, problem solved!
How much did it cost him?
Obama is playing golf, so his pecs aren’t sun-kissed, as he’s wearing a shirt.
Maybe he can whip off his shirt after sinking his last putt for the benefit of the gallery, taking a few moments to sign a few autographs to give his chiseled pecs time to build up a little glisten.
Regarding Blago, I’m not sure of the rules, but why doesn’t he nominate Caroline Kennedy? Make her a Illinoian, or whatever they call themselves (besides crooks). She can claim that she’s “always been a Cubs fan, you know”, a la Hillary, you know, to give her cred, you know. Then it’d be up to poor old Harry to put the kibosh on the whole thing, thusly upsetting the forces gathered for The Return to Camelot, or Camelot!Part Deux, or whatever they’re thinking, you know? Unfortunately, WE KNOW.
yeah, what up wit dat, tpitman?
Right now I would prefer a Blago crony to an Obama crony.
Reid will capitulate, because he is a gutless turd.
I accidentally caught a Leno rerun last night, and in his stand up he referred to the Illinois Crook-in-Chief as Governor Sonofabitch. I think I will steal it.
Reid will capitulate, because he is a gutless turd.
I accidentally caught a Leno rerun last night, and he referred to the Illinois Crook-in-Chief as Governor Sonofab*tch. I think I will steal it.
I almost expected Rev Wright.
That may be more awesome than Blago appointing himself.
Why not Caroline Kennedy?…
She can govern from the Vineyard…..
I think we should get to see his pecs first!!! Best way to tell if he is qualified these days.
sarc/off
Don’t mean to jack the thread but hey Michelle, you won!
I think teleprompters would go on strike. They’re working overtime for Zero.
Lobbied? Is that the same as Pay To Play?
in that case I say he should nominate Jeri Ryan.
Daily Dish? Who is that? Lame.
It’s that glue-sniffing truffer Andrew Sullivan, who still thinks that Trig Palin is Sarah’s secret grandson.
Chap, that’s just funny.
I was hoping he would, a la Caligula, appoint his horse. Or his dog.
I’m on the Jeri Ryan bandwagon, if pecs win the appointment.
Resistance is futile!
I think we may have started a movement here.
Alos, just think of what a tidy bookend it would be appointing the smoking hot wife of the man Obama beat for his Senate seat to the same senate seat.
There’s no such thing as a Republican in Chicago. And any candidate that claims “Republican victory” can be shown to be a crooked liberal socialist that’s just less to the left than his opponent.
Cut me some slack! We’re talking about Chicago!!!
I can’t believe AJ isnt here for this. lol.
On December 30th, 2008 at 2:11 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:
Don’t mean to jack the thread but hey Michelle, you won!
Thanks Andrew for posting that MM Defeatocrat cheer… That’s what I call Christmas Cheer!
I’m sure Hillary’s husband won’t mind.
Nice – too bad he’s not that clever.
(Background, Patty: “F no! Not F’ing her!”)
I think he likes them younger, plumper, and more malleable.
Long time readers will know my choice, and if she doesn’t speak English, so much the better…
Wait…who was that again? I am having trouble visualizing this person.
And I’m sure no money changed hands in this transaction. Not a cent.
I’m sure we all believe it, too. Right?
I bet Blago will spend most of the time talking about himself and using the terms “vindicated” “moral authority” “do the right thing” many times over.
On December 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm, chapoutier said:
Alos, just think of what a tidy bookend it would be appointing the smoking hot wife of the man Obama beat for his Senate seat to the same senate seat.
Unsurprisingly you’re wrong again Chappie…Obama and his minions went to the trough to dig for dirt on Ryan and his wife(exactly the opposite of what his own media lapdog allows anyone to do on his own nefarious background)
Jack Ryan (born circa 1960) is a Republican from the state of Illinois who was forced to withdraw from the 2004 United States Senate race due to an alleged sex scandal involving his relationship with his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan. [1][2] His eventual replacement Alan Keyes would go on to lose the general election to Barack Obama, who would eventually be elected President of the United States on November 4, 2008.
According to an AP story, the Senate Dems won’t seat the guy.
Forgive me for forgetting that Alan Keyes was a viable candidate for anything.
And my point, and the movement, remain.
Thanks – I was hoping you’d ask. She’s a lawyer I might point out, and Minister Of Equal Opportunity. Really.
Jeri Ryan would be perfect. The pecs are fake.
This makes for a great soap opera. Blago may be scum, but this appointment definetly adds intrigue. Burris’ appointment shuts up the “the person replacing Obama must be black” crowd, while putting a person in the seat who won’t win the primary in 2010. Burris has a somewhat grating personality but would make an adequate seat holder for the Dems.
Burris probably does not care that he won’t get elected, he can say he was a Senator. As for Jeri Ryan. as Michelle covered in the past, the whole Obama thing is her fault. If she wouldn’t have divorced her former husband, Jack Ryan, or at least kept her mouth shut in the divorce proceedings, he would have creamed Obama in the 2004 Senate race.
Another person you can blame, as I have stated before, is Mike Ditka. After Ryan dropped out, one of the people the IL GOP looked to run was Ditka. He kept the party on hold for awhile and decided not to run. Granted Ditka has some huge skeletons in his closet, but he could have won based on sheer popularity.
On December 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm, chapoutier said:
Forgive me for forgetting that Alan Keyes was a viable candidate for anything.
And my point, and the movement, remain.
That was my point. Keyes wasn’t viable, that’s why Obama won the seat, and only after unscrupulously having his media lapdogs sniff out scandal about Ryan…then of course hypocritically taking the high road after the damage was done… but of course that’s all just ancient history … one of the gospels that won’t make it into the oficial OBible i’m sure…
This poor sick country would be a knee slapping joke if it wasn’t so sad. Say goodbye to a once great Republic.
I wuv this. I wuv it, I wuv it, I wuv it.
Sincerely,
Hillarious Klintoon
Bobby Rush is at the podium. No doubt in support of a Black Congressman, which is paramount to Rush. Pitiful.
I’d love to see your evidence of this. I have seen this accusation thrown out a number of times, but never have I seen a link to any sort of verification.
I mean, I am sure the press would really need a whole lot of motivation to go out seeking a sordid sex scandal involving a hot actress and her politician husband. Stuff like that just doesn’t sell newspapers. No. The only way they are going to dig up something as boring as that is if there is a puppetmaster behind the scenes pulling their strings.
Rush — “I ask you not to hang the appointee”. Oh yeah. We were all ready to lynch another black man. We’re so ready.
HA HA HA HA hehehehe.
The DEMS are soooo screwed.. but so are we.
If they do anything to stop Blago now they have BIG trouble in DC and more racist concerns.
BUT they have even bigger problems, to stop him they would need to enforce the laws and that exposes the OOTPEOTUS.
Laws that get Rahm, Jarret, the SEIU and Barry Obama in DEEP DEEP DOO DOO.
Their effort to protect Obama and Rahm and team have given Blago this opportunity to turn everything around.
Let Blago loose or everyone goes down with the ship. What to do? Indeed.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we try to deceive” (or something like that)
According to my old local paper The Ill Secretary of State will attempt to block the appointment by refusing to cosign the appointment document.
its the best pair of reasons I can think of…
This just goes to show how much Blago respects “the People”. What a turd.
Reid just spoke at a press conference, they won’t be allowing the Burris, appointment. Interesting.
Regardless of how i feel about Blago, Chicago politics, etc. Does anyone know where an appointment by a Gov (not yet impeached) has been negated by the Maj Leader?
Rep.? Rush just came out out of no where on that one. Just a coincidence i bet.
AAAAHHHH, why is it always about race? Can I possibly be the only one so completely sick of it that I would consider voting against a black person just because someone has asked me to vote for him because he is black?
Apparently Burris got it cheap. The lobbying firm he operates donated 20,000 to Blago. But the 20 grand did get Burris 300 grand in state contracts, good ol pay for play.
Chicago Sun Times poll so far has 70% saying Burris should not be given the seat.
How I love my state…
I bet Burris gets to keep the seat. Blagojevich picked Burris with a smile, probably thinking, “and what is anyone going to do about it?” Sadly, the answer is “nothing”.
AG; whew.
At least I couldn’t see any, ahem, wool in that photo.
Well, the Constitution is pretty straight forward. Vacancies can be filled by the Governor if the state legislature grants him that power. The US Congress can pass rules and such about procedure and the like, but I’ve never heard that Congress can block an appointment. The Constitution says it’s the purview of the Governor. Clause 2 of the 17th Amendment:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
According to that, the IL legislature could call a special election. Oh, that’s right! They won’t because they’re afraid a Republican will win!
Oh well.
I like John Kass’s moniker of Governor Dead Meat.
I think your all missing the big picture here.
The real question is how is Blago’s tailor able to custom make his pants that hide those huge cajones so well.
We are talking about a man who discussed his “testicular fortitude”
My bad. Yes, either house of the congress can refuse to seat a member, by a majority vote.
Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution. They get to make their own rules.
I like the fact that Blogo is giving everyone the finger and just keeping on. This mean more crap will come out over time. More stuff to stick on Obama and Reszko.
Illinois politics are fun to watch as long as one doesn’t live there.
I see the democrats “vow” to refuse him a seat. Well, we all know how “vows” work with politicians. But people have been refused seating in congress before. We’ll have to wait and see….
Andrew Sullivan. And that is all we need to know.
Merry Christmas Michelle and thanks for the reading. Soon even Andrew Sullivan will know the Truth, and he can not handle that Truth-Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise can not either.
Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris is 71- he might not be around all that long. He lost to Paul Simon? How embarrassing is that?
Blago has really dropped the smelly stuff in the middle of the room.
By his appointment he is doing the equivalent of the old joke, “Do you still beat your wife?”
This is going to be fun!!
It will be interesting if Coleman does not ( a big if considering how this problem was handled in Washington state a few years back) give up and gets enough of the fake Franken votes removed and re-takes the lead by say 5 votes…what will poor Harry Reid do-especially since only a blindly loyal democrat really believes that Al Franken has not been trying to steal the Minnesota senatorial election?
It could make for delicious fun watching the democrats implode on themselves and save us from their idea of hope and change.
What great Kabuki Theater!
I used to support the idea to repeal the XVII Amendment to the US Constitution–election of the US Senators by the people–and return to appointment by state legislature, as originally stated in the Constititution. I am rethinking that idea. But general election by the people certainly has its own flaws.
Seems to me that a lot of people are poking their noses into this Senator- appointment business that doesn’t really concern them.
And the US Senate refusing to seat Blago’s appointment? How tacky is that!
rumba,
Could you please point out which votes Franken is stealing?
One can begin with all of the suddenly found votes in Democrat controlled precints that are totally at statistical odds with any belieavble voting percentage corellations.
Wink and nod and count the new votes…..
I’m late to the nominating convention, chapoutier, but I’m wholeheartedly behind this campaign. May I be the first to volunteer as a top campaign aide?
It’s just sad to see, on top of everything else, the race card being played. Can’t block the nation’s potentially only black Senator, can we? The country doesn’t need this. It’s just going to go downhill from here.
Chap…The votes that appeared ‘magically’ after the Franken v. Coleman election seem reminiscient of the 1300 felon votes Christine Gregoire “won” in Washington state where I am at in 2004 that the court should have rejected but did not…as well as some obvious ballots for coleman that this canvassing board chose to reject are what I am refering to in general. In both the Coleman case a gentleman by the Berendt was involved in carrying the fight in these interesting electoral re-analysis on behalf of the democrats..
It’s kind of like history repeating itself with the repubs not taking this as seriously as they should -again….
link please flyoverman. Because there simply has been no case of this.
In fact, Coleman is the one who initially wanted to disallow improperly rejected absentee ballots and now that he has lost that battle is trying to cherry pick ballots only from favorable districts. It is so blatant as to be laughable.
The above observation whether true or not in the end is a reason for MUCH TIGHTER controls on how ballots are acquired and counted as well as making sure voters registered and checked for MUCH EARLIER to prevent fraud by either side.
I do not speak from ignorance….ever.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html
http://www.newscopy.org/2008/11/the-curious-mr-franken-voter-fraud-suspected-in-minnesota.html
https://bloggers.mycommunitynow.com/practically_speaking/archive/2008/11/13/franken-race-reminds-us-voter-fraud-has-not-vanished.aspx
I watched the press conference and literally sat there and thought how ridiculous it all was. The Governor, the reporters screaming and the other attention seekers. It was all so very … very … awful.
I bet Obama wishes Blago would just GO AWAY NOW. This is only going to escalate…
Snort.
Tears of joy run down my face? Somebody has a post about Canada attacking Minnesota. Oh if it were but true.
As much as I disdain Blago, this makes for an interesting story. I feel that the Burris appointment is a “If I’m going down, I’m taking some of you with me” play. By appointing an African-American, he makes sure the Dems have egg on their face whichever way they go.
He is grasping at straws, similar to the former Governor’s Death Row cclemency.
You mean like Gore did in Florida and Gregoire did in Washington? Go back to sleep.
BTW – Looks like Burris’ check cleared! Yea! Glad to see the Democratic party is back to business as ususal.
Huh?
I am talking about ballots that were properly cast by the voter in every statutory way, that were then improperly rejected by a canvasser. Coleman sought to disenfranchise these voters, and when that failed sought only to disenfranchise those in probable pro-Franken districts.
This has zero to do with voter fraud or tighter controls or anything like that.
And Gore was wrong to do it and it may have cost him the election. But I thought you guys DIDN’T like moral equivalence arguments. My bad.
Looks like the Dems are setting themselves up to be humiliated by the Supreme Court and the Obama Rhama ding dongs will taste their first defeat.
Personally I love them… what’s the moral equivilant of Al Franken not paying $70,000 in back taxes and $25,000 in workmans compensation… could it be… maybe – just maybe
Democrat Charlie Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, not declaring more than $75,000 in income between 1988 and 2007 on a rental property/second home in the Dominican Republic?
or possibly Democrat William Jefferson stashing $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer?
or maybe Democrat Elliot Spitzer, the attorney general of NY who would only prosecute whore houses that didn’t give him frequent flier mileage?
or Gov. Blagojevich who tried to sell Barak Hussein Obama’s senate seat?
or Rhom Emanuael who sat in on the bidding but is now lying about ever hearing about it?
or Frank Ballance – a former Democrat Rep. from North Carolina was sentenced to four years in federal prison for conspiring to divert taxpayer money to his law firm and family through a charitable organization he helped start?
hey! This moral equivalence thing is fun!
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.
What’s the difference?
Say what one will against Blago’s political ethics, but for a man of his age, he’s got one terrific head of hair!
Huh? Obama and Blago may be alike, but one is not impotent, and the other accumulating power.
Reid has no standing. He can not stop it.
Chap:
You might find this interesting –
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Chap:
To expand on this a little, you said
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:
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:
He doesn’t say there is a direct parallel. He states his opinion that the possibility exists.
Not wrong. Just different.
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.
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.
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.
Supposition on your part.
Do you know this to indeed be fact in Minnesota? Or is this fact in your place of residence? Or are you guessing?
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.