Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Franken should be seated immediately.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:33 PM
Original message
Al Franken should be seated immediately.
Edited on Sat Apr-25-09 11:35 PM by wroberts189
The Democratic leadership should be front and center demanding an end to these blatant dirty partisan republican tactics to delay the seating of another Democrat and show some spine and seat him.

NO EXCUSES.

They need to seat him state certificate or not ..facts are facts HE WON.

There is nothing stopping Coleman from his court case if Franken is seated regardless.

Enough is enough. This is all dirty partisan political games being played by the state pubs and the RNC. It is as obvious as Rush Limbaugh's fat ass.

Supremo's took up Bush vs Gore in a NY minute yet the MN court needs until June !!!!!

BULLSHIT !!!

ok soapbox off/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
960 Donating Member (676 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R Coleman and the GOP knows he will not win, their plan is just to keep
a D vote out.... where are the Dem leaders with a coordinated strategy????

Even when we have EVERYTHING we can't seem to organize like even a beaten and defeated GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. yep ..if the situation were reversed the pub would get seated and the Dems told to shove it . nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. The way it works is that the STATES take the lead, though.
It's the STATE that has to send the Senator to DC. Pawlenty is the one being the jerk. After the Senate inserted themselves into the Obama replacement mess, with mixed results, they're gun shy.

The citizens of Minnesota need to maybe demonstrate in front of Pawlenty's office, or something. Call him a partisan dickhead. An obstructor. A jerk who blocks the will of the people. A martinet. A dictator. You get the idea...

The court is hewing to a GOP agenda. They could stretch this to absurd lengths and turn around and rule, capriciously, that a new election is in order--that would make them just like the Bush v Gore crew--a buncha assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Anything can be done these days ..bush proved that ..rule of law be damned.


Who would stop it? Obama...I don't think so ... Reid ..well you can't really count on him but if he did it what then .. The supremos?


They can take this case up right after the war crimes convictions and appeals..

SEAT HIM AND PAY HIM. Anyone got a gripe ..take it to the MN court ...maybe you'll get heard next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
42. He will never get seated until that REPUBLICAN governor signs the paper.
You have to get to the governor. The governor is "on the take" with his own party and that's why he's holding up the show.

See, the governor thinks he'd make a good President...and he's hoping for backing from party hoi polloi for this act of loyalty.

Once that paper is signed, appeals are moot. The person holding that paper "is" the Senator from Minn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Minn Supremes aren't looking at this until June --!!!!
I agree -- seat Franken --!!!

Anyone here know if this is a right wing court or whatever?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yep ..pub governer and pub court ... the usual "we do whatever we want" gang. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. You don't know what you're talking about. Our courts are NOT partisan.
And our Secretary of State is a Democrat.

As a Minnesotan, I have every faith in our state Supreme Court to do the right thing.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Perhaps not ..I had read though that your sp court was mostly pubs.

And I do not feel like googling right now.


The st court was balanced.


Again ...despite that I expect him to win the sp case ..its the delay ..June .. this suggests a deliberate attempt at delaying.


You know I really hope your right.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
44. Agree . . . what could be on court's agenda that would be more urgent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. The dates for the filing of briefs and hearing the oral arguments in this case DO represent
an expedited timetable. The Court HAS made this a priority case.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. If I may ask, what's on the list ahead of this case . . . or are you saying
that pre-court work by lawyers is what eats up the time?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. The Coleman camp requested that much time for putting together their written briefs.
Franken's legal team requested less time, but the Court granted the longer time period.

Keep in mind, Coleman waited until just this past Monday to file his appeal -- he had 10 days to do so from the date of the 3-Judge Panel's ruling, and of course stretched out the time to the last minute (being the asshole that he is). The MN Supreme Court responded pretty much as soon as possible.

The Court is giving itself 2 weeks to examine the written briefs before hearing oral arguments. One of the legal experts on the aforementioned panel discussion said that the Court will probably have most of its ruling already prepared by the time of the oral arguments, so the final ruling should follow quite quickly after that date.

It will all be over by mid to late June, hopefully.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. Pretty much makes clearer the time allocations -- not fault of Supreme Court --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yeah, it sucks. However, once the MN Supreme Court rules, it's over.
At that point, if the SSC rules in Franken's favor, state law mandates the election certificate will have to be signed. And if our asshole repuke governor won't do it, THEN it will be time for the U.S. Senate to step in and insist on seating Franken -- even if Coleman tries to appeal to the SCOTUS.

We Minnesotans are letting the legal process run its course, even though it's frustrating as hell. In the long run, though, I think it's for the best. By letting the process play out without partisan interference on the part of the national Democrats, it leaves the Repugs with no good cause to complain.

Sure, they'll complain anyway, but very few people will take them seriously after everything that's been done to accomodate Coleman.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. And what happens when your pub governer does not sign it?

He will not and say some spin about it needing to be heard in the Federal courts first.

As you say ...The senate steps in and does the magic... maybe ..that would be a good outcome but I WANT HIM SEATED NOW.

Good info in your post I did not know ...but one thing I do know is how the pub incorporated works.

They do whatever they want ..law be damned ..and most times they get away with it.

It's long past time we played by their rules and did what was right for us and let the chips fall where they may.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. The MN Supreme Court can order that the election certificate be signed. See post #9.
I'm a Minnesotan, so I've been following this closely -- to say the least.

It's going to be okay. The Repugs can throw all the tantrums they want, but once the MN Supreme Court rules -- and I have no doubt that they'll rule in Franken's favor -- it's over.

The Repugs can go ahead and try to push it to SCOTUS, but in the meantime either the election certificate WILL be signed, or the U.S. Senate can just seat Franken.

The thing is, because Coleman has been given more than a fair hearing, there really won't be much in the way of any legal grounds for an appeal to the SCOTUS.

I'm proud of how my state is handling this, even though the long wait is definitely frustrating. I'm completely confident that it's all going to turn out just fine.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. My complaint is the delay.... the frustration you mention...


June ... ??


It hurts your state ...you have one less voice and less time for Al while this draws out.


I see no reason why he cannot be seated now and if somehow Coleman wins then replaces him.


Why not now ? MN benefits in so many ways.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. The reason "why not now" is because it would violate MN election law. By law, no candidate
can be seated until all state court challenges are completed.

That's the way it is, period.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. And who would dare stop it?


your AG? your courts? swat teams?

Think like a pub who just got away with war crimes.


Look.. if there is a will there is a way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #21
45. Obviously, there has to be some time limit . . . ? Could this go on two years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. No. State law says that once the State Supreme Court has ruled, that's it.
Our Supreme Court will rule in mid-June. They can order that the election certificate then be signed and the winner seated.

Even if Coleman takes his case to the SCOTUS, MN election law will have been fulfilled by the State Supreme Court ruling and an appeal to the Federal courts is no barrier to the state issuing an election certificate.

Our repug governor could still balk, but he will have no legal standing to do so, and he may not want to risk pissing off a million Minnesotans who are damn sick of how long this has been dragged out already.

One of the legal experts on a recent Minnesota public television political panel brought up an interesting point about Pawlenty -- if Pawlenty has presidential ambitions, he may try to refuse to sign the election certificate in order to please the RNC. But if he wants to run for governor again (he hasn't announced either way yet), he'll have to sign the certificate once the MN Supreme Court has ruled because it would kill his re-election chances if he doesn't.

In any case, the U.S. Senate CAN chose to seat Franken after the MN SC has ruled (assuming they uphold the current 3-Judge Panel ruling that Franken won the election).

I think the best strategy at this point is to wait for the MN Supreme Court to rule, and if they rule in Franken's favor -- which all the legal experts agree is the likely outcome -- then we exert every pressure we can mount to get him seated immediately and tell Coleman and the RNC to go piss up a rope.

sw



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. So the people of MN would be displeased if Pawlenty played GOP politics . . .
how come, then, they elected a Repug Governor in the first place?

I'm not familiar with MN as red or blue or in change?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. A new poll posted in another thread shows that 64% want Coleman to concede now.
See Minnesota Poll: Most want Coleman to call it quits

I don't think there'll be any patience for more game playing.

Minnesota has historically been a Democratic state; trending a bit more Republican in recent years, but that seems to be reversing. The only reason we ended up with Pawlenty (and Michelle Bachman, too, btw) is because we keep getting Independence Party candidates showing up on our ballots acting as spoilers. Pawlenty got way less than 50% of the votes, but in a three-way race he had the plurality.

That was part of the problem with the Senate race, too. Both Franken and Coleman each ended up with 42%, while the Independence party candidate got the rest. It made it more likely that there'd be no clear majority winner.

A lot of people have been pushing for IRV due to this continuing third party problem, but of course the Repugs are fighting against it because they always end up having the advantage in these three-way races. It's a crappy paradox -- more people vote AGAINST the Repugs than vote FOR them, but they end up winning because the non-Repug vote is split. :(

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. Agree re IRV voting, but my understanding is that in large part . . .
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 07:25 PM by defendandprotect
Democrats, generally, also don't want it.
It does pave the way for Plan B thinking and sending a message -- and IMO it would
pave the way for a move to the left which we desperately need.

That may be different specifically re MN Democrats and how they feel about IRV, of course.

But, I don't know anything about your Independence Party nor their platform -- liberal or conservative -- and you may think the opposite about all that.

Meanwhile, best wishes to you all and hope we see Franken in Congress SOON!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
9. From MN DUer Mr Ed (it's nice to hear from DUers who live in MN about this):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3847287&mesg_id=3848227

Mister Ed Donating Member (859 posts) Fri Apr-24-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. MN DUer here

I've been following this closely since November 5th. I can't claim that makes me someone who knows what's going on, but I'll give you my take on it.

I think the reason the MN Supreme Court allowed Coleman such a long time to prepare for the hearing is simply that he asked them to. I think they would have done the same for Franken if he had asked. Why? Because this is such an important matter, and they want to make sure no one has cause for complaint - at least not legal complaint. The three-judge panel allowed Coleman five weeks to try to make his case. They never once asked him to hurry it up, because they wanted to make sure he couldn't claim on appeal that he had not been given due process. I think the MN Supreme Court is thinking along those same lines.

What you say is true. The MN Supreme Court is widely viewed as being fair, judicious, and nonpartisan. I anticipate that they will rule in favor of Franken, because Coleman simply doesn't have a case. I also predict that they will do Governor Pawlenty a big favor and order him to issue an election certificate. That would get him off the hook with the GOP ("Hey, my hands are tied!").

It's become crystal clear to me that Coleman is doing all he legally can do to delay the inevitable seating of the winner of this close election. The fact that the courts have accommodated him does not mean they're complicit. He's operating within his legal rights, and the courts are upholding the law.


Had the courts moved as fairly and deliberately in Bush v. Gore in the 2000 election as the MN courts have done in this election, then Al Gore would have been the president. If Florida's election system was as good as that of MN, then Gore clearly would have been declared the winner there. This will be done in June when the MN Supreme court declares Franken to be the winner and orders that he be certified the winner. Pawlenty will have political cover and have no choice but to certify him and Al Franken will go to Washington.

I am certain that most voters in MN want Franken to be seated as we do. It's their system, their state and if they can endure this to its conclusion we should be able to endure also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Why would Coleman need more time?

He has already been through a recount and state court case. His lawyers have everything ready.

Why can't the state SP court move the case up on the docket?

Why?


If they were truly fair, judicious, and nonpartisan they would hear the case immediately. MN is missing a Senator ...




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. MN Supreme Court has a good reputation for being fair, judicious, and nonpartisan.
I trust them to do what is right. I am sure Franken would have been given as much time and consideration if he had been the one behind after the recount. Had Franken been the one behind we would have been screaming bloody murder here if it appeared that the MN courts were rushing to declare Coleman the winner.

I believe that anyone who lives in a state whose court and election system is as good and fair as that of MN should feel free to cast stones at that state and how they run their affairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Nothing against your system...


But should not Al Franken be seated at least in the meantime?

He was certified by your election board.

He won the state case ..ending up with even more votes.


If the situation reversed I do not think we would be that way ...look at what happened to Gore.. and it has been proved he had more votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. MN election law does not allow for provisional seating of a candidate.
Our election law is quite clear, however. Once the election contest has been ruled on by the state Supreme Court, it's over. The winning candidate gets seated.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
30. After being certified by a recount and then winning a state case?

Then that law is dumb. You get no benefit by not having a Senator. Dem..or pub. Taxation without full representation.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
43. Understand, this is an unprecedented situation. There's plenty of talk about changing the law for
the future. There's also talk about changing our absentee ballot system, as well.

I'm sure there will be some changes forthcoming in response to what this particular election has put our state through. Lessons learned, and all that.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Right this is precedent which may be hurting MN. What changes to absentee ballot system?
Just interested in what's being proposed . . .

thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Our Dem Secretary of State has proposed eliminating the current absentee ballot system and replacing
it with early voting. I don't have a link to all the details, but it sounds like a very good and workable proposal. Ballots would be scanned right then and there at the polling stations instead of being held back until election night. The results, of course, would not be released until all voting is completed on election day.

The state legislature may also take a look at writing a provisional seating law, so that the presumptive winner of a close election -- after the state-mandated recount -- can be seated even if there is a court appeal. It would be modeled on the laws that are already in place in most other states -- Minnesota is one of a very few states that do not provide for provisional seating during an election contest.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Interesting . . . the absentee ballot has pretty much become "early voting" . .
so it makes a lot of sense --

and rather than fighting to get them to change election day to a holiday and/or

a weekend, this would make voting convenient. Sounds good!

Also because I have often heard -- and many believe -- that absentee votes are really

never counted unless there's a tie. So I think it's healthy to get them in the mix

immediately.

I also agree with the "seating" proposal -- in the case of Rep. Sanchez who won vs the

anti-abortion fanatic Rep. Bob Dornan in California a few years back, Dornan and GOP

went on to contest that race for two full years, if not more!

I think when the recount has gone as far as the state decides it should, then any further

court action should be based on extraordinary expectations and the candidate should be

seated. At least that sounds fair, but, needless to say, you'll have to see how that actually

plays out.

Thanks!







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Yes, it was very apparent this past election that most absentee ballots were really just
about people wanting to vote early.

Regarding the counting of absentee ballots; I've worked as an election judge in several MN elections and I can assure you that they are counted on election night along with all the other votes cast at that precinct.

sw

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Thanks ... I don't know how they actually handle absentee ballots here in NJ . .. .
I should probably actually find out -- but I would think the volume of them now would point

to the necessity for counting them immediately.

I started doing absentee because of the unquestionable hackability of the computers . . .

and I imagine many others did the same.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. Minnesota doesn't allow e-voting. Paper ballots only.
They get run through scanners to get counted, but as the statewide recount showed, there's very little variance between the scanner counts and hand counts -- something like maybe one vote out of 100,000. (I forget the exact percentage, but it's very very low)

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. I'm not from MN, but I can see the MN bluffs from my house.
I do get a lot of info about this case from MN Public Radio which is on top of it. I think the criteria was set for seating a senator when certification from the governor and secretary of state was required to seat Burris from IL who was taking Obama's old seat.

In regard to Bush and Gore, that was neither the MN election process or judicial system that decided that. If Franken were the one behind I am certain that we would demand that he be given the same consideration that Coleman has received.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Hey, neighbor! Do you get MN Public TV, too?
Friday's "Almanac" program had a great panel discussion about this. All four legal experts on the panel agreed that the three-judge panel that ruled on the election contest did a bang-up job of shooting down all of Coleman's arguments.

They were also pretty sure that the MN Supreme Court ruling would be the end of it.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. No, I'm too far away here in La Crosse, but get MN Public Radio out of La Crescent.
I have listened to many programs which had experts who were impressed with how the three-judge panel handled this case and with all of their decisions being unanimous. Yes, all also believed that the MN Supreme Court would end it and order that Franken be certified the winner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. By the way I like your system better then ours in CT. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
12. Minnesota has gone without equal representation for far too long...
That's hardly fair to residents and they must be mad as hell... To intentionally make it unnecessarily longer is just unconscionable. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. As a Minnesota resident I can say that the prevailing sentiment here is to let this play out.
We'll wait for the state Supreme Court to do it's thing. We Dems are confident that they will rule Franken the winner. If Coleman tries to push it beyond that ruling, THEN people will get pissed.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. As a non-Mn resident I hope to see Sen. Franken better sooner then later. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. It will happen when the court process is completed and not before. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Thanks for the information!
I have been following this race since Al Franken announced and have recently shared your frustration. I'm in NY District 20, worked for the Scott Murphy campaign, and we've been experiencing the same kind of challenges and delays from Scott's Republican opponent. The special election to fill Kirsten Gillibrand's now vacant Congressional seat was on March 31st and Jim Tedisco finally conceded just yesterday. And I thought it was taking way too long for us... :eyes:

My cousin lives just outside of Minneapolis and reminded me to vote. LOL. I reminded him to vote for Al Franken... ;)

I hope this is over soon for you, as well... :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. It's been a drag, for sure. But there's nothing more to be done than wait for the MN SC to rule now.
And I think it's better to give Coleman all the rope he needs to hang himself at this point.

Delayed gratification doesn't mean no gratification at all. :)

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. I do agree that he's hanging himself.
To contest a very close election is one thing. But to ignore a laborious and costly recount, not to mention court rulings, is just sheer pigheadedness. Here in NY, we've often made comparisons to the controversy in Minnesota during the past few weeks. Now I realize that there's no comparison. Jim Tedisco saw the handwriting on the wall when Scott Murphy's lead increased to 401 votes, not a lot, but on election night it was a mere 65! Norm Coleman is just making a fool of himself. x(

I've often said that, with Al Franken in the Senate, C-Span will be much more entertaining... :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. "...with Al Franken in the Senate, C-Span will be much more entertaining" LOL
I'm definitely looking forward to it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. So am I, LOL. He'll definitely shake things up!!!
I miss seeing him on the TV machine, loved his AAR show. It used to be repeated (an hour of it), weeknights, on Sundance, and I rarely missed it. The man should have been a teacher, he made the issues so clear. I always learned something. "What have we learned?" LOL. And he should do wonders for C-Span's ratings... ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
28. Howard Dean had a great line about this
He said on Bill Maher's show that the refusal to acknowledge Franken's victory was "ridiculous,
and everybody knows it." Maher said, "well, what about Florida, 2000?" Howard responded instantly
with "that was ridiculous, and everybody knew it." To thundering applause, I might add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. That was the show Maher went off on the pubs.. hilarious..

But I did not see that Dean clip ..gotta go hunt it down now.


thx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. It was in the internet-only portion (Overtime?)
I don't get American TV here, so that's the only place I would have seen it without a youtube clip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. ok thx..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Here ya go!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. oh scoot...much thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rhiannon12866 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. Knew it was posted here... :D
Some great lines by Howard Dean! :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
40. The damn DSCC is using the situation as a fundraiser, instead of seating Franken...

...I've gotten so many messages from them, including one this past week offering a "timeline" of the story. Ending of course with this:

The DSCC is committed to protecting our majority in the Senate. We can't do it without your help. Please click here to make a donation.

Bull shit. We won. We control the Senate. SEAT FRANKEN.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. I don't know how many times we have to go throught this here.
MN law does not allow for Franken to be seated until after the MN SC renders a decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prisoner_Number_Six Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
53. Look at it this way- Coleman can't be seated either.
He's effectively neutralized himself at the same time, so at least he can do no real harm (other than preventing Franken from voting) in the mean time. Have there honestly been any votes so far that would have pivoted on either of them? (I'm asking because I don't know. I'm not trying to be facetious.)

It's a game everyone seems to have willingly bought into, so let the process play itself out. Another month and it'll be settled and Franken WILL be seated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
57. Pawlenty is waiting for the MN SC to order him to seat Franken
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 05:26 PM by Canuckistanian
So, there's nothing to be done until June.

It was a neat trick, though, denying a Senate seat to the opposition for so long.

The Democrats should use the same tactic, now that it's "honorable".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 25th 2020, 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC