Democheats and Rollpublicans

Once again, Democrats steal an election.

Once again, Republicans roll over and do nothing about it.

Not much has changed in the last fifty years.


Tags: , , ,

19 Responses to “Democheats and Rollpublicans”

  1. Chad Green Says:

    You know, I hate that Barry Obama was elected, but I can live with it.

    But the Minnesota senate race really bothers me. Norm Coleman was a good senator, and Al Franken is a dick.

    Any democrats out there who really think that Franken is qualified to be a U.S. Senator? Anyone???

    The idiotic media went out of their way to question Governor Palin’s qualifications to be VP, but said absolutely nothing about Franken.

  2. Roland Says:

    There are SO many things wrong with that recount, it’s not even funny.

    Yet another great point on how Govco just screws everything up. It Govo would turn elections over to private companies, we would never see problems like this.

  3. Jonathan Says:

    Yes, it’s a shame that the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party didn’t run a more qualified/experienced candidate that would have spanked Coleman instead of leaving MN with this toss-up. Also, there is no shortage of candidates from both parties with little in the way of qualifications/experience running winning elections and candidates from both parties. And no shortage of candidates from either party using whatever options they have to eek out a victory in a close election. Gore, for example, is the posterchild for rolling over in the face of election shenanigans. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that we’ll only hear the cases with liberal winners decried here.

  4. Roland Says:

    What election shenanigans? Please, share.

    Gore…rolling over? Hmmm…I remember him having press conference after press conference…I remember him doing a public conference call with Daschal and Gephardt. I remember his attorney and the rest of the Democrats out there shouting about things every day. I only hear a whimper from Republicans about Coleman.

    BTW, Jon, are you saying that everything is kosher up there in MN?

  5. Jonathan Says:

    Irregularities and questionable actions by Katherine Harris in Florida are well-documented. About Gore, many believe that (at least initially) he was too timid in the Florida recount battle.

    About MN I’m saying that, because the election was so close (like it was for Gore vs. Bush in FL), disputable decisions by election officials and courts will decide the outcome. It is essentially a toss-up, and we can’t know for sure who really won because the number of disputable ballots (for which it is debatable whether or not they are valid or what the voter’s intent was) is of the same order of magnitude as the difference between Coleman and Franken. I’m saying that both sides are mainly interested in winning rather than fairness. Such political cynicism is common to both parties. Neither cares who “really won” (as if that phrase has any meaning in a case where the difference in vote totals is such a small fraction of the votes cast and on the same scale as the ambiguous votes). I’m saying that if the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party had run a more serious candidate this wouldn’t even be an issue.

  6. Roland Says:

    Are there instances on Coleman’s side of ballots being counted twice or more ballots appearing than voters or other instances from the Wall Street Journal article?

    Again, maybe I can’t remember that far back but what irregularities were there by Harris?

  7. Jonathan Says:

    There’s a list of controversies related to the Florida election results here: link

  8. Jonathan Says:

    The goal of the WSJ article is to criticize the Democrats, but yes Coleman has done similar things in his bid to win the recount. For example:

  9. Jack Oswald Says:

    Interesting points made on both sides.

    What is NOT up for debate is the fact that Al Franken is a dick.

  10. Terry Stewart Says:

    That’s awesome! Wikipedia is such a reliable souce! lol. They even have the road block complaint in there even though there was ZERO proof that this was done.

    What exactly did Harris do that was illegal or wrong?

  11. Jonathan Says:


    Obviously, Wikipedia is not a primary resource. However, its reliability is comparable to other non-primary sources (like encyclopedias, link). It’s a convenient and useful resource. It is certainly an appropriate resource to cite if the opinion page of the WSJ is (i.e., obviously, any information gained from either location must be examined critically).

    My point isn’t that Harris did anything “illegal or wrong” (I haven’t followed it closely enough to claim something that definitie), but that I interpret that some of the things she did appear to be questionable and (coincidentally, I’m sure!) helpful for the candidate she supported.

  12. Roland Says:

    Yet, Johnny, you brought her up to counter my point. She didn’t do anything illegal and recount after recount after recount shows that Bush won. Get over it!

  13. Jonathan Says:


    The WSJ opinion piece calls attention to some suspicious scenarios but suspicion is not proof that the Democrats have done anything illegal. On the other hand, removing people from the voter rolls because their name is similar to a felon, for example, is wrong. About FL, I’m over it. Again, like MN, that election was so close that it was effectively a draw and the recounts by news organizations showed it was so close that you would get a different outcome depending on whether you, as one news organization put it, “…count the voter’s intent…[or you] look for excuses not to count votes…”

  14. Roland Says:

    …so is counting votes from felons or, as the Democrats have done, counting dead people as votes.

  15. Roland Says:

    It’s nice that the Democrats are so open and fair about things:

    “Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate,” Reid told Politico’s Manu Raju. “He lost the election. He can stall things, but he’ll never serve in the Senate.”

  16. Jonathan Says:

    true (about counting votes of dead people and felons)

  17. Politics & Culture Says:

    Jonathan —

    This is an unrelated question, but do you think it’s a good thing that Al Franken will be in the U.S. Senate?

  18. Gwen Stacey Says:

    You know Poli -if I may jump in here, I don’t really have an issue with him being in the Senate as long as he was duly and fairly elected. Ronald Reagan was just an actor whose famous movies had him acting with a monkey yet he was one of the greatest Presidents this country has known. If the people of MN want to be idiots and elect guys like Franken and Ventura, so be it – it’s how our Government works. What I don’t like is when the is “selected” and not elected.

  19. Jonathan Says:

    It’s not something that I would categorize as simply good or bad. As I’ve already said, I think it would have been better for everyone if a stronger candidate had run. Many congress people set a pretty low bar in terms of performance, so it’s not a big stretch for Franken to at least meet that. It’s no more disturbing to me than the other actors, musicians, sports stars, and the like who have become governors, senators, etc. It’s kind of hard to separate the comedian from the pol, but I like him fine personally. I used to watch the TV version of his Air America radio show when it was on Sundance, and he regularly hosted smart, serious people (Conason, Krugman, Ornstein, etc.) and talked seriously and knowledgeably with them about policy, so I am not concerned that he might be too much of a lightweight to suceed. I expect him to be a typical Senator, neither much better nor worse than most.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: