« Liberal Media Watch: There's Also, of Course, the Possibility That It's Not News | Main | Hilarity Ensues: Conspiracy Theory's Big Bang Coming To a Theater Near You »

03/30/2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

And for the same good reason, Tom. What the Republican Party dislikes, see, is Democrats holding off on declaring an official victor until they can "find" enough votes to put their guy in office.

Franken's "win" in Minnesota came after they discovered enough Democrat votes hiding in various cushions, closing the gap rapidly until Republicans actually started paying more attention, at which point they immediately found far fewer - but just enough to declare the win, after which of course Franken naturally files a motion to stop Coleman.

John Lott Jr. wrote a while back:

"When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 -- a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

"Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won’t even start until November 19.

"Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count [corrections], 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races."

This is fraud, and while I'm no Republican, I hope Franken takes his rightful position in prison for it.

And all the courts that have supervised and ruled on the election? They're in on the conspiracy, too?

Republicans always scream fraud, just like they always scream media bias and supply side economics. It enables them to stay detached from reality.

Whatever the condition was when Mr. Lott wrote that on November 10, 2008, we've had five months of investigations and court proceedings. At some point, people more committed to democracy than the interests of their own party would accept defeat and go on with life. Republicans, on the other hand, would prefer to let half of Minnesota go without an effective voice in the Senate.

That, after the Republican rush to judgment in Florida, strikes me as ironic. Apparently it doesn't strike you as ironic.

You're right; I really don't find Republicans or Democrats calling each other on their hypocrisy to be ironic at all anymore. Irony for me requires an unintended consequence, that little surprise.

Court rulings against the obvious doesn't have to be a conspiracy. There's a widespread and thorough willingness to look the other way in court systems regardless of actual law or evidence, primarily based on whatever is considered tradition or common practice at the time. Liberty activists have field days exposing it.

I hope the Republicans have taken it as far as they can, just as the Democrats took it as far as they could (which they did - unfortunately for them, to the Supreme Court). And I think people truly interested in what's best for Democracy are those unwilling to put up with its manipulation; screaming "BULLSHIT!" from the tops of buildings seems to me a very patriotic thing to do in the event of election fraud.

That all said, a few concessions: first, I'm not honestly keeping up with the case, and it was late, and I should've researched better before posting. Not that I'm aware of any mistake, just I don't feel confident about it. Really, I don't even know why I entered into this one. It's not a pet issue. Maybe I was tired.

Second, you kindly provided the date of Lott's article when I should've been the one to do it, and provide a link.

Third, I recognize the political parties' tendency to whip people into a frenzy over any implausible injustice they can invent, and so I realize that close elections are probably all to some degree going to result in this sort of thing, especially when a perfect voting process eludes us. You can always find a couple dozen votes, I'll bet, to claim as evidence of fraud, and what more do you need?

Fourth, Lott is an interesting, contrarian character I wasn't familiar with before. I'll keep my eye out for him in the future.

The comments to this entry are closed.