Newsmax: “Coleman Running Out of Options”

10 Responses to “Newsmax: “Coleman Running Out of Options””

---

• Another Chris

  December 30, 2008 at 12:25 pm

  From the archives. At the State Fair Debate, August 30, 2002:

  DENISE: Yeah, I’m very concerned that our president was not elected by the popular vote [applause, cheering] in Florida, and I wondered what you are going to do to ensure that this election is clean and that the vote is counted correctly.

  […]

  COLEMAN: Minnesota has always had a tremendous tradition in terms of clean voting, and we should applaud ourselves. We often lead the nation in the number of folks who vote. That’s important. That’s a very - and I think we all support that. But I do just have to say to the questioner, you know, we gotta stop going back and pointing fingers. I mean, this country has to start figuring out a way [Groaning. Heckling.] to pull together. And, I gotta - I mean, yeah, you –

  EICHTEN: Be polite, please.

  COLEMAN: To me, it’s unhealthy. It’s unhealthy. And if we spent more time focusing on the things that - which we agree rather than pointing fingers back at things we disagree, we’d have a very productive society. We’d have a lot of things taken care of. [Cheering.] We’d get - we’d take care of the prescription drug issue for our seniors.

  EICHTEN: Okay.

  COLEMAN: So, I just think it’s an unhealthy attitude.

  Damn you, Norm, why are you pointing fingers at “things we disagree”? You must be against helping seniors or something.

  Audio here in Real Player. http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/news/midday/2002/08/30_midday1

  Denise’s question starts at 44:18, and Coleman’s answer starts at 45:39.

  Reply
• Alec

  December 30, 2008 at 12:38 pm

  Aaron, it has already started.

  
  When discussing the DSOS, Coleman lawyer says:

  “He’s gone out and done their work,” said Trimble. “He’s gone out and advised county officials to simply count those [wrongfully rejected absentee ballots] the Franken campaign wants.”

  Happy New Year,
   Alec

  Reply
• Sunshine123

  December 30, 2008 at 1:22 pm

  Wasnt the Supreme Court ruling on the absentee ballots not technically a decision? Wouldnt it be Grand if due to the delays and game playing the Coleman camp is partaking in, they come back as rule, in Coleman’s favor, saying OK fine we won’t include any of the improperly rejected absentee ballots in the recount and declare Franken the winner.

  Reply
• Alec

  December 30, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  It would be funny except then Coleman would go full court to also discount the 133 ballots that were recorded on election night but the paper ballots were lost, and he would sue to discount his so called “duplicate” ballots, and whatever else. The wrongfully discounted absentees are kind of the firewall from Coleman questioning hundreds of other ballots!

  Reply
• Sunshine123

  December 30, 2008 at 1:47 pm

  True, but the problem is, Coleman took the opposite position (in writing in an email chain) on counting duplicate/originals earlier, that the Franken camp agreed to, and there is no way to go back without starting the entire recount over and that’s not gonna happen. Just as he cant cherry pick which rejected absentee ballots to include, he cant cherry pick with duplicate/originals to recount. So let’s say that he didnt Cherry pick, say 60 of the duplicates where for Coleman, and 73 were for Franken, that’s a net gain of 13 votes for Coleman, not enough. If all 133 are for Franken then someone’s been busy making fruit salad.

  Reply
• The A-Train

  December 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm

  I agree with Alec. The first and most important reason that wrongfully rejected absentee ballots should be counted is that the voters did everything right. There is no reason not to count their ballots, regardless of the ultimate winner of the election. But even if a partisan Franken supporter didn’t care on principle whether the absentee ballots counted or not, they appear likely to support Franken, maybe even heavily. You should want them counted. Sooner or later it stands to reason that Coleman’s lawyers might prevail on something, so the wider Franken’s lead going into the election contest the better.

  Reply
• lojasmo

  December 30, 2008 at 2:04 pm

  It is more likely that the SCoMN (should they be asked to clarify their earlier ruling) would opt to order the counting of ALL the wrongfully rejected absentees, which would likely leave Franken with a significantly larger margin than what he currently holds.

  Reply
• Alec

  December 30, 2008 at 2:09 pm

  On a related side note, of the 4 reasons for disqualifying, 3 of the 4 seem totally objective, but the matching signature thing seems totally subjective. Is this where Coleman’s 600+ challenges are coming from? He can’t be challenging votes rejected because of 1. mismatched addresses, 2. No registration. or 3. voter voted twice ?
  So are all of Coleman’s challenges just those 4th kind, mismatched signatures? It does seem ludicrous to ask judges and even campaigns to be handwriting experts. It just seems too subjective.

  PDF of the four valid reasons

  Reply
• Sunshine123

  December 30, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  As an absentee voter I certainly am all for counting all improperly rejected ballots. It doesnt seem that difficult as the legal reasons to reject are quite clear. I’m just getting tired of the games the Coleman camp keeps playing, especially as they try to frame it as the Franken camp is somehow “cheating”

  Reply
• Penigma

  December 31, 2008 at 10:49 am

  It does seem that Coleman’s staffers are rejecting ‘improperly rejected’ absentee ballots for basically specious resouns if they come from counties where Franken is likely to pick up votes, and NOT raising those same objections in counties where Coleman could.

  Talk about rigging things.. lord.

  Reply