Comments on: Should Norm Coleman Surrender to Save His Image?

By: Steph C

Steph C — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:44:58 +0000

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:04:13 +0000

of a world where Republicans are not “gutless” wonders.
I believe it can happen, but we’ve a long road ahead.

Regards

By: eschristian

eschristian — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:01:37 +0000

fight them and beat them. Part of the problem the GOP has had was trying to be “nice” and as McCain calls it “honorable” which = let the opposition run all over us if need be as long as we can be friends at the end of the day. Just like any job, we should try and be nice to our co-workers at get a long with them, and some may even be friends but that is not why we go to work to make friends – we go to work to get a job done and a paycheck, perhaps if the GOP stays focussed and at the task at hand and fight the liberals every chance they can (regain their spines) then the GOP will be back (I think it will – I just hope it is sooner than later).

By: lapert

lapert — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:50:41 +0000

I’m advising for victory, Coleman’s defeat is already done. I’m not sure Franken could have dropped it weeks ago (I believe the recount was automatic under MN law) but even if he could he still had a shot at winning – Coleman right now doesn’t.

I don’t see what is gained by fighting the losing fight, but if you all think it serves a purpose that’s fine.

By: lapert

lapert — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:46:07 +0000

Really, you think everybody cares about whether demcorats need 1 or 2 votes to break a filibuster? Everybody barely pays attention to this stuff outside of election season and it is mistake to assume that those of u who follow it closely reflect the iterest of most who vote.

Now, I would also aregue that even from a legislation standpoint it is prety trivial – do you really think it will be that much harder for the democrats o get collins and snow as opposed to just one on a filibuster? I’m not convinced of that.

By: lapert

lapert — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:38:05 +0000

Based on the case and the law – unless he uncovers some new fraud. He just doesn’t have enough votes on claims that he even has a chance of convincing the panel on to overturn the current gap. Had he and his legal team had a better strategy from the start they may be in a better position now but that hsip has sailed.

At most he can get the 30 some votes from Hennepin and 40 some from Ramsey, but even those will be tough. His other main claims aren’t winnable – the absentee ballot one wold require that the panel overturn the MN Supreme Court’s order and even if they did that they are unlikely to exclude the votes but include a greater amount of Franken votes as MN law errs towards inclusion and the absentee votes were so overwhelming for Franken. The duplicate votes point lacks evidence – unless he witheld it from his court filing and from the Supreme Court when they asked for it last week.

What makes you think it is winnable?

By: JSobieski

JSobieski — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:09:19 +0000

I’ve been an infrequent reader, but just haven’t made any comments or written any posts.

Actually been doing some reading on . . . John Locke.

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:01:09 +0000

Read the small print on this one.

By: JSobieski

JSobieski — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:53:19 +0000

My oops!

LOL

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:49:55 +0000

I was starting to wonder, who was that guy in the JSobieski outfit?

By: JSobieski

JSobieski — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:48:37 +0000

By: JSobieski

JSobieski — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:45:13 +0000

and permanent minority status in Congress.

Are you giving advice for victory, or advice for defeat?

Were you urging Franken to “drop it” a couple of weeks ago? I don’t seem to remember that post.

By: JSobieski

JSobieski — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:42:44 +0000

An incumbent who can’t reach 50% has no business staying in office.

/Sarcasm off

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:35:42 +0000

By: Martin Knight

Martin Knight — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:27:33 +0000

You sound like a typical pedestrian pencil-pushing consultant.

Let me let you in on a little secret; resources would not be so scarce for Republicans if the GOP’s elected officials actually fought instead of listening to people like you.

It’s the constant ducking of fights and avoiding confrontation, the endless senseless compromising and capitulation that has killed off the base’s enthusiasm, and that’s why the money has dried up.

The GOP grassroots would not need to be dragged along, they’ll come by themselves, with their checkbooks and credit cards.

By: zuiko

zuiko — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:25:16 +0000

That Coleman does not (or at least should not) have a future in politics. I think he did fine in the Senate, all things considered, but there are other candidates who could do just as well or better. And I have no interest in seeing him in any executive capacity. So he has nothing to lose.

By: zuiko

zuiko — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:22:25 +0000

I don’t expect him to prevail on any of his challenges, because the Minnesota Supreme Court is just awful (“Republican” justices… what a laugh). And some of those sitting on the canvassing board are going to be ruling in judgement of their very own thievery.

He needs to get that thievery on record. Challenging this in court, even if he loses, will be the only way he is going to do that.

By: Vegas_Rick

Vegas_Rick — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:18:30 +0000

Should GWB have caved in 2000? Four years of Al Gore? Now the choice is fight or four years of Al Franken.

As an aside, I wonder how Minnesotans feel about themselves. Jesse the Body and now Al the Idiot.

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:17:53 +0000

the difference between 58-42 and 59-41 is rather non-trivial, to use an IT term.

By: Martin Knight

Martin Knight — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:12:02 +0000