Flashback: Coleman Said To Spare State Cost Of Recount - But Is Now Angling For Multi-Million Dollar

[struggle4progress]

Election

By Eric Kleefeld - March 10, 2009, 11:25AM

Way back in November, when Norm Coleman was calling upon Al Franken to concede the Senate race, one of the reasons he cited was the expense. "It's up to him whether such a step is worth the tax dollars it will take to conduct," Norm said at the time, saying that he would have stepped aside if he had been in Franken's position.

But take a look at this number: Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has told Time that a new election, for which Coleman is increasingly angling, would cost $3.5-5 million -- and the state is already trying to fix a multi-billion dollar budget deficit. "It's pure fantasy, pure baloney," said Ritchie.

Also consider that at the time Coleman was saying the state had to be spared the expense of a recount, Ritchie estimated that it would cost nearly $90,000. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann just told TPM that the recount proper ultimately came in above estimates, at $120,000. This puts us in the low single-digits as a percentage of the cost of a new election ...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/flashback-coleman-said-to-spare-state-cost-of-recount----but-is-now-angling-for-multi-million-dollar.php

[myrna minx]

1. This Minnesotan is tired of paying for his vanity. n/y

[VeraAgnes]

4. Well, Spring is in the air.....

time to have the Minnesota Democratic Activist groups begin organizing and marching on the Capitol.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Vanity, yes, but they also want to have their pack horse back. The no-job-too-big-or-small

for Norm to embarass us with.

[gristy]

2. The cost of new election is irrelevant, seeing as there is no reason to hold one

Unless one counts Coleman losing as a reason to hold one. But that isn't a valid reason.

[Sal Minella]

3. To Normie, it is.