Norm Coleman: Maybe We Need A Do-Over Election

[babylonsister]

We knew this was coming...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/norm-coleman-maybe-we-need-a-do-over-election.php?ref=fp1

Norm Coleman: Maybe We Need A Do-Over Election
By Eric Kleefeld - February 26, 2009, 10:08AM


The talk from the Coleman campaign about how the Minnesota election results are unreliable, and that a do-over election could be an option, has now gone beyond just Norm Coleman's lawyers -- it's now coming from the mouth of Norm himself.

Coleman did an interview with Sirius conservative talk-radio host Andrew Wilkow, and discussed the campaign's argument that the court's current strict standards for allowing in previously-rejected ballots must by extension render illegal a whole lot of ballots accepted and counted on Election Night, when local election officials used lax standards:

"What does the court do?" Norm asked rhetorically. "Yeah, you know some folks are now talking about simply saying run it again, just run it again."

"Have another statewide election?" Wilkow asked.

Coleman responded: "You know the St. Paul Pioneer Press is...one of the second largest papers in the state, last week said we're never going to figure this out, just run it again. So you start hearing that. Ultimately the court has to make a determination, can they confirm, can they certify who got the most legally cast votes?"

Coleman also said that he truly believes that he is the one who got the most legally cast votes, but on the other hand, this whole situation shows serious concerns about the process.

"I got to believe next time this happens folks are going to say ... if you have something within a couple of say percentage - this is by the way was thousandths of a percent - but if you have something within a couple of hundred votes out of three million cast, probably the best thing to do next time is run it again in three weeks and put all this other stuff aside."

(By the way, Norm only mentioned one particular Democratic county where lax standards were used. However, his own legal team has demonstrated during this trial that leniency occurred in deep-red counties, too. He also declared with confidence that he was ahead on Election Night -- but his legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg declared yesterday evening that the Election Night totals themselves are tainted and unreliable.)

[beyurslf]

1. Crybaby

[geardaddy]

2. Give it up Mr. Chicklets.

It's not going his way, so he wants a do-over.

:puke:

As a citizen of MN I say: "Fuck you Norm"

[aquart]

3. I'm sure the judges are just thrilled with this.

[Lost in CT]

4. Stick a fork in him....nt

[BurtWorm]

5. Maybe Norm Coleman needs to go fuck himself.

[geardaddy]

11. Maybe?

:shrug:

[stray cat]

6. He told Franken not to have a recount to save tax payers money - What happened

to saving his constituents money?

[ljm2002]

7. Standard Repub playbook...

...anytime it's close and they're on the short side, they'll fight to the bitter end and beyond. Anytime it's close and they're on the winning side, they'll tell the other guy it's time to concede for the good of the state / country / people and "just get over it".

The election was held and the recount has been done in accordance with the laws of Minnesota. The process has been transparent. If Coleman comes down on the losing side, that's it. He can fight to have Minnesota's laws changed, he doesn't get a do-over.

[sharp_stick]

8. But Norm you wanted Al to concede

after about 1/2 the votes were counted the first time around and laughed the idea of a runoff out of the room.

This is all posturing for the appeal, Coleman knows that a runoff would hand his ass to him pretty decisively. The GOP is just delaying as long as they can to deny the Dems the 59th Senate seat because uncle Mitch, the chin wattle, McConnell would have an even harder time holding one of his phony fillibusters.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

9. It's a federal election, not kickball at recess!

No do-overs!

[no_hypocrisy]

10. You mean we could have had a "do-over" election in 2001? Shit!

:sarcasm:

[bdamomma]

12. Coleman just doesn't get it, it's over and he did not win.

what a hard headed stupid man.

[MineralMan]

13. Dumbass! There is no provision whatsoever for a do-over

in Minnesota law. How to deal with close elections is nicely spelled out, and that's what's happening now. Tied elections are decided by a coin-toss, but this is not such an election.

Coleman is finished, so he's voicing desperation nonsense. Bye, Norm!

[thereismore]

14. I thought he thought he had won it. Now this?! nt

[MiniMe]

15. There are no do-overs until you win Norm

You lost, deal with it.

[izquierdista]

16. Best 2 out of 3?

Three out of five?
Rock, paper, scissors?
Screw you Norm, you're going home.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. Try again in 2014 - you'll get your ass whipped good and proper.

I think that's fair.