My friend and colleague Right Hook offers typically top-shelf analysis of what has happened, and its portents, over at Boots On. As always, you should read the whole thing, but here's his eminently sensible conclusion:
I proudly admit I am a Conservative and do not want Franken to represent me. But I am hardly a rabid Coleman supporter (I voted against Franken rather than for Coleman). I did not actively support or work for Coleman (in fact, I took a lot of heat from GOPers for my criticism of him) and could accept a legitimate Franken victory, but if the Canvassing Board's selection stands his "victory" is tainted to say the least. I also do not want Kate Knuth to (mis)represent me in the State House, but I accept the fact that she clearly won the election based on a majority of legitimately cast and counted votes and that I have to deal with the unfortunate result of two more years of her in office.
In my judgment the process that has apparently given Franken the win does not pass the smell test and certainly has the appearance of election theft by the political party in power. It also sets some dangerous precedents for future elections and could encourage more creative and aggressive attempts at manipulating an election.
The root of the problem is the liberal policies and laws that govern our election process (this problem is not exclusive to Minnesota). Our issuance of absentee ballots for almost any reason, allowing absentee ballots to be revoked by the voter right up until the polls close, same day registration with loose rules on voter identification, "motor voter" laws, inconsistent or unenforced chain of custody rules for handling ballots, tolerance of groups like ACORN that promote and encourage voter fraud, and probably several other factors I haven't thought of contribute to the problem. Until real election reform occurs (don't hold your breath with the DFL in power) our election process will continue to be a joke.
Without well-defined and consistently applied rules the election process will be open to fraud, abuse, and manipulation. Most reasonable people, no matter how partisan, can accept and deal with a legitimate political loss. It's much tougher when the perception is that the election was manipulated or stolen. The doubt about whether the result of an election reflects the will of the people, either real or perceived, cannot and should not be tolerated.
Franken can go to Washington but the taint is going to follow him. And it should. Perhaps he will surprise us and act in a mature and responsible way, but he has a lifelong history of scurrility and it is highly unlikely that he will suddenly grow judicious and fair-minded just because he gets to share a cloakroom with exemplars of probity like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Al Franken will embarrass all Minnesotans, most likely repeatedly. And those of us who opposed his candidacy will have both the right and the responsibility to rub the noses of our betters in it every time it happens. And don't worry, we'll be on the job.
But that's only part of what needs to happen. The more important task for conservatives is to make clear, cogent arguments about the implications of this process. They must then work to reform the process by demanding that uniform, easily understood procedures are in place for voting. Right Hook's sensible suggestions would be an excellent place to start. Most of all, conservatives must make it impossible for those who would game the system to have a chance to do so. And if politicians continue to build in ways to game the system, they need to be retired from office, by means of the ballot box, and with sufficient votes to ensure that those who would game the system have no possibility of doing so. Might I suggest that one of the first people who ought to be under a whole lot of scrutiny is a certain state official who most recently presided over this travesty? And that perhaps a certain dedicated public servant who appears to be without portfolio, a person who stared down a corrupt international bureaucracy, might be just the person to take on this state official? Just a thought.
Cross-posted at Truth v. The Machine and True North
14 comments:
its a losing game,mark.
in a democracy, election are auctioned off to the highest bidder.
more people serve to benefit from liberal govt than conservative govt. this includes those whose livlihoods depend on manipulating the machinations of what is called democracy.
I hesitate to comment, since this thing isn't over with, but what the hey. It was my feeling, however unfair of me, that there was never any chance that we would be able to get through a recount that ended in Franken's favor without conservatives crying foul, even if everyone involved in the recount process was absolutely objective and honest - which is impossible to say, unless there is actual proof otherwise. Without such proof (we may or may not ever see), such analysis is merely well-worded sour grapes. Right Hook offers several solutions in reference to the problem, but what is the problem in the first place? Ballot #s in some districts exceeding the # of registered voters? If this is true, how could anyone support upholding such a blatant oversight? Throwing in the recount being manipulated by lawyers, the media and political posturing is just an assumption, not proof of anything. How did lawyers, reporters, or the politicians themselves get ahold of the ballots, or do anything involved with the actual recount? I am willing to hear any facts that can demonstrate that there is a corrupt recount process in MN.
Would Right Hook be writing any of this business about reforming the system if Coleman won the recount (and who knows, he still may)? Not to be judgemental and cynical, but I doubt it.
Anyway, if Franken makes it, at least he won't be more embarrassing than a certain MN Rep, who I love to pieces.
Anyway, if Franken makes it, at least he won't be more embarrassing than a certain MN Rep, who I love to pieces.
I know, Amanda. I feel the same way you do about Betty McCollum. :)
I can't prove that there was actual malfeasance in the recount process and even if I could, I'm not convinced it would matter this time around. The larger point, which is what I was writing about, involves the standards by which votes are counted going forward. The idea is to make voting easy, transparent and impervious to the sorts of machinations that the campaigns and the canvassing board have undertaken in this cycle. I am arguing that conservatives (and everyone else, really) should support common-sense reforms because when governments and governmental agencies become Byzantine it becomes more difficult for citizens to have a say in how they are governed.
As for what Right Hook would say had the result been different, I'd suggest you ask him directly. My suspicion is that he'd still be troubled by the process.
I have been for reforming the system for many election cycles as I have seen, as a worker for several campaigns, the potential for abuse and fraud. It appears that my fears were founded in the Coleman/Franken race.
The recount process does have the appearance of being a sham. The Wall Street Journal has a good summary of the evidence that points this way:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html
Coleman ran a terrible campaign and stuck his thumb in the eyes of the Conservative base so many times that he has minimal support. It's his fault that his election day winning margin against such a repulsive candidate was so close. I'm not so mad about Coleman being gone as much as I am about the precedent this sham recount sets and the doors it opens for future election shenanigans.
As far as crying foul goes, how about you libs harping on President Bush's victory in 2000? The liberal media attempted to illegitimize his victory by recounting all Florida votes after the fact (not just the cherry-picked ones that Algore wanted) and found to their horror that George Bush actually won under virtually any recount scenario. They didn't exactly go out of their way to report this.
Thanks, RH. Well said, again.
While I remain skeptical that Coleman can overtake Franken, I would like to see the contest take place and I'd like to see Ritchie and his bobos on the canvassing board explain how they can square the decisions that the WSJ piece ably documents and call the recount fair and consistent. Either the standards are uniform, or they aren't. And if the standards consistently benefit one candidate, the people need to know that. Then if the powers that be go ahead and seat Franken under those circumstances, the people will know what they need to know about their Senator.
Lil' Betty, Mr. D? *snort* HaHA.
Why ask RH myself when I can go through your blog?
Amanda: Mr. D, will you please tell RH I don't buy his Conservative knee-jerk suspicions?
RH: Mr. D, I would appreciate it if you explained to Amanda that she is merely the brainwashed product of a Liberal media bias.
Please don't take offense; I'm amusing myself a lot so far with this comment. This is my last reply, as I don't wish to turn Mr. D's comments into a hateful battleground.
No objections to reforming the system here. I just hope rumors of such blatant disenfranchisement - double-counted votes - aren't true. But I've heard/read elsewhere that the MN recount process has been quite transparent. The WSJ piece is another opinion - not an investigative report. They also end with this: "Ms. Klobuchar is trying to create the public perception of a fait accompli, all the better to make Mr. Coleman look like a sore loser and build pressure on him to drop his legal challenge despite the funny recount business." Coleman did the same thing when he said Franken should just concede because a recount will waste taxpayer money. (It wasn't up to Franken. It's the law. If there wasn't a chance that Franken could possibly end up with more votes at the end of a recount, why do the recount?) It's all biased crap. (References to a "liberal media" are a little ironic when links to the Wall Street Journal - a major national publication - are flyin' around.)
Anyway, I haven't complained about Bush's appointment in 2000 for AT LEAST two years. Need I remind us, that there was a lot of shady, behind-closed-doors goings on in Florida, and that they didn't actually finish recounting? Oh, but I'm sure all those old, Jewish voters in Dade County were ecstatic to elect Buchanan!
No offense taken, Amanda.
The only thing I want is transparency. A lot of the process has been transparent, but that's been the procedural stuff, not the decision-making. We'll see what happens; I'm pretty sure Coleman will contest what's happened and perhaps a little sunlight will shine in the darker corners of the process.
I believe a no holds barred steel cage match is the answer. Ticket sales can go to charity and MN will have a senator by Tuesday.
How about at tonight at the Target Center?
I like your idea, Dan. A lot. Especially if Coleman is allowed to bring a cat o' nine tails. That would be cool.
Who is going to be Al Franken's Chief of Staff? Tom Davis
Seriously I'd find the whole thing quite amusing, almost as amusing as the Football Game I watched yesterday, it it wasn't for the fact that the very nature of our democracy is what's at stake here.
Another Hollywood loving, carpetbagging prodical son idiot has been elected, and the bet here is that Minnesotans will rue the day that this happened.
Mark,
I understand your displeasure over Coleman losing, and I really don't have a dog in this fight, so I was releuctant to comment. But citing the Wall Street Journal editorial page as if it were an objective source for news is laughable. The WSJ is a great newspaper, but it's editorial page is an assortment of Conservative talking points. The WSJ account you referenced is full of inaccuracies, and the entire article sounded like it had been written by Coleman's lawyers. The DailyKos and FreeRepublic folks could give the WSJ Editorial page lessons in objectivity.
Honestly, in the history of democratic election recounts, can anyone find an example of a loser who didn't believe he was robbed? As I noted a few weeks back, I think the Democrats would be better served by having the politically moderate, legally and ethically challenged Coleman sitting in that seat rather than the clown prince Franken. I have seen articles that suggest Federal paper might be landing on Coleman's desk even before Blago gets his. So I was honestly hoping that the Minn. recount went to Coleman. And as a third-party observer, I was fairly impressed with the seemingly transparent manner in which your recount was run. And I expected a little backlash from the losing side, but I really don't see the grounds for claiming that the process was so tragically flawed. Afterall, both candidates' legal teams were there every step of the way. The governing bodies deciding this were made up of elected officials or appointees from both sides of the aisle. And Colemen's biggest problems came as a result of decisions handed down by the 7 State Supremes, 5 of whom were appointed by Pawlenty or Carlson. Almost 3 million folks voted, and there was a swing of a little over 400 votes. When the vote total is that close, it's not statistically unreasonable to have a recount vary by a few hundred votes.
If Coleman couldn't prevail in a Republican appointed MN Supreme Court, isn't there a possibility that he lacked a solid legal case, or that Franken's legal case was better? Based on the pleadings I've seen filed so far, the Franken campaign has done a better job of making their case. Especially in the case of the 133 supposedly double counted ballots. The burden of proof was on Coleman to prove double counting, and he was unable to do that. Moreover, if Coleman did make that case, it is my understanding that Franken stood ready to challenge in places where double counting favored Coleman.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has been relatively clear and non-partisan in its three orders in this case. If both parties agreed a mistake was made on election night or in the recount process, the mistake could be remedied through the mutual agreement of the parties. This is what happened when 952 absentee ballots out of about 1300 were counted this weekend, and both parties agreed that they should be counted. If a possible error was committed on which the parties disagreed, that potential error would require evidentiary hearing. And as to Coleman's 11th gambit with the 650 new ballots, Coleman needs to prove that they should have been accepted, but so far, he has said that they should be examined more closely. He knows damn well that most of them will not be accepted, not many are going to be counted (and Franken will probably get more counted).
It's time for Coleman to take his own advice and bow out with some grace.
My two cents.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
Thanks, but re-read what I wrote. I wrote my piece the day before the WSJ piece appeared. I didn't cite it.
Two quick comments:
1) The reality is that Coleman faces an uphill battle. We know that. But it is disingenuous to call the MN Supreme Court "GOP." It is GOP in the same way that David Souter is a "Republican" Supreme Court Justice, or for that matter Whizzer White was a "Democratic" Justice. You can't know that from Chicago, of course, but trust me on it.
2) There's an investigation on Coleman, but it won't go anywhere.
3) The process has been transparent, which is why we know a lot of what we know. There is ample evidence of double counting and the WSJ editorial is correct in mentioning that every significant decision has gone Franken's way. There is zero evidence that Coleman has benefitted from double counting, by the way. And you can see examples of ballots that were marked in the same way that went for Franken and were taken away from Coleman.
Bottom line -- based on the counts of ballots that are ordinarily counted, Coleman won. When ballots that were rejected are counted, Franken wins. The writing is on the wall, which is why my post is titled what it is titled. Franken will, in the end, be seated. But his election is tainted and should be. And in Minnesota, we have work to do to prevent something like this happening again going forward. A good start would be a runoff election.
Mark,
my apologies for equating your opinions with the WSJ article. RH cited it, and you concurred with many of his opinions, so I took some liberties there. In listening to talk radio and reading blogs yesterday, I could hardly turn the channel or surf to a new page without seeing or hearing someone referencing that OP-ED as if it were an objective primary source.
BTW, it was also a weird day over at the NYT OP-ED page, where John Yoo and Michael Bolton had written an article calling on the Senate to re-assert their treaty authority over the Presidency and restore the balance of power provisions in the Constitution. I happen to agree with them, but was stunned by the cajones on these two guys. Bolton and Yoo have both been big supporters of the unitary executive for the last 8 years. Yoo, in particular, has egregiously ignored procedural balance of power concerns and substantive civil liberties issues. Do you think these guys were getting there Xmas decorations down and stumbled upon their Conservative principles? Or could it be that elections of a Democratic Executive and Legislative branch prompted them to reexamine their position on this?
Rich
Fair enough, Rich.
In re Bolton and Yoo: that's a whole other post, I think. We live in interesting times. All I'd suggest is that certain liberal commenters will probably become more enamored of the unitary executive some time after Jan. 21. :)
Post a Comment