Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Yawn. (Score 4, Insightful) 1088

by MNCampaignReport (#26827693) Attached to: Iowa Seeks To Remove Electoral College
Ah, reductio ad absurdum: I am on the side of fair elections, I say Franken pulled some sly tricks based on a ghost-written editorial in the WSJ, and you disagree, therefore you are not on the side of fair elections.

Cute. Still not a good argument though.

Look, Franken's team said from day 1 of the recount that their goal was to count every valid vote. Coleman, during the recount, sought repeatedly to have voted held back from the count, and now that he's down, he's seeking to get some of those exact same votes added back in. Naturally Franken wants to win just like Coleman does, but the difference is that Franken's message about the conduct of the recount and the election contest has been consistent from day 1, while Coleman has flopped around like a fish out of water.

Comment: Re:Yawn. (Score 5, Informative) 1088

by MNCampaignReport (#26827483) Attached to: Iowa Seeks To Remove Electoral College
Disclaimer: I'm a political blogger from Minnesota, and I ain't on your side, M1rth. That being said, the WSJ article to which you link was ghost-written by Norm Coleman's campaign -- it includes several spurious claims, and it's from the WSJ's editorial board. Their newsgathering operation is top-notch, but their editorial board is about as vicious a bunch of right-wing corporatists as you can possibly find. So, consider the source before using it to support your claims. You might also refer to The Uptake for continuing coverage of Coleman's election contest, in which several plausible scenarios have been presented by witnesses which would have caused the "more votes than voters" claim to look true. If I were feeling self-promotional, I might direct readers to my site -- MN Progressive Project -- for some countervailing points, especially in the Recount Report tag.

You've been Berkeley'ed!

Working...