WSJ pimps for Coleman (sore loser - MN) - Recommends federal challenge or do-over.

[jefferson_dem]

If all this sounds familiar, think Florida 2000. In that Presidential recount, officials couldn't decide what counted as a legal vote, and so different counties used different standards. The Florida Supreme Court made things worse by changing the rules after the fact. In Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this violated Constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, which require that every vote be accorded equal weight.

This will be a basis for Mr. Coleman's appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Should that body be reluctant to publicly rebuke their judicial colleagues who sat on the contest panel, Mr. Coleman could also take his appeal to federal court. This could take months.

Another solution is to hold a special Senate election. Minnesota law does not specifically provide for such a runoff. However, the U.S. Constitution's 17th amendment does provide states with a roadmap for filling "vacancies," which might be a legal starting point for a do-over. Even before the shifting standards of the contest trial, the St. Paul Pioneer Press looked at the ballot-counting evidence and called for a revote. It could be that this is where the court case is leading in any event.

Democrats want to portray Mr. Coleman as a sore loser and make the Republican worry that he will ruin his chances for other political office. But Mr. Coleman has a legitimate grievance that not all votes have been treated equally. If the Franken standard of disparate absentee-voter treatment is allowed to stand, every close election will be settled by a legal scramble to change the vote-counting rules after Election Day. Minnesota should take the time to get this one right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000875842430603.html

[DFW]

1. Hey, WSJ? Just spare me, OK?

Eight years ago they were saying the exact opposite when it was their boy on the block,
and his "victory" was in far more question than Franken's.

So their English is better than W's, so what? Their premise that the rules should change to
favor Republicans every time an election is close is so convoluted, it could give a wet
spaghetti noodle a run for its money.

[rurallib]

2. Wow a Murdoch owned paper delivering Republican talking points

the WSJ became irrelevant the day Murdoch bought it.

[Lucky Luciano]

3. How idiotic. In a do-over Coleman gets crushed anyway

with the third party candidate out and it becoming a two person race.

Anyway, I am unaware that there is a law saying that you have to win by more than a couple thousand votes - one suffices.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Basically, the argument goes: "Coleman didn't lose by too much so he didn't lose at all."

n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. A do-over? WSJ must have a drug problem.

[MADem]

6. Democrats don't "want" to portray Coleman as a sore loser.

He IS one.

If he doesn't want the portrayal, he'd concede, like a person with an iota of self-respect would do.

What a loser!

And we know who owns the WSJ...so no surprises, there.

[otohara]

7. Back in 2000

Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal wrote Wednesday: "America -- or rather the two Americas -- got the government we probably deserved this week. A perfectly divided nation appears to have elected an imperfectly divided government."

How'd that work out for us Paul?

[Cha]

8. The Minnesota Court declared Al Franken

has the most votes..so, yes, norm is a Sore Loser.

[PBS Poll-435]

9. Yuck

FUCK YOU Wall Street Journal

:banghead:




(Seat Al Now!)

[AtomicKitten]

10. FFS stick a fork in it, Norm, you freakin' donut.