Just because it was on the stream does not mean it was up and up. How many people watching even know the law?

As for the rest of the points raised above, big dog plans to jam his fingers in his ears as he screams ‘la-la-la-la-la!’ so as not to puncture the fiction he and his delusional wingnut friends have constructed around the Minnesota election.

As for getting over it, which part of I don’t care who people in Minnesota elect to represent them are you having trouble with. It makes no real difference to me in another state and there is nothing to get over but…

I want to NOW see you write out that Bush won in 2000 and you have gotten over it. Otherwise, keep your get over it comments to yourself because they only show you to be a hypocrite.

Write it now or you have no standing to talk about it.

I think there needs to be a transparent process. The pieces cited do not prove or disprove the case. That is what the court is for and they will decide but we have seen the mysterious ballots appear time and again. Unsecured, in someone’s trunk or back seat.

I only want a process that is clean and the best way to do that is with a new election.

It is amazing that the people who cried that Bush stole an election are condoning what is going on. And yes, despite the dozen or so recounts that show Bush won, libs still cry that he stole an election.

Also, don’t forget that a third candidate was there. If it is between the two Coleman wins.

I also never assumed he was innocent. But, the rules are the rules and if it is a RECOUNT then the votes originally counted should be recounted. The court should decide on the rest. If it was not cast on election day then don’t “recount” it.

This is a rather rambling dissertation of many “urban legends” that even if cited by the Wall Street Journal can be false.

Before I address just some of your comments, the one fact that no one is talking about is that an incumbent Senator was rejected by 58% of the voters.
Yes, it was close, but if the MN-GOP had stood strongly behind Coleman instead of advocating throwing Coleman under the bus he should have won. Remember Coleman was one of those breakaway Republican Senators that opposed drilling in ANWR, supported carbon tax, supported the Farm Bill, supported the Wall Street bailout, etc. and was a Democrat until he realized that the path to political advancement was easier in the Republican field.

Now, to the election itself. In reality, Minnesota will never know who the clear winner was since there over 12,000 absentee ballots that were rejected. Some were rejected for “valid” reasons … while some were rejected for “questionable” reasons … and lastly some should never have been rejected. The last group is the group that has been added back in. IMO, that is proper even based on your definition of a “recount”.
Both campaigns have had opportunities to challenge and remove ballots. In the last group the Coleman campaign opted to keep 175 ballots out of the Senate count. In one instance, the Coleman campaign rejected 59 ballots from a single precinct keeping only one … and those rejected including an election judge that voted for Coleman. That doesn’t sound arbitrary … that sounds like they suspect that the precinct would be more favorable to Franken, so reject them all. Did people that are ineligible try to vote … yes … once again a Coleman supporter. Nobody is clean in this, but let’s not assume that Coleman is innocent.

If you read the Coleman’s lawsuit, he has identified 22 precincts where they have concerns … the only remedy would be to disregard those votes … considering that a typical precinct would have a thousand voters, that is a lot of disenfranchised voters.

Coleman should prevail on the question of missing ballots but that only nets him 46 votes.

If anything, Coleman has tried to keep more ballots from being counted than Franken. I suspect that if all the absentee ballots were considered that Franken’s margin would increase.

Sorry, but don’t blame Franken … blame Coleman. IF the Democrats had offered a candidate that was not so terribly flawed as Franken, it would not have been close.

I like how Joe Conason put it over at Salon: “Al Franken stole the election? Prove it or shut up.”

Where is the evidence? An opinion piece in the WSJ? The word of right wing radio dummies? Simply hating Democrats and Al Franken seems to be all the evidence you have…