Yay for SNL references

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

Comments

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Stole it how?

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

By getting the most votes. A nefarious plot, indeed!

[thebigbadbutch.livejournal.com]

I hate it when those damn Democrats cheat by getting the most votes >:(

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Those bastards!

[rumorsofwar.livejournal.com]

Since when does getting the most votes mean that a Democrat won anything? Now you see how he stole it..

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Because silly, ANY Democrat winning ANY election means they stole it, because NO sane person would EVER actually vote for any Democrat. Duh!

[funnygurusdca.livejournal.com]

"Stole it".

Yeah, you just go right on believing that. The rest of us will just watch the swearing-in.

The recount shows that Franken won the Minnesota Senate race. The lying liars who say otherwise have no evidence of cheating.

Here's an article all about it by Joe Conason: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/01/09/franken/

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

Why does he look like Ethel Merman?

[darkblood777.livejournal.com]

Cause he'll be SWELL! He'll be GREAT! He's gonna have the whole world on a PLATE!

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Evoking Ethel Merman's voice in my heat utterly for the win.

= )

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Pardon me, "in my head." ::facepalm::

[mindrtist.livejournal.com]

Fabulous. I think I'm going to watch Airplane! now.

[blueduck37.livejournal.com]

Al Franken stole the election? Prove it or shut up--
The recount shows that he won the Minnesota Senate race. The lying liars who say otherwise have no evidence of cheating. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/01/09/franken/)

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

maybe i'd have less of a problem if they stopped calling it a "recount," because that was one thing it was not.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

It was a recount. I'm sorry if it was different from the result that former senator Coleman wanted, but that doesn't make it any less of a recount.

Recounts happen to make sure the original vote was counted correctly in the case of a close and/or contested election. It invites additional scrutiny of the process, and for that reason, the vote totals may chance. From what I can see, the legally mandated recount happened as it should have under the terms set forth by law.

Your words are designed to put doubt in that lawful, democratic process, leading me to wonder why you hate America.

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

I don't hate America. But there's a difference between recounting the votes you have, and "finding" other, new votes that magically keep appearing.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

I don't believe any votes magically appeared. I know that the Minnesota Supreme Court (which is the final legal authority in this situation) stated that ballots that were wrongly rejected (emphasis on wrongly) should be counted. Can you please point me to a source that shows that ballots that previously did not exist suddenly did so and were counted?

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

I'll give you that much, but I don't agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court that they were wrongly rejected. I have to side with the dissenting judges that the ruling is inconsistent and inadequate for ensuring that every properly cast vote is counted. Unfortunately, in this case, it's a differing of opinion between mere people, even if they are Supreme Court Justices, and honestly, because it's so open to interpretation, I don't see that any two people with differing opinions on the situation would ever be able to come to an agreement on it.

[desidono.livejournal.com]

I agree wholeheartedly - I think that what the Minnesota Supreme Court crafted was a horrible bastardization of currently law, but I also think that the boards did the best that they could with that ruling and fulfilled their duty under the law.

[ltmurdoch.livejournal.com]

OK, here's what bugs me. There's no way you can reconcile "I have to side with the dissenting judges that the ruling is inconsistent and inadequate for ensuring that every properly cast vote is counted," with "THEY STOLE THE ELECTION." One is a reasonable response to a reasonable disagreement. It accepts that there can be two reasonable ways to interpret one set of circumstances. The other accuses one side of conspiracy and cheating! You chose to present the hyperbolic, inflammatory rhetoric. In other words, you chose the low road. Once again. And again you join the loud-mouth, manipulative haters who, in my opinion, have ruined civil discourse in the media and in everyday life. And I can't say it any better than desidono: "Your words are designed to put doubt in that lawful, democratic process." And, given your later, more measured response, it's clear that you know this and you know what you are doing. And that is shameful.

Now, on a more micro point: You say that you don't believe that some of the absentee ballots were wrongly rejected. That means you think they were RIGHTLY rejected. But my understanding is that the people who submitted them followed the rules 100% yet the ballots were rejected anyway. Can you tell us why you think these ballots should have been rejected?

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

i'm so ashamed!!!!!!

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

That's not exactly true.

The "new" votes were not new. Most were either set aside in the original machine count because they could not be machine processed or were provisional ballots for voters whose registrations were contested -- that can happen for something as innocuous as having the same name as a felon who is not eligible to vote.

When the margin of victory in an election is so big that checking those ballots by hand for voters whose votes SHOULD be counted cannot make a difference, then generally speaking, the election is certified and a winner is properly announced.

In the case of this election, the original margin was too small for that so the recount did go through all of the provisional ballots and "found" voters who should have been properly counted on election day.

There's nothing remotely improper about it.

[rawbery79.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if that's the case, then Bushie Jr. "STOLE" his elections too.

Oh, wait...

[fragbert.livejournal.com]

You can't steal what Daddy makes the Supreme Court give you.

[edgar-suit.livejournal.com]

^^^^^^^

Bush STOLE the election because they circumvented the Constitution. Had they followed the law, Bush would have still been elected by a majority vote in Congress, but at least it would've been legal.

[ericcoleman.livejournal.com]

Of course he stole it ... the recount was supervised by two republicans, two indys and a democrat, and the presence of the former says it all, after all who knows more about stealing an election than two republicans?

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Funny refrence.

Damn dirty lie.

Clearly you have no respect for our democratic institutions.

[spifftronica.livejournal.com]

I've seen variations of the Stuart line all over the place. Let's see a real creative cartoonist try to implement something from "A Limo for the Lame-o," which is a much better portrayal of Franken on SNL.

[ellie-kay.livejournal.com]

believe me, i know. and franken-ly (hah oh lord) i'm scared shitless.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Worst theft since Truman.