“And yet another piece of the puzzle falls into place.”

Regards,
Peter H.

Right on. They picked a candidate who agrees with Democrats on everything and bashes social conservatives just like they want.

Worked out beautifully, didn’t it?

What’s really striking to me is that this is the bargain MM, Kathleen Parker, and the other Mavericks want to extend to social conservatives:

1. Social conservatives shut up.

2. The Republican party abandons the “divisive” issues of the social right, like abortion, prayer, and defense of marriage.

3. Moderate Republicans get to ridicule, insult, and vilify the social right in order to suck up to Democrats and “independents.”

4. The social right is still expected to vote for Republicans.

Although I’m not formally a social conservative, I can understand why the proposed bargain is not very appealing to them.

Franken is not “angry” or “obnoxious”. The man is a full-fledged psychopath.

Oh, wait…

Amazing, isn’t it?

I might mention that neither has has held elected office… not even as mayor of a small town or governor of a state. (Kennedy is certainly not in the same league as Franken for pure noxiousness – I’ll give her that).

Hard to believe our state actually could send him to D.C. Y’know those folks who say “if so and so gets elected, then I’m leaving the country?” I feel like if Franken is our senator, I’ll have to find a new state!

But the GOP’s problem isn’t Republicans with the true-blue loyalty of Lincoln Chaffee, and the strategic genius of Libby Dole. Nope, it’s all those darned social cons. Maybe the party should keep insulting them until they all leave. That will make the GOP strong again.

The more vocal social-cons have been long looking to purge the GOP of those who are not “true enuff, blue enuff” to claim a conservative label… Big Tent GOP goals get reduced to Democrat-lite nonsense allegations or the politics of hyphenation… just ask Gen Powell for the currency of that impulse inside the social-con arena. Or ask the former social-con poster boi, Tom Delay, about the sign he had installed outside his GOP House leadership office “No Moderates Need Apply”.

I’m surprised at all the social-con types who, without GOP credentials or evidence of past Party loyalty when it matters, seem to be concerned that Coleman might get cheated out of his seat.

Maybe it’s the specter of Franken validated that steams ‘em… it sure isn’t some impulse to be fair or concerned about electoral integrity.

NancyP and Obama would have been checked nicely if the Senate still had GOPers like Chaffee, Dole and others in the majority.

Coleman’s conservative bona fides are so lackluster that he shouldn’t be in the Senate, meaning he’s not conservative enough? RINO socio-cons (I’ll ignore the couch potato(e) jab) aren’t concerned he’s not conservative? And this so-called concern, no matter its source, should outweigh concern re. the alternative, i.e. Al Franken? And socio-cons should be concerned what an anti-socio-con thinks their issues and candidates should be?

YOU may think it doesn’t matter… just like some RINO couchpotato social-cons don’t think that Coleman’s lackluster conservative bonafides warrant concern over keeping Coleman in the Senate… but the truth is that a fair and accurate count according to the rules do matter in a nation built on the rule of law, not outcomes.

You offer “…we need to count those votes (rejected absentee ballots) in order to determine the winner”, the truth is that the State Canvassing Bd does NOT have the legal authority to review those absentee ballots rejected on Election Day by local clerks. It’s why the SCBd asked, requested, implored local clerks to go back and sort out those that were incorrectly rejected, review them for correctness, resubmit them if proper and adjust the totals. And were not even through the respective parties’ challenged ballots yet.

I think the fair thing to do, given that Minnesota’s election process is suspect, is to find a mechanism to hold a run-off election between the candidates. That would settle the matter in a final, indisputable fashion IF the candidates agreed. If the candidates don’t agree to that, it’s an election to be won by legal badgers not legal eagles… and that’s never a good outcome.

Has Caroline Kennedy ever run a business? No. Has she ever run for office before? No. Has she confronted corruption in her own party? Heavens, no. Has she ever had to worry about keeping to a budget? Of course not.

No, her sole qualification is her pedigree, her blood-line connection to America’s elite political aristocracy. 232 years after the Declaration of Independence, we’re back to this: government by royalty.

But, granted, she is fully qualified to do what a senate Democrat is expected to do; display constant, fawning obeisance to the Dear Leader, Chairman 0.

Funny how Democrats can’t win without counting large numbers of fraudulent votes.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/17/minnesota-recount-consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-canvassing-boards/

I think that, if both the Minnesota election board AND its Supreme Court demand consistency (the latter is going to end up setting the rules on how certain absentee ballots are counted or re-counted), Coleman has a chance. My prediction of a Franken win is premised on their inconsistency and hence, manipulation of the recount by Franken.

If a Republican state Secretary of State had ties to a conservative group with legal problems as Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has to ACORN
Sigh. You mean the fictitious “they turned in bad voter cards that they were bound by law to turn in anyway” legal problems? Or they Nevada GOP “raids” on their offices? Or the legal problems Free Republic and FOX keep talking about that don’t actually amount to anything?

[Sorry, torrent, they weren't raids by the Nevada GOP. Go check your facts. The person who launched the raid in the Silver State was the Secretary of State, a man named Ross Miller, a Democrat. Dan.]

As far as the Equal Protection argument goes, what was the board supposed to do? In an election this astonishingly close, when we really don’t know who won yet, and when we *do* know that there were absentee ballots that even your original post admit were unfairly rejected on Election Day, we need to count those votes in order to determine the winner. The board is simply trying to get closer to the actual winner. Funny how the Republicans want to stop all that messy counting of actual votes.

Makes you wonder. I just hope he goes for broke and brings ‘em all down.

I have lost all respect for the state of Minnesota: Mike Nelson, Jim Lileks, and Michelle Bachmann notwithstanding.

Caroline Kennedy is going to be running against Fran Drescher for the Democratic nomination for Mrs. Bill Clinton’s senate seat? (Both have expressed interest in the position.) The only reason I’d be in favor of Kennedy is to avoid Drescher’s voice as well as the interminable Nanny State references. To think that New Yorkers would choose either over Peter King is beyond sad.