GreenfieldNOW.com
search all things local
     
Blog Home |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join
Browse By tag All Tags » Government / Bureaucracy » Elections » Ethics (RSS)

Related Tags

Minnesota's Franken/Coleman recount: One monster of a Senate race

By Kyle Prast
Monday, Jan 5 2009, 09:40 PM

It appears Al Franken has truly turned Minnesota election law into a Franken-stein of a monster recount--something the election laws were never intended to do: enable stealing an election.

If you have been following this race since election day 2 months ago, you know that incumbent Senator Coleman was 215 votes ahead of opponent Al Franken when the votes were originally counted. But after Minneapolis' director of elections remembered she forgot 32 absentee ballots in her car the following Friday, and 2 liberal precincts claimed they initially miscommunicated the vote totals, Franken picked up another 346 votes, for a total of 378 Franken votes. The oddity being that "none of the other contests recorded any changes in their vote totals" due to this supposed miscommunication.

For a while, it looked like Coleman would still keep his Senate seat, but more and more there is Funny Business in Minnesota, In which every dubious ruling seems to help Al Franken

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

The latest travesty in the Franken recount is abusing the duplicate ballot provision. (Emphasis mine)

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

Another county "'lost' 133 votes" due to possible double running of ballots through the machines. (In other words, the machine stated 133 votes more than actual ballots.) The Canvassing Board decided to go with the original higher tally--helping Franken by 42 votes. An additional 37 Franken votes from another county were gathered by going with a higher ballot total than the Election Night machine total, even though the higher ballot tally was greater than voters in the precinct!

Anything goes, IF it helps Al Franken win! Do read the entire Wall Street Journal piece. Truth is stranger than fiction!

Senator Coleman is to challenge the Canvassing Board's results. His attorney "said the challenge will be filed within 24 hours. The challenge will keep Franken from getting the election certificate he needs to take the seat in Washington."

A few days ago, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas promised to block the Franken seating in the Senate with a filibuster. Good for Cornyn.

So far, Senate Democrats put off plans to seat Franken, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yielded to Republican threats and agreed on Monday not to immediately seat fellow Democrat Al Franken, whose razor-close victory in Minnesota faces legal challenges."

Republicans have dropped the ball, in my opinion, on allowing voter fraud after voter fraud to continue, until at last people just throw up their hands and accept it as business as usual.

I hope the Republicans stand firm on this one for once and grow some backbone!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

counter hit xanga

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Vicki Mckenna, Jay Weber, The Right View Wisconsin, Mark Levin, CNS News

 


 

Congressmen Ryan and Sensenbrenner on why I voted Yea and Nay

By Kyle Prast
Tuesday, Sep 30 2008, 12:36 PM

I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

In other words, they "Made a prettier pig!" This is why Ryan voted for it.

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

 

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

 

counter hit xanga

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Jay WeberMark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

 


 
More Posts

Posts

Tags

How the other half lives

Search the Blogs