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: 

Phew! If you have been watching these state's Senate races, you know that the Senate's filibuster proof Democratic majority  hung in the balance. But Senator Saxby Chamblis easily won reelection yesterday in that Georgia runoff, 57% to 43%. So the Democrats won't get their 60 seat majority.

The Minnesota Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken "now remains the only unresolved Senate contest in the country."

Unfortunately, the Franken race has turned into a Frankenstein monster of voter fraud on steroids:*

“The Franken campaign has made it clear that the recounted votes and will of Minnesotans matter little to them, and that they intend to take their campaign to change the outcome of this election on to the United States Senate,” said Coleman campaign spokesman Mark Drake. “Al Franken should personally reject this strategy outright, and honor the right of Minnesotans to choose who their senator should be — and not allow lawsuits and the strong-arm tactics of the majority leader of the United States Senate to intervene in this process." 

Who knows how the Franken race will ultimately resolve. If Franken pulls off a victory, it will be a victory for voter fraud in my opinion.

What caught my attention in the Georgia race was WHO campaigned with the Georgian candidates. The democrats brought in Al Gore and former President Bill Clinton to promote their candidate Martin.

On Chambliss' behalf, the Republicans brought in John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and closed with SARAH PALIN! "She headlined four rallies for Chambliss across the state Monday that drew thousands of party faithful."

There are many in the media and mushy middle of the Republican party that want to declare her dead in the water. However, the Conservative base in Georgia isn't buying it. The proof was that Palin Rallies Georgia's Base: (My emphasis) 

“We all have Georgia on our mind,” declared governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as she kicked off an early morning Dec. 1 rally...

It was the first of four rallies yesterday, each featuring thousands of cheering crowds brandishing “Palin 2012” shirts and buttons -- along with, of course, Chambliss signs. (My favorite anti-Barack Obama sign read: “Keep the change.”)

The Alaska governor was firing up the faithful to hold a critical GOP seat... Palin was also countering earlier appearances on behalf of Democratic candidate Jim Martin by several liberal “big guns” led by former President Bill Clinton and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.

...Democrats are worrying, too, that the Palin appearances are attracting more blue collar votes to their opponents. The final Pain rally at the Gwinnett County Arena drew some 3,000 people -- well over half of them blue collar workers and young people under the age of 30. A large truck parked outside the arena sported a “Mechanic for Chambliss and Palin” sign, and dozens of construction workers – some of them wearing their hard hats-- had obviously come straight from their worksites.

...Palin concluded every appearance by calling for a “rebuilding of the Republican Party starting in Georgia” with the re-election of Chambliss. She reminded Republican candidates that they must appeal to “the working class” -- which elicited another big round of applause from those hard hats and mechanics.

Sarah Palin isn't gone with the wind in Georgia:

 At a time when Republican Governors across the nation are trying to smear Palin in anticipation of 2012, she is proving that, contrary to media reports, she is the current bright star of the GOP.

Looking ahead 4 years to 2012, I will be asking the same question the Chambliss campaign just heard, " 'Is Sarah Palin coming?' No one has cared about Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, or McCain. Palin is all anyone wanted." 

*Franken race reminds us voter fraud still going strong  

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: 

On election eve, I quickly made this campaign button to illustrate my hopes for the 2012 ticket. I wore it to the Waukesha Republican Victory Party.

Barely there 2 minutes, a few women from the Waukesha Republican Party and I started talking. Are you part of the Republican Women's group, they asked? No, I said, although I did work a little on the last 2 campaigns. Why not? I explained it was because Republicans didn't support conservative candidates. Citing Republican State Senator Tom Reynold's 2006 race and the lack of support from the party, I said I now put my efforts into individual races instead of the GOP as a whole. They did not disagree. 

Then they spotted my button, and their eyes lit up. Where did you get that? I said I made it. They definitely liked the idea. These ladies were not alone. In the course of the evening, my humble button received enthusiastic support.

I know many blame Governor Sarah Palin for McCain's loss on Tuesday. But that sentiment shows how little those naysayers understand conservatives. It was very clear to me that fellow volunteers at the phone bank were there only because of Sarah, not McCain. Same with rally attendees.

As Senator John McCain gave his concession speech that night, he took the full blame for his failure to win. Amongst the Waukesha Republican faithful watching on the big screen, there was no murmur in the audience to the contrary.

When McCain thanked Governor Palin, the audience cheered. You would think BBC reporter Ali Reed was there in the room with us. In his What next for Sarah Palin? he reported the same reaction:

The sombre air at Senator John McCain's concession speech was momentarily pierced by cheer as Mr McCain spoke about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

The Wall Street Journal would like to see Congressman Paul Ryan become the House Minority Leader. (Ryan is not interested.) But they see Paul Ryan as many of us do, a rising star on the Republican horizon. Ryan for the Republicans, The party needs an economic spokesman:

... the Republican Party faces a choice. It can put the loss down to the country's fatigue with the Bush Administration and the bad luck of running amid a financial panic and shrug it off. Or it can choose a new direction, with new leadership, and retake the high ground it once occupied, especially on the economy.

...Mr. Ryan's economic knowledge and youthful energy make him the best choice [for Minority Leader] to pull his party in a more promising direction.

Sad to say, persona matters in politics. Obama's youth and charisma made him more attractive than McCain's old, tired warhorse manner. It has been said that if radio were around in 1800, Thomas Jefferson would never have won the presidency. Jefferson was brilliant on paper but not a great orator.

Conservatives, imagine a Palin/Ryan or Ryan/Palin ticket in 2012? With Ryan's grasp of economics and practical solutions and Palin being governor of the only state not in or headed toward recession, it could be a winning combination: A ticket with real conservative solutions AND articulate, attractive candidates. 

Sign me up! TeamSarah.org

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: 

It has become a family tradition to attended the Waukesha Republican's "Victory" party at the Country Springs Hotel.  Various local candidates stop in and give a pep talk along with Waukesha Republican leaders. This year most of us hoped for good news but were braced for the bad.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner addressed the crowd first. He quipped something to the effect that after 8 years of Democrats blaming President Bush for everything, with them in charge of the legislature and the White House, we'll be able to pin the tail on the donkey. (Donkey being the symbol for democratic party.)

I am not so sure anything will stick, but I enjoyed the imagery.

Next up was Congressman Paul Ryan. I think most Republicans in the room see Ryan as the future of the Conservative movement. Ryan outlined a path for the next few years that went something like this: Stand up for what you believe in. Work with Democrats when they are going in the right direction and when they're wrong, propose alternative solutions. (My emphasis) 

Congressman Ryan, if you recall, came up with a plan to reform the entitlement problem of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, called "A Roadmap for America's Future". The Democrats just ignore the impending insolvency of that costly trio.

Last to speak was Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. He too urged that Republicans present clear, conservative alternatives to liberal tax and spend policy. He is living proof that conservatism, when properly communicated, will sell even in very Democratic territory!  The key was presenting that conservative message in a clear and concise way--something almost everyone in the room knew the McCain campaign never did. 

As John McCain gave his concession speech the room was quiet. Not much disagreement when McCain said "the failure is mine." There was cheering when he thanked Sarah Palin.

The road ahead is steep, very steep, for true conservatives. But Scott Walker is living proof that people will support the conservative message if it is presented clearly enough.

I fear most Republican politicians and party officials still don't get it.

These might be of interest: It was a great victory - but not for the Left and

It made me feel better: PALIN 2012 RYAN
 

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: 

I've been wondering about this for some time. Are some independents reluctant to voice support for John McCain because they don't want to take flack for supporting the Republicans? Democrats have incessantly talked against George Bush during this election cycle, as if they are running against him, even though George isn't running.

Amongst African Americans, I think there is a Bradley effect. Remember J.T. Harris telling McCain that he was taking a ...whipping for supporting McCain? J.T. continues to feel the heat.

The Investor's Business Daily poll isn't as hopeful for McCain today as it looked yesterday, but Obama still isn't 5% points ahead of McCain or above 50%. There are still 9.5% not sure. Are they really not sure or are they just not saying?

One interesting sidebar, there is another segment obsessed with George Bush. al Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": (Hmm, I wonder who they want to win?)

DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting...

Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama or Republican John McCain.

...Others say his [Obama's] planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.

The only real poll that matters is the vote tally on election day. Go out and vote.

PS From Drudge: Interesting question: Can Obama win popular vote but lose election? And do remember that the early exit polls favored Kerry in 2004.

Sure, chances of Republicans retaining the White House are remote.

But some last-minute state polls show the GOP nominee closing the gap in key states — Republican turf of Virginia, Florida and Ohio among them, and Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, too.

If the tightening polls are correct and undecided voters in those states break McCain's way — both big ifs — that could make for a repeat of the 2000 heartbreaker for Democrats that gave Republicans the White House.

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: 

Yet, there are those supposed Republican elitists who look down their noses at her with disdain. Some go as far as throwing their support to Barack Obama. Can someone who says they are a conservative or Republican really be for Barack Obama? Does that ring true?

Well, to put it in local context, it rings about as true as former Republican Mayor Kate Bloomberg and husband Frank Urban* endorsing Democrat Jim Sullivan for State Senate over incumbent Republican Tom Reynolds in 2006. From my Bloomberg's endorsement shows her true "blue state" colors:  

... in Bloomberg and Urban’s opinion, the Democrat they are endorsing is running to serve and represent the people of the 5th district effectively, “whether they are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between”. Think about that. How is that even possible? On every major issue, I disagree STRONGLY with that candidate’s position.

How is it I would be satisfied with him [Sullivan] representing me? How could a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, believer in lower taxes, pro voter photo ID, anti-benefits to illegal aliens, fiscal conservative like me ever be represented by someone whose platform is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, opposed to voter photo ID, opposed to requiring welfare recipients to prove their legal US status, and pro-taxation?

Any Republican espousing those liberal values would be an "embarrassment" to the Republican Party. But then, I asked myself, how well did Mayor Kate reflect my values? Not very well. So, why would I give any credence to her endorsement now?

And so, I give the same credence to these elitists' criticisms of Gov. Sarah Palin and endorsements for Barack Obama. Come to think of it, Obama's platform is much the same as Sullivan's--so just substitute the elitists names for Bloomberg and Urban and Obama for Sullivan. The issues are the same.  

There was a great editorial in Investor's Business Daily Friday, Palin and the Elitists. It contrasts those "Republicans" who don't approve of Palin with others who do and the reasons why.

They [the elitists] all seem to no longer connect to either the heartland or a new kind of leader who didn't make her way up through elite colleges or through a husband's or father's connections. Maybe that's too hard to absorb for those who inhabit the stratified, elitist political ecosystems of New York and Washington.

Those who say she isn't ready haven't bothered to "gather evidence of her 'unreadiness' ." "Their dismissiveness sharply contrasts to others [such as Bill Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, and Mark Steyn] who've tried to find out who Sarah Palin is.  They find it impossible to dismiss her."

The editorial concludes with, "Maybe Palin's straightforwardness and promises of reform threaten some among the conservative commentariat. Bad news: If John McCain and Palin win this vote, they're in for a long four years".

The Republican elite didn't like Ronald Reagan either. When he ran, they dismissed him as nothing more than a B movie actor. History proved them wrong.

*I was unaware that Frank Urban passed away on Saturday when I posted this piece. My sympathies to his wife Kate and family. 

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: 

On the news yesterday, I heard that John McCain and Sarah Palin will go to La Crosse Friday after their stop in Waukesha on Thursday. I think that is a good move. McCain will also be in Mosinee, WI, and Palin in Wilmington, OH later on Thursday.

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin said she wanted to go back to Michigan--she wasn't giving up on that state. That is good news for Michigan since The GOP in Michigan is still trying to "boost efforts" in the state.

I just heard about this PAC group, Our Country Deserves Better. They aren't willing to give up Michigan either. In fact, they are holding a 2 day web-a-thon to raise $500,000 by Thursday morning. In their first day, they raised a little over half of it according to their CONTRIBUTE NOW page.

Their logic is that if McCain just gives Michigan up, Obama won't need to spend any time or money there.

The 17 electoral votes will be lost to Obama/Biden.  Down-ballot races of candidates sympathetic to McCain will lose.  And Obama will be able to take money he had intended for Michigan and put it into other swing states such as Nevada, Virginia, Florida, Ohio and Missouri.

We might be focusing on the presidential race, but the president isn't the only candidate on the ballot. The entire House is on the Nov. 4th ballot, and 36 Senators are up for election too.

The thought of an unbridled Democrat majority House and Democrat majority Senate with a Democrat President is enough motivation for citizens to shell out $254,000 (so far) to help Michigan. 

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: