Objectively Pro-Rape

Al Franken went out deep on a limb and made his first amendment to face a roll-call vote to stop the practice of defense contractors essentially allowing consequence-free rape on their overseas bases:

On Tuesday night, the Minnesota Democrat got his first piece of legislation passed by the United States Senate via roll call vote. The amendment stopped federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of assault the right to bring their case to court. It passed by a 68-30 margin with nine Republicans joining each voting Democrat. And in the immediate aftermath, Franken was granted the chance to revel, ever so slightly, in his victory.\

"The story came to my attention of Jamie Leigh Jones who, when she was 19, went to Iraq to work for [defense contractor] KBR and she was put in the barracks with 400 men and was sexually harassed," Franken told the Huffington Post in a brief interview shortly after the vote. "She complained. But they didn't do anything about it. She was drugged and gang raped and they locked her up in a shipping container. She tried to sue KBR and they said you have a mandatory arbitration clause in your contract. She tried to fight back and said this is ridiculous. She took it to court and they have been fighting her for three years."

"This bill would make it so that anybody in business with the Department of the Defense can't do this," he concluded emphatically. "They can't have mandatory arbitration on issues like assault and battery."

You'd think this kind of amendment wouldn't only get 100 votes, but somehow former Senators would storm the floor and demand that they too could offer their support for the legislation. Instead, in the culture we now have in Washington, 30 Republicans voted against this. I don't know how you characterize this other than saying that they think it's perfectly reasonable for women to be raped on Defense Department-funded American bases, left in shipping containers, and barred from bringing up charges subsequently. They actually called this a political attack aimed at Halliburton, even though the bill named no contractor specifically.

Um, what would you call the "Defund ACORN Act," exactly? And while I know that was the biggest scandal in the history of scandals, AFAIK ACORN has never protected their employees from raping someone and detaining them in a shipping container. Again, to the best of my knowledge.

These Republicans should be completely ashamed of themselves.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that, while the Franken amendment was nice, the overall defense authorization bill includes lots of spending for the war in Afghanistan, and would ban the transfer of any detainee at Gitmo to the United States. As Franken would say, "Oy."

If You Want Your Country Back, Start With This

Senate Democrats have introduced legislation to scale back some of the worst abuses of both the Patriot Act and the FISA legislation from last year. Obama Administration officials were noncommital.

At hearings in the House and Senate, the officials repeatedly said they had no position yet on legislation that Democrats have introduced that would tighten standards and oversight of surveillance tools authorized under laws including the USA Patriot Act.

"We are trying to figure out whether the provisions that are suggested there will work for us as is, or perhaps with modifications," David S. Kris, assistant attorney general for national security, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on whether to renew a trio of Patriot Act powers set to expire Dec. 31.

Those provisions allow investigators to use "roving wiretaps" to monitor suspects who may be trying to escape detection by switching cellphone numbers; obtain from third parties the business records of national security targets; and track "lone wolf" suspects who may not belong to a terrorist group but may be planning attacks.

I'm surprised they've even gone to the level of noncommital. Executives generally want to retain the power handed to them.

But it took a non-lawyer Senator named Al Franken to explain in plain English why the roving wiretap statute offends the conscience.

Franken, who opened by acknowledging that unlike most of his colleagues in the Senate, he’s not a lawyer, but according to his research “most Americans aren’t lawyers” either, said he’d also done research on the Patriot Act and in particular, the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant to wiretap a an unnamed target and his or her various and changing cell phones, computers and other communication devices.

Noting that he received a copy of the Constitution when he was sworn in as a senator, he proceeded to read it to Kris, emphasizing this part: “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.

Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”

Yes, it is "surreal" that some politician would dare look to the Founding documents for guidance when determining whether the roving wiretaps statute violates civil liberties. I'm no originalist, but I don't think there's a ton of wiggle room in "the persons or things to be seized."

The truth is that, for all the pretty talk about exigent circumstances and "the war on terror" and the need to conduct investigations in secret, almost all Patriot Act "sneak and peek" requests, where warrants could be obtained to conduct secret searches without telling the subjects, had nothing at all to do with terrorism, but standard-issue federal drug cases. The mission creep here is obvious, and it's true on national security letters and roving wiretaps as well.

I'd be willing to overlook the regular-grade racism and general ugliness of the tea party crowd if they'd actually take a look at these examples of government overreach, and work with civil libertarians on the left to roll them back. The combination could be potent. Of course, the teabaggers aren't libertarians, they're glibertarians, who adored this kind of stuff in the Bush years when they were fighting "terrism."

Thug Life

For all the conservatives trying to make some equivalence between Code Pink ralliers and lobbyist-supported teabagger groups on their side, please let me know the instances of left-wing protesters physically assaulting politicians:

As lobbyist-run groups encourage conservative activists to “rattle” members of Congress at local town hall events, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), the president of the freshman Democratic class has revealed that “at least one freshman Democrat” has already been “physically assaulted at a local event” by right-wing activists. Connolly warned that conservative groups had taken things to a “dangerous level“:

“When you look at the fervor of some of these people who are all being whipped up by the right-wing talking heads on Fox, to me, you’re crossing a line,’ Connolly said. ‘They’re inciting people to riot with just total distortions of facts. They think we’re going to euthanize Grandma and the government is going to take over.”

I think Harold Meyerson has this right. We've become a Filibuster Nation, with the minority reduced to shouting down the majority, using procedural tricks and rage and in some cases violence to veto the popular will.

Health Care for America Now has a memo on how to counteract the right at these rallies. There are probably a range of options. Invoking the Larouchies would be a start. Just getting the teabaggers on camera spouting their inanities is probably enough for them to embarrass themselves. But shutting up a mob that has shown a propensity for physical assault is probably not going to be handled with reasonable techniques. I'm thinking back to my days as a comic, when I was heckled. I actually enjoyed hecklers, it meant people were paying attention, for one thing. And I found two techniques to be successful:

1) Go meta - you cannot just plow ahead with your presentation. You have to comment on what's happening in the room. And making clear what's happening, essentially speaking for those in the room who aren't shouting, gets that segment of the room on your side. Saying things like "this is a coordinated effort by people funded and directed by Washington lobbyists to deny 47 million people health care" is a start. "Where are you from?" is another.

2) You have a microphone and they don't: use it - people on the fence generally go with the side that they feel has the upper hand. A microphone can be a powerful tool to talk over, above, and through a heckler. It can also be wielded for shaming them, although a politician probably has to do this tactfully.

There probably aren't a lot of former comics among the Congress outside of Al Franken, but they should maybe take some advice from him. I mean, these people at the town halls aren't even belligerent drunks! They will, however, try to beat you up after the show, just like regular hecklers.

...TPM has a live news wire of events happening on the ground, which may be useful.

The Return Of Fighting Franken

T. Boone Pickens has no business being at Democratic policy luncheons, and while the rest of the caucus just sits there politely, proud of their elite brothers and sisters, the newest member takes a look around and sees nothing but madness.

Five years after he put his money behind the Swift Boat ads that helped tank John Kerry’s presidential campaign, Senate Democrats gave T. Boone Pickens a warm welcome at their weekly policy lunch Thursday.

Or at least most of them did [...]

According to a source, the wealthy oil and gas magnate and author of “The First Billion Is the Hardest” stepped up to introduce himself to (Sen. Al) Franken in a room just off the Senate Floor after the lunch ended.

Franken, who was seated talking to someone else, did not stand when Pickens said hello. Instead, Franken began to berate him about the billionaire’s financing of the Swift Boat ads in 2004.

According to a source, the confrontation grew heated.

Said Franken spokeswoman Jess McIntosh: “It was a lively conversation.”

Good. Maybe Pickens will get pissed off and never come back again.

The saddest part of this is how Franken's the only Senator to even find a luncheon between Democrats and T. Boone Pickens to be weird.

The Ultimate Coda

INT. HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING - DAY

Al Franken, after being sworn in as the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate, goes back to his office and shuffles through his mail, and he finds a $96,000 check from the Minnesota Republican Party that Norm Coleman's campaign owed him as part of the "loser pays" laws in the Land of 1,000 Lakes. And there's even an extra $872 in interest.

Franken chuckles as we CRANE SHOT out....

*************

Sadly, I think we'd like it all better if the movie ended there, rather than having to watch the horror show of what this group of Democrats will do with that 60-vote majority.

Al Franken Is A US Senator

Hope for us ex-comics everywhere.



I too miss funny Al. And while I understand the desire not to give the right any openings, if he truly wants to follow the legacy of Paul Wellstone, he's going to have to be loud and unyielding. And you use what you've got, and for Franken, that's wit. So the whole "I want to be a work horse, not a show horse" thing makes sense at the beginning, but I hope he doesn't forget his roots. I'm not looking for him to pull out a full-length mirror or put a mobile satellite dish on his head, but some occasional displays of satire or sarcasm will do.

And yes, Franken is a policy wonk, which is sadly rare under the Capitol dome.

IOKIYAR

Actor/Senator Fred Thompson can't believe America would elect a former celebrity to the Senate.

I find this historical amnesia to be all too prevalent.

Coleman Gives Up

Wow, I didn't see that coming. He said he would abide by the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling and congratulated Al Franken as the newest Senator from Minnesota.

I guess seven months was enough. What a stand-up guy!

The Al Franken Decade

It took almost a decade for this recount to resolve itself, but the Minnesota Supreme Court rendered their verdict in the Franken-Coleman Senate case, and it's a sweep for Franken, as expected.

In the Matter of the Contest of the General Election held on November 4, 2008, for the purpose of electing a United States Senator from the State of Minnesota, Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman, contestants, Appellants vs. Al Franken, contestee, Respondent.

1. Appellants did not establish that, by requiring proof that statutory absentee voting standards were satisfied before counting a rejected absentee ballot, the trial court's decision constituted a post-election change in standards that violates substantive due process.

2. Appellants did not prove that either the trial court or local election officials violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded additional evidence.

4. Inspection of ballots under Minn. Stat. § 209.06 (2008) is available only on a showing that the requesting party cannot properly be prepared for trial without an inspection. Because appellants made no such showing here, the trial court did not err in denying inspection.

5. The trial court did not err when it included in the final election tally the election day returns of a precinct in which some ballots were lost before the manual recount.

And here's the money quote:

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.

Tim Pawlenty has said all along that he would certify the winner of the election if the Minnesota Supreme Court told him to do so. They have now told him. But all along he gave himself an out, that he would certify it as long as another court didn't tell him to stop pending another appeal. Coleman could proceed to the federal courts at this point, and national Republicans have been happy to bankroll him on that fruitless quest and keep Al Franken out of the Senate as long as possible. Also, Senate Republicans could actually filibuster Franken's entry into the Senate, even with a signed certificate. I'm skeptical that this will move so smoothly from here.

More from Eric Kleefeld.

...Here's the head-of-a-pin dance that Pawlenty could spin:

The bottom line is that the Court says that Franken is entitled to an election certificate, but there is no direct order to the state's governor to sign one. We'll see what the governor does, if Coleman does not concede, as he well may at this point. If not, the opinion is not final until the period for rehearing ends (see the final footnote of the opinion). That's a ten day period, enough time to file an emergency stay application in the U.S. Supreme Court. It would go to Justice Alito, now circuit justice for the Eighth Circuit.

Pawlenty Will Seat Franken - Unless He Doesn't Have To

Roll Call relies on some sources in the Coleman camp and concludes that the former Senator may give up the fight on appealing the election victory of Al Franken if the State Supreme Court comes down against him, because "Coleman anticipates that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) would ultimately sign Franken's certification papers."

Maybe Coleman knows something I don't, and probably so. But it looks to me that Pawlenty has given himself plenty of outs.

Pawlenty appeared this afternoon on the Neil Cavuto show, and Cavuto observed that Pawlenty's decision to not run for a third term, which many people see as a possible lead-up to a presidential campaign in 2012, also frees him up to fight for Norm Coleman. Pawlenty denied that he would behave in such a manner -- but he did point out some possible circumstances that could hold things up further:

"So you could be signing a certificate that would turn that Senate seat over to the Democrat Al Franken?" Cavuto asked. "And that would probably not suit you well."

"Well, I hope not, but you know I have to follow the law," Pawlenty responded. "You know, Neil, if the Minnesota Supreme Court says, 'You sign the certificate' -- and there's not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court -- you know, that's my duty." (emphasis mine)

In other words, he'll sign the certificate as long as Coleman doesn't appeal to federal courts. And there's no real time-sensitive limit on how long Pawlenty could wait for that appeal to transpire.

I just don't think it's a closed deal, and Democrats need to keep up the pressure to get Franken seated.

...Kevin Drum is pretty skeptical of the sourcing on Coleman's wavering.

Pawlenty Readies To Defy Minnesota Courts

That's how I read this announcement:

Two sources have confirmed that Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will announce that he will not seek re-election in 2010.

The sources confirmed to WCCO-TV political reporter Pat Kessler that the announcement about Pawlenty's future plans will include an announcement that he will not seek a third term.

The announcement is expected to be made at a 2 p.m. press conference.

Pawlenty wants to run for President, and maybe wants to free his schedule for 2011 (although that didn't exactly work out for Mitt Romney). He also might want to avoid a re-election fight in a blue state after years of budget deficits and recessions. This is a bad time to be a Governor.

But clearly, not having to face Minnesota voters again frees him up to do whatever he deems necessary with respect to the US Senate election. Al Franken will probably get approval from the state Supreme Court within a couple weeks as the winner of the election. At that point the Court will, in all likelihood, request a certificate of election for Franken to be seated. The people of Minnesota want two Senators again. Pawlenty, by taking himself out of the running, removes himself of accountability and can now be free to show Republican primary voters what a good soldier he is. He'll refuse to sign the certificate. Heck, he makes this announcement THE DAY after the Supreme Court heard arguments in the Franken-Coleman case. He's practically begging you to make the connection.

MN-Sen: State Supremes Hear Oral Arguments

Al Franken and Norm Coleman's lawyers had their oral arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court today, the last step before resolving this battle at the statewide level. Eric Kleefeld has a recap of the questions to Coleman's lawyers and Franken's lawyers, and Rick Hasen offers these thoughts:

1. It is always dangerous to guess how a court is going to come out based upon oral argument. But there's good reason here to believe that the state Supreme Court Justices went into this with their minds made up: this case has been expedited pursuant to state law, and they've had two weeks (including three weekends) to think about how to decide this case based upon the briefs. They likely had a draft opinion or set of opinions in front of them. So this oral argument may be more of a tip off than most.

2. There's no question that Coleman's side got much tougher question than Franken's side, and based upon oral argument I would not be surprised to see a unanimous decision in favor of Franken in a relatively short time frame (within two weeks--maybe sooner). I counted at least three of the five Justices who were much more willing to accept Franken's arguments than Coleman's arguments, and who asked Coleman's side much more difficult questions.

The real question comes after this, when the Minnesota Supremes offer their expected verdict. Will they ask for the certification of the election (probably yes)? Will Governor Tim Pawlenty sign that certificate (depends on who he thinks is the audience - Minnesotans, or an imagined 2012 Republican primary electorate)? Will Republicans in the Senate allow Franken's seating (not hard to answer that one)? And will Coleman sue in federal court? Hasen has the outline of an answer for that:

Near the end of the argument, (Coleman lawyer Joe) Friedberg suggested that if the state Supreme Court affirmed under a strict compliance standard, it would create (or exacerbate) the federal constitutional problems that Coleman has been pushing. These are arguments Coleman may try to advance, assuming he loses in this court, in a cert. petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, or in a separate federal lawsuit. In pieces at Slate, the ACS Blog, and the LA Times, I have considered both the merits of those constitutional arguments and whether they need to be addressed in a separate federal court action.

Coleman's argument, essentially, is that we cannot know the outcome, it's chaos, and so we cannot seat Al Franken. They've offered little definable proof for this, and were criticized on this point in court today. But that's what they're going with. And it makes sense if you understand that Coleman does not seek another term, but only to play the role of a linebacker keeping Franken out of the end zone. It's obstructionism writ large. The question remains, how much patience will Republicans have for this tactic?

You Can Do A Lot With Forty Votes

Just now the Senate filibustered their first Obama Administration nominee, David Hayes, who was bidding to be the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, because conservatives are seeking revenge for Ken Salazar's early moves at shutting down some of the worst oil and gas leases approved by the Bush Administration. Looking at the roll call, John Kerry and Barbara Mikulski missed the vote (Kerry was at a funeral for an Iraq soldier), and so eventually this guy will get confirmed. And I don't want to let Harry Reid off the hook - he screwed up the vote counting on this one, and his reticence to try and confirm Dawn Johnsen as head of the OLC shows an inability to count votes, twist arms, hold his caucus, and really show any kind of leadership.

However, this is an example of the mischief a Republican caucus can still cause, especially with only 99 Senators seated and Al Franken sitting out in Minnesota. Yesterday, Judd Gregg made this very clear:

But in a 99-member Senate, 40 votes are enough to keep Democrats from cutting off debate on major legislation. "Usually you need 41 votes to get anything done around here. But right now, you can do a lot with 40 votes,'' said Judd Gregg.

What a pleasing coincidence for these Republicans! Fortunately, their colleague Norm Coleman, who is being bankrolled by the Republican National Committee and wealthy Republican donors, and without any coordination with Republicans in Washington, just happens to be throwing up whatever obstacle he can to keep Franken from getting seated. That just works out famously for Judd Gregg and his Senate pals.

In this sense, Norm Coleman remains a sitting Senator. Since his party just votes no anyway, his absence is as good as a vote to uphold the filibuster. You could say that Coleman is the most active inactive Senator in American history.

Making Norm Coleman Pay, One Dollar At A Time

Norm Coleman finally got around to filing his appeal of the three-judge panel's ruling that Al Franken won the Minnesota Senate election by 312 votes. It's funny that he and his lawyers stated their intention to appeal for months, and only got around to it seven days after the ruling. Why, it's as if they were intentionally dragging their feet to delay the seating of Senator Franken!

The filing is here. And I liked this question from the Minnesota press:

St. Paul Pioneer Press reporter Jason Hoppin asked what made Coleman think the ballots he wants opened and counted would break his way, when batches of ballots opened during the recount and the election contest trial favored Franken.

After commenting that “you guys like asking this question don’t you, Jason?” Ginsberg said absentee ballots opened since the election have been more from precincts that favored Franken than Coleman. The ballots Coleman wants counted come from precincts that favored him, Ginsberg claimed.

Except Franken has consistently won absentee ballots regardless of the district.

To this point, the protracted court battle has worked out pretty good for Norm Coleman and the Republicans. For a relatively low price, Coleman has denied Democrats a 59th seat in the Senate, with little additional consequence. Until now. This is an ingenious idea from Adam Green.

Recently, I critiqued the DSCC's "petition" asking Norm Coleman to get out -- saying there was no "theory of change" about why people taking that action would have any impact.

To be constructive, I gave a free piece of advice to the DSCC on how to organize people strategically: ask people to give $1/day until Norm goes away. If Republicans in DC saw the DSCC's warchest growing by the day, their incentives would reverse -- instead of telling Norm to keep going, they'd tell him to get lost.

The DSCC didn't take that advice. But Howard Dean's Democracy for America was all about it, and partnered with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (which I co-founded) to make it happen at NormDollar.com. Instead of raising money to help generic Democrats, we're raising it to support bold progressives in 2010.

Since Saturday, over $20,000 has been raised -- prompting news coverage in the New York Times, ABC, Politico, Huffington Post, and great support at Digby's blog, MyDD, CrooksandLiars, FDL, Senate Guru, The Seminal, The MN Progressive Project, and other blogs.

I'm sold. And you should join the NormDollar.com campaign as well. Even if Coleman continues to delay the result of the election, at least progressive candidates will get richer in the exchange.

Elections Are A Minor Inconvenience

Minnesotans want Norm Coleman to concede, by a two-to-one margin, so they can move on with full representation in their government. And the DNC has turned up the pressure by demanding that Coleman concede. But Norm Coleman and his business buddies don't care.

A group of several dozen of the most influential business lobbyists in Washington is vowing to raise and spend whatever it takes to bankroll Norm Coleman’s upcoming appeal fight, in the wake of a three-judge ruling declaring that Al Franken defeated Coleman in the Minnesota Senate race.

The group of lobbyists, which calls itself “Team Coleman,” is made up of some of the biggest players in D.C.’s permanent lobbying establishment, and includes executives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association and others.

“We will raise as much as is necessary,” Dirk Van Dongen, a leading member of Team Coleman and the president of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, told me in an interview. “We’ll keep raising money as Norm needs it. We continue to be active in raising resources for Norm to carry out this fight to the end." [...]

But Democrats are likely to point to the lobbyists’ fundraising as proof that they’re merely keeping this battle alive to keep the seat vacant and prevent Dems from getting a leg up in the big upcoming policy battles involving the business lobbies, such as the battle over the Employee Free Choice Act.

Van Dongen (who is the father of WhoRunsGov editor Rachel Van Dongen) rejected that claim.

“That’s a side benefit,” Van Dongen said, when asked if the goal was to keep the seat vacant. “But this is all about us doing everything we can to be sure that Norm has had a fair election and to get him back in his Senate seat. We’d be doing exactly the same thing if the Republicans were in the majority.”

Well, there you have it. The amount of corporate money plowed into a doomed-to-fail project is a small price to pay for the "side benefit" of keeping that 59th Democratic vote out of the Senate. I wonder if Team Coleman funded any of the tea parties, too.

And we're beginning to see this obstruction and delegitimizing of the election system as a pattern. In NY-20, where Scott Murphy has moved into the lead on the strength of absentee votes and is heavily favored for victory if the numbers continue to flow in at this level, the Republican candidate Jim Tedisco and his buddies from the Brooks Brothers Riot Roger Stone and John Sweeney have decided that their best option is to suppress as many votes as possible, and use the language of "voter fraud" to deny legitimate voters the franchise. Despite the fact that actual cases of fraud are almost nonexistent. Not even the junior Senator from New York has been spared.

This just in from Columbia County: when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s absentee ballot came up in the queue, the poll watchers for Jim Tedisco objected to it, saying the senator was in the county on election day and should have voted in person.

Gillibrand's office maintains that she wasn't in the county on Election Day.

And today, a judge said that most of Tedisco's 1,200 objections are invalid. But this statement by a Tedisco ally says it all.

They're not doing it because they believe the votes to be illegitimate, really. What they're doing, in the days and now hours leading up to the court hearings that will decide the outcome of the race between Republican Jim Tedisco and Democrat Scott Murphy, is creating a fact on the ground for the judiciary to overturn, if it dares [...]

"It's always better to be ahead-that's the whole goal of this process," said Nick Spano, a Yonkers Republican and former state senator who came out on the right side of a lengthy recount process in 2004, eventually winning by 18 votes.

This will never end. The Coleman and Tedisco cases can be put on a continuum. Conservatives now see electoral results as simply a starting point. They have adopted the cries of "stolen elections" from 2000 and 2004 and turned them right around. It was all so very predictable. They've had a plan for stealing elections for years and years, and Coleman and Tedisco are just following the playbook.

The latest and most elaborate of these jokes is the urban legend that American elections are rife with voter fraud, particularly in the kinds of poor and minority neighborhoods inhabited by Democrats. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that fraudulent voting would be a major target of the Department of Justice. As the New York Times reported last month, the main result of this massive effort was such coups as the deportation of a legal immigrant who mistakenly filled out a voter-registration card while waiting in line at the department of motor vehicles.

But the administration has remained ferociously committed to suppressing voter fraud -- as soon as it can find some. In April of last year, Karl Rove warned a Republican lawyers' group that "we have, as you know, an enormous and growing problem with elections in certain parts of America today. We are, in some parts of the country, I'm afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses. I mean, it's a real problem.

"I appreciate that all that you're doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the ballot -- the integrity of the ballot is protected, because it's important to our democracy."

The goals here are to intimidate and alienate people from the voting process, suppress as many votes as possible, and delegitimize the victory, even if the Democrats manage to run the legal gauntlet and win. Eventually, Al Franken and Scott Murphy will be seated in Congress. But there's no harm for the Republicans to just keep on with the same dirty tactics, with a look to the next election, when they can whisper about how "the Democrats stole the last one."

...Howard Dean on Hardball today: "This could be a national pattern ... this looks like a national attempt by the Republicans to keep people out of office if they have a D after their name."

DNC Finally On The Offense

They had to wait until the decision was handed down, but now that a three-judge panel has ruled that Al Franken won the election, and now that the conservative movement is fracturing, they can cleanly come out and tell Norm Coleman to go home.

Gov. KAINE: Norm Coleman lost on Election Day, he lost the recount, now he's lost a stinging rejection in court. My sense is the only reason anybody is prolonging this is they're trying to delay putting somebody in the Senate who will be willing to vote with President Obama to accomplish what is right for this nation. It is time to stop disenfranchising Minnesotans, put a second Senator in for that state, and set this behind us.

And the DNC is putting its money where its mouth is by running radio ads in Minnesota, saying that Franken is "entitled to receive the certificate of election."

It's well beyond time to put this pressure on, although the ask shouldn't have been to call Norm Coleman but to call Gov. Pawlenty and tell him to sign that certificate immediately.

MN-Sen: Pawlenty Lets His Slip Show

It was quite fun watching Joe Scarborough jump off the Good Ship Norm Coleman this morning. And I agree that the lack of any statement from the top Republican campaign arm in the Senate or the RNC is quite telling. But ultimately, the conservative movement has shown no ability to be swayed by the media or public opinion, and I'm confident that they will continue to obstruct for obstruction's sake:

For weeks, Pawlenty has said he would take direction from the courts, but is now suggesting that he could wait beyond the conclusion of state appeals if the case heads to federal court.

"I don't know whether [the certificate] would be required to be issued. I think it could be issued at that time," said Pawlenty. "I'm not saying I wouldn't issue the certificate. I'm just saying we should have all of the facts in front of us before we precommit to something like that." [...]

For his part, Pawlenty said the loser may decide against appealing in federal court. But if an appeal is filed, Pawlenty said he may wait to see how the courts handle Coleman's argument that there was not a uniform standard used to count the votes.

"I also would want to look at what the courts did with the case in terms of leaving issues for potential appeal, the strength of those issues, how directly and effectively they addressed them," said Pawlenty. "I'm not saying that I'm going to, or not going to, issue the certificate at that point. I just want to make sure I have all the facts in front of me before I made a decision like that."

"With all due respect to Gov. Pawlenty, it's not his job or his role to try to second-guess or Monday-morning quarterback the State Supreme Court," said Marc Elias, an attorney for Democrat Al Franken.

Pawlenty can issue the election certificate as soon as the Minnesota Supreme Court rules on the appeal (which I'm sure Coleman will wait the full 10 days to file). He's threatening here to drag it out as Coleman tries his luck in the federal courts. And even if he goes ahead and signs the certificate, the obstructionist caucus in the Senate will probably filibuster Franken's seating. If that doesn't argue for fundamental change in the Senate rules, nothing will.

...in a conference call, the Coleman campaign affirmed that they will appeal, but of course they haven't filed the appeal and will probably wait the full 10 days to drag it out. BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR ENTIRE M.O.

FWIW

Al Franken won the 2008 Senate election in Minnesota.

Over five months after the election, a three-judge panel has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race.

The judges issued their final ruling late Monday, stating "Franken received the highest number of lawfully cast ballots in the Nov. 4, 2008 general election."

They also have determined that Franken is entitled to receive the certificate of election.

In most countries, this would mean that Franken would receive that certificate and actually enter the Senate. But as long as Norm Coleman has a few wealthy benefactors willing to bankroll him, he can appeal. Again and again. Now, the Supreme Court might not have anyone available to hear that appeal, since two justices served on the state canvassing board, and one has donated money to Norm Coleman in the past. But of course, the Minnesota Supreme Court is just a stepping stone to a federal district court of appeals. Which is just a stepping stone to the US Supreme Court. Which is just a stepping stone to some other judicial body Coleman can find. Which is just a stepping stone to the 2014 rematch. Franken will only have been an incumbent for a few months by then.

...That's amusing, the three-judge panel cited Bush v. Gore in their opinion - specifically, the part where it declares itself "limited to the present circumstance."

Buh-Bye, Norm, The Rats Are Jumping

After seeing the culmination of a months-long trial result in Norm Coleman being further behind, the more intellectually honest conservatives are jumping off the ship. Ramesh Ponnuru says "I think it's time for him to give up this fight." A Minnesota paper that endorsed Coleman wants him to give up. And Powerliner Scoot Johnson, in a bold rush of reality-based thinking, actually sets the wingnut faction straight on the "Franken stole the election" nonsense.

The erosion of Senator Coleman’s approximately 215-vote lead over Franken after the election canvass, and the emergence of Al Franken with a 225-vote lead over Coleman on January 5 after the recount, have given rise to the implication that Franken stole the election. The January 5 Wall Street Journal editorial “Funny business in Minnesota” is representative of this strain of commentary, which implies that Coleman has been a victim of Democratic shenanigans.

For a while, I thought so, too. If I had observed the events through the media outside Minnesota, I would still think so. As a Minnesotan with a closer view, with friends lodged in every corner of the post-election proceedings, I have a different perspective on the chain of events that has brought Coleman to his imminent loss to Franken [...]

The Board of Canvassers that was convened to preside over the recount and rule on challenged ballots conducted itself honorably under difficult circumstances. In addition to board chairman Mark Ritchie, the Man from ACORN who is Minnesota’s secretary of state, four judges served on the board: Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, Associate Justice Barry Anderson, and Ramsey County District Court Judges Ed Cleary and Kathleen Gearin.

I have known Chief Justice Magnuson professionally for more than 25 years. Justice Anderson was my law-school classmate and is my friend. In my view, they are two of the best judges serving in the Minnesota courts. Although the board’s rulings on challenged ballots favored Franken during the recount, there was no noticeable partisan division among the board. Accordingly, the imputation of misconduct to the board such as is implicit in the Journal editorial is misplaced. Whatever inconsistencies the board committed in ruling on challenged ballots and other issues does not appear to have resulted from partisan mischief. In any event, the board’s ruling on challenged ballots put Franken up by only 49 votes.

He's still Scott Johnson from Powerline, so he can't resist a few shots, but he basically admits that Franken's team did a better job in the post-election phase of things, and they didn't steal the election. Which is the most I can hope for out of someone like him.

Of course, to assess Norm Coleman's legal team on the basis of wanting to win the election is I think misplaced. For several months their entire focus has been to delay the final conclusion. While Johnson claims Coleman's lawyers just bungled the case, in truth they simply drew it out, once defeat was made inevitable by virtue of all the wrongly rejected absentee ballots. Since then, they have executed their legal strategy perfectly, evidenced by the fact that Al Franken remains a Senator-elect and not a United States Senator. But the wavering in the conservative community might actually bring this to a somewhat swifter conclusion.

+87

How many more times do we have to go through this?

351 ballots were counted today.

It was aired live via The Uptake.

They just announced that, of the 351 counted, the breakdown was:
Senator-elect Al Franken: 198
Norm Coleman: 111
Other: 42

Senator-elect Franken picked up 87 votes. Added to the 225-vote tally, Senator-elect Franken leads by at least 312 votes (and that is before taking into account the "Nauen61" case that may add dozens more Franken votes to the tally).

Norm Coleman has found himself further behind at every single step of this process. It's truly embarrassing that this continues to be allowed to go forward. We need a fast-tracked appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and then a signed certificate of election. Al Franken has won this race.