Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Norm Coleman says that the “healing process” is too important for further election challenges

By

It’s true — when asked what he’d do if the results showed him down by a few votes, here’s what he said:

If you’re asking me what I would do, I would step back.  I just think the need for the healing process is so important, the possibility of any change of this magnitude in the voting system we have is so remote, that would be my judgment.

Oh, but wait, that was two months ago, when the initial count showed Coleman ahead by under 600 votes.  Now, when a more accurate count shows him behind by about 250 votes — and when there is virtually no “possibility of any change of this magnitude” as a result of further challenges — he’s singing a much different tune.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Watch Coleman’s original “healing process” comment:

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. A n apparent democtartically controlled machine like Illinois and Massachusetts  oops and  N Mexico. Looks like Richardson is facing indictment. How come nothing in BMG on the current cu;ture of corruption in the democratic party. Now Leon Penneta. Remember duck and cover and the bomb shelters of the 50’s and 60’s. Ahhhhh back to the good old days.

  5. I think Republicans are far more interested in winning than they are in rule of law, honesty, or even basic consistency. It goes hand in hand with their “better to be feared than respected” mantra. Will the GOP will be recognizable if they ever become intellectually honest?

    <

    p>For your enjoyment, read Josh Marshall’s take down of a WSJ editorial on the election:
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…

    <

    p>Have the Republicans who complain about this election process also come forward to complain about Coleman’s corruption?

    • How does the “Law” interpret it when 25 precincts have more ballots than registered voters? Is voting twice in Minnesota legal?

      • Those 25 precincts have gotten a lot of play since some wingnut asserted it as truth – funny that no one can actually name the precincts, eh?  Here’s a handy link to a PDF of the precinct-by-precinct results from the MN Sec. of State’s office:

        <

        p>http://www.sos.state.mn.us/doc…

        <

        p>Show us the 25 precincts with more ballots than registered voters, please…

        • http://online.wsj.com/article/…

          <

          p>Aside from this mess… I think we need to do something about our voting methods. Why does this stuff keep happening? My wife is a precinct ward(?) in our town and she said they NEVER have these issues and recounts almost always come out correct to the vote, exactly.

          <

          p>Are people just plain stupid? Thy even have displays and helpful hints even a moron could follow. We need to stop having debates “after” an election on who won, be it Coleman, Franken, Gore…

          • …and it offers no proof of the 25 precinct claim, just like the Coleman campaign was unable to do when they tried to have those ballots excluded from the count.  The court rejected their motion for lack of evidence – if the claim were true, the Coleman campaign would have presented evidence for it, wouldn’t they??

            <

            p>In the past, I’ve asked you why you continue to listen to people who lie to you, John, and I have to ask again.  They lied to you about the 25 precincts, you accepted it on faith, and then logged on over here and posted it as if its truth.  Why do you do that?

            • I then read about it in the WSJ. Why would I jump to the conclusion that all those people were lying to me? Maybe it is a lie or just plain wrong but like you I work for a living and when I hear something reported on numerous media venues I normally believe it. If this is untrue then I’m sorry, it wasn’t malicious on my part.

              <

              p>This thing looks like it is going to court so maybe the truth will be determined once and for all. And while I cannot stand Al Franken and the thought of him being a US Senator is revolting (to me), if he has more legitimate votes then he legally deserves gets the seat and I would fight for him to get it.

              • You make my point for me – if all of your sources are known liars, then your head will be filled with lies.  Fox News actually sued in Florida court for the right to lie in its broadcasts:

                <

                p>

                During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

                <

                p>Source:  http://www.projectcensored.org…

                <

                p>Do yourself and the rest of us a favor – stop listening to liars, and find impartial sources for your news.

                • I will not comment on a fact if the only place I heard it was on Fox and/or WTKK. One concern I have if when I hear people like Chris Matthews espouse how he will de everything he can to make Obama’s Presidency a success. How far does that “do everything” go? Does it mean NOT reporting on news that would hurt Obama’s efforts? Is this journalism? There are plenty of stories (John Edward’s love child) that get reported on conservative leaning channels that MSM and lefty media won’t even mention but turn out to be true. AND when MSM reports news reports which are not true, should listeners stop watching that organization of liars?

                  <

                  p>Who would you recommend as “impartial”? Certainly not NBC, CNBC or MSNBC. Or Fox.

                • …to make Obama’s presidency a success, John.  As to what Tweety means by that statement, you’d have to ask him for clarification.  But let me ask you this – we’re all in this boat together, aren’t we?  Are you so ideologically bound to your views that you’d prefer 4 or 8 years of partisan gridlock to progress?  If there’s anything we need, deperately and right now, it’s progress – staying mired in the same old fight isn’t doing anyone any good.

                  <

                  p>As to how to find impartiallity, just go looking for the other side of the story – there’s usually two sides (and several shades of gray in between) to every story.  You need to detach yourself from the lens of your own bias and try to find the truth – challenge your belief system a little, maybe you’ll finally find out why we can’t just get along…

                • but I have said emphatically since the election that I want him to succeed for the sake of the country . There is far too much at stake for ideological, partisan or any other slant to trump survival of the country and our kids. I have never said anything indicating that I wanted gridlock or unsupported partisan opposition to Obama for no valid reason. No dispute with me John.

                  <

                  p>That said, I don’t want journalists to have such a stake that they would agree to not publish the news or over-inflate the truth concerning Obama. They are suppose to be journalist and/or reporters to “report the news”. I want everyone in the country to support whatever plan it takes to get us back on track but I honestly don’t believe that correlates to blindly supporting Obama and any plan(s) he puts forward. So I can support Obama trying to fix the economy but still have a problem with issues such as Leon Panetta for running the CIA. It’s a time for supporting merit based initiatives not propaganda. And if there is “pork” in the stimulus plan, then I will oppose that pork.

  6. On the House floor in 1995 he scolded members who might go back on their promise to limit their tenure in office. “The best test of any politicians’ credibility on term limits,” he said, “is whether they are willing to put their careers where their mouths are and limit their own service.” Despite his pledge, Meehan again ran for Congress in the year 2000, exceeding four terms.

    • This was an example of a Republican doing something different than what he just said he wouldn’t/would do. My point is many politicians do that regardless of the party. Marty Meehan did it and won reelection so I guess voters don;t really give a rats ass if their guy lies! They do it right to our faces and we vote them back in, no wonder they push the limits of ethics, we let them.

      <

      p>When the Blago fiasco started to break there were countless Democrats (and Republicans) who said outright, “We will not accept any nominee from Gov Blago!” They were emphatic about it… now they are reversing their words to us and appear to be accepting the nominee. Politicians lie to us, change their minds, “quality” their answers later (what is “is”) … bottom line is don’t EVER trust a thing they say… ever!

Archives