Your contention that the Minnesota senate race should end right here, right now--with your guy is ahead--reminds me of Karl Rove and Karen Hughes circa 2000. Let's review: Mr. Franken went to court to have inappropriately rejected absentee ballots included in the tally. The court promptly concurred. Mr. Coleman has made the same argument in court...and has yet to get an answer. So the let's-move-on-folks-there's-nothing-to-see-here rush to have the matter settled without further litigation is pretty rich. Minnesota law provides that certification is conditional pending a lawsuit by either candidate and I have a hunch that if Franken had come up short at this point your kingly proclamation might go a different way.

LAMBERT: The King doesn't think he likes your tone. More to the point His Highness is under the distinct impression that Franken went to court to count IMPROPERLY rejected absentee ballots, which seems both logical and appropriate, while Coleman is seeking to somehow CREATE more absentee ballots, which seems unlikely. Further, his assertion about double-counting, while something that should be ascertained, seems unlikely as well, at least to the point where it would have any effect on the outcome.

Eleven: All members of the King's Court must wear electric blue tights to remind the King of his forgotten youth and sartorial splendor.

LAMBERT: The King is preparing a gibbet for you.

Restore the Fairness Doctrine, you say? I'm with you.

But if you're king,and can do that, please try to restore anti-trust laws as well. They haven't been enforced since before Bill Clinton was president (meaning, he didn't enforce them, either.)

Hasn't that worked out nicely?

LAMBERT: The King is inclined to put an end to trading in derivatives, and prefers his peaceful land return to the days of making things that you can see and touch.

Would the King consider as an addendum to either his 4th or 5th proclamations that both the Strib and the PiPress shut down both their websites and cease competing with themselves?

This loyal serf heard this morning on the humorless MN Public Radio an intriguing interview during "Future Tense" with the editor of an alternative newspaper, Tri Cities something or other (it's not up on their website) who has chosen not to follow the "herd off the cliff," has he puts it, and put his newspaper on the web.

He doesn't see what advantage it would afford him to, as he puts it, compete with his print product, which brings in vastly more ad revenue than what adding a web component offers, not to mention the added costs of an on-line version of the paper.

LAMBERT: Intermediate to long term, its the print version that qualifies as "added cost". I think every publisher cringes at the thought of his web site sucking ad dollars from his print product, but they've decided they have no choice but to position themselves for the fast-arriving "great transition", when every web site is in effect a TV station, a radio station and a down-loadable hard copy service.

"Franken went to court to count IMPROPERLY rejected absentee ballots, which seems both logical and appropriate, while Coleman is seeking to somehow CREATE more absentee ballots, which seems unlikely."

Franken's definition of improperly rejected ballots was grey. Even if it did not meet one of the legal requirements to validate an absentee ballot, Franken was ready to bring legal action to make it count. Oh and yes how can we forget his 85 year old stroke victim friend which turned out to be a hoax. How is Coleman "creating" ballots? Coleman's camp claims that the 653 ballots are improperly rejected - I thought that Franken and team were against vote supression. Perhaps Coleman is using some of the tools of contacting rejected absentee voters like our hero Franken did a few weeks back.

"Further, his assertion about double-counting, while something that should be ascertained, seems unlikely as well, at least to the point where it would have any effect on the outcome."

Well 133 votes in a margin of 225 is considerable, especially if the inconsistant way that absentee votes were counted is reconsidered. There is no way that if Franken were behind by 225, 300, 500 - that he would not be searching the state for more down trotten disenfranchised citizens to put youtube videos up and start up law suits. Also the King would be encouraging Franken to keep up the fight.

LAMBERT: The King is displeased. As I say, though Mr. Franken may not be your ideal candidate, the courts have concluded that his request for inclusion of improperly rejected ballots was valid. i don't see them taking the same attitude with Coleman's assertion that there are even more a this very late date to be included. Moreover, I expect you to volunteer to reimburse the state for legal fees generated defending ourselves from the losing candidate.

To the King rule number one -
Does this mean that we can expect conservative voices to counter the "in the know" segments on Channel 4, PBS, NPR/MPR, or the few Air America stations still remaining? (the bankrup chain of stations that Al Franken was a frontman for)

And why stop at conservative/liberal, does the green party, constitution party, communist party have a chance to speak too? I wouldn't put Ventura and Barkely in the same category as Lewis and Shelby, wouldn't it be in the public interest to provide that movement air time also?

You missed Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews in your list of "flat out fools".

LAMBERT: I have said before that I'd like Olbermann a lot more if he went up against more wing nuts. And sure, drop Grover Norquist in with Rachel Maddow or Bill Moyers. Anyone you've got, really. The whole exercise would be edifying. I personally don't foresee "my side" losing any ground. The third/fourth/fifth parties can wait.

Re: No. 1... If you're going to require conservative talk shows to hand over air time to liberals, are you going to require liberal newsrooms to hand over newshole or Web pages or air time to those on the right? It isn't only the content that matters, it's the agenda behind the content, the slant given to allegedly unbiased "news" stories or the types of stories pursued vs. those ignored. Liberals dominate the editorial decision-making of most media outlets, yet the only one people want "fairness" applied to is talk radio?

LAMBERT: As in the case of Ms. Kersten I have no objection to conservatives saying whatever they want in daily newspapers. Let's just be careful that there are no double standards applied. If a "metro colunnist" must "report" than all must "report" or move to adifferent department. And while the average newsroom is tough place for your average Sean Hannity-style ideologue -- facts and accuracy matter, you know -- the Strib is a good example of "editorial control" being exerted from higher up than inked stained wretches. Play back on Coleman's problems? No official indignation over Wilf's plans? But essentially I have no problem with a face-off in any medium. The bottom line is factual accuracy. What do we have to do to insure it? The focus on radio is because radio operates on public airwaves.

By disenfranchising the "third, fourth. fifth" parties, or opinions, points of view is what points out the flaws in the whole argument for a fairness doctrine. They can wait? Huh? Isn't Jesse's opinion valid? Unlike pundits (Olberman, Hannity) the population is not black and white thinkers - if everyone was a fairness doctrine would be easy to measure.

I still say - why does the fairness doctrine only get pushed when it comes to talk radio. Broadcast TV has tons of agenda setting messages 24 horus a day, from a PBS documentary to a tabloid talk show. I am guessing the King would welcome the Grover Norquist in front of the green screen after Shelby's "In the Know".

LAMBERT: Again, the point of talk radio is that operates via scarce frequencies on public airwaves and has a (laughable) commitment to community service, of which misinformation does not qualify. What the King wants is more debate in pursuit of truth. If someone wants to get in Don Shelby's face for his support for food shelves, fine. I don't think Don has anything to worry about.

"As I say, though Mr. Franken may not be your ideal candidate, the courts have concluded that his request for inclusion of improperly rejected ballots was valid"
The Supreme court agreed to allow votes that both campaigns agree on, not the legality of the vote.

"Moreover, I expect you to volunteer to reimburse the state for legal fees generated defending ourselves from the losing candidate".

Interesting, so if Franken had lost the re-count would one suggest that he should reimburse the state when Coleman was ahead by 700-200 votes after election day? Everyone said Franken was using his legal right for a re-count, well Coleman is using his legal rights to contest a cherry picked re-count that defies statstical logic.
If more valid votes are for Coleman, than it is the government that has to defend itself from the voters and Coleman.
Would you feel the same about Franken conceeding if he were under by 225 votes, with an alleged 654 votes of disenfranchised ballots? It would have been another right wing stolen election.

LAMBERT: The operative myth here is that Franken should have recognized Coleman's "victory" on Nov. 4 and done the decent thing and conceded. Never mind the automatic recount provision. Where Coleman is at now is asserting that he has been screwed over by a completely transparent recount process observed in microscopic detail by both parties and not one, but a pattern, of bias, wrong-headed rulings by the Supreme Court.

Get out your check book.

This list reminds of your editorial last year in which you argued that, since it has been poven that humans cause global warming, newspapers should no longer print any news story or opinion piece that calls that into question. After mulling it over, I don't want to live in your kingdom. If you haven't already burned all of the copies in your realm, you may want to check out Jonah Goldberg's "Lberal Fascism". You can read about a lot of other lefties that found opposing points of view to be irksome.

LAMBERT: You're inferring that based on the research of people like Jonah Goldberg, Matt Drudge and ... name your favorite obscure South Australian economics professor ... that climate change has no human component? My point was, when and if the "hoax" crowd comes up with something approaching science, have the debate. Until then you're filling your product with "flat earth" BS purely to appease a partisan wing. And again -- I want face to face debates. I salivate at the thought of Rush Limbaugh on a stage opposite Al Franken.

You could maybe shorten the list by combining one and ten through professionalizing punditry. Right now the only requirements for a pundit are a good tailor, family connections and effrontery. And as long as one continues to go to the right DC dinner parties and repeat the chatter there, one cannot fall out of the pundit class--and it really is a class or caste rather than an occupation.

Instead why not treat punditry as a profession roughly like law, medicine or teaching. First, would-be pundits would have to provide objective evidence that they actually know something about an important subject like economics or foreign policy. Then they would be expected to provide evidence for their assertions; their predictions would be checked against what actually happened. They could be disbarred for a variety of forms of malpractice such as mindlessly repeating disproven spin points or not having at least one original idea in six months.

Even better it would open up the possibility of malpractice suits; Kristol alone could subsidize a third world nation.

LAMBERT: "Right now the only requirements for a pundit are a good tailor, family connections and effrontery."

The King is amused.

Re global warming, for your reading please:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

They're leaving the party on this one, King.

LAMBERT: Harold Ambler? Who is he? Oh ... this from the bottom of the same article ...

"Huffington Post has long been a place where this type of junk science has been debunked, not promoted.

"I'm sure this little coup has the climate skeptics all giddy, because it definitely has thoughtful bloggers like Adam Siegel at Get Energy Now rightly ticked off:

"Huffington Post published Harold Ambler's Mr Gore: Apology Accepted which is notable in its breadth and audacity of disinformation, truthiness, and simply wrong-headedness. Literally books and hundreds (actually, thousands) of scientific studies and analyses have been written that provide the substance to prove Ambler's words false. What is shameful, on top of this, is that this is not just the 'false' and misleading material, but its deceit in support of recklessly dangerous policy concepts that would hinder our ability to move forward to greater prosperity and a stronger American future.

"The question for me is: who the heck is Harold Ambler?

"And what makes Ambler such an authority on climate science to so confidently make the a claim as bold as global warming being a lie? By the looks of his various bios scattered around the internet it appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent, he is the author of an upcoming book on a rowing team at Brown University and a musician.

"Such an outrageous claim as: "It [global warming] is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind," flies in the face of what the top scientific institutions in the world like NASA, the US Academy of Science and the Royal Society have been saying for years and its going to take a lot more than the ramblings of rowing guitarist to prove it."

Everything Mr. Abler cobbles together here has been refuted by actual climate scientists - you know people who study this and have no irrational animus to specific political parties or candidates. You might as well post arguments from Drudge himself.

RE: #10, it's being alleged on such unimpeachable sites as Drudge and TVNewser that Anne Coulter has been "banned" on NBC/MSNBC. Your realm, and reach, is apparently quite vast.

LAMBERT: But apparently CBS (former House of Rather) didn't get my dictum.

"What the King wants is more debate in pursuit of truth. If someone wants to get in Don Shelby's face for his support for food shelves, fine. I don't think Don has anything to worry about."

There are more broadcast radio stations in this market than television stations. How do UHF frequencies with reruns, trash talk shows, and watered down news programs offer anything up to the public service? If Oprah does an interview with an elected official from one party, the King would then expect the next show to have an interview with a represenative from the counter party right? Or does this rule only qualify for Jason Lewis?
I don't think any "wingnuts" are going to get in Don's face to debate food shelves - Don's green screen speeches are not always on our human commitments to one another. Maybe instead a debate on climate change, crime, law, taxes, politics, energy - some of those issues where equal time might be interesting. Don does not engage often in debate on his radio show or on the 10pm news.

LAMBERT: I'm re-repeating myelf here. But what the King wants is face-to-face debate of what he perceives as spurious misinformation. If this means Don Shelby has to spend 15 minutes interacting with Phil Krinkie or Michele Bachmann, so be it. As I say, I'm confident Don would emerge with renewed audience confidence in his command of facts.

The recount provision is in the law but could have been stopped with one phone call. George Allen and Ted Stevens respective elections qualified for a legal re-count which they both passed on.
A transparent process does not mean the process was done correctly. It was transparently done poorly.
Inconsistant counting - some counties we take the first count total, others the re-count total. Ballots that don't exsist get counted, ballots that there are no signatures for get counted, ballots turn up in back seats, machines, bias in challenged votes, and counting absentee ballots from counties that Franken did well to name a few of the probelems with this transparent election. Norm has every legal right to contest this, and if Franken were trailing by 1000 votes, the left would be cheering him to fight on. Also I am guessing if Franken were under 200 votes with the same set of circumstances, this would be a "Karl Rove" or "Bush" style elecdtion that was stolen for the Republicans.
I would look to Mark Ritchie, and the Minnesota supreme court for their checkbooks first. The government is defending themsevles against the law abiding voters of Minnesota.

LAMBERT: Somebone is taking Wall St. Journal editorials seriously.

If you are King, does that make all of us jesters? If history were to repeat itself, then the meeting of the Knights of the Blue Tights would only take place after dark.

LAMBERT: You, 40 years in the lowest dungeon.

"Someone is taking Wall St. Journal editorials seriously"

Can't say that I read that, but it looks like the Star Tribune editorial page agrees with my assesment. Facts are facts, inconsistancies are inconsistancies. You can not tell me that if Franken were in this position not only would he be pursuing the same legal options, but his right to do so would be defended by Coleman's critics.

LAMBERT: What I took away from this morning's Strib editorial is that they continue to refine the art of appearing to say something without actually committing to any point of view. It is The Art of Blandness.

Good list...some thoughts:

1) Fairness doctrine--if we are eliminating the "market" from the marketplace of ideas, why not go all the way and just split every political body 50/50 down the middle? Complete moral, political, ideological equivalence. We never have to make any decisions anymore, everything is always 50/50. The "Nuclear" Fairness Doctrine.

2) Moderators--"From around the world?" Sure you want to go there? I know that BO took millions of unregulated small donations from foreigners, but you are going all the way! Okay, why not.

3) Recount--I hear you. But this issue is eliminated if we go with the Nuclear Fairness Doctrine.

4) Avista--too late, I think their limiteds pushed them out of a helicopter a while back. That marketplace thing.

4) Strib has been nonprofit for a while now, hasn't helped news coverage.

5) Problem is, you are the only Lib with a sense of humor, hence issue no. 1 above. If they are running the show per 4), where are we.

7, 8, 9, 10--absolutely, overdue.

LAMBERT: The King may get purple in the face repeating this, but he wants a debate between points of view. He finds this much more interesting that either Hannity or Olbermann alone. The King's intent is to hold broadcasters, using scarce public airwaves, to standards of accuracy, not simply what sells. Either that or said broadcasters can pay hefty annual fees to "lease the airwaves" -- or move to satellite or cable.

You want a debate, you just don't want to have a winner. That's why the Nuclear Fairness Option is a good alternative for you.

Although with Franken failing out of Air Am. into Senate, the law of unintended consequences may come into play in favor of standard Fairness Doctrine.

LAMBERT: I have every confidence the sort of face-to-face interaction I'm talking about would produce clear winners ... and delicious scorn for the losers.

Is the Star Tribune's election editorial bland, or is it that it did not take a hard left position? The facts of inconstencies in the cherry picked re-count still have not been proven wrong.
To repeat again, if it were Franken on the losing side of 225 votes, the calls and screams of stolen elections and voter supression would be loud from the same crowd who is now crowning New York's Al Franken the winner.

LAMBERT: Those cheering on Brooklyn's Norm Coleman realize that their only path to victory now rests in a clever -- and expensive -- legal argument. Democracy at its finest!

Your idea of face to face debate is interesting, and may generate an audience - I would listen or watch. And have, because it has been tried before, and has flourished in mediums outside AM/FM radio.

What I repeat which I do not think was addressed is that while Hannity, Olberman, Limbaugh, and Franken may have one strict partisan point of view, the majority of Americans do not think that way. Issues are not black and white, they are not only two sided. Third points of view have to wait? The third or fourth point of view is not valid? This is the entire flaw in a 21st century fairness doctrine. While life is great now for many with a Democrat congress and stacked FCC, do you want a future Republican administration determining what points of view constitute right, left, center, and everything else in between?

LAMBERT: I simply want the media - particularly the media operating (and making handsome profits) via the public airwaves -- to take a more responsible attitude toward factual accuracy. Clearly, the current model doesn't encourage that. The best money is in unabashedly reckless misinformation.

The King must decree all blogs have comment sections. The King could then post endless comments on Powerline as a hobby.

LAMBERT: The King would welcome a joust with the Powerline knaves.

Speaking on behalf of Larry King, we would appreciate if you cease and desist of all further use of his trademarked nickname. Unless you'd like to change number 4 to: Another decade of influence for the great Larry King; he will always be the King no matter what.

LAMBERT: Here I thought I was sullying the reputations of Henry VIII and Elvis.

"Brooklyn Born" Norm Coleman has lived in Minnesota twice as long as "New York born" Al Franken. Coleman's wife is from here, his kids were born here, he has worked and lived in the state for 32 years. Franken lived here for 13 years and while talks about his humble two bedroom rambler (which is what most of St Paul and the older suburbs are) spent his last few years in a private prestigious high school. Yet he knows what us down on our luck middle class are feeling?
Even our metro columnist Nick Coleman conceded this point in a couple of columns, my favorite being yesterday where he referred to Franken as a "carpet bagger" who fooled the DFL into thinking Hollywood fundraising is better than a solid electable candidate.
When did counting all votes once, and counting votes consistently become clever? If this race was a margin of 500+ votes I would be calling Norm to concede. When the vote margin in question could be changed by one judicial ruling on improper counting, or votes that were wrongly rejected then why wouldn't we demand that the true winner is awarded the Senate seat.
There is no way I will believe that if this were Coleman with a 200+ lead and there was any question that one vote may not have been counted there would be blogs and columns on vote disenfranchisement, Bush/Rove style Florida politics. Do you not think if this were Franken and the margin was this small in Coleman's favor, Mark Elias and Al would be putting together their next youtube video on forgotten voices, with a series of press conferences? Franken's story changes depending on where he is in the election. When he was behind on election day it was due to Somali voters being intimidated. Then it was absentee ballots - however now that he is in the lead, he had no interest in any other alleged absentee ballots being counted.
Counting every legal vote once is not clever - its constitutional.

LAMBERT: I am comforted by the thought of you in harmony with Nick Coleman. But I'd be very careful with any Rove-in-Florida references. Your case is still that the recount was flawed and the Supreme Court biased or incompetent. The insistence that votes haven't been counted -- that Magnuson and Clary are bunglers -- is a stretch in the mind of anyone outside the Franken-phobia wing of the population. In other words ... Norm's only path to victory is via ...Rove/Florida ... a tightly configured legal decision.

Let's not put out "false information". Coleman is not insinuating that the Supreme Court is biased or flawed. They had little options to stop the canvasing board's inconsistent vote tabulating - in a trial, testimony and evidence can be presented.
The Supreme Court has never once disputed the merits of any of Coleman's law suits. Members of the canvasing board have not out right dismissed Coleman's claims. Some have gone onto say that there could have been double counting. The Supreme Court ruled on the administrative duties of the canvasing board, not the merits of Coleman's complaints.
Don't we want equal protection under the law? If there are legal votes that have not been counted, do these voters not deserve a voice? Is Al Franken's election more important than the will of legal voters?
If Franken were in Coleman's position would you be calling for him to give up?

LAMBERT: Now, as during the official -- fair and transparent recount -- Coleman's best options are to somehow suppress votes.

"Knights in Blue Tights"?

Bwahahahahahhahahahhahahaahh!

Priceless visual.

And also, you had a chance to debate the issues - Janacek ate your lunch virtually daily as I recall.

You may wish to revist the fact that liberal positions are by and large indefensible in the face of logic, facts, or human nature.

Pretty well documented.

LAMBERT: Well, you are a case study in indefensible logic, so I won't quarrel with you. As for the lunch eating, we might still be on the air if she did.

Yawn...I feel like Rip Van Winkle...haven't I heard all these arguments and comments before?

And King...sorry Brian, but when I think of King, after 8 years of King George, all I can think of is --
'Here King, come here King, that's a good boy, go lay down, lay down...good boy'
...because frankly, W wrecked the idea of being King for many generations to come.

But, if I can be King too, and rise off of my doggie bed and enter the discussion...I do like your style--more discussion - BUT, not from pundits - FROM OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!!

Somewhere along the carpetbagger line, the John Klines and Michelle Bachmanns have been given this free pass where they do not--
1) have to talk in congress
2) have to talk to true media
3) have to talk to their districts!

Carvell and Brown and Olbermann and Mathews can sit down and take five (hundred)--
I want Walz and Kline talking in Rochester about the district's concerns--Now, about the financial bailout, and the auto bailout, and Iraq, and Gaza, and freaking corn ethanol that is being used against us instead of for us. You want Franken, cool, have him chatting up Bachmann to find out what they think about education and unions and energy.

Excuse my french, but I don't give an eff about what any DC pundit is saying about anything...we have been giving our own MN reps a rest while we focus on the Nick's and Kersten's...how stupid are we...sorry I asked.

And all you Namsco, 108, and BJs...I'll ask you to focus, on the source of the problems, on our supposed representatives, and then on ourselves, because if we really want change, it starts with us.

Brian...let me know when you are ready for that raincheck...we have so much work to do.

LAMBERT: I'm serious when I say local TV could do worse than produce a weekly show, "The Great Minnesota Debate", and put up proponents both sides of an issue. Or get Keith Ellison to face off against Kline of Bachmann. But do it now, between election cycles. Obviously our "community service" oriented TV stations would do the research on an idea like this and schedule it for 2 AM. But given the right ground rules and debaters, it'd draw a premium demo.

"Now, as during the official -- fair and transparent recount -- Coleman's best options are to somehow suppress votes."

Counting valid, legal votes once is not suppressing votes.

A process which is transparent is not necessarily fair. Let's put some faith in our judicial system. If they find that Coleman's claims are invalid and without sufficient evidence, I would hope that he will give up the fight.

LAMBERT: Good God man, is Coleman or the RNC paying you for all this?

My passion is unpaid, and comes from my soul.

LAMBERT: Charge more for your soul.

Yo, Namzso, take a break from all the tap dancing:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022489.php

LAMBERT: How about that?

Jim - I am glad to see that you take Powerline's opinion seriously. I agree with a lot of their points on Coleman's team mis-managing the re-count process.

Still doesn't take away the fact if there are double counting and improperly rejected ballots, the 225 votes Franken is ahead by is a false margin.

LAMBERT: Yeah, yeah, yeah but the credibility of this "if" is pretty damned low.