I was waiting for this for the last few weeks. I know you have been itching to write it.
If Norm were to somehow win this second sham of a liberal three judge panel, would you encourage Franken to step down? Would he? With a margin of 200 votes between the two, and hundreds of votes that were miscounted, un-counted, and wrongly challenged and accepted in the transparent (but wrong) re-count, would there be a long rant for Al to go back to New York to start bankrupting his next venture? Not likely.
Norm is exercising the legal right that the ACLU, and every other group would be supporting if there was no (R) next to this name. Norm's biggest problem is his choice in hiring legal representation. Where Al went on the national search and found his out of state people right away, Norm stuck with Minnesota people (Fritz Knack who we don't hear from anymore) til it was too late.
I hope Norm fights on, the Democrats have only to blame themselves for allowing a B list failed Hollywood/TV/Radio whatever he was to charm them into wedging himself into the party and taking the nomination. Norm was right a few weeks back when he said anyone but Franken would have won handily.

LAMBERT: Did I hear you deny anywhere in here that this was a confabulated legal stratagem designed to achieve, primarily, what it has already achieved? And yes, had Franken lost the automatic recount I'd have said, "Thems the breaks." I am impressed that you're now moving to the "poor legal representation" argument.

Please spare us the indignation. What if the shoe were on the other foot? In fact, statistically, the shoe isn't on either foot. Nobody knows now or ever will know who won this election, because the margin of "victory" is smaller than the margin of counting error. So while we might all agree that enough is enough and it's time to put Mr. Franken in the senate, I think we should probably be a little less self-righteous about it. The only thing we know for sure is that Minnesota isn't sold on either of these guys. Neither distinguished himself in the campaign or the recount. Let's hope Franken acquits himself better in office.

Meanwhile, the legislature should correct the recount standard to avoid this kind of farce in the future. Instead of an automatic recount in the event of an ultra-close election we should have an immediate coin flip to decide a winner. It would be just as fair and considerably more efficient.

LAMBERT: Here's a shocker, I will spare you neither the indignation or the self-righteousness. It's all well and good to "fix" this for the next time it happens. My point is a mush-mouthed media, fearful of being accused of favoritism, enabling a transparently bogus legal strategy. Is that indignant enough for you?

Where are the organized protests?? People can seem to protest taxes, wars, lack of rights etc. but in a local case where organized opposition may hold some minor sway over the political decisons of one ex senator not one organized protest. At least I haven't heard of one in Minneapolis, St. Paul, U of MN, St. Louis Park, Duluth. Maybe this is much too important to bother with as there probably would be counter demonstrations and it all seems to be about elite power. C'mon some young buck or gals pad your activist resume and let us get marching. In a peaceful organized way with all the proper permits of course. Maybe spending some money we can't spare may get the elites changing their minds. What we got to lose a senators voice has already been stolen from us. I gotta chant for you NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION or some variant.

LAMBERT: Why that is practically ... anarchy!

My "poor legal representation" argument is not new I have used it since day one of the bogus re-count. Besides Joe Friedberg I have not been impressed with Norm's choice of lawyers.
If denying someone as destructive as Al Franken from the United States Senate is happening then I will consider that a win - and hopefully this will go before the US Supreme Court for decision.
Did I hear anywhere you denying that this joke of a candidate the DFL picked was the only way they could have lost this Senate race or at the least put them in this situation they are in now?
It's easy to be on the other side and say how you would be promoting Stuart Smalley to give up had he lost the re-count, I have a pretty good hunch there would be calls for investigations, new elections, and plenty of youtube videos starring elderly and minorities from team Franken testifying that their only wish in life was to vote for Al Franken.

LAMBERT: The weeks and months haven't improved Mr. Franken in your eyes, I gather. But "destructive"?

Eric Bohlert (Media Matters) did a Nexis search and found 900 references to Al Gore as a "sore loser" between November and December of 2000. Couldn't we break out the phrase for Norm Coleman now, particularly since Sen. Coburn among others have pretty much admitted that what the Republicans are up to is stalling Franken to sabotage Obama. Nobody in his right mind thinks Coleman has any chance of winning on anything except dragging out Franken's eventual seating in the Senate.

LAMBERT: And the "media" merrily "reported" the chants of "sore loser" and "Gore-Loserman". What gets me is the "sanctity" of the legal process. Oh, please ... like hiring a fleet of lawyers protects you from journalistic skepticism.

While I think the RNC deserves all it gets, and the MSM media is laughable in its coverage of this mess, the ultimate wooden stake should go through the hearts of the MN people who have mistaken MN nice for apathy, and due process for outright worthlessness. They both insult our intelligence only because we let them.

As for Froggie and Namzco, all this shows is how little you expect from your senatorial representative if you feel relieved this obstructive legal action is worthy.

Every time I consider this recount issue, I end up with the same end result, that it demonstrates two things--
1) How little MN representatives actually care about representing the people; and how little the people care that they are represented nationally.
2) Then, given that, how little value the representatives provide the people and the people perceive they do so little.
After all, we have been a one senator state now for five months without any noticeable change and certainly without any real public concern, right?

So how about this answer--that in the future when a disputed election occurs, instead of any prolonged electoral recount or legal dispute pissing away taxpayer money, that the office is vacated and would provide no representative for that entire term. All recounting and legal action should stop Feb 1 (or some early-on date), and if no concession occurs on that date, the representative's office is vacated and staffs are sent home, all funds for that office are returned to the common fund.

From Feb 1 onward, if any legal wrangling occurs, it should be done on the political parties dime. Leave 'the people' out of it, since it seems the people want it that way given their general lack of attention to the matter. Half the eligible voters do not vote, of the half that do there are large volumes who vote strictly based on party politics and nothing based on geniune intellect and representational values of the candidates. It seems to me the governmental bloat in Washington has less to do with bureacrats in the GAO SEC or FTD (because at least they were trying to do a job), but in our elected chambers where they seem wholly interested in representing some distant special interests. As such, wouldn't the special interest and us taxpayers both be money ahead if we got rid of unnecessary elected representatives?

With all the lock-step party politics the last generation, who cares how many of them are there? Ninety-nine, fifty? Might as well just be two senators for the entire nation! 435 for the house, pffft, why...where are the real legislative leaders in that house, it gets pretty hard to come up with names of meaningful representatives very quickly...tell me why it couldn't be 135?

Congress has a well-deserved dreadfully low 'approval' rating year after year going back a headshaking number of years. I think we know why, we just keep things going the way it is out of tradition and apathy and general helplessness to stop them.

They provide so little value! They bring up so few points or arguments, there is virtually no debate forthcoming publically on any the real issues. Anything that demands attention seems to receive the least amount. The people who should be speaking toward the issues, now defer to staffers and surrogates and pundits, I suppose so they can be granted a layer of deniability, to be less accountable for their stances, the words they refuse to say lest they actually be listened to by someone and be used to consider their intellect in the next election. Well, if pundits and special interests are to rule this country, let's depose the vast majority of elected pretenders, and get these special interests out in the open.

For now, in the actual chambers of congress, there is a mock-ably token effort make to give the appearance of representation and debate, tokens only sent up to speak to an empty chamber and a TV camera, monitored by staff and lobbyist political wonks who can tell their representative the next day what to say and not say--mostly of course what not to say. The minority party has evolved away from loyal opposition instead into obstructist opposition. Both sides of the aisle now take huge amounts of influence monies from the same special interests at the same time. Discussion of issues has become Sunday morning TV theatre for the politically inclined, but of course speaking not from the hearts of minds of the states they represent, rather from the list of talking points of their weekly memo. Town halls have become a joke--a silly phone-in conference call for the politically connected. Most people only see their representatives if they stumble into them walking a local parade or at the state fair.

But, maybe I just don't get it. Maybe that is how it always was and I just had an innocent 'Jimmy Stewart Goes to Washington' view of it? It probably always was this Kabuki Theatre and maybe political actors were just better in the past?

Well, I say we call bull hockey on it and send home anyone who is not needed--Coleman/Franken--go to work somewhere else for the next six years, and let's toss that multi-million dollar senate office budget right into the general fund. If anyone thinks there is a need for two senators from MN, then I dare you to speak up. If you think two MN senators are needed, isn't it time to raise you voice, to openly petition the courts (and T-Paw) to put someone to work before the last appeal wrung out God knows how many weeks from now?

Anyone care? I don't think I care anymore. If this is what representative government is supposed to be like (I'd like to imagine the debate the founding fathers might have after witnessing this last decade in action, but somehow I cringe to think of today's congress trying to debate it). One less senator, so what, let's make it official; and I think there are 4 House reps from MN (don't make me name names Bachmann) who seem to have lost any reason to represent our state also...I'd like those wasted salaries recaptured too. Let's have some layoffs where it seems there is a lack of effective representation and unnecessary redundancy.

Me...I think I'll take my stimulus money and move to Sweden.

LAMBERT: I still like the instant-runoff idea, especially for a state with such an insatiable appetite for "none of the above" candidates like Dean Barkley. The objection is that too many voters are too dim to understand the process. So fine, disqualify everyone who doesn't pick an alternate candidate. I'm all for thinning the herd.

Norm is not rich. His house is refinanced to the gills. He's got college bills to pay. Basically, he needs a job. He hasn't practiced law in forever and is probably no longer qualified to do so. He might get a lobbying job somewhere but only if he can avoid being publicly despised (Alberto Gonzales is still out of work). I think the line comes at the MN Supreme Court. If he accepts their decision and goes away, he'll be ok. But if he goes to federal court, he will become despised, not only for dragging this out but because Minnesotans will be offended - in going to federal court, Norm's main argument will be that Minnesota is screwed up worse than Florida and needs federal intervention. This will offend the sensibilities of "good government" Minnesotans who are proud of the State's reputation for fairness in elections. If he goes there, he might be employable somewhere, but not in Minnesota.

LAMBERT: I sure hope for his sake that Norm has a signed agreement with the RNC to provide him with employment after torching his political career with this mess.

If Coleman is going to drag this to the U.S. Supreme Court, he owes the people of Minnesota an update NOW on the FBI investigation of his friend Kazeminy. We shouldn't have to wait another six months for our second senator just to find out that Coleman's credibility is going to suffer if he's found to have accepted gifts from Kazeminy.

LAMBERT:At this point, considering an Ethics Committee that would be loaded for bear after this recount BS, I keep wondering why Coleman even wants back in DC.

I am very impressed with your comments. I hope the "other mike" also continues to write. Really I think my heart would burst with joy if people got excited by this thing called politics.
Well I better take my baby aspirin and eat another bowl of oatmeal.

LAMBERT: Yeah, watch the blood pressure.

Regarding the Deep Marine lawsuit, isn't the CFO's deposition confirming the allegations against Kazeminy a big deal? Even if Norm is never indicted, I don't think the stench from the case will go away.

LAMBERT: It sure seems like a big deal to me. How much of Coleman's campaign funds have already been tapped to pay for this "politically motivated" law suit, I wonder?

Interesting article in Senate Guru:

http://www.senateguru.com/diary/626/mnsen-what-is-norm-colemans-end-game

LAMBERT: From the link above:

"My very simple theory is this. Norm Coleman has personal debts (and will continue to grow that debt through additional legal bills) that may very well approach one million dollars. Coleman turns 60 years old this August. There is no way that Coleman can pay off his debts (including that 30-year mortgage for $775,000 that Coleman took out just two years ago) on a Senator's or Governor's salary. And I don't think Coleman plans on paying that mortgage every month until he is 88 years old. Simply put, Coleman needs a very high-paying salary. I'm not an accountant, but, if Coleman wants to enjoy his retirement years and not worry about that massive debt he has accrued, he'll need to start making salary of around half a million dollars a year - which means having conservative power brokers (who are pleased with his efforts to keep another Democrat out of the Senate) hook him up with a lucrative lobbying gig.

"There you have Coleman's real end game. It's not to win back his Senate seat or serve the public in any way. Norm Coleman's end game is to intentionally force Minnesotans to be underrepresented in the U.S. Senate for as long as possible through endless appeals of the election result and parlay that into subsequently securing a high paying lobbyist job for a special interest that could care less what the average Minnesota family needs. However cynical this may sound, it is, quite frankly, the most logical conclusion based on Coleman's actions. We'll see."

Yes, we will.

Wouldn't some documentation of Norm or Laurie receiving any of this money be pretty easy to produce?
Since you brought up the fact Norm refinanced his home - life can get tough when you pay your taxes and fees and not take a salary from an illegal loan.
Interesting when its Franken personal finances are just a distraction, right?

LAMBERT: I am still appalled that Al Franken overpaid his Minnesota taxes. The arrogance of the man!

Maureen -

Norm owes you an explanation on a lawsuit against a friend of his? What does it have to do with Norm? He is not being sued, he denied receiving any money, and so far there has been no documented proof that he has. So what update are you looking for?
You find a carpetbagger who failed and bankrupted a radio station, and has been an absolute hypocrite from issues ranging from national defense, government spending and taxes more credible?

LAMBERT: So now AL FRANKEN "bankrupted a radio station". What next? Did he blow up the space shuttle?

"LAMBERT: I am still appalled that Al Franken overpaid his Minnesota taxes. The arrogance of the man!"

He has yet to prove this. Even Pat Kessler's "Reality Check' conceded there is no proof to Al Franken's claim he over paid his taxes. Releasing his tax documents would clear this up, something for some reason a person who promotes transparency has yet to do.

"LAMBERT: So now AL FRANKEN "bankrupted a radio station". What next? Did he blow up the space shuttle?"
Well Al was pretty smug back in 2003 and 2004 running around as the front man for this new way of doing talk radio (buying up stations and forcing content), a good show can carry an entire network. Franken's was barley a dash mark in most markets. When the network was going bankrupt (Al was still the front man) he went on talk shows such as Conan O'Brien to deny this. At the same time he took a salary out of an illegal loan from a non profit in New York - while his employees went unpaid. There is a signed affidavid on file of this. I was suprised big "J" didn't go after this. Maybe it is because it was filed away in Al's home state New York.

LAMBERT: Here's MPR on the topic of taxes:

St. Paul, Minn. — Minnesota Public Radio News contacted 60 local accountants, and heard back from a dozen of them. They all said Franken is ultimately responsible for making sure he pays taxes in the right states.

They pointed out multi-state tax filings can be intensely complicated, and accountants do mess up from time to time. But most of them also echoed Woodbury tax accountant Michael Shaffer.

"It really seemed like it was a rookie mistake," Shaffer said.

The mistake was that instead of paying taxes in the many states where he earned money from 2003 through 2006, Franken paid state income taxes only in the states where he lived -- New York and Minnesota. That meant he overpaid taxes in those two states, but shorted the other 17 states by more than $50,000.

Franken says he will pay those states now, plus interest and penalties, for a total of about $70,000. Then he'll file for a refund in Minnesota and New York."

I realize this is the sort of epic financial fraud (with clear criminal intent) that keeps the loyal opposition up at night. But I generally like to see really big numbers -- you know, powerful incentive -- to a tax fraud scheme before I get too worked up.

As for "buying up stations and forcing content", the tired meme is that Air America "failed" (it is still on the air) because no one wants to listen to Al Franken or anything the hosts have to say. While I am not going to alibi for some pretty dull programming, or amend my view that liberals have limited tolerance for hackneyed demonizing as "entertainment", the fact that very low-power, low-coverage stations, like AM 950 here in Minnesota, were all that was left when they went on the air (the rest controlled by the likes of Clear Channel) had/has at least as much to do with the, uh, modest audience reception.

Holy cow, BL. You are sure a magnet for the Pug-meme crowd. I was rather taken with the "destructive" thingie, too. Gonna be way interesting when Franken is seated to see the Rumpelstiltskin crowd self-destruct.

Maybe Joe Soucheray took that tack and I missed it.

My favorite snarklet in your post.

LAMBERT: Dogging Joe is just too much fun. As for the Pugs -- I'll take all the eye-balls I can get, even the crossed ones.

I accept Norm Coleman's right to a day in court like anyone else, but it does seem a bit disconcerting to tell donors that your legal strategy is to delay and then tell the court that you intend to show discrepancies in the count while you're savaging the same justices in the court of public opinion. In fairness to Coleman, 400 ballots is still greater than 200, so megachurches may still pray him into office.

While anyone who blames Dean Barkley's right to challenge the two party theocracy deserves the corrupt government they elect, it seems clear that ranked choice voting like IRV would give us a clearer picture of what the two-way outcome would have been than rooting through lizard people and spaghetti monster ballots in a futile attempt to discern voter intent. We need Instant Runoff Voting and we need it soon.

LAMBERT: When the "Independents" come up with a viable candidate, they'll do just fine. (assuming whoever it is is rich enough to self-fund a race against two machines.) Until then the, "Vote for Me Because I'm Not either of These Guys" argument leaves me a little cold. I still haven't got over the Peter Hutchinson (a smart guy) =Tim Pawlenty trip.