Norm Coleman never ceases to amaze me. No matter how much of a scoundrel you may think he is, he can always manage to go one better. For example, consider this story from CNN describing the election results. In an excruciatingly close election, we find Coleman barely ahead with 42 percent of the vote and Al Franken at a hair less. Out of nearly 2.5 million votes cast (not including a third party), they are separated by a mere 720 votes. As far as I can determine, once the result is within 0.5 percent (about 15,000 in this instance), a recount is triggered. But what does Norm "The Weasel" Coleman say?
"I recognize that because of my margin of victory, Mr. Franken has the right to pursue an official review of the election results. It is up to him whether such a step is worth the tax dollars it would take to conduct,"
Yeah that's right Norm, you shameless buffoon, insinuate that Al Franken is wasting taxpayer dollars to determine if there might be an error on the order of 0.03 percent between the two of you. If this guy isn't a crap-bag then I don't know who is. It is scary that he holds any semblance of power beyond following incontinent canines with a scooper.
According to Yahoo News, the distance is a mere 475 votes and Coleman told reporters that he'd "step back" if he were in Franken's shoes. Complete and utter bullshit.
Oh, and the new margin is less than 0.017 percent.
It wouldn't matter if he would "Step Back." The recount is mandatory by state law, even if Franken were to concede (which he won't.)
Would you concede something you had poured all of your time and effort into for two years (having been busy laying the groundwork for 4 years) based on such a thin margin. They are going to hand-counts the ballots. We may not know who our Senator is until March, 2009.
Coleman is slime. He was unpopular even among the Republicans, and most only supported him because they were afraid of a filibuster-proof Senate with a Democratic president.
Frankly, after the secret $75,000 payment stuff came up, I was amazed anyone considered voting for him at all. On the other hand, looking at Alaska, there seems to now be a 'Stevens' effect - where you vote for a Republican, even though he's a convicted felon.
As for Bachmann - WTF?
there seems to now be a 'Stevens' effect - where you vote for a Republican, even though he's a convicted felon.
There are damned few Republicans to choose from otherwise.