Monday, January 05, 2009

STUART SMALLEY IN THE US SENATE?


After months of recounts of 2.4 million ballots in Minnesota, government officials are set to declare Al Franken the winner. Of course Republicans have promised exhaustive legal battles to draw it all out. After W's legal wrangling and stealing of his first presidential election, I don't blame the repugs for fighting. Voter disenfranchisement does occur and the libs aren't any better. That's because there's no such thing as a Christian politican. When it comes to politics it is a win-at-all-costs game.

Heretofore, when a voting debacle has gone this long and the government finally makes a determination after countless recounts, the courts usually turn a deaf ear to the rantings and ravings of the losing side, even if the losing side has a valid case. Having a vacant seat is not good, especially considering our problems. I doubt Norm Coleman's objections will have any impact, but you never know.

Still, cracks me up that Stuart Smalley might end up in the Senate.

8 comments:

Larry Litle said...

"After W's legal wrangling and stealing of his first presidential election, I don't blame the repugs for fighting."

I believe every recount out of the month of recounting showed Bush the winner. Why the revisionist history from the man that voted for Nader? Like it or not, President Bush had the majority vote in Florida.

Whatever happened to the liberal outcry to get rid of the archaic Electoral College?

As far as Franken is concerned, he won so the Republicans better deal with it. They should have had a better candidate if they wanted to beat the extremely liberal but funny Al Franken.

Jack said...

They weren't allowed to count all the ballots in Florida. Recounts are valid only if you count them all. The courts would not let them count them. That's not revisionist history, that's just how it was. W fought and fought to keep them from winning.

Is it just the liberals that think we should get rid of the Electoral College? Perhaps the economy and the two failed wars are a tad more important at the moment. The EC still needs to go.

Jason said...

It would have been interesting to see the outcome if there wasn't a third party candidate in this race...or how differently the people who voted third party would have voted if they knew it would be this close.

BTW...why the "Christian" reference in the post, Jack? There's nothing in this situation that's referring to religion.

Jack said...

Many bloggers (Albers, Larry, Busplunge, You, Jackie, Jeremy D. Young, Chris Brewer) talk about religion in their posts.

I, too, have done so even before you came onto the Springfield Blogger's scene. I think I shall continue that as religion is a part of my life, my outlook, my global view of the world.

I have oft said that there is no such thing as a Christian politician and I will continue to say so.

Frank said...

Stuart's gonna be in the Senate because that is God's will and, as Stuart himself will tell you, "Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!"

So there! Pfffftt!

Jack said...

Crack me up, Frank. Thanks for posting.

Jason said...

We talk about religion when it fits the context of the situation. In this case, it had nothing to do with what was being discussed.

Your reference was irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Larry Litle said...

Jack,

I would love to see where you get your information on the votes not being counted. Was it a Republican conspiracy? In 2000, the court was divided very evenly and would not stoop for a Republican conspiracy. To my recollection, all of the votes were counted. There was dispute on what determined a vote for a candidate, a dimpled chad or hanging chad or whatever but every vote was counted that meet the qualifications more than once. Stop buying into Move On and Huffington because they want you to be a bitter mindless follower (yes there are plenty of so called conservatives that want to brain wash me too). There was no conspiracy and the election was not stolen!

I just love when liberals try to hold onto the 2000 election as a rally cry. Get over it. Al Gore lost! You don’t hear me still crying over the 2008 election and that was just a few months ago. You lose credibility when you bring this stuff up.

On a different subject, I did not say only liberals want to see the EC go away. What I said was there was a liberal outcry for it to go away 2000 and the only thing that has gone away is the call for change. I want to know why the liberals dropped this but will not drop this annoying whining about the 2000 election but will not change how the election occurs. You know I would love to see the Electoral College go away.