« Ingrates | Main | Rumors Of Appointments »

November 18, 2008


Who can come up with the best justification for opposing a recount in Minnesota and defending one in Alaska?

"Who can come up with the best justification for opposing a recount in Minnesota and defending one in Alaska?"

The crazy differences in the margins: too big to trigger a mandatory recount in Alaska, well close enough to require one in Minnesota.

What do I win?

"What do I win?"

Try getting it unbackwards first.

Who opposes a recount in Minnesota?

It's a lift to see the back of Ted Stevens.

"Who opposes a recount in Minnesota?"

The Coleman campaign, of course.

Details. Coleman has sued to stop the recount. Sound familiar?



Thanks for the link. I hope the Duluth News Tribune is not in charge of the recount. From the story:

During the recount, elections officials will examine all ballots cast on Nov. 4 and absentee ballots cast before then, placing each in one of four piles:

-- For Republican Coleman.

-- For Democrat Franken.

-- For another candidate or when officials could not determine the voter's pick.

-- Ballots challenged by the Coleman campaign.

-- Ballots challenged by the Franken campaign.

I wonder if there will be an Alaska recount. Maybe, but so far the vote margin is greater than 1%. And apparently Stevens would have to pay for it.

I wonder if he thinks it is in his interest, given that even if he were to win, he would be a pariah in his former caucus, with no committee seats. Won't be much fun.

On the other hand, I could see outside donors ponying up funds on the oft (but unlikely) chance the outcome would change. Then Republicans would hold the seat, even assuming Stevens were expelled. And you-know-who might covet it.

You-know-who can covet all she likes,but can't appoint herself or her spouse. She says that she isn't that egoistical.

Which was a shot at the other Republican Seantor from Alaska whose seat she may covet and might seek by way of a primary challege.

no "Senator Palin" is the best part of this

But it looks as though the Senate will remain free of convicted felons for the time being.

Yes. Free of convicted felons. (Insert your favorite crooked politician joke here.)

The worst lack all convictions, while the best are full of passionate intensity.

The comments to this entry are closed.