Comments on: Franken, Coleman sides swap stances (again) in Senate-seat dispute

By: mkielm

mkielm — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:32:12 +0000

Completely agree with Josh Trutt on Franken consistency issue. Steller’s suggestion implies that Franken and/or camp at some point wanted “illegally cast” ballots counted. This was position a Dr. Araoz took in op/ed in Rochester, MN paper and was lampooned. Pleas be clear when writing, it’s your reputation! Dr. Araoz isn’t a journalist, but Stellar is trying to be. Since this is on internet it can be (and should be) corrected.

By: Dan1967

Dan1967 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:38:01 +0000

Al Franken recieved the most votes. In a Democracy that means that he won. The Republicans are just sore losers. Almost always (except in the presidential race in 2000) the candidate with the most votes wins. Unlike Florida in 2000, Minnesota had a meticulous and fair recount. Al Franken has recieved the most votes in a very fair recount. The Republicans need to show some respect for the people of Minnesota and allow Al Franken to be seated as a U.S. Senator.

By: Josh Trutt

Josh Trutt — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:23:00 +0000

Franken actually never changed positions, even during the trial. His position has always been: “Count every legally cast ballot”. Not “count every ballot”, not “count every ballot in counties that favored me”, but simply “count every legally cast ballot in every county.” It’s consistent and it has the advantage of being the law.

By: Chris Steller

Chris Steller — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:21:51 +0000

Appreciate the comments. I used the word “sides” in the story (and just now added it back into the headline) as shorthand for the campaigns and their supporters, which would include the party organizations and leaders. I believe Eric’s right that the campaigns, and probably particularly Franken’s, have been more careful than supporters generally to hew to a broadly consistent philosophy or rhetoric. But I do not believe even the Franken campaign has been immune to “swapping stances” if you take into account rhetoric, professed philosophy and actions.

By: Joe Bloggs

Joe Bloggs — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:06:01 +0000

What a load of cr*p. Franken has been consistent throughout and remarkably calm and composed. If the situation were reversed, the right wing blowhards – led by the drug-addled gasbag – would be bleating crowing and whining. I know it sounds like a better story to say that both sides have switched positions, but the truth is that only Coleman has constantly modified his position on an almost weekly basis. Remember how he chastised Franken for wanting the legally required recount – saying if he were the apparent loser, he would have conceded for the good of the state! Does any sane person – other than the author of this article – believe the premise that there is some similarity in the changing positions of the candidates? Pul-leeze!!!

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:53:27 +0000

I don’t see the Franken flip-flop either. He appealed to the state supreme court, not the Senate or federal courts, to seat him before all state legal processes finish. It seems to make a well-rounded story that the candidates switch positions, but it’s never been borne out. Quite the contrary, I suggest Franken’s biggest strength in the legal battle has been keeping consistent positions which contrasts well with Coleman’s changes.

Looking at the post by Stassen-Berger, she’s saying the Senate party caucuses have switched positions, and that part’s true. She wasn’t referring to the campaigns. They could have learned something from Franken about the strength of a consistent position.

By: Chris Steller

Chris Steller — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:51:38 +0000

George, thanks for the comment. A more thorough post would include citations for past flip flops on both sides. The main one for Franken being a count-every-ballot rhetoric and strategy during the recount that got modified in the election contest — granted, with good reason, Franken would say, because the ballots had already been rejected twice by local officials by then. Coleman’s had more flip flops partly because he’s behind and more desperate.

Here’s what the PiPress blog had on the Dem side, from the DFL yesterday. The implied interpretation being that this represents a flip flop from the idea that the Senate (in DC) would seat Franken.

Minnesotans, not Washington (or Texas), will decide who will represent them in the U.S. Senate

St. Paul (March 30, 2009) — National republican senatorial Committee Chair John Cornyn of Texas told the Politico today that he is threatening to wage “World War III” if Minnesotans decide that Senator-elect Al Franken won the November election. Cornyn also suggested that “a federal challenge to November’s elections could take ‘years’ to resolve.”

By: George

George — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:46:15 +0000

So, Franken’s forces haven’t actually changed stances, only Norm’s. What’s wrong with calling out Coleman for changing his position AGAIN, without completely fabricating a flip-flop from Franken?