Forever Leather + Hillary Clinton = Horrible Infomercial
Minnesota recount explained
REPORTER: The Minnesota Senate race. No, it is not over yet. Today a three-judge panel begins taking a look at the recount which left Democrat Al Franken ahead of Republican Norm Coleman by 225 votes out of nearly 3 million cast. The judges’ decision could be months away. It finally will determine the winner whenever it comes in. We have reaction now from both sides, starting with the Coleman campaign. On the phone from St. Paul, Minnesota, Coleman attorney Ben Ginsberg. Ben, we have seen the painstaking video of the Canvassing Board going over these ballots, basically vote by vote. How do you convince these judges that that all resulted in a mistake?
BEN GINSBERG: Well, not quite vote by vote, Jon. The Canvassing Board itself, and the Minnesota Supreme Court said that the Canvassing Board only had limited authority to go over votes. So many of, for example, the 12,000 rejected absentee votes were never before the Canvassing Board. On top of that, the Canvassing Board did allow in 933 absentee ballots. In doing that, there are ballots that look exactly the same amongst the rejected absentee ballots, that have not been allowed in. And so it is the contest stage under Minnesota law where you get to enfranchise all the people who should have their votes counted.
REPORTER: So you are saying that they sort of changed the rules to favor the democratic side?
GINSBERG: No, the Canvassing Board just under Minnesota Law has a very limited function. And so they didn’t look at all the votes and they didn’t enfranchise all of the people whose votes should be counted under standards under the Canvassing Board, in allowing some votes in. On top of that, if you look at this pile of 12,000 votes, some counties let in ballots, others counties didn’t get the ballots, yet the ballots look the same. We ask Al Franken to join with us in being sure that all Minnesota votes counted. And, we are very, very surprised that he opted not to do that. I guess because he is in a calculated litigation strategy or something. But Minnesota has a long, proud tradition of having every vote count. And, shockingly, Al Franken is not joining it.
REPORTER: Well if he is ahead, I mean, can you blame him?
GINSBERG: Well I mean, there are sort of crass calculations that could be made at any stage. But we are asking all 12,000 votes to be examined and a big chunk of those will come in. They ‘re not all going to be Norm Coleman votes, there are going to be Al Franken votes in there, but in order for people to have faith in the final results of this election, you have to count all of the votes. And we hope that Al Franken will eventually join us in that.
REPORTER: I don’t know if you can give me an honest answer here. But most observers are saying that, you know, with the Canvassing Board having, you know, certified that he comes out, that Franken comes out, 225 votes ahead, you’ve got a tall order to try to convince these three judges that Coleman may stand a chance to be the winner here.
GINSBERG: Oh, I think that people who say that don’t really understand what the process is; they say the Canvassing Board has a very limited jurisdiction and they just looked at the ballots that were in front of them which was not all the ballots. Under Minnesota law the contest phase is the first time a unified, one group of judges will take a look at all the votes to be sure that all the similar ballots are counted the same, which after all, Jon, is the touchstone of any fair election.
Minnesota panel rules against Franken
A three-judge panel in Minnesota ruled against Al Franken twice in his attempts to limit the scope of the election contest to just a recount of the recount.
State election law doesn’t undermine the Senate’s constitutional power to later judge the qualifications of its members, the judges said in denying Franken’s request to dismiss the election contest, as the lawsuit is called.
The panel also rejected Franken’s attempt to limit any court review to verifying math and other technicalities of the recount and canvass, clearing the way for the judges to consider Coleman claims that some votes in Democratic areas were counted twice, that some absentee ballots from GOP areas were wrongly rejected and that there were other irregularities.
The panel noted that the Minnesota Supreme Court had ruled that while those claims shouldn’t be decided during the recount, they “would be properly heard in an election contest” in court.
Coleman lawyer Ben Ginsberg called the panel’s decision “a stinging defeat for Al Franken. It underscores that the Coleman contest will proceed, that there will be a trial.”
Jenna’s and Barbara give advice to Sasha and Malia
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blame English for the oath flub
NY Times notes the common error:
How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, among the best-known words in the Constitution? Conspiracy theorists and connoisseurs of Freudian slips have surmised that it was unconscious retaliation for Senator Obama’s vote against the chief justice’s confirmation in 2005. But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts’s habit of grammatical niggling.
Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.
Among these fetishes is the prohibition against “split verbs,” in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like “to,” or an auxiliary like “will,” and the main verb of the sentence. According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was “to boldly go where no man has gone before”; it should have been “to go boldly.” Likewise, Dolly Parton should not have declared that “I will always love you” but “I always will love you” or “I will love you always.”
Any speaker who has not been brainwashed by the split-verb myth can sense that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing. The myth originated centuries ago in a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in which it is impossible to split an infinitive because it consists of a single word, like dicere, “to say.” But in English, infinitives like “to go” and future-tense forms like “will go” are two words, not one, and there is not the slightest reason to interdict adverbs from the position between them.
All in all, things are getting off to a bumpy start for the new administration…
Inaugural hope that “white will embrace what is right”
Welcome to the post-racial age! *que audience laughter*
This ridiculous poem was made at the inauguration that was made triple-diculous considering its basis is that he hopes for a day when whites will do whats right (good thing that’s not racist). I guess electing the first black president wasn’t enough. C’MON WHITE PEOPLE!
Google News Search for “Rick Warren” and “controversial” and you’ll get hundreds of hits. Warren’s controversy was that he agreed with Obama on same sex marriage, which upset gay activists because they assume Obama is and has been lying about his non-support for same sex marriage, so palling around with this pastor who “agrees” with him is an outrage. Bill Ayers, notsomuch. And the racist poem guy? Ya. not a big deal either.
About that Inaugural Oath Flub
The recitation of the presidential oath came in fits and starts.
The Constitution prescribes the text: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
But Chief Justice John Roberts, using no notes, flubbed his lines, and Obama knew it.
First, Obama jumped in before the “do solemnly swear” phrase, which seemed to throw the chief justice off his stride. Roberts rendered the next phrase as “that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully.”
“That I will execute,” Obama repeated, then paused like a school teacher prompting his student with a slight nod. Roberts took another shot at it: “The off … faithfully the pres … the office of President of the United States.”
The oath then got more or less back on track after that. Close enough for government work.
NBC’s Abby Livingston adds the transcript:
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…
OBAMA: I, Barack…
ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…
ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully…
OBAMA: … that I will execute…
ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…
OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…
ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…
OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability…
ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.
This left Fox News Christ Wallace to humorously that he wasn’t sure who is actually President now…
The point is actually valid, as the oath is a Constitutional requirement. Since it was botched, he technically was not president and thus re-took the oath of office, just to be on the safe side. Yes, we’re serious.