ABC's Karl uncritically quoted Cornyn's baseless claim that Schumer "believes" Franken "should be seated without an election certificate"
SUMMARY: ABC News' Jonathan Karl uncritically quoted Sen. John Cornyn's assertion that "[o]ne can't help but wonder why Senator [Chuck] Schumer believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires." In fact, Schumer has not advocated bypassing legal requirements; he reportedly said that "it is now clear that Al Franken won the election," but added that "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course."
In a January 4 blog post on ABC News' The Note about the Minnesota Senate race, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl uncritically quoted Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman John Cornyn's (TX) assertion that "[o]ne can't help but wonder why Senator [Chuck] Schumer [D-NY] believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires. ... It appears that if Senator Schumer had his way, Minnesota's election laws would be disregarded." In fact, Schumer has not advocated bypassing legal requirements. In a January 4 statement -- which Karl did not provide -- Schumer reportedly said that "it is now clear that Al Franken won the election," but added that "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course." Schumer concluded: "With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible." Schumer did not say that Franken should be seated "without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor."
From Schumer's statement, as posted on the TPM Election Central blog at 2:15 p.m. on January 4:
With the Minnesota recount complete, it is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner, and while there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota. Even if all the ballots Coleman claims were double counted or erroneously added were resolved in his favor, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible.
From Karl's entry on The Note, posted on ABCNews.com on January 4 at 8:42 p.m.:
Republicans are loudly complaining that Democrats -- specifically Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer of New York -- have declared Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota Senate race.
The state canvassing board is expected to conclude Monday that Franken has won by 225 votes, but legal challenges continue and Gov. Tim Pawlenty won't certify the results until those challenges run their course.
Meanwhile, Minnesota now has only one senator. As of noon Saturday, Norm Coleman was no longer a senator -- his term expired. It's unclear whether he will now be booted from his offices, but he has no legal standing to either his office space or his staff.
Here is the statement from Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn, who basically calls Schumer a hypocrite for proclaiming the uncertified Franken a senator while refusing to recognize the uncertified Roland Burris -- indicted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill Barack Obama's vacated seat -- a senator:
"While I recognize that as the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the 2008 elections, Senator Schumer is not ambivalent about the outcome of this election, his victory proclamation for Al Franken is troubling on at least a couple of levels.
"First, there is the matter of Minnesota law and double standards. One can't help but wonder why Senator Schumer believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires, when that is the very reason Democratic leaders are citing for not seating Mr. Burris from Illinois. It appears that if Senator Schumer had his way, Minnesota's election laws would be disregarded.
"Then, there is the pending Supreme Court case and likely election contest that will ultimately decide, consistent with Minnesota law, who won the election. Senator Schumer's exultations are premature to say the least. Minnesota voters' choices must be respected and not the choices of political leaders in Washington.
"Finally, as the new Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over contested elections, Senator Schumer will likely play a key role in determining who ultimately assumes this Senate seat. Pre-judging the outcome while litigation is still pending calls into question his ability to impartially preside over this matter when it comes before the Committee, as it most certainly will."
Because he good enough...
... and he's smart enough...
... and dogonne it, people like him!
....at least 42% of Minnesota voters do.
I think the correct thing to say is that Franken won the "recount", not the "election"...yet. That decision will be determined in court, although it looks very good for Franken to ultimately prevail in my opinion.
Franken won, the people spoke and this will be the first time Republicans have been unable to steal an election like they did in 2000.
Well... 42.001% now. And that does indeed look like enough. We'll see. It's one thing to challenge a close election - mistakes happen, obviously. But to challenge a carefully and toroughly scrutinized recount... Steeper hill to climb. Coleman lost. Time to move on.
Bruce I think it's a safe bet to say the recount would have gone on forever until Franken was the winner. No way the Dems were gonna let this one go ;-)
Yeah, those darn Dem's with their hateful insistance that we count as many votes as humanly possibly in our democracy. Much better the way those loving 'Pub's do it: STOP ALL RECOUNTS AND THROW AS MANY BALLOTS AS POSSIBLE, AS LONG AS YOU'RE AHEAD.
Give it up. The recount would go on unitl it was done. Coleman lost. End of story, time to move on to the latest dead celebrity.
I always said a vote for Franken was the same as a vote for Frankenstein.
(Somebody added that to the end of Franken's name and it was accepted as a vote for Franken by the geniuses who know about these things).
Hi Bruce. That scenario you just related sounds like a bit of urban legend if you ask me. Or maybe you're using the Jeter2 defense - ya know it's supposed to be funny. :-) Okay, maybe you were making a funny. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....:-)
It is absolutely true. I'm conservative I don't have a sense of humor.
"He also won a challenge on a Mankato ballot on which the voter had blackened his oval but extended his name to read "Al Frankenstin."
Trimble argued that the voter hadn't cast his vote for Franken, but for someone named Frankenstin. "The candidate is still identified as the candidate of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party," Elias countered. The board voted 3-2 to award the vote to Franken."
That was from an article in the Star Tribune dated 12-18-08. Some urban legends are indeed true.
It's pretty easy to argue that the blackened oval signifies intent no matter what name extension is put on there. I'm surprised that two people out of five really want to assert otherwise.
What if he added Frankennormcoleman to the end?
I would throw the ballot out on the grounds that this voter is clearly an idiot. I realize that doesn't disqualify people and that is unfortunate.
If you want to make jokes, how about going to the Comedy Club or the local tavern instead of on your ballot?
Adding "normcoleman" to the end would be a bit different, that much is true. But you're saying that because someone has a sense of humor that you don't appreciate, their vote shouldn't count? Those people still have the right to vote. If someone filled in the circle for Coleman and added "lantern" at the end, that's still a vote for Coleman. Unless it can be argued that the person genuinely thought there was a person named "Al Frankenstein" and a person named "Al Franken" running at the same time, the intent is clear.
My stance on voting has always been clear and that is that only properly filled out ballots should be counted. I don't agree with the "intent of the voter" standard that Minnesota has as law because it is inherently subjective, as has been proven during this process where a 5-person panel is awarding votes to each candidate on a "majority wins" basis.
I actually do appreciate this persons sense of humor, I just believe that people who do that type of thing should understand that they are disqualifying themselves.
Any matters of judgment are subjective. I guess the difference is my general principle that you always need to have judgment in the system. Things like "no-tolerance" programs are unacceptable to me, for instance. Some kid forgets that he has a box-cutter in his pocket because he uses it for his after-school job, and that kid gets expelled. That defies common sense.
Similarly, you could look at the number of people who voted for Pat Buchanan in heavily-Jewish Palm Beach in 2000 and say "well, that's who they voted for". It defies common sense, and obviously there had to be something wrong. Circumstances vary wildly, and a set-in-stone-no-exceptions rule will always fail to address them appropriately. As a very wise man told me, "once you take judgment out of the system, everything goes haywire".
I agree the Pat Bucanon votes were improperly cast in that area and the intent of most of those voters was probably to vote for Gore. A poorly designed ballot was to blame for that problem.
However, those votes were counted for Buchanon nevertheless as what else could be done?
I just place a high standard on people to follow instructions and be responsible. I don't feel that the act of voting correctly is an unreasonable burden. Even in the case of that poorly designed ballot, most people were able to figure it out.
Getting back to the previous example of "Frankenstein", it's possible that this person had no intention of voting for Franken at all, he may have simply filled in the Frankenstein thing as a joke, assuming it would disqualify him. It's not likely but I don't believe you can say with certainty what that voters intent was. And in that instance, I would not allow that vote to count.
A revote could have been held in Palm Beach, quite easily. The ballot was illegal, which is a legitimate reason for such action.
In this matter I think it's a question of priorities. Generally if someone does something like this, and their vote doesn't count, so what? Almost all of the time there's a clear-cut winner, and going down to individual votes is unnecessary. And it makes sense to say that people should fill out a ballot correctly just so that their vote is sure to count. But when you get to this stage, where every single vote counts, what is more important? Is it a priority to punish people for doing something inappropriate, or is it a priority to reflect on the will of the people as best as humanly possible, considering a six-year term in the Senate is at stake?
You could make the same sort of argument for a circle that was half-filled in. Common sense dictates it's not an accidental mark, like a single line could be. If the machine didn't pick it up and the election wasn't in question, nobody would care. But would you say that their vote shouldn't count when it's this close? It seems like skewed priorities to me. Getting the right person in office is more important than teaching so-and-so a lesson.
That's a fairly bizarre theory. It's possible, but the fact that the oval was filled in suggests they knew their vote would be read by optical scanner. It's just as possible that he filled in the wrong oval. It could be true, but it's not the sort of thing that bears serious consideration.
A final point about voter intent is that it is not universally applied. For example, if a person signed their ballot or identified themselves in some way on the ballot then their vote didn't count. Even if they voted correctly otherwise.
So, there were cases like that where votes weren't counted despite everything else being in place.
For the record, since those people didn't follow the rules I wouldn't have counted them either, but now the state was determining which rules disqualify you and which rules don't. I don't agree with that.
But just as different circumstances warrant different judgments, some rules can carry more weight than others based on their importance. I don't know why those votes don't count, but if there's a vital reason for it, then that would be appropriate even if other acts weren't disqualifying.
So not disenfranchising voters and making sure every vote counts is the most important thing except when it isn't.
Now I've got it.
No, you're trying to set up all rules as equivalent. I don't know that that's true. "You can't joke around" may not be as trumping of a concern as "you can't sign your ballot". Again, I don't know why. If there's no reason for it, then I agree that they shouldn't be disqualifying someone for it.
The "priorities" argument I made still applies here, because maybe that's a higher priority. That's not inconsistent.
I suppose if someone walked into the voting place claiming they were somebody from that precinct but they really were not that somebody, their vote counted anyway because we really have no idea who the heck shows up at the polls since we don't ask for identification. But really it doesn't matter because generally even though we know that not everyone that shows up or votes absentee is really a U.S. citizen or should legally be voting in that state, there really aren't enough of them voting to swing the election one way or the other.
Except possibly when the margin is 225 votes out of 3 million cast. But these are just priorities that clearly don't take precedent over other priorities that disqualify some ballots without disqualifying others.
I figure after all of this is finished in Minnesota, there's about a 50% chance that the certified winner of the state actually won if we could have honestly counted every ballot that should have been counted.
Have a good evening, it's been enjoyable.
If I'm getting your meaning straight, you're getting pretty far out of line. Of course all precautions should be taken to insure that people are voting in the right precincts, are who they say they are, etc. To suggest I believe otherwise is ludicrous.
The reason I'm not sure that's your meaning is that you're making my point for me. Voter qualification is a trumping concern. Obviously a vote from a non-citizen or a resident of another state shouldn't be made at all, which is dramatically different from someone writing "stein" after a clearly intended vote. So all rules don't carry the same weight, because the consequences of their respective violations are so far separated. It's the same concept as different crimes receiving different punishments. Jaywalking and mass murder both break the rules, yet they aren't judged the same.
If I'm misreading you, I apologize. But it does come off as if I'm saying that someone shouldn't be jailed for jaywalking, and you're responding by saying that I must think mass murder is no big deal either. Thanks in advance for your clarification.
We agree on that point. However, it is the liberal view that requiring voter identification would have the unintended consequence of suppressing the vote (in fact some liberals would argue that requiring voter id would have the intended consequence of suppressing the vote and I would say "yes" it suppresses the vote of the ineligible voter).
So to the above example, we are taking a pile of 3 million votes and rendering judgments on whether or not they should be valid or invalid based on certain standards, although the original pile that is laying there almost certainly has invalid votes based on the eligibility example I just referred to.
But there's no way to reasonably check that important factor since we don't do it on the front end.
That was my point that was in reference to your point that some rules carry more weight than others. Only counting ballots by legal voters should be at the top of the list. And yet there is outcry from the left if we try to require voter identification, a safeguard that would address that very issue.
Al Franken is probably going to win Minnesota based on the evidence to this point. And Democrats will consider this victory to be totally on the level with every precaution taken to ensure a fair process. And I agree that post-vote, it was handled very professionally based on the laws of Minnesota. But this result, whichever way it goes, will forever be in question because of safeguards that are not taken at the time of voting to ensure that only legal, eligible voters show up and vote.
That's the way I see it.
We do agree on that, I just had no idea that's what you were getting at because it was so far removed from the previous context. "So not disenfranchising voters and making sure every vote counts is the most important thing except when it isn't." It would only be disenfranchising someone if they actually had the right to vote, so I had no idea we were talking about people who actually didn't have the right to vote.
I think the issue with the voter identification is that people shouldn't have to pay to vote. I share that concern. At the same time, I'm sure that there are ways of getting around that, and they should be figured out so that only eligible voters are allowed to vote. A free state-provided I.D. card would be one way, or they could issue a passcode for each registration. If you can't provide the passcode that corresponds to your name, you don't vote. And if there's really no way to meet both goals of cost-free and secure voting, then I would agree that security should be the higher concern.
Also you said this earlier: Is it a priority to punish people for doing something inappropriate, or is it a priority to reflect on the will of the people as best as humanly possible, considering a six-year term in the Senate is at stake?
I should ask you the same question.
I would throw the ballot out on the grounds that this voter is clearly an idiot. I realize that doesn't disqualify people and that is unfortunate. - bruce1ace
The "clear voter intent" standard is the best one to use by far. Once you get into the too-stupid-to-vote standard the subjective nature gets even worse. How much scribble wandering outside the oval disqualifies a voter? How much blank space? What degree of stray marks on a ballot meets that standard? Trying to change to that standard would be a cure worse than the disease.
As I understood it, 3-2 votes on voter intent were very rare. In the vast majority of the challenged ballots the judges were 4-0 or 3-1 (Ritchie only voted as a tie-breaker) on intent. There is no way to make a statewide election completely non-subjective. Our state's is about as close as it can be while still being efficient.
Yes, that was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but if you don't take your own vote seriously then why should the state of Minnesota? Is it really asking too much to be an adult for one 5-minute period of one day every four years?
Apparently yes.
I would throw the ballot out on the grounds that this voter is clearly an idiot.
Have you seen the states that the Republicans routinely win? If you toss out the "idiots" the Dem's would have 80-90% of teh congress and the WH on a permant basis! Give me a break.
There should be s standard rule that nobody ever quote John Cornyn (one of my senators, unfortunately) in any context because he is a non apologetic dirtbag. Well, unless you're going for the comedic or dirtbag angle. Too bad Rick Noriega didn't beat the bastard in this last race.
Or both angles in this case.
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right ... [N]ow you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.""It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right ... [N]ow you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.
Wookie, what the hell are you going on about? Have you been drinking? ;-)
Well darlin, maybe if the links Wookie left had worked I'd have known who said what & what the hell box turtles were. But his links didn't work...it said ERROR. So it sounded like a lot of gibberish.
So I didn't have a clue what he was going on about. But thanks for clearing it up.
Wook, I apologize.
Okay, to be fair, the actual quote wasn't used by Cornyn in that speech. It was from his prepared remarks that the WaPo got the quote from. But it's still from John Cornyn's lips/page, even though he eliminated it from his speech. So spank me J2....:-0) You want to. :-)
So spank me J2....:-0) You want to. :-)
Of course I do darlin. And you wanna spank me too. But should we be telling everyone here? :-O
Oh hell they already know ;-)
It was out of the Wiki page. I thought it was well known.
Wook, sorry for suggesting you'd been drinking. Your link didn't work. And I'd never heard the remark before. I was just trying to be funny, but I do apologize.
No worries. The drinking will come later.
He's never apologized to me for thinking I was drunk...:-0)
Aw Miz Julia, ok I apologize. You weren't drunk...just crazy [about me] :-)
"Where's the camera" Schumer is head of the Senate Rules Committee and should be a little more careful with his remarks.
"With the Minnesota recount complete, it is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner, and while there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota. Even if all the ballots Coleman claims were double counted or erroneously added were resolved in his favor, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible."
I don't know how that last part could be more clear. If he really wanted to seat Franken without a certificate, he wouldn't need to "hope" that the process would resolve itself. He also says clearly that the legal issues will run their course.
Actually, Feinstein from CA is the chairperson of the rules committee, not Schumer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Rules_and_Administration
And they are responsible for the rules of the US Senate, and nothing else. They have no jurisdiction over elections in States at all.
Maybe you should be a little more careful with your remarks?
Only reciting what I read on MMFA's home page. I have no power or influence so my remarks can be shoddy and uncalled for---all I have to worry about is retrobution from superior posters like yourself.
(re)Read the last paragraph of the homepage article this thread is based on.
Franken won the recount and even if all of Coleman's challenges go in his favour it still won't be enough to overturn Franken's victory. I'd say Schumer's remarks were accurate but he never said anything about seating Franken so Cornyn's are not.
This variation of the Fox "question mark" seems to be pretty trendy; "One has to wonder about .. (something that's not really accurate)".
Apparently it works, as Sigtek is convinced that it's Schumer who needs to be more careful with his remarks.
Mr. Schumer is in a position, as head of the senate rules committee, to oversee the rules of the recount and any challenges. All I said is that he should be a little more cautious in his remarks. Is that too much to expect from the leaders of our country? We've seen president elect Obama excersize caution with the press and I commend him for that. We should expect the same from Schumer. Col., you must be clairvoyant or an empath as you are able to "see" what I'm convinced of. My remark was so banal, I'm surprised I invoked the wrath of the Col., but not so much from brab. Brab argues for the sake of arguing.
If you can't be more specific about what is unclear about Schumer's remarks, then your criticism is invalid. I have the right to point that out. Maybe you should consider making more thoughtful comments, and less "banal" ones, and then you wouldn't find yourself offended by having your comments scrutinized.
Schumer ...should be a little more careful with his remarks.(Sigtek)
Sigtek is convinced that it's Schumer who needs to be more careful with his remarks. (Me)
Col., you must be clairvoyant or an empath as you are able to "see" what I'm convinced of. (Sigtek)
Yes, it's an almost supernatural gift I have. That, and wrath.
You really should be ashamed. Pointing out those sort of things is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I always knew you were supernatural, Col. But not quite in the context Sigtek was thinking....:-0) Oh baby. :-0)
As far as an empath? You've always been able to sense and manipulate the emotions of others. Especially cons, who are given to emotional outbursts with no qualifying pretense other than a very factual , dry statement from a Democrat or other rational being (be they paranormal or disposed otherwise).
But please keep your wrath under wraps. There's been quite enough wrath here for one day.
Sorry for the hyperbole ma'am. I keep forgetting that as a conservative "speaking" to a largely liberal audience, there is no room for poetic license.
Oh, there's lots of poetic license. Just not a license to be misinformed or obtuse. :-0)
I must be awfully dense today. Your reply makes absolutely no sense to me:{ (I've left myself wide open--go for it jj.)
No need for hyperbole on my part. You are awfully dense, dude. A dang dense dunce of a dude....:-) Sorry, I couldn't help a little alliteration.....
The term is illiterate......:-)
The term is illiterate......:-)
Yes, thanks for recognizing yourself as such.......Hey, this is fun. But know I already have a con BF, Jeter, on this site...:-) And he might kick your cyber ass if you get too friendly.
Speaking of illiterate: Can't wait to see O'Reilly's face get even spotchier when he has to admit that Al Franken is now a U.S. Senator (should be final this week, folks)
Hey Julia, carry on ;-)
Thanks, Sis...:-0) And happy New Year to you!
"I know you are but what am I"? Come on JJ. You sound smart and hot! You can do better than that.
.....and this guy jeter is what was.
Sorry Sigtek but this guy Jeter is what is. Got it? So back off dude.
BTW Miz Julia is very smart & very very hot. And you're getting that info from someone who knows.
You got it, jeter. I know when to back off.
I'm not offended. Has the Col. been channeling again?
"Dewey defeats Truman"---It can be embarrassing, ya know.
What are you talking about?
An east coast newspaper(sorry, don't know which one) pre-printed their headline the night of the election between Dewey and Truman declaring Dewey the winner, certainly an embarrassing moment for the editor of that newspaper. I thought it was pertinent to Schumer's comments. I also thought the story was common knowledge. I guess not.
I'm familiar with the newspaper headline. I'm not sure how you expect that's going to be comparable to a situation where Coleman can't win even if he gets the votes he says belong to him. The newspaper headline also didn't come at the end of a recount process.
Talk about being all over the place. The headline was in reference to Schumer's remark being a tad premature. If Franken prevails, so be it, the people of Minnesota have spoken. If Coleman prevails, Mr. Schumer should be embarrassed.
No, the headline was about the baseless claim that Schumer thinks Franken should be seated without the process being legitimately completed. That doesn't mean his statement is premature.
I also had no way of guessing that your "careful" remark had anything to do with some off-chance of an errant prediction. That has nothing to do with Schumer's role in the Senate whatsoever. If that was your point, you made it quite unclear. If it wasn't your point, then you're all over the place.
"that has nothing to do with schumer's role in the senate" The last paragraph states that Mr. Schumer is the new chairman of house rules. If the last paragraph is correct, Mr. Schumer may well play a role in deciphering and enforcing the rules of the recount therefore he has a special responsibility to remain impartial until the recount is complete. Impartiality includes holding your tongue when it's appropriate.
The recount is complete. Anything further is a matter of the courts. I'd like to see some backup for the assertion that he would have anything to do with the rules of the recount as well. I would think that is up to state officials.
Again, the last paragraph of the story in question states that Mr. Schumer, as the new chairman of the rules committee has the authority to oversee the recount process and any ruling that comes out of the courts. Considerable influence by any standard.
According to Cornyn. This is the same person who's baselessly asserting that Schumer wants to seat Franken without an election certificate. On one hand you're saying that Schumer is partisan, but Cornyn is impartial.
Here's the question:is what Schumer said true or not? Because if it's true, if Franken leads by a large enough margin that he would win even if Coleman got all the votes he's expecting to win, then his statement is perfectly appropriate. There's nothing that distinguishes it from the observations of a completely objective and neutral party. There's no understandable way that Coleman would get the votes he needs to win, no matter what happens in court, and so it's not spin to say that the election belongs to Franken.
Do you see what I'm saying?
The recount is being conducted by the state of minnesota, not the us senate.
sorry for the lower case, i'm typing with a broken arm.
Exactly. I'm pretty sure Minnesota sets the rules for the election, not the US Senate. Sigtek, wrong again.
Being "pretty sure" never works for a conservative like me. 'sgotta be 100% . Once again, just goin' by info on the homepage.
Please, read the last paragraph of the article on the homepage.
Use your fingers, King.
And sorry about the broken arm. Nobody said the WOX wasn't going to be dangerous.
you know me, i'd pay any price to protect our lord and savior and to keep his bday sacred.
Obviously. Typing with an angry "forearm bash" is not only pretty manly, it shows a real commitment to Jeesus..
Once again, if the last paragraph of the home page article is in error, then I repeated an error, if not, my statement stands.
Senator Al Franken.
Get over it trolls!
I am willing to bet that if/when Franken is seated as Minnesota's 2nd Senator, O'Reilly is going to FLIP out. Wait and watch folks, wait and watch.
He'll play clips of Franken on the Senate floor so that he can yell "shut up!" at him.
I am willing to bet that if/when Franken is seated as Minnesota's 2nd Senator, O'Reilly is going to FLIP out. Wait and watch folks, wait and watch.
But Bill won a Peabody and he saved Sponge Bob. And he has been in combat. O'Reilly must love this tape courtesy of Senator Al Franken. Sgt. Bill O'Reilly's Tales of Combat. Nerves of steel.
I'm willing to bet that a Franken victory will be a cornerstone of the RNC's 'election fraud' strategy for years to come. I can't wait to hear what Scarborogh has to say.
That fact alone would have been enough for me to vote for Franken (if I lived in Minn, that is).
Senator Franken, (D). Yup, certainly has a lovely ring to it!