Thursday, January 8, 2009

Felons only vote for Coleman?

I must start today saying that none of my future entries will be as long as the one yesterday! That one really ended up taking up a lot of space once I read it. Good information, but really long. Thanks to those of you who made it all the way through. For those of you who didn't, now is a good time to go back and finish it!

I was watching the 10pm news last night (which I must say is something I am doing less and less of) on KARE 11 when I saw a story that was not just partisan, but grossly partisan. Normally I would be surprised that a story could be this amazingly partisan, but we are talking about KARE 11 who is rivaling WCCO as the most pro-liberal station in town. Since I don't trust anything that comes from KARE any more, I went to the source, which was much more credible; the Star Tribune. (I am joking by the way) This is how the Tribune article started out :

"Should it come to pass that Norm Coleman wins his overtime U.S. Senate battle with Al Franken by one vote, the incumbent can thank a convicted felon who illegally cast his ballot in Minnesota's northern reaches."

There is actually a lot to be gleaned from that single paragraph. The first and foremost is that the Tribune is conceding that they realize that once Coleman takes this to the courts, the monkey business that happened in this election will come out and Norm Coleman will come out victorious. I truly believe that Norm has a legitimate shot at staying our Senator once the suit goes before a judge. The other thing this paragraph tells us is that the Franken campaign, like the Obama campaign did with Sara Palen, has operatives out there working to do anything they can to do two things. One is to smear Norm Coleman in any way possible. The second thing is to set up a scenario that if Norm is declared the winner, they can come back to a laundry list of things to say that Norm "stole" the election and received votes that were not legal. Mark my words, this story about a felon voting for Coleman is not the last thing we will here about "tainted" Coleman votes. The Franken smear mongers are now in overdrive to find anything they can to cast a shadow on Norm. but why would they do this if their candidate won the election fair and square? Well, it's because they know darn well that their candidate is now ahead in the count because of fraudulent acts by both the Canvasing Committee and yes; our own Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

Now I am not looking past the fact that a felon cast a ballot. And Eric Willemses crime is especially disturbing. He should absolutely not have knowingly cast that ballot, which he admitted to doing. But how did the Franken campaign (which I think we can be safe to say now encompasses the Canvasing Board and the Secretary of States office) find that one ballot from way up north in Warroad this close to the end of the election? It doesn't say anything about there being errors on the ballot, so it must not have been a disputed one. How do we know that this felon even voted for Coleman? The way this whole thing has gone, I think we need to see proof that this guy actually cast a ballot for Norm. Could the Star Tribune have found a guy who would be willing to be the front man for this story and not have really cast a ballot for Norm or anybody for that matter? Without any proof, my last statement is just as credible as the Tribunes story about him voting for Norm. As the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding". And the pudding my friends, is starting to get pretty thick!

More tomorrow. Have a great Thursday!

No comments: