Norm Coleman won't run for anything

By Richard K. Barry

Late last week Norm Coleman let it be known that he won't run for political office in 2014. Earlier in the year he said he wouldn't take on Sen. Al Franken (DFL-MN), but, according to Minnesota Public Radio, his unequivocal statement means he is ruling out running for governor as well. 

You'll recall that Coleman lost his senate seat to Franken by a hair (312 votes out of over 3 million cast) in 2008. 

Coleman's announcement, which was first reported by KSTP's Tom Hauser, means there is now a wide open field for Republicans looking to challenge DFL Gov. Mark Dayton and Franken.

Coleman has been repeatedly mentioned as a top candidate to challenge either Franken or Dayton in 2014.

The substance of the announcement is interesting enough, but its manner of delivery also fascinates.  It's quite something that a few lines typed on Twitter can do the work of what used to require press releases and press conferences and hours and hours of effort. It does relieve public officials of some wear and tear, which I suppose is a good thing.

Sen. Al Franken is good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like him

By Richard K. Barry

According to Public Policy Polling, Minnesota Sen. Al Franken (and former "funny man") looks to be in good shape for reelection in 2014. I love that term "funny man." Anyway, Al's numbers look good. PPP finds that 52% of Minnesota voters approve of him, while 41% disapprove. 

On top of that, his chances are improved by the fact that the potential GOP field is so pathetic.

One thing that may help Franken's reelection chances, on top of his own popularity, is the weak Republican bench in the state. The top choice of GOP voters in Minnesota to take on Franken is Michele Bachmann. 45% say they would like her to be their candidate with no one else even coming close- John Kline is at 19%, Chip Cravaack at 13%, Erik Paulsen at 11%, Laura Brod at 4%, and Rich Stanek at 2%. Bachmann fares equally strongly with voters in the party who identify as 'very conservative' (46%), 'somewhat conservative' (45%), and moderate (also 45%).

The problem with Bachmann, as they point out, is that she does the worst of anyone they tested against Franken, "trailing him 54/40, including a 50/39 deficit with independents." 

So, Sen. Franken might be among the less vulnerable Democratic Senators next time out. I wonder if reelection might help him find his famous sense of humour, something he has so clearly put in storage since coming to Washington. 

Encore, Sen. Franken, encore!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.

Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration's failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

It's possible that "ripped into" is an exaggeration. Still, we need much more of this. Democrats shouldn't take shit from anyone, including from the president, who needs to show a hell of a lot more leadership if he wants to keep his agenda from ending up in the dustbin of history.

Al Franken's anti-rape bill becomes law

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress: "Obama signs Franken's anti-rape amendment into law."

You remember, right?

Within the Appropriations Act is Sen. Al Franken's (D-MN) amendment prohibiting defense contractors from restricting their employees' abilities to take workplace discrimination, battery, and sexual assault cases to court. The measure was inspired by Jamie Leigh Jones, who was gang-raped by her co-workers while working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. Many Republicans opposed the legislation — saying it was an unnecessary attack on their allies in the defense contracting business — and faced intense political blowback over their positions.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Republican Party in 2009... and well into the forseeable future. I wouldn't go so far as to call it pro-rape, but it's clearly on the wrong side of a pretty clear-cut issue.

How do you know you're an extremist party that has lost all touch with decency and humanity? You look the other way on gang-rape.

So, for McCain, was it senility or hypocrisy, or what?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So you know how Al Franken refused to give Joe Lieberman any extra time to speak on Thursday, once his allotted ten minutes were up, prompting John McCain to rush to the defence of his pal, saying he'd never seen anything like that before and lamenting what had become of the Senate?

I posted on it yesterday and included the clip. Here's specifically what McCain said:

I've been around here 20-some years. First time I've ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks. And I must say that I don't know what's happening here in this body, but I think it's wrong.

McCain's memory must be failing, or something. Levin interjected, pointing out that that very thing had just happened earlier in the afternoon. But McCain, undaunted, kept going:

Well, I just haven't seen it before myself. And I don't like it. And I think it harms the comity of the Senate not to allow one of our members at least a minute. I'm sure that time is urgent here, but I doubt that it would be that urgent.

As I argued in my post, Lieberman probably should have been given the extra time. The issue, if there is one, is McCain's righteous outrage. And not only did McCain forget, or not know, that it had happened that same day, but, as Think Progress reports, McCain himself did the very same thing back in 2002, objecting to any additional time for Mark Dayton, then a Democratic senator from Minnesota.

And why did he do that? Maybe because Dayton was speaking "in favor of an amendment that would have restricted Bush's constitutional powers to wage war against Iraq."

Hypocrisy? You betcha. Unless it's senility, which is a distinct possibility.

Shutting up Lieberman

By Michael J.W. Stickings

TPM:

[Joe] Lieberman was giving a ten-minute speech on health care reform. [Al] Franken, who was presiding over the Senate, cut him off when his ten minutes were up. When Lieberman requested unanimous consent for an extra few minutes to finish his speech, Franken, in his capacity as a senator from Minnesota, objected. And, in his capacity as presiding officer, Franken honored the objection.

After a brief moment of tension, Lieberman laughed and said he didn't take it personally, and requested that the rest of his speech be put in the record.

Then [John] McCain took the floor to defend his friend, saying he'd never seen anything like it.

Watch the clip below.

McCain: "I must say that, uh, I don't know what's happening here in this body, but, uh, I think it's wrong..."

Really, Senator McCain? You don't know what's happening? Look, Franken probably should have granted Lieberman an extra minute or two. The perception, after all, is that Franken denied him the extra time simply because he doesn't agree with him (or like him). But, Senator McCain, why don't you take a long, hard look at your own party, which is a party of ideological extremism and procedural obstructionism.

For example, just yesterday, according to The Hill, Jim DeMint, one of your more extremist colleagues, said he's "prepared to use every procedural tool to delay a vote" on the Democratic reform bill. And just two days ago, again according to The Hill, Tom Coburn, another extremist, required a 767-page amendment to be read aloud and in full, a clear waste of time and one of the Republicans' key delaying tactics.

You could argue that giving a senator an extra minute or two is the same as allowing senators to use the tools at their disposal, but if what you're talking about is civility, I'd say the reverse is true. Sure, give Lieberman an extra minute or two, out of respect if nothing else, but then stop your fellow Republicans from being nasty and vindictive in their quest to kill a bill that has the support of a decisive majority of senators (at least 58).

What's happened to your beloved Senate, Senator McCain? The Republican Party happened, your party, the party of DeMint and Coburn and their ilk.

You really want to stick to the stupid rules that govern cloture and filibustering and that allow a single senator to hold the Senate hostage, denying the will of the majority? Then shut up about Lieberman's ten minutes.

Don't blame Al Franken

By Creature

If Republicans didn't want to be perceived as pro-rape they should have thought about that before they voted. Now they whine (something they do best) that they can't work with Franken. Like they ever would have worked with him in the first place.

Smearing Franken

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well, it's begun in earnest.

Not that the right has ever been soft on Al Franken -- it certainly wasn't soft during the campaign or the recount (or with respect to Norm Coleman's various legal challenges) -- but, now that he's set to take his rightful seat in the Senate (you know, because he actually won the election), the smear campaign has gotten personal.

And who is leading the smear campaign? Why, Fox News, of course.

Media Matters has the details:

After Norm Coleman conceded the 2008 Minnesota Senate race to Al Franken (D), several Fox News hosts expressed bewilderment, disappointment, and denial about the outcome. For instance, Glenn Beck said of Franken's victory, "[I]t shows how crazy our country has gone." He added: "[I]t shows that we've lost our minds." Sean Hannity claimed that Franken is "not all there," and later claimed, "I, in my heart of hearts, do not believe that Al Franken won that election." And Brian Kilmeade said he's "in denial" about Franken, who he said was "barely sane." Gretchen Carlson responded to Kilmeade by again falsely claiming that Coleman "won in the original election."

As Media Matters for America has documented, Fox News personalities have repeatedly promoted baseless claims of fraud in the Minnesota race and claimed that there was a lack of impartiality in the recount process to accuse Franken of "stealing" the election. However, in its unanimous 5-0 ruling, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that "[n]o claim of fraud in the election or during the recount was made by either party" and that "Coleman's counsel confirmed at oral argument that Coleman makes no claim of fraud on the part of either voters or election officials."

Just in case you weren't quite sure, Fox News hates democracy. At least when the other side wins.

**********

Oh, yeah, The Wall Street Journal hates it, too. (It claims that Franken only "won" because his lawyers were "creative." Which, of course, is nonsense.)

Senator Al

By Carl

I have mixed feelings about Al Franken as a Senator.

On the one hand, he's an intelligent, compassionate man, Harvard-educated and yet from a working class background. My exposure to him has been limited to his stint on Saturday Night Live and his daily radio show on Air America, in which he spoke to progressives who were tired of being made to feel like second-class citizens. His thoughts on his show were better than most hosts of talk radio, even lefties, and you could tell he'd made an effort to understand the other side.

On the other hand, he's a Jew!!!!!!!!

Just kidding.

On the other hand, because he's a thoughtful and intelligent man who's reached out to the other side, you have to wonder about his loyalties. After all, a liberal from Minnesota is more like a New York City Republican than a true progressive, although Franken may be the exception that challenges that rule-o'-thumb. A liberal from Minnesota who can count Norm Orenstein of the American Enterprize Institute (who's considered a liberal there, but you know...) and Joe Scarborough, that's a tough call.

On the other OTHER hand, to quote Tevye, Al was a protege and admirer of Senator Paul Wellstone, and no one could ever accuse Wellstone of being anything less than a progressive.

The other misgiving I have about Al is, well, he comes off as kind of smarmy and unctuous. When I listen to him, I feel like I need a shower sometimes, and not because he can curse a blue streak. There's just something in his manner that rubs me the wrong way. I wonder if it's just me (probably) or if this is a general impression (and so how is he going to work with other senators?).

Not that other senators are necessarily down-to-earth people who can't rub a cat the wrong way, mind you, but there is a hierarchy and it will be interesting to see if, like Hillary Clinton, Franken can work with the system or if he'll end up like another famous Minnesotan flop, Jesse Ventura, and rail about "process."

We shall see. Certainly, the fact that this election was as close as it was in a year when Barack Obama established new records for a first term Democratic president speaks volumes about the two men running (who actually had a chance of winning, I mean).

A dead heat tells me this election was between Odious and Odiouser in the eyes of Minnesotans. Neither candidate amassed a simple majority of the vote and many people registered their disgust by simply voting for the third candidate in the race.

But, another famously odious politician won his first Federal election in a similar manner and went on to become the "Greatest. President. Ever, to quote Al Franken: Bill Clinton.

So Senator? Congratulations. Don't fuck it up.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

And so, Minnesota's long national nightmare is over

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As I'm sure many of you have heard by now, the 2008 Minnesota Senate election is finally over. The state Supreme Court, which had become the locus on the ongoing fight, has ruled 5-0 in Franken's favour. And with Franken declared the winner, Coleman conceded.

While we covered the whole saga extensively here at The Reaction, -- including something like 15 updates on the recount -- I don't have much to add to what has already been said. What I will say is that I'm relieved, even if, to me, this outcome was not just long overdue but pretty much inevitable: Coleman may have "won" the first count, but Franken surged ahead during the recount, even if the margin of victory was astonishingly narrow, and it was just a matter of time until Coleman's legal challenge either ran out of steam or ran into a decisive decision against him.

And why did Coleman lose? Politico attempts to answer that question, explaining away his legal defeat by pointing to his "pocketbook," as well as to his "political future." But Politico's GOP/Coleman-friendly piece misses the crucial fact: Coleman lost because he didn't win as many votes as Franken did. All legal wrangling aside, that's all there was to it. Yes, yes, I know, it was all about those absentee ballots, about what ballots should have been counted, but it was clear that the recount was conducted fairly and that Coleman lost. This was confirmed by a unanimous ruling of the state Supreme Court.

And so, that's it. Once Franken is sworn in, the Democrats will have 60 senators -- and a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But will it make a difference? Not really. The 60 includes the likes of Lieberman (a non-Democrat), Specter (a pseudo-Democrat), Bayh and Nelson (quasi-Democrats), and various others who don't, and won't, vote strictly along party lines, including on key issues like climate change, energy, health care, and the economy.

Still, I'd rather not let my pessimism get the better of me tonight. It does mean something that the Democrats have achieved that magical 60, and perhaps, just perhaps, Franken's victory will encourage them to pursue a more ambitious agenda. Even if not, though, at least the 2008 Minnesota Senate race turned out as so many of us had hoped.

Welcome, Senator Franken. It's good to have you aboard.

A decision, a concession, a defection, an impression, and a question

By (O)CT(O)PUS

Nine months since the election, almost 3 million votes cast, after weeks of recounts and months of court appeals involving 10 judges, 142 witnesses, and over $13 million in legal fees, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in favor of Al Franken and ordered that he be certified as winner of the election. Within moments after the decision, Norm Coleman offered his concession.

Minnesota finally gets its full complement of Congressional representation; and the Democrats, with Arlen Specter's recent defection, get a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

One would think the way is clear for a run of progressive legislation without Republican obstruction. But the Democrats are a fractious bunch, and Octopus is a pessimist.

Will the Dems mess up a golden opportunity? Will we finally get an alternative energy bill, new financial market regulation, universal healthcare, and more? Your thoughts.

(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)

What will Pawlenty do?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He's not running for re-election in 2010, and he may be eyeing a presidential run in 2012, but, for now, the key issue confronting the Minnesota governor is whether to certify Al Franken's victory over Norm Coleman in last year's Senate election. Some are worrying that pressure from the national GOP, and the need to please the far-right base of the party, will be enough to persuade Pawlenty to keep dragging out the process by not certifying Franken's victory, but, as I wrote yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court will likely issue a ruling that forces him to do what is right, not what he may perceive to be in his personal and partisan interests (though it may not be in his best interest to enable Coleman's ongoing fight by going against both the courts and public opinion, as well as by coming across as a hyper-partisan extremist). And, with experts overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, suggesting that Coleman has run out of legal options, Pawlenty stated yesterday that he would certify Franken's victory...

Or not. Because he gave himself an out. He will certify only if there is no "other contrary direction from a federal court."

Or perhaps only if there is no appeal. From the transcript, it's not at all clear what he meant when he stated "and there's not an appeal or some other contrary direction from a federal court." Does this mean that he won't certify if the Coleman team appeals the ruling? Does this mean that he would allow an appeal by a fellow Republican to trump a ruling of his state's Supreme Court?)

We shall see.

No Pawlenty in 2010

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With his sights (perhaps) on the White House, and on a 2012 run, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has decided not to seek re-election next year. (It would have been somewhat awkward to win re-election and then almost immediately declare his intention to run. He may have wanted to get out while the getting was good, before his popularity eroded further, possibly as a result of the economic crisis. And what if he had lost? So much for the White House.)

Pawlenty's personal plans can wait, though. The more immediate question is this: What will he do about the still-unresolved Coleman-Franken Senate election? Will he now side with the national GOP and block Franken? Or will he certify Franken's apparent victory?

Steven Benen suggests that "if the next set of folks Pawlenty has to impress is Republican presidential primary voters" -- which may very well be the case -- "look for the governor to back Coleman's efforts indefinitely."

Similarly, Josh Marshall thinks that "Pawlenty will likely have just enough wiggle room to refuse to [certify Franken's victory], if he wishes, perhaps using the excuse of possible litigation on Coleman's behalf in the federal judiciary": "As long as he was going to run for governor and had to face Minnesota voters again, there was good reason for him not to completely stick his finger in the eye of the election process. But now that's not holding him back. And since he's probably running for president, he'll have tons of incentive to pander to the hardcore tea-bagging wing of the GOP and keep Franken out of the Senate as long as he can."

We shall see. I tend to think the Minnesota Supreme Court will issue a fairly decisive ruling that will more or less force Pawlenty to do what is right and certify Franken's victory. No, that won't improve his chances with the far-right base of the GOP, but it will at least allow him to come across as something other than a partisan extremist who cares not a whit for democracy, or for the interests of his own state.

A Specter is haunting Congress

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Much ado on Tuesday about Arlen Specter's assertion, in an interview with the Times, that "[t]here's still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner." (Creature recently posted on it here. For more Creature on Specter, see here.)

Specter has since claimed that he "misspoke." Sorry, but that's not good enough.

It's hard to get a sense of it from the transcript, but there seemed to be a certain light-heartedness to the interview -- and yet, it doesn't seem that Specter was joking. He said that the courts could still "do justice," which is pretty strong and decisive language. (Both the official recount and subsequent judicial rulings have declared Franken the winner. How is "justice" a Coleman victory?) Furthermore, when the interviewer, Deborah Solomon, noted, quite rightly, that the courts now handing the election to Coleman was as unlikely as Jerry Seinfeld "joining the Senate," Specter added that "it was about as likely as my becoming a Democrat." Which is to say: unlikely, but possible, if not, given Specter's recent conversion, desirable.

It is possible, of course, that Specter, a new Democrat, really did misspeak, that is, really did get it backwards -- and yet, he didn't correct himself, and he declared his support for Coleman even as he commented on becoming a Democrat. Given the context of his conversion, and the awareness of that context throughout the interview, can it really be that Specter forgot that he's no longer a Republican, or that he was just so used to backing Coleman, and Republicans generally, that he answered the question not thoughtfully but instinctively, knees jerking, that he's just not yet used to his "new teammates," that he just wasn't being "correct" or "precise"? (And what exactly does precision have to do with it? He was being pretty precise in his support Coleman, wasn't he? And it was only later, once his comments became a minor scandal, that correctness was the issue.) Hardly. He knew perfectly well what he was saying. He said it, and there's just no going back on it. And claiming that he just misspoke is blatant dishonesty.

As I explained here and here, I just can't welcome Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party with open arms. It's a huge embarrassment for the Republicans, which is indeed welcome, but the fact is, Specter just isn't a Democrat, and there's no reason to believe he'll be a good party man going forward. Sure, Specter found himself more and more marginalized in a Republican Party that has moved further to the right over the years, and I can understand why the Democratic Party may now be more to his liking, but he crossed the aisle not for policy reasons but for personal ones, that is, not to support, and to be a prominent part of, the Democratic majority, not to promote a liberal-progressive agenda for changing America, but to run for re-election next year as a Democrat, which is pretty much his only hope of winning, given that, as he admitted in the interview, his "prospects for winning the Republican primary were bleak."

I do hope that Specter is serious about "looking for more Democratic members," as he declared in his dishonest clarification, but he's got an awful lot to prove if he really wants to be a trusted member of his new party.

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 15

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Well... it's over:

After a trial spanning nearly three months, Norm Coleman's attempt to reverse Al Franken's lead in the recount of the U.S. Senate election was soundly rejected today by a three-judge panel that dismissed the Republican's lawsuit.

The judges swept away Coleman's argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.

"The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately," the panel said in its unanimous decision.

Or not. Coleman may yet appeal the decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Hopefully he won't, though -- even some conservatives want him to concede (for his own good, for the party's good), and he may just have one last chance to bow out gracefully.

It's time for this long national nightmare -- well, okay, it hasn't been that dramatic -- to end.

(For an excellent overview of the "dispute," including of what might happen next, see this post at Election Law Blog. For all of our Minnesota-related posts, most of them on Franken-Coleman, see here.)

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 14

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Last time we checked (here), it was almost over. Franken's lead stood at 225 votes -- not a huge lead, all things considered, a large enough one given how few absentee ballots remained to be counted (about 400).

Well, with those ballots now counted, Franken's lead has actually grown -- to 312. As the StarTrib puts it, "Coleman's dim prospects for winning the U.S. Senate trial darkened today."

But it's still not over, not with Coleman's litigiousness in full swing:

Coleman's case during the trial has rested mostly on counting absentee ballots that he contends had been wrongly rejected. Barring an unexpected court ruling, he now lacks the ballots needed for a trial victory, and his lawyers repeated vows to appeal an adverse final verdict.

Don't get me wrong. Coleman has a right to continue his legal challenges, at least until exhausted. But the people of Minnesota are surely exhausted of this by now, and, as they say, the writing is on the wall. Franken won. That may not be easy for Coleman to take, but it's the way it is.

Senator Franken, shortly

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Jason Zengerle has a fine post up at The Plank today on just why it is that it's taking so long for Minnesota to name the winner of its 2008 Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman.

It's not just that there was a recount, or that there were so many disputed ballots, with both sides challenging, rightly or wrongly, what should and shouldn't be counted, or even that the case is now in the hands of judges, with a likely Coleman appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and then possibly to federal court, coming up. Rather, Zengerle blames the whole Blago-Burris saga.

See, Senate Democrats, who didn't really want Burris to join their ranks, demanded that Burris have a formal election certificate in order to be seated. He had one, but it was only signed by his pal Blago. It needed to be signed by the secretary of state as well. Or so it was thought. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the Blago-only-signed certificate was enough, forcing Senate Democrats to back down. Burris was seated.

Franken, who is almost certainly the winner of the election, doesn't have a certificate. (Coleman blocked that.) Senate Democrats could seat Franken provisionally, that is, pending the outcome of Coleman's legal challenges, but they can't do that given their position on the Burris appointment.

But no matter. It will take a bit more time, but Senator Franken will soon be joining the Democratic majority in the Senate as its 59th member.

(See here for all of our coverage of the Franken-Coleman election.)

Minnesota Senate Recount -- update 13

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wait... what? It's still going on? It's not over yet? Yup.

It's been quite some time since our last few updates from early January -- and you can find all of our Minnesota-related posts here -- but, desipte the inevitable inevitabiliyt of it all, there's still no Senator Franken.

At long last, though, it's almost over. Almost:

Norm Coleman's lawyers all but conceded defeat Tuesday and promised to appeal after a panel of three judges ordered no more than 400 new absentee ballots opened and counted, far fewer than the Republican had sought to overcome the lead held by DFLer Al Franken.

The ballots include many that Franken had identified as wrongly rejected as well as ballots that Coleman wanted opened in his quest to overcome the 225-vote lead that Franken gained after a recount in Minnesota's U.S. Senate race.

"We are very pleased," said Franken lead lawyer Marc Elias shortly after the ruling, which calls for ballots to be opened next week.

Oh, but that was just a battle, not the war, and Coleman may yet take his fight to the next level, the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Maybe now would be a good time for the media to start paying a bit more attention to Coleman's other ongoing legal problems.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Norm Coleman

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ah, Norm Coleman... ex-Senator Norm Coleman... will the craziness never end? Will you never stop staying crazy stupid things like:

God wants me to serve.

Like you did last Friday in a radio interview. Are you really an endless reservoir of such egotistical inanity? Do you really believe you have "God" behind you, that "He" wants you in the U.S. Senate?

Come on... seriously?

Because, you see, there was an election in your state, Minnesota, a few months ago, and, well, it was close -- very close -- but they counted, and then re-counted, and, well, you lost. Al Franken ended up with more votes than you. It's as simple as that. The people of Minnesota said: "We want Franken to serve us."

Got it? No? Well, maybe you will eventually. Maybe once you finally exhaust your legal bickering.

And once Senator Franken finally takes your seat.

Smearing Franken

By Michael J.W. Stickings

If you've been following the dramatic Senate recount in Minnesota -- and even if you haven't -- check out Joe Conason's welcome shredding of Franken's opponents over at Salon. Here's the gist of it:

If Al Franken were not a longtime public figure -- and thus severely handicapped by American jurisprudence -- he could file a powerful complaint for libel or slander against several of the most prominent wingnuts in the United States. From Rush Limbaugh to Bill O'Reilly to Richard Mellon Scaife, a chorus of familiar voices is loudly defaming the Democrat whose razor-thin win in the Minnesota Senate race will now be tested in that state's courts. Ever since Election Day, on radio and television, on the Internet and in print, they've screamed that Franken is stealing, rigging, pilfering, scamming, thieving and cheating his way to victory.

These media figures, some of whom occasionally pretend to be journalists, have spewed such accusations repeatedly, without offering any proof whatsoever -- in plain contradiction of the available facts. Not only is there no evidence that Franken or his campaign "cheated" in any way during the election or the recount, but there is ample reason to believe that the entire process was fair, balanced and free from partisan taint.

*****

Here's a challenge to all those lying liars. In essence, they have accused my friend Franken of a felony under Minnesota law. If they know of any evidence that would show he has stolen votes or violated any election statute, let them report it to the state law enforcement authorities. And if they don't, perhaps they will at last have the decency to shut up.

I have argued before that Coleman has every right to take his fight to the courts. But what Franken's opponents are doing is, as one has come to expect from them, reprehensible. They should just shut up, but they don't have the decency to do anything of the kind.