After Eight Long Months, IT'S SENATOR FRANKEN!!!!!!!!!!

It's about freakin' time.  'Cause he's smart enough, he's good enough, and dog gone it, more people liked him.


26 Comments

Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.
0

Darn it, I tried to post this before Coaster

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

GOP's Coleman concedes, sending Franken to Senate

By BRIAN BAKST, Associated Press Writer

36 mins ago
ST. PAUL, Minn. – Republican Norm Coleman conceded to Democrat Al Franken in Minnesota's contested Senate race on Tuesday, ending a nearly eight-month recount and court fight over an election decided by only a few hundred votes.

 

Coleman announced his decision at a news conference in St. Paul hours after a unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Franken, a former "Saturday Night Live" comedian and liberal commentator, should be certified the winner.

 

"The Supreme Court has made its decision and I will abide by the results," Coleman told reporters outside his St. Paul home.

 

Coleman, appearing relaxed and upbeat, said he had congratulated Franken, was at peace with the decision and had no regrets about the fight, which started almost immediately after the Nov. 4 election.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_el_se/us_minnesota_senate/prin...

 

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  Unlike Coaster I actually used to listen to Al Franken on Air America Radio.  Do I get Brownie points for that?  Not bloody likely.

It's the beginning...

Wulfgar's picture

...of The Al Franken Senate!

 

 

_______________________________

~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~

 

Is he even from Minnesota?

Missy-Busty's picture

There was a 3rd party candidate who took votes from Coleman giving Franken an opening to pad the votes just like they do in Iran.

I demand a recount or at least a new election without Acorn counting the votes.

Somebody call a WAHbulance!

Coaster's picture

Missy-Busty wrote:

I demand a recount or at least a new election without Acorn counting the votes.

So ACORN participated in the vote count?  Source, please.  

I've got another news flash for you: The votes were recounted.

That's enough

solstice's picture

I demand either proof of your claimed natural assets, a disclaimer if they're store bought, or a change of your name to Whiny-Busty. And where's your birth certificate?

A better way to elect US senators

FearlessFreep's picture

Have each state elect three senators instead of two. And elect all three on a single ballot every third election year instead of filling one seat one election year, the other the next year and none in the third year. (About 1/3 of the states would have a senatorial election in a given election year, instead of 2/3 like now.) The top three candidates would be elected, so 1/4 of the vote would be enough.  The effect would be to end two-party control of the Senate.

 

Then you'd have all three campaigning simultaneously?

michael3b's picture

Would that extend the campaign season?  I'd rather die than have to deal with that.

They ought to have one election for two seats. Everybody votes twice (like in Florida, if you're white) and the top two are in. You have to select two people or else abstain with your second vote, so keep it clean!

If each party nominated 3 candidates...

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

...your plan might not help third parties all that much Mr. Freep.  If parties were only allowed to nominate one candidate for the three available seats then that would definitely benefit third party candidates.   Personally I prefer some type of proportional representation.

Your idea would be interesting to try but it would require an ammendment to the US Constitution.  Doing so would be a very long process which the two major parties would fight tooth and nail.  Frankly it ain't gonna happen.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Re: "Frankly it ain't gonna happen"

FearlessFreep's picture

That's what they once said about direct popular election of senators. (Originally senators were elected by their state legislature, and direct election only became the rule with a constitutional amendment about 100 years ago.)

 

Yes but that change didn't benefit third parties

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

The Republican Party does everything it can to keep third parties off the ballot.  Just like they try to remove Democrats from the voting rolls.  It doesn't take much to derail a new  ammendment to the US Constitution.  The Republicans are very good at obstruction.

 

{;-) Dan in Miami

In recent elections...

FearlessFreep's picture

...it's the Democrats who've tried to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot. (But it's OK when the Democrats do it, because what's good for the Democratic Party is good for America.)

 

Demos don't have to keep Nader off the ballot.

Coaster's picture

Nader is doing a good enough job of that himself. 

His message is stale.  People (ME) still hate the fact that this steaming turd of an ego with feet helped Bush take the White House.  Ralph Nader is not out there representing the little guy, he's out there promoting Ralph Nader, and people have gotten wise to his act. 

Methods exist for Nader to have gotten on ballots in every state of the union.  Only he couldn't garner enough support to meed the minimum petition signature requirements.  He could have appeared in debates if he'd have met the minimum poll numbers prior to those debates.  But he couldn't even garner enough support for that.  Hell, he's so out of touch with voters, he couldn't ever garner James or Jennifer. 

Sure, there may be room for a third party in America, but Nader ain't leading that charge any more.  He's history, and not in a good way. 

I wish I could've watched O'Reilly's head explode when he heard

Rajah's picture

It's the start of the Al Franken Decade!

Ask not what you can do for the country but what you can do for Al Franken

That leaves 58 dems and two unreliables, Lieberman and Spector. Heck, the whole party is pretty unreliable. Now that the republicans are irrelavant guess who we can blame if nothing gets done? Time to step up to the plate Dems! You've got no excuses now!

One example

FearlessFreep's picture

The Nader campaign in 2004 had far more than enough signatures to get on the Ohio ballot.  But the Democrats got the courts to throw them out on a technicality: they were gathered by canvassers from out of state. (SALON magazine lazily reported that he was removed from the ballot because of "forged signatures.")

Of course the Democrats were robbed of Ohio anyway. I wish I could say they deserved better.

 

Will the Dems take on the insurance companies?

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

To me that's the real issue.  Almost everyone, including the doctors, are fed up with the insurance companies and the way they have screwed up health care in the USA.

Dang, for a libertarian, I almost sound like a socialist!

{;-) Dan in Miami

The bloated, overly powerful

jazzdrive3's picture

The bloated, overly powerful insurance companies are just a symptom.

A symtom of what?

Coaster's picture

I always thought they were the problem, or at least a HUGE part of the problem.  

The overhead for private medical insurance companies averages 17%. The overhead for Medicare is 7%

Add to this the fact that these scummy insurance companies, including the not for profit (cough cough) Blue Shield/Blue Cross, don't want to pay for anything, and you can see why we Americans continue to screw ourselves by not reforming the system.

I think it's just hard for Americans to accept that compared to the other industrialized countries, and quite a few countries who aren't that far along, that our health care system is one of the worst values on the planet.

One salient point put forth by Michael "Walking Picture of Health" Moore is that no one can make a profit taking care of sick people.  Our present system thus encourages the insurance companies to cherry pick clients and deny deny deny when those clients file claims.

I'm encouraged by the work and progress thus far by Kennedy and Baucus. 

The trouble is the insurance and pharmaceutical companies

Rajah's picture

Have contributed to the campaigns of many in Congress. They are afraid of the Public Option. Without the Public Option there will be no reason for them to change.

True Crankyland Story

Coaster's picture

Mr. Mucus and I got kidney stones at about the same time.  He had no health insurance and I had a pretty good package thanks to my employer.  Mr. Mucus ended up paying $500 out of his own pocket for treatment. 

Forty-five days later, when I had received my last bill from the myriad of people with whom I, and products of me, had come into contact, my out of pocket expenses were [Drumroll please].................... $500.  

FUCK these insurance companies and the politicians they rode in on.

It's various regulations and

jazzdrive3's picture

It's various regulations and interference that helps keep this system entrenched.

It's very possible to be profitable in health care while helping patients without bankrupting them. Several doctors are stepping out of the insurance system altogether, taking cash. $10-$25 per visit, depending on the area. They are flush with new patients, and making more money than before, because they don't have the huge administrative costs.

I expect them to be shut down within the next few months and made illegal, for the "good of the people", of course. Or the AMA, that great lobby at the public teat, to threaten revoking their licenses if they don't get into line.

When people actually have choice, the results are astounding. What we need is more competition, not less of it. And the government is no friend of competition.

Remember the innovative, affordable doctor in New York who was shut down by the government because he didn't have an insurance license? One low monthly payment for unlimited visits and free minor surgeries. Authorities couldn't let beneficial, innovative ideas like that to last long, however.

My father is Vice President of Business Services at the local hospital. He knows a lot of these regulations and silly laws like the back of his. The nonsense I hear about every week...the government is already dictating what health care we get and what we don't. I'd like them to stop trying to "help" us.

It's their "help" that has prevented the downward pressure on prices that is evident in every other sector of the economy.

Jazzy, to me it's two separate issues

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

In the past few decades the government has tried to micromanage the health care industry to keep costs down.  No question in my mind this has been a disaster.  The law of unintended consequences comes into play in about a second. 

If the feds or the states start providing health insurance (with tax dollars) the private insurance companies obviously can't compete with that and they will go out of business.  You don't have to outlaw private health care insurance to get rid of it. 

We should get rid of the government regulations.  Then go to single payer.  After doing that, the government could refuse to pay for drugs and surgeries that just plain don't work.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Coaster your cost figures are low

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

The doctors and hospitals employ an army of people who are paid to do nothing but deal with insurance claims.  The actual cost of administration is probably closer to 30% of the actual money spent on health care in the USA.  And for what?  So we can drive ourselves crazy with paper work and leave millions without insurance?

The poor do get health care, they just aren't insured.

The more you look at the situation, the more single payer (government administered) health insurance makes sense.  Can anyone give me one rational example of how the insurance companies do anything at all to improve health care?

{;-) Dan (libertarian but not stupid) in Miami

 

 

The poor? F*k 'em.

Coaster's picture

Dan_in_Cincinnati wrote:

The poor do get health care, they just aren't insured.

Woman dies while waiting and being ignored in emergency room

and

Woman dies on emergency room floor while workers step around her

It's not just the poor who are f*ckd

Xur's picture

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

 

"...medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually... Surprisingly, most of those bankrupted by illness had health insurance. More than three-quarters were insured at the start of the bankrupting illness."

Even if you've got insurance, you better hope you don't get sick! What a country!

Emergency room workers don't care if you are insured

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

They live with constant chaos.  If that woman had been insured she still would have been ignored.

Just sayin'.

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  If everyone was insured then there would be fewer people in the emergency room.  Less chaos might mean better care in the emergency room.  Don't count on it for sure though.

PPS:  I was treated in an emergency room after being assaulted earlier this year.  I went to the Jackson Hospital emergency room in Miami in an ambulance.  Since I was bleeding from a head wound they did take care of me right away, even though I am not insured.

Fox News host upset over Franken's victory

Rajah's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.