Republicans just can't let go of the 2008 elections. You'd think the shock would make them hungry to sit down and discuss new strategies. It's not happening, I think because they're fixated on the fact that the election was stolen by some vast left wing conspiracy. Exhibit A is Mark Helperin's analysis of election coverage, already extensively diaried. Exhibit B is the right wing coverage of the Minnesota senator's race. I was checking to see how the recount was going, and found this little gem linked to the front page on AOL.
http://news.aol.com/...
Apparently Minnesota's optical scan system is a tool in the hand of the democrats, as evidenced by the fact that Franken is catching up to Coleman in the course of the recount.
A sample of the reasoning:
The recount deadline is December 5th. After the recount is complete, the challenged ballots are to be handed over to a panel of judges, overseen by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Ritchie, who has a record as an extreme partisan Democrat, and has already criticized the Coleman campaign over the recount, has been trying to convince voters and the press that the recount and his panel will be fair and unbiased. For example, Ritchie claimed that the integrity of the ballots was protected under Minnesota law requiring two judges, one from each party, to handle the ballots at all times. It seems, however, the man in charge isn't up to speed on election law. There is a strong possibility the race will end up in court. There may be challenges over everything from vote tampering to voter registration fraud, including with regard to longtime Ritchie allies ACORN.
Note the various Republican buzzwords: ACORN, Partisan Democrat, "trying to convince voters"
Love the completely non-partisan tone of the article!
It gets better toward the end:
High profile recounts can often border on the bizarre. But with thousands of preemptive lawyers, ridiculous ballot challenges, mysterious vote tally changes, and Mark Ritchie at the helm, the Minnesota recount is becoming a display of absurdity and underhanded behavior not before seen, particularly in a state which prides itself on a tight election procedure. If and when the recount ends up in court, expect this theater to become a full-fledged circus.
Since the writer says this kind of "display of absurdity and underhanded behavior" has not been seen before, I guess 2000's Florida presidential election recount didn't make as much of an impression on Republican election watchers as it did on Democratic watchers.
Nor does the insanity there in any way compare with the calm and cool, fair and balanced election proceedings going on now in Minnesota. If two judges--one Republican and one Democrat--had handled every ballot in Florida in 2000, I'm sure President Gore would have then spearheaded efforts to make all elections optical scan by 2008. We might still be in the same boat today on the Minnesota recount if that had been the case. But I bet the rest of our world would look very, very different. Makes you wish Florida had had optical scan voting, doesn't it?