November 20-23, 2008
Nov 20 05:03 Showing My Age Nov 20 10:53 Team Franken's Despicable Tactics Nov 20 13:21 Team Franken's Despicable Tactics, Part II Nov 21 01:32 Minnesota 2020's Transformation Nov 21 09:50 Daschle's Dream? Or Daschle's Disaster? Nov 21 16:36 The Latest Franken Shenanigans Nov 22 11:29 The Recount PR Game Nov 23 02:18 What Did, Didn't Go Wrong This Election
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Showing My Age
Yesterday was the 4th anniversary of LFR. I started with Blogger. In fact, this blog was first called Common Sense Conservative. When I saw the Revolution of Democracies, I renamed my blog Let Freedom Ring Throughout The World. When Blogger became erratic, I 'graduated' to WordPress.
The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine brought an Armenian Economics professor onto my radar screen. Now I consider King Banaian a close friend. I found King's blog and read his posts about the Orange Revolution. The minute I found his email address, I contacted King. Shortly thereafter, King invited me to a MOB event at Granite City Food & Brewery. That night, I met Mitch Berg, who was gracious enough to help me install Sitemeter on my website.
Since that time, I've made numerous friends across the blogosphere. It isn't surprising that most of those blogging friends are MOBsters. I consider Leo, Andy, Mr. MDE Michael Brodkorb, the Lady Logician, Derek Brigham and Drew Emmer are all good friends.
What got me started reading blogs was Rathergate. That's when I heard about Powerline. They're still part of my daily reading, along with HotAir, SCSUScholars, Hugh Hewitt, Shot In the Dark, MDE, Ladies Logic, Residual Forces, FreedomDogs, Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, RedState, The Next Right, Pundit Review, Michael Barone and Michelle Malkin.
Tony Snow asked some former CNN executive what he thought about these bloggers scooping the MSM. Out of that came the infamous line that bloggers were just a bunch of jammie-wearing "people hacking away at their keyboards." Typical of the Sneering Media, this executive couldn't get even the basic facts right.
Four years later, the Sneering Media still isn't getting the basic facts right. In fact, I attended more voter forums than the St. Cloud Times did. Even when they were there for the forums, they omitted key bits of information.
You've probably noticed that I've done more reporting this year, actually breaking stories. Expect that to increase as 2009 unfolds. Just like with politics, now isn't the time to spend alot of time looking back. Now's the time to look forward. Now's the time when bloggers peered into the future of the blogosphere. It's time we mixed in as much reporting as pontificating.
Look for LFR be in the thick of things on this front.
It's been a fun 4 years. I've seen history made over the past 4 years, especially monitoring the Orange Revolution, the first true elections in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon.
The great thing is that it's just getting started.
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:04 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Nov-08 08:39 AM
Congradulations on the anniversary, if it is that and not just a reflection back not anchored to any particular date.
I started with blogger, and it's the devil I know, having gotten better in the last year or so.
Overlapping, Strib and PiPress have shrunk, approached the Internet, and are looking at how profit can be made via advertisements put with their news, and selling archive access.
Independent news outlets have appeared - you mention politically oriented blogs only, and flounders are bottom feeders with both eyes on one side of the head so they only see things from one point of view.
You do editorialize still, Gary, but LFRB is my favored port into a line of thought and focus commonly called "conservative" or "right wing." It had drifted some from the days of Barry Goldwater, but I appreciate having LFRB around for completing my roadmap of understanding of a spectrum of political belief.
Keep it up. Figure a way to make a lot of money doing it. Let me know how.
Comment 2 by eric z at 20-Nov-08 12:15 PM
Gary, I reread the beginning of the post and it's an anniversary date.
You might reflect - In Nashville, Henry Gibson sang one C&W style song, "We Must Be Doing Something Right to Last Two Hundred Years."
There are the cathedrals in Europe hundreds of years old, decades and dacades taken to build them.
There are the Pyramids, and other ruins - thousands of years old.
Internet time is different.
It is not enduring, but it certainly beats when messages were carried by horseback, encrypted in cypher codes or not, and now we can pay for something in a keystroke.
And you are correct in earlier posting, Internet speed and capability will change politics.
Craig Westover might mourn the passing of the smoke-filled backroom, but I bet you and I agree on not wanting a smoke-filled router, monitor, or CPU box.
I wish you 44 more years of cogent and healthy blogging, whatever it is like when you pass 2050.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 12:19 PM
Eric, I'll be a happy camper if I teach people to analyze things in a rational manner. If I do that, I will have changed the course of history. That's more than enough for me.
Comment 4 by AAA at 20-Nov-08 07:27 PM
Congrats Gary. Here's looking to 4 more from the hardest working center right blogger in Minnesota.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 09:00 PM
Andy, Thanks for the compliment. I'm not the only hard-working center-right blogger but I'm passionate about making an impact.
I'm confident that I've accomplished that much.
Comment 6 by Lady Logician at 20-Nov-08 10:26 PM
Congrats "old man". Keep up the good work.
LL
Team Franken's Despicable Tactics
Captain Ed has a post up on the despicable tactics Team Franken is using in the Coleman-Franken recount. This picture is worth a thousand words:
I wrote here that I participated in the recount for the Alison Krueger-Lisa Fobbe race. The recount was of ballots cast in Morrison County. Election official Russ Nygren sorted the ballots into three seperate piles, one pile for Krueger votes, another for Fobbe votes and another pile for 'other' (undervotes and Olson write-ins).
Of the 1,400 ballots we reviewed, I'm guessing that approximately 50-75 ballots were marked first with an X in the oval, then later filled in properly. Each time we came across such a ballot, Mr. Nygren would pause from the sorting, at which point he'd highlight the consistency shown throughout the ballot. Neither side challenged ballots marked this way because it was obvious what voter intent was.
The fact that Team Franken is using this type of tactic says one thing clearly: that they'll do anything to steal this election. This is disgusting behavior. My recommendation for Team Coleman recount watchers is to object to the challenge on the grounds that it's a frivolous challenge. If anyone has information that the election official has sided with Team Franken on such a challenge, first contact Team Coleman, then leave a comment to this post with the time/location of such an incident.
Don't hesitate to bring in Team Coleman's lawyer watching over the recount at your recount location. Filing a formal complaint is, in my opinion, entirely justifiable.
UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit Readers. Team Franken's tactics are completely baseless. After participating in a recount of a Minnesota State Senate election yesterday, I know that ballot challenges can be dismissed if they're ruled frivolous. Yesterday, we saw many ballots, possible 3-5% of all ballots we surveyed, marked similarly to this. Neither side raised objections to ballots marked like this.
In my opinion, Team Franken's objections should be rejected because they're frivolous.
Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:59 AM
Comment 1 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 11:13 AM
When you were looking at ballots yesterday and you found one that was non-conforming, did the judges consider how the REST of the ballot was marked?
This particular snapshot of the ballot only shows the Coleman/Franken race. What I'd like to know is how the rest of the ballot was marked. If the rest of the ballot had the ovals circled, and only the Coleman/Franken race had the oval circled and then X-ed out, I can see a possible reason to question the voter's intent. If, on the other had, the rest of the races were marked with similar scribbles through and around the ovals, then not so much.
Is there a bigger picture of this ballot somewhere?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 11:45 AM
When you were looking at ballots yesterday and you found one that was non-conforming, did the judges consider how the REST of the ballot was marked?
Yes, that's the criteria we used.
RK, few of the ballots were completely filled in. If the optical scanner can't read the ballots, it immediately rejects them. The ballots can be corrected instantly. If the ballot can't be corrected, then the voter is given another ballot.
That's Minnesota State Election Law.
Out of 1,400 ballots yesterday, there were 2 overvotes & approximately 50 undervotes cast for the Fobbe-Krueger race in Morrison County.
A good rule of thumb for challenges should be whether the ballot scanned properly. Ballots that are overvotes won't scan properly. PERIOD. Also, if the oval isn't filled in properly, the optical scanner will reject the ballot.
Comment 3 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 11:52 AM
RK:When you were looking at ballots yesterday and you found one that was non-conforming, did the judges consider how the REST of the ballot was marked?
GG:Yes, that's the criteria we used.
So that begs the question - for the ballot you display here, how was the rest of the ballot marked?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 12:05 PM
RK, This ballot did scan, therefore it should be counted. It's my contention that only ballots that were rejected by the optical scanner should be subject to challenge.
That said, the sorting through the ballots is legitimate for the purposes of counting the vote totals from the machines.
Comment 5 by eric z at 20-Nov-08 12:07 PM
It is interesting how in another post you'd mentioned editorializing less.
It is also interesting that Team Franken is preserving all grounds for taking things beyond a recount, to the courts, and to the Senate in a seating challenge, if that is the ultimate direction taken.
Do you suppose the Franken visit in DC over the last day or two was to explore all options?
It would not surprise me.
It is equally interesting that the Alaska recount is over and the felonious taker of unreported gifts lost on the count so that the question of having to seat him or not became a moot issue for the Senate.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 12:16 PM
Eric, When I talked about editorializing less, that didn't mean I wanted bloggers to stop offering their opinions. It was meant more in the sense that we should report news more often.
Comment 7 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 12:30 PM
GG: "Also, if the oval isn't filled in properly, the optical scanner will reject the ballot."
Is this true? According to my town's clerk (in MA, not MN), the scanner might not register a vote for an incompletely filled oval but it won't reject the ballot. It will only reject ballots that contain an overvote. (I don't know if we use the same machines here, but the ballots are opti-scan with ovals).
GG:"It's my contention that only ballots that were rejected by the optical scanner should be subject to challenge."
That might be your contention, but that's not MN law. MN law requires the judges to infer the voter's intent from the ballot. If the Coleman oval pictured was marked substantially differently than the rest of the ovals on the ballot, I would admit there's a basis for a challenge. If, on the other hand, the markings for other races on this particular ballot were similar to the pictured marking, then I'd say there was little basis for the challenge.
Based on your answer to my original question (about the ballots you were looking at yesterday), I would think you would agree with me. Do you?
Comment 8 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 01:01 PM
Anyone following this thread might want to go to:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/
11 ballots are pictured there, and you get to judge who gets the vote.
I'm particularly interested in GG's judgements of 4,7,9,10,11 and most especially #5 (Lizard People!)
Voters do whacky things!
Comment 9 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 01:06 PM
Ack - just to be clear about the last comment, you don't LITERALLY get to judge who gets the vote on these ballots. It's an informal internet poll, and in no way does it enter into the official ballot judgement.
Comment 10 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 02:04 PM
RK, Here's what I would've done with the 11 ballots:
1) Reject the ballot
2) McCain-Palin
3) Reject the ballot.
4) Reject the ballot.
5) Al Franken
6) sufficient evidence of intent
7) Coleman
8) Franken
9) Barkley
10) Barkley
11) I said reject it but I wouldn't have a problem with it going to Sen. Coleman because drawing through Franken's name might well be an indicator.
Comment 11 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 03:40 PM
I think I had the same except for 4 (Franken) and 11 (Coleman).
But you blatant anti-Lizard People bias is noted. :-)
Comment 12 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 04:01 PM
The thing about those ballots is - I thought ballots like 4 and 11 would be rejected by the reader as overvotes, and the voter would be given another ballot at the polling place.
Team Franken's Despicable Tactics, Part II
I just got off the phone with a loyal reader of LFR just minutes ago. This loyal reader told me that Team Franken is objecting to all kinds of different things. Some of these things include ballots where the voter placed an X inside the oval instead of filling the oval in.
This is despicable. Team Franken is clearly ignoring this section of Minnesota state election statutes:
204C.22 DETERMINING VOTER'S INTENT .Here's another relevant portion of Minnesota recount law:
Subdivision 1. Ballot valid if intent determinable . A ballot shall not be rejected for a technical error that does not make it impossible to determine the voter's intent. In determining intent the principles contained in this section apply.
Subd. 2. From face of ballot only . Intent shall be ascertained only from the face of the ballot.
Subd. 3. Votes for too many candidates . If a voter places a mark (X) beside the names of more candidates for an office than are to be elected or nominated, the ballot is defective with respect only to that office. No vote shall be counted for any candidate for that office, but the rest of the ballot shall be counted if possible. At a primary, if a voter has not indicated a party preference and places a mark (X) beside the names of candidates of more than one party on the partisan ballot, the ballot is totally defective and no votes on it shall be counted. If a voter has indicated a party preference at a primary, only votes cast for candidates of that party shall be counted.
Voter's intent will be determined pursuant to M.S. 204C.22. The candidate or his/her representative (but not both) has the right to challenge which piles I have decided to place the ballot in. Challenges may not be automatic or frivolous. The challenger needs to describe why they challenge the decision. I may decide they are right. If I do not agree and the challenge is not withdrawn, I will write why it is challenged on the ballot and place it in an envelope marked "Challenged Ballots". The challenged ballots will be brought to the canvass board and they will examine them and make a decision how to count them.Based on this section, challenges should be ruled frivolous if voter intent is clear. Someone that underlines or circles a candidate's name or who puts a check mark or an X in the box has clearly indicated their intent. That's how election officials have been routinely ruling since the recount started.
Challenges like that must be squashed immediatly. Team Franken should be held accountable for such despicable, thinly veiled attempts to steal this election.
I'll further add that, should Sen. Coleman wins this hand recount, Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats better seat Sen. Coleman. If they vote against seating him, the right blogosphere will remind voters at the midterm election that their senator voted against We The People. They will have voted against their mantra of counting every vote by virtue of ignoring We The People's votes. That's unacceptable.
Originally posted Thursday, November 20, 2008, revised 21-Nov 9:38 AM
Comment 1 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 01:54 PM
If a voter has marked every other race on the ballot with a clear "X" in the oval, but marks the senate race with an "X" and then scribbles over it, what do you think the voter's intent is?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 02:05 PM
Without being able to picture that, I'll refrain from answering.
Comment 3 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 03:36 PM
OK, I'll try again - let's say every race is marked with an X in the oval by one and only one candidate, except for the Senate race, which is marked like the picture in your previous blog entry.
Can you discern the voter's intent?
Comment 4 by Ralph Kramden at 20-Nov-08 04:23 PM
For the REAL junkies, it looks like there's a real-time aggregator site:
http://theuptake.org/
with a minute-to-minute twitter feed, lots of video clips, etc.
I haven't perused the site long enough to discern a bias, if any. As of 3:12 PM CST, it's Coleman by 159.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 20-Nov-08 04:42 PM
Why are Coleman's challenges considered respectable and Franken's despicable?
Simple. The ballots challenged by Franken's team will be accepted by the canvassing board with little or no hesitation. It isn't totally unlikely that the election officials would deem these challenges frivolous.
Comment 6 by walter hanson at 20-Nov-08 04:53 PM
I think what the Franken campaign is doing is to challenge any questionable ballot in the hopes of knocking Coleman's lead away (even if temporary) to say Al is the winner.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 7 by kory at 21-Nov-08 12:20 AM
Sorry man, both sides are obviously frivolously contesting ballots: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/. Obviously you are biased toward Coleman. http://uptake.org has some pretty unbiased reporting of the recount.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-08 12:47 AM
http://uptake.org has some pretty unbiased reporting of the recount.
Anything that Noah Kunin's involved in isn't unbiased. PERIOD.
Comment 9 by Steve at 21-Nov-08 09:50 AM
Keep up the great work.
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Comment 10 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-08 10:00 AM
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
That's a great looking blog. Keep up the good work & thanks for stopping.
Comment 11 by eric z at 21-Nov-08 01:15 PM
Statewide, as of yesterday's posting, Coleman challenges = 374.
Franken challenges = 360.
This site:
http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp
That looks equal to me, and comprehensive, not anecdotal.
Unless, you want to make something of Coleman's folks making more of a ruckus, by 14 challenges??
Comment 12 by walter hanson at 21-Nov-08 01:57 PM
eric:
You had better reread that screen.
374 Coleman votes had been challenged by Franken
while the 360 had been challedged by Coleman.
Of course maybe since you can't read your vote on election day had to be one of the ballots challenged.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Minnesota 2020's Transformation
According to this SC Times article , Minnesota 2020's transformation is complete. The thing is that their transformation is only skin deep. Here's what raised red flags with me:
Minnesota 2020, a St. Paul think tank, wants local consumers to buy Minnesota-made goods from area businesses and retailers, such as Mr. B. Chocolatier, to boost the state's economy.Hearing Minnesota 2020 described as a "St. Paul think tank" didn't sound right so I checked my archives. Here's the title of a post I made this summer:
"We would actually not be suffering the effects of the recession if people were doing it," said Matt Entenza, founder and chairman of the nonpartisan think tank Minnesota 2020.
Minnesota 2020 Is a Rural Minnesota Think Tank?Here's the first line of commentary I wrote about that title:
That's what Paul Janda claims in this SC Times editorial .I knew something was BS because I knew that Matt Entenza was the person that started MN2020. There's nothing rural about Matt Entenza. In late April, Minnesota 2020 was a rural think tank. In late November, it's suddenly a St. Paul think tank.
Matt Entenza isn't a man of integrity. He's as shifty as desert sands. Just think what he's done in the past :
A Chicago researcher who was being paid by state Rep. Matt Entenza to gather information about Attorney General Mike Hatch's office also sought information on a parking ticket Hatch got in Mendota Heights, according to Dakota County records obtained by the Star Tribune Thursday.Here's more about Matt Entenza's history of integrity :
Entenza, who is now the DFL Party's endorsed candidate for attorney general, has adamantly insisted that his inquiries in 2005 about his fellow DFLer, now the DFL-endorsed candidate for governor, were a harmless effort to learn more about how the attorney general's office worked and not an effort to find dirt, or damaging information.
The Pioneer Press's Patrick Sweeney is reporting that Matt Entenza's week from hell isn't getting any better. Here's why:
During one of two long conference-call interviews with reporters Thursday, Entenza was pressed on whether he had paid for background checks, known as opposition research, on Johnson, a state representative from Plymouth. "I don't need to do opposition research. I have his voting record," the St. Paul lawmaker said.Again, this sounds awfully authoritative; it sounds like a categorical denial. Let's find out if it withstands closer scrutiny:
But Friday, in an apparent effort to correct either the substance or the flavor of his Thursday denials, Entenza telephoned reporters to clarify that his campaign did, indeed, possess opposition research on several Republicans. After leaving his voice-mail message with the Pioneer Press, which referred only to possessing "some opposition research on Republicans," Entenza did not respond to requests for a follow-up interview.Wherever Minnesota 2020 is located, it's run by someone whose integrity is questionable.
Something else that's true about Minnesota 2020 is that they're comfortable spinning things :
Minnesota 2020 is a progressive, non-partisan think tank, focused on what really matters. We focus public policy debate on the issues that matter for Minnesota's future success.They're both a progressive think tank and a non-partisan think tank? You're probably asking how that's possible. It's actually quite simple when you don't recognize your partisanship. Another bit of spin that you probably notices was this statement:
We are tired of a state that focuses on divisive side issues while our schools, health care, transportation, and economic development suffer. Minnesota is great when we have good transportation, strong job creation, universal health care and quality schools.
Minnesota 2020 delivers accurate policy research with a focus on smart, effective progressive messaging through a multi-media platform. We are framing Minnesota's public policy debate. Through our communications strategy, we've compelled legislative and executive branch policy change. We link academic and traditional foundation research to achieve tangible, demonstrable solutions.
Minnesota is great when we have good transportation, strong job creation, universal health care and quality schools.I agree with 3 of the 4 items. I don't agree that Minnesota is great when we have "universal health care." I probably won't agree with Minnesota 2020's plan on creating jobs. It isn't that I'm opposed to creating jobs. It's just that I'm betting their plan includes big tax increases. No thanks.
Minnesota 2020's transformation is complete. Too bad its transformation is only skin deep.
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 1:33 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Nov-08 09:09 AM
"Minnesota is great when we have good transportation, strong job creation, universal health care and quality schools."
You are correct that only three of those four are correct. Unfortunately, liberals like Entenza have absolutely no earthly clue about how to deliver the other three.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-08 09:40 AM
Jerry, I don't disagree with you. I just had to highlight the notion that we supposedly want universal health care.
Comment 3 by eric z at 21-Nov-08 01:18 PM
I thought Entenza had ended his political career with his Hatch situation, given Entenza's spouse is an HMO official and Hatch gave those people scrutiny.
I now hear Entenza is considering a run for governor.
It would be unwise, and a bonanza for the GOP if Entenza did that.
The spying on Hatch trying to dig up dirt, that seems to be over the edge, doesn't it?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 21-Nov-08 03:11 PM
Eric, attempting to dig up dirt on Hatch was downright stupid IMO. What was worse is how he tried explaining it away, saying he just wanted to find out what types of things the AG's office was involved in. (He'd worked in the AG's office before he was a legislator.)
Daschle's Dream? Or Daschle's Disaster?
There's little doubt that Tom Daschle will be confirmed as Obama's first HHS Secretary. That should be everyone's worst nightmare. This statement should scare everyone:
Daschle, a close advisor to President-elect Barack Obama, is expected to be nominated for this Cabinet-level position if he passes the vetting process. His top priority as HHS secretary would be healthcare, one of Obama's signature policy issues during the campaign.Government meddling in health care is a disaster waiting to happen. The dirty little secret that Democrats won't talk about is that government mandates, both at the state and local level, are a primary reason why health insurance premiums skyrocketed. If the government wants to help out, the best thing they could do is reduce the number of mandates they impose on insurers. (In Minnesota, there are 63 government mandates on insurers.) Letting people choose the type of coverage they want would reduce health care and health insurance premium costs.
"I hope to have the plan enacted by next year, and then it will take several years to implement," said Daschle, as he waited to board a plane in Washington, DC bound for Obama's hometown of Chicago.
When asked if the U.S., in this current economic climate, could afford to reform the healthcare system, Daschle said it is imperative. "We can't afford not to do it," he said. "If we do nothing, we'll be paying twice as much on healthcare in 10 years as we do today."
It would shrink the number of uninsured, too, which would reduce the amount of costshifting that's part of the current system. The sooner we get costshifting under control, the sooner we get the health care industry under control without starving it as opposed to the bureaucratic model that dries up health care funding.
It's wise to remember this: If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Nov-08 12:32 PM
Glad to see you have coverage, Gary.
Without it would the landscape appear differently?
In Canada the question of being without coverage never comes up.
In Canada leaving running things to the likes of AIG management is not even considered - they treasure what they have too much to hand it over to fools and rapacious incompetents.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 21-Nov-08 12:50 PM
You know I just checked my mail. There was a letter from Home Depot urging me not to renew my house and auto insurance because they want my business and can save me money.
Um why don't insurance companies battle like that for health care to lower prices:
* The manadates of what they have to cover. Unlike my auto insurance I can't taylor my policy to match my car or luck (for some reason weird things happen to my windows so I full coverage on window replacement).
* Out of state companies can't compete.
You know they talk about let medicare negoiate with drug companies to lower prices. How about I negoiate and change my coverage to help lower my costs.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 21-Nov-08 02:42 PM
In Canada coverage is not a question. The only questions are whether you can get the care you need or die before you get to see the few doctors left, and how the government can continue to pay the escalating cost without even more severe rationing.
I've spoken to Canadians about this. The don't know what the alternatives are, just that what they have is ridiculous and dangerous.
Comment 4 by Wendy at 24-Nov-08 07:29 AM
I have had a variety of different health care situations over the years, and the worst one has been single payer government provided health care.
When my husband was an Army officer, we lived in Germany, and got all of our health care through the Army. I was pregnant with our first child, and had a bad reaction to some antibiotics. I went to the clinic, and a medic took my blood pressure - which was somewhere around 80/30, and then put me in a hallway for an hour because he didn't know what to do. Someone found me there, crying, and finally got me some help.
At 6 months into the pregnancy, I went into labor. They managed to stop the contractions and classified me as a high risk pregnancy. That meant that I actually got to see an ob-gyn once a month. (up to that point, I had only seen a physician's assistant). When they gave you an appointment, you didn't get a time, you got a DAY. You would show up, put your name on a list, and had to sit there all day, until whenever your name came up.
Comment 5 by Wendy at 24-Nov-08 07:47 AM
(more on Gov't health care)
After my husband got out of the Army, he became a cop. We have been uninsured, on medical assistance, in an HMO, and in a high-deductible plan during that time. Although there were differences in costs, the treatment was acceptable.
When my husband got injured on the job though, we were back in the nightmare of government care.
My husband nearly died, and has a brain injury. His employer has spent the last 3 1/2 years putting us through hell. My husband is a vulnerable adult, so every time they try to portray him as faking, he tries to stop taking his meds, and stop obeying his restrictions - and I get to pick up the pieces....
We have had to go through endless appointments where they try to undermine him, purely to limit the city's liability, but precious few where anyone is trying to take care of him. Courage Center has been the only bright spot - because they focus on the patient, not on trying to make the payer happy.
If government can spend years trying to abandon an injured cop, do you really think they are going to care about the average person?
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 24-Nov-08 08:20 AM
Wendy, Let me first say that I'll keep you & your husband in my prayers. I can't imagine what you've gone through.The government's actions sound truly reprehensible.
The last thing we need is single payer. Even its advocates admit that it's got alot of weaknesses.
The Latest Franken Shenanigans
I just got an update from a loyal LFR reader who's working at a recount center in a Twin Cities suburb. This person just told me that Team Franken is challenging ballots that have write-in candidates written in other races. Team Franken is allegedly arguing that write-in candidates elsewhere calls into question the voter's intent on the Senate race.
I just returned from the Stearns County recount. During the brief time I was there, things seemed pretty calm. One theory given for yesterday's challenges from Team Franken was that it subtracts votes from Sen. Coleman's totals, which make things look artificially better at the end of the day. Team Franken knows that the Canvassing Board will ultimately restore those votes for Sen. Coleman but it creates the appearance of momentum for Team Franken.
Michael says that Coleman Campaign Manager Cullen Sheehan is holding a news conference literally as we speak. When that finishes, I'll update this post to include Mr. Sheehan's statements and/or press release.
This is just Team Franken's most recent attempt to steal this election.
Having participated in 2 separate recount sessions, I can confidently tell people that the administrative side of the recount was professional in both instances. The people who've sorted through and counted the ballots are polite and professional. The Franken volunteers that I've dealt with have been cordial, too.
The thing that I'll be watching for when the recount is finished is how many votes the Canvassing Board will restore. I suspect that it'll be substantial.
UPDATE: Here's the Coleman campaign's official statement on Team Franken's challenge strategy:
New Franken Strategy to Sow Confusion over Recount Numbers Appears in Meeker County ChallengesThis isn't surprising. In fact, it's quite predictable. It's Team Franken doing whatever they think is necessary to win.
Saint Paul-Coleman For Senate Campaign Manager Cullen Sheehan today brought attention to an apparent new Franken strategy to ramp up the number of frivolous challenges made by their campaign. Results from Meeker County yesterday show that the Franken campaign challenged 51 ballots, while the Coleman campaign challenged 7.
Stated Sheehan: "In the past 24 hours we've noticed a shift in the number of ballots Franken is challenging; in Meeker County alone Franken challenged 51 Coleman ballots and Coleman challenged 7 Franken ballots , a difference of 44.
"Now, 49 counties have completed their recounts and presuming most challenged ballots are tossed out, we will either gain votes or it will simply be a wash-unless, of course, these are the 49 counties the Franken Campaign has accused of failing to do their jobs.
"The Franken campaign understands that it's in their interest to challenge more ballots.. So every ballot they challenge is one less vote for Coleman and vice versa.
"Put more directly, the Franken campaign understands that with the Eagle Machine precincts done and a lot of St. Louis, St. Paul and Minneapolis already counted, the only way they can continue to show that the number is dropping is to challenge more ballots frivolously - and Meeker County yesterday was a perfect example of that.
"We expect to see a massive effort in the days ahead by the Franken Campaign to up the ante of challenged ballots. While they will tell you out of one side of their mouth their concerns about frivolous ballots, out of the other side they will be saying 'challenge' to any and all Coleman ballots they believe they need to disrupt a true and accurate reporting of these numbers."
My guess is that Team Franken understands that they won't make up the 215 votes they trailed Sen. Coleman by entering the recount. I'm betting that they're now trying to argue that Harry Reid should seat him because the process was tainted or something like that.
The Canvassing Board should be deeply offensed by that tactic, if that's how this plays out.
Posted Friday, November 21, 2008 6:13 PM
Comment 1 by Ralph Kramden at 22-Nov-08 09:41 AM
Latest Coleman shenanigans: He's challenging ballots which are clearly marked "Franken" because those ballots also have votes for McCain!
http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/1341/
Despicable!
The Recount PR Game
Friday's news that Team Franken had challenged 51 ballots in Meeker County to 7 challenges by the Coleman campaign highlights the high stakes PR game that Team Franken is playing with the recount.
I posted here that I was part of the Krueger-Fobbe recount of ballots in Morrison County. Team DFL challenged 1 ballot the entire time. We sorted through approximately 1,400 ballots that day. There were a number of ballots that were let through that required a closer look. Most of those ballots had an X in the oval, clearly signifying intent, then filled in afterwards.
It isn't particularly shocking that Franken's supporters are starting to worry :
Yesterday, Norm Coleman's lead continued to decline, but at a much slower pace. With any luck, the rate of decline will increase again on Monday, or it could spell trouble for Franken.I'm not suggesting that Team Franken is in full-fledged panic mode. I'm simply suggesting that they realize that their chances of flipping this race shrink each time a recount precinct stays unchanged.
Cullen Sheehan was right yesterday in saying that the "Franken campaign understands that it's in their interest to challenge more ballots." That's certainly their right. I just don't anticipate it being a particularly effective strategy.
I definitely agree with TCDL's statement here:
However, with over 1500 total challenges so far, anything could happen. The number of challenges dwarfes Coleman's lead, and it will continue to rise. The outcome of this race won't be known until all of the challenges are dealt with.I think some of the challenges are legitimate challenges, though that doesn't mean they'll be settled in Franken's favor. I'm confident that the lion's share of challenged ballots will be counted the way the machine counted them, though.
That isn't good news for Team Franken.
Posted Saturday, November 22, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Nov-08 11:47 AM
Again, SoS Friday day end results show Coleman challenging more ballots than Franken. Aside from that, Gary, your theory might hold water. Who is more desparate, the one challenging more, or what?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-08 01:04 PM
I don't think that's the right question, Eric. I think it's a question of 'Franken-friendly' places have already finished. It isn't that common, based on what I've seen, that many legitimate challenges come from rural Minnesota. Franken knows that that means he'll have to gain alot of ground in the metro counties.
Comment 3 by Ralph Kramden at 22-Nov-08 02:01 PM
According to Nate Silver: "The counties re-counted to date have been slightly redder than the state as a whole, favoring Coleman by an aggregate of about 1.6 points in the initial count."
Looks like Coleman is the desperate one - he's challenging clearly marked Franken ballots because they also have McCain votes! Despicable!
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-08 02:18 PM
The metro counties & Duluth are Franken's strongest locations. They're mostly finished.
Comment 5 by eric z at 22-Nov-08 05:31 PM
It looks as if Coleman could hold his position.
It would have been better for everyone had the margin been more decisive, either way, on Nov. 5.
Now, with the filibuster proof Senate conjecture, Lieberman finds himself back in the driver's seat.
A curious situation.
And then there is the Georgia runoff.
With the problems shown on some ballots, but the great, great majority being clear and machine countable, what about suggestions of instant runoff? For example, something like the SAT format for the senate race, Barkley, Coleman, and Franken, ranked by each voter, 1, 2 and 3. It would lessen the IP spoiler power, but would it be a ballot mess, given how people have screwed up something as simple as what we have now.
Gary, anybody, any opinion on instant runoff?
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 22-Nov-08 05:40 PM
Eric, Thanks for the question. IMO, instant runoff is a terrible system that shouldn't be employed for any election.
Personally, I'm against runoffs after the general election, too, because the runoff renders the general election meaningless.
If that means someone in the Senate after winning a plurality of the votes, so be it. That's the will of the people on that point in history.
What Did, Didn't Go Wrong This Election
Victor Davis Hanson's column at NRO is this morning's great reading. In it, he discusses the competing theories about what happened to the GOP this election cycle. Here's the first theory Dr. Hanson discusses:
It was a sort of fluke . Party faithful will shrug that almost everything conspired this year against the conservative brand: two wars; the sinking economy; eight years of presidential incumbency; a biased, unethical media; Bush's low ratings; the absence of an incumbent president or VP candidate on the ticket; more exposed Republican congressional seats than Democratic ones; a charismatic path-breaking opposition candidate, etc. The stars were wrong, rather than the ideas.This thinking should be immediately dismissed. This thinking is status quo thinking, which is the most stagnant thinking within the GOP. It's defeatist thinking and it shouldn't be tolerated.
So, the theory goes, just make McCain appear a little younger, Obama sound a little bit more like John Kerry, and take away the mid-September financial meltdown, and, presto!, a Republican would now be in the White House.
It's foolishness from a strategic standpoint. It doesn't address inspiring workers to do the mechanics of campaigning; it doesn't address the advantages Obama has in terms of GOTV, fundraising and event planning. The GOP won't be competitive nationwide until the GOP steps vigorously into the 21st Century.
One change that must happen is in candidate recruitment. Too often, we've run the person who lots the election before. Too often we've recruited someone from the state senate. These candidates shouldn't be expected to win. The voters rendered a verdict on the ousted incumbent. More often than not, state senators aren't the assertive people that representatives are. Picking the 'next in line' guy is a great way to lose elections. Legacy picks are disasters-in-waiting.
Great candidates are identified by how energetic and articulate they are. Great candidates are identified by their adherance to conservative principles AND their energy AND their ability to articulate conservative principles.
I'd further opine that great candidates (a) naturally go on the offensive on the biggest issues of the day, (b) challenge their opponents statements and (c) are naturals at answering the voters' why questions.
This was a difficult year for several reasons. The two biggest reasons, I believe, were caused by an unprecedented GOP spending binge and by John McCain's indifference to the Christian Right. Couple that with lackluster fundraising caused by a contempt for the squishies in the Senate.
The main thing going forward is that there's reason for optimism if we're willing to work hard, if we start communicating with 21st Century technology, and, most importantly, if we apply conservative principles in solving the biggest problmems facing the people.
Posted Sunday, November 23, 2008 2:20 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 23-Nov-08 10:18 AM
That's IT! It's like the famous line from the movie "Disclosure," where the poor fellow has all manner of troubles thrown at him, but "A Friend" continually urges him to "solve the problem" and thereby everything else falls into place. In the case of Republicans, of course, we have to find a way to communicate and "sell" that solution against the onslaught of MSM bias.
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Nov-08 04:32 PM
Palin pandering sunk McCain. It blew any credibility he had, and then Bush could not keep the economic house of cards from falling pre-election.
Atop that, Obama had a lot of money and chrisma, McCain had less of each.
If the GOP does not redefine itself back to Goldwater non-secular conservatism, or to something with a chance of capturing the middle voters, it will be a long time in the cold.
I do think your earlier posts about pushing the Internet to build grassroots activism, etc., is part of it, but when money's the issue - the economy stupid as WJC said - divisive wedge issues do not ignite much concern.
Jesus Camp will not cut it on main street:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp
There's more to the nation than Colorado Springs, and Musgrave's loss shows something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Musgrave
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 23-Nov-08 09:57 PM
Here's the thing that ended this election:
Bush could not keep the economic house of cards from falling pre-election.
Everything else after that was irrelevant.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 23-Nov-08 11:37 PM
I'm not convinced that's true. It was Democrats that caused this crisis, and there are things that Bush might have been able to do to stave it off. This election was like the race between Apple and Microsoft. Republicans had the better solution, and Democrats had vastly superior marketing.
Obama is the most far left Senator in the US Senate. You cannot argue that he was a centrist who would naturally appeal to the broad center of the electorate. Republicans don't need to change their "design," they just need to market much, much better.
