Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wall Street Journal asserts that Franken stole election!?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:28 PM
Original message
Wall Street Journal asserts that Franken stole election!?
The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year's disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124640687950076679.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Christa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. The WSJ
Right wing propaganda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. WSJ has no credibility any more since Ruppert Murdoch's tabloid news
operations took it over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. WSJ is Effectively Part of FauxNews Now
and pretty worthless for financial news as well, as we have seen over the past year or so.

The Financial Times is a much better paper for financial news.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Yep!
Exactomundo. He ruined a perfectly good paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oh, the irony!
Is irony overdose fatal?

Murdoch's paper moaning about stolen elections in an uncredited "editorial". I'm just sayin'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. And, is "Whining" fatal?
Because they have a very bad case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I guess not
...because they would be so, um, you know, by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thats right!
They should cite the 2000 Presidential Election as an example. Oh wait, that would show their hypocrisy, nevermind! I really hate these guys!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. did they write the same thing after the 00 election?
and unlike the minnesota election -- the 00 election really was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabbycat31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
20. what about the 2004 election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. How soon they forget



But we dont.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
givemebackmycountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. WSJ -
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 02:39 PM by givemebackmycountry
Whores
Snakes
Jackals

I mean not to offend any of those groups/animals who surely have more class than this POS rag.

Someone in my office brings a copy in every day and leaves it in the break-room.
When I come in, I always pick it up and toss it in the trash with the empty cartons of lean meals and healthy choice microwave disasters.

Then I toss some coffee grounds on top of it so no one can fish it out of the trash where it belongs.
And since I'm the boss, ain't no one gonna complain.

One brick throw at a time.

The fact that I am in Florida, and my office is pretty much right wing, it makes me feel all tingly in my naughty parts.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Good. But ain't there any recycling bidness there?
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 03:05 PM by Amonester
For, instead of tossing it in the trash, you could put it in a recycle bin of some sort?

Just asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Happy Vic Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
30. Censorship and Hypocrisy fun for you fun for me.
If your comments were coming from some Right Winger destroying copies of the Peoples Weekly World so people could not read it.

He would be properly be condemned as a Book Burner.

You think it is a crap paper fine, so do I...


Even before Murdoch it has never seriously called for transparency or accountability from Corporate America.. Just told everyone how wonderful Wall Street was...

It never exposed the deep corruption, nepotism and incestuous relationships between Corporate America and our so called Leaders.

Which in part explains how Wall Street got away with robbing Main Street. Especially in the Bush Years, they were all playing games with money and the WSJ knew it or should have known it.. did nothing said nothing..

It has always been a "Pimp Paper" a "Tout Sheet" as far as I am concerned.

So why do you accord it Mythical, Magical Qualities that require it's Ritualistic destruction? Why do you essentially burn it within the limitations and constraints of your office?

To ward off it's evil power?

"One brick throw at a time"

At what?

The First Amendment?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
givemebackmycountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Propaganda gets tossed where it belongs - in the trash
Last time I looked, the First Amendment didn't say anything about that.
There is a difference between "free speech" and propaganda.
Propaganda gets tossed where it belongs.
If you don't like it, tough.

I'm moving forward, and I'm tossing the old sacred cows that helped us get into this mess into the trash where they belong.
Welcome to DU.
Enjoy your stay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
58. Welcome to DU.
The poster to whom you were writing is not the government. As such, that poster is not bound by the First Amendment. You and I (so long as we're not the government) can censor whatever speech we want (if we can). The bill of rights only limits what the government can do. It doesn't apply to individuals.

:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. "gracious concession"
Jeez... couldn't get out of the first paragraph without :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Notice they didn't talk
about Franken's Very Gracious acceptance speech :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Indeed!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. Who wrote this?
I can see it was on A12, but there's no indication of who the author of this was. It's obviously an Opinion piece. Does anyone have a paper copy of this? Was it staff-written? An LTTE? Op-ed piece?

I'm not sure, and without some sort of sourcing, I'm not sure we can nail the WSJ for this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I've got two freaking subscriptions coming to the office...
And I'll be damned if I can find one right now! I was hoping to see the name of the person who wrote it in the print version. Seriously screwed that they don't put it in the online version... and if it isn't in the print version, I'll have to assume it was planted by some Rovian idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
34. It's an editorial; the official position of the Wall Street Journal...
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 03:36 PM by Eric J in MN
...by people writing anonymously things which they would be embarassed to sign their names to.

I wish there were no such thing as anonymous newspaper editorials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
40. Anybody with any credibility has long since left the editorial board of the WSJ. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. did anyone expect anything different from the WSJ op-ed page??
they've been doing this a long, long, time, people!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
47. It's an editorial, not an op-ed. NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DFW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. Look who owns WSJ
Since 2007, it is none other than Fox Noise's very own Rupert Murdoch.

How could anyone expect any less from them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. One word: MURDOCH!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
16. Call the...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. It's An Op-Ed. You See Biased Op-Ed's From Each Side In Most Newspapers.
In this case, it happens to be from a bitter RW'er who is reeling inside due to the loss. Well wah wah poor fucking him lol. I love knowing how much they're suffering!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
43. It's not an Op-Ed. It's an Editorial. The official position of the Wall Street Journal. (NT)
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Dude It Says So Right On The Damn Thing. It's An Op-Ed. Get A Grip.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. The phrase "op-ed" doesn't appear on that webpage. NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. And there's no name atributed to it. It's the paper's official position
from the editorial board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushmeister0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. Interesting side note here. NPR canceled all their newspaper subscriptions
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 02:57 PM by bushmeister0
except for one:

NPR memo:

"As of April 1 NPR is canceling all newspaper subscriptions. We are making some arrangements to get the Wall Street Journal either on line or hard copy . You have until tomorrow to appeal this if there is a solid reason why you should be exempt. This is a cost-saving measure company wide."

http://www.editorsweblog.org/newspaper/2009/03/npr_to_c...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. Good to know..one more
nail in their baised coffin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
44. The exception for the Wall Street Journal is because it's the only major newspaper which charges...
...for access to most of its articles, not because NPR likes it the most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
19. neo-con rag
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
21. Rec'd~ No question mark about it..that's what they're asserting!
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 03:03 PM by Cha
The Minnesota Supreme Court decided unanimously that norm couldn't make the case.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/court-rul...

Those fuckers at wall street journal didn't blink and eye when bush and the SC 5 stole the election in 2000. Sounds like they're being weinies about it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. In the WSJ bizarro world, the guy with the least votes wins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
29. The WSJ has really gone deep into the Far Right Rabbit Hole of late....
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
31. they can
K M A

of all the f*cking nerve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
33. Unless a person is completely ignorant of Minnesota law, I don't see how anyone can say that
The margin between Coleman's initial "win" and the number of votes that Franken had was so narrow that it would have been illegal NOT to do a recount under Minnesota law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Unless Franken conceded. NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
35. Sore Losermen!
Gnash baby gnash!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
36. I can remember a time when the WSJ
had credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. DAMN...
Do people live that long?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpbrown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
38. The Wall Street Journal jumps the shark!

What a steaming pile of hypocrisy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
39. So was Coleman defending HIMSELF in court?
I thought he was being paid millions by the GOP for.......LAWYERS.

Has he been pocketing all that cash? I think there there should be criminal charges here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stellabella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
42. Project much, Murdoch?
You asshole. That election was probably the most scrutinized and carefully counted in the history of this country. The votes were counted.

Unlike 2000, when SCOTUS illegally STOPPED the vote counting.

What a dipshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Yes, we should be celebrating a well-done recount. NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
45. at least they're consistent, they slammed bush when he and his lawyers stole florida in 2000.
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

i slay myself sometimes.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
49. 'modern elections don't end after the voters cast their ballots'
So I suppose the journal is endorsing the election of President Gore, over eight years too late?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
50. Fuck me, that's the official unsigned editorial
It's not that they've given some op-ed space to a kook - that's what a supposedly respectable editorial board is claiming!

Shit, if the paper that is meant to the the financial journal of record officially spouts crap and claims elections are stolen because the guy with the most votes won, then the American stock market may be permanently fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
53. No, wait. Isn't Franken a Republican according to FOXspeak, like Sanford's a Democrat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
54. The Wall Street Urinal has achieved maximum suckitude.
Its editorial page was a heap of right-wing dung before Murdoch got it, but the new sections were pretty decent. Now I wouldn't use any of it to line a bird cage. It's become Rush Limbaugh with bigger words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
55. WSJ and Bill O'Reilly work for the same boss. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
56. They've conveniently forgotten that after the initial recount -- which counted ONLY those ballots
that had been counted on election night, Franken ended up with a 24 vote lead. At that point, no new, uncounted ballots were involved - and still, Franken came out ahead. There were simple errors in a bunch of precinct tallies -- 2 votes here, 6 votes there, 1 vote somewhere else -- that, when added up corrected the initial election night count and put Franken in the lead.

In fact, it was the Coleman camp that kept pushing for counting ballots that hadn't been counted on election night.

Would the WSJ have been happier with Franken winning by 24 votes? Because that's where the total stood BEFORE any new ballots were added to the recount.

Bozos. :eyes:

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
57. Murdoch's Faux Street Urinal ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-01-09 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
59. What I take away from this is that the WSJ opinion page is against counting votes.
Edited on Wed Jul-01-09 08:41 PM by BlooInBloo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 05:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC