Wall Street Journal asserts that Franken stole election!?

[WI_DEM]

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

[Christa]

1. The WSJ

Right wing propaganda

[Cleita]

2. WSJ has no credibility any more since Ruppert Murdoch's tabloid news

operations took it over.

[AndyTiedye]

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.

[JuniperLea]

9. Yep!

Exactomundo. He ruined a perfectly good paper.

[blogslut]

3. Oh, the irony!

Is irony overdose fatal?

Murdoch's paper moaning about stolen elections in an uncredited "editorial". I'm just sayin'.

[Cha]

23. And, is "Whining" fatal?

Because they have a very bad case.

[blogslut]

24. I guess not

...because they would be so, um, you know, by now.

[rd_kent]

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!

[xchrom]

5. did they write the same thing after the 00 election?

and unlike the minnesota election -- the 00 election really was.

[tabbycat31]

20. what about the 2004 election?

[DJ13]

7. How soon they forget

But we dont.

[givemebackmycountry]

8. WSJ -

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.

[Amonester]

22. Good. But ain't there any recycling bidness there?

For, instead of tossing it in the trash, you could put it in a recycle bin of some sort?

Just asking.

[Happy Vic]

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?

[givemebackmycountry]

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.

[Laelth]

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.



-Laelth

[JuniperLea]

10. "gracious concession"

Jeez... couldn't get out of the first paragraph without

[Cha]

25. Notice they didn't talk

about Franken's Very Gracious acceptance speech

[JuniperLea]

28. Indeed!

[MineralMan]

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.

[JuniperLea]

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.

[Eric J in MN]

34. It's an editorial; the official position of the Wall Street Journal...

...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.

[glitch]

40. Anybody with any credibility has long since left the editorial board of the WSJ. nt

[Blue_Tires]

12. did anyone expect anything different from the WSJ op-ed page??

they've been doing this a long, long, time, people!

[Eric J in MN]

47. It's an editorial, not an op-ed. NT

NT

[DFW]

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?

[Odin2005]

14. One word: MURDOCH!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. Call the...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

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!

[Eric J in MN]

43. It's not an Op-Ed. It's an Editorial. The official position of the Wall Street Journal. (NT)

NT

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Dude It Says So Right On The Damn Thing. It's An Op-Ed. Get A Grip.

[Eric J in MN]

51. The phrase "op-ed" doesn't appear on that webpage. NT

NT

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. And there's no name atributed to it. It's the paper's official position

from the editorial board.

[bushmeister0]

18. Interesting side note here. NPR canceled all their newspaper subscriptions

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...

[Cha]

26. Good to know..one more

nail in their baised coffin.

[Eric J in MN]

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.

[kjackson227]

19. neo-con rag

[Cha]

21. Rec'd~ No question mark about it..that's what they're asserting!

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.

[Vinca]

27. In the WSJ bizarro world, the guy with the least votes wins.

[marmar]

29. The WSJ has really gone deep into the Far Right Rabbit Hole of late....

n/t

[indigo32]

31. they can

K M A

of all the f*cking nerve

[ck4829]

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.

[Eric J in MN]

41. Unless Franken conceded. NT

NT

[Hubert Flottz]

35. Sore Losermen!

Gnash baby gnash!

[asjr]

36. I can remember a time when the WSJ

had credibility.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. DAMN...

Do people live that long?

[dpbrown]

38. The Wall Street Journal jumps the shark!

What a steaming pile of hypocrisy.

[Canuckistanian]

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.

[Stellabella]

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.

[Eric J in MN]

46. Yes, we should be celebrating a well-done recount. NT

NT

[unblock]

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!!!!

[LeftishBrit]

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?

[muriel_volestrangler]

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.

[Vidar]

53. No, wait. Isn't Franken a Republican according to FOXspeak, like Sanford's a Democrat?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

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.

[Orsino]

55. WSJ and Bill O'Reilly work for the same boss. n/t

[scarletwoman]

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.

sw

[zbdent]

57. Murdoch's Faux Street Urinal ...

[BlooInBloo]

59. What I take away from this is that the WSJ opinion page is against counting votes.