Coleman's Supposedly Friendly Witnesses Backfire
We have seen the best thing that Norm Coleman's legal team has done so far in this election trial -- and it ain't pretty.
This afternoon the Coleman team was bringing in rejected absentee voters to show that their ballots were improperly tossed. So far the court has heard from six people, most of of whom said they were contacted by the Republican Party in the last few weeks. They mostly seemed sympathetic enough, putting a human face on the disenfranchised Coleman voter -- but at least two of them appeared to have been rejected properly under the conditions of Minnesota law.
One of the voters was Douglas Thompson, who admitted under oath that his girlfriend filled out his absentee ballot application for him, signing his name with her own hand and purporting to be himself. His ballot was rejected because the signature on his ballot envelope (his own) did not match the signature on the application (his girlfriend's). The Coleman team's argument appears to be that he is still a legal voter in Minnesota, as the signature on the ballot was his own, even if admitted dishonesty was involved in getting the ballot.
Keep in mind: Thompson's story came up during the direct examination by Coleman lawyer James Langdon. So the Coleman camp fully knew this information and decided to make him into a witness.
Another one of the voters, an older man named Wesley Briest, initially responded that he voted at the polls -- not by absentee. Then Coleman attorney James Langdon showed him his absentee ballot envelope, reminding him that he did not go to the polls, too. Upon cross-examination by Franken lawyer Kevin Hamilton, Briest admitted that his wife, who served as the witness on his ballot, did not fully complete the witness section of the absentee ballot.
On top of this, the court began over four hours late today, after the judges and lawyers had to go into a closed-door meeting to figure out how to bring in original rejected absentee ballot envelopes in the wake of yesterday's mess involving the Coleman team making alterations to their photocopied evidence.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Eric, I know others have said this before, but you deserve an award for your continued dogged reporting on this endless escapade.
This has turned into a comedy that gets more hysterical by the day.
January 27, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all pitch in and get him a haircut!
Kidding aside, thanks for the comedy relief that is Coleman's campaign.
January 27, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there such a thing as Tooth Reduction Surgery? If so, maybe we should all chip in for that too!
January 27, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful slamming the stuff we're born with (i.e. larger than average teeth). Nothing "wrong" with that.
Instead, let's just do everything we can to wipe that grin off his face...
January 27, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, those teeth are hardly natural. That's a $6,000 smile Norm is sporting.
You could take a look here:
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/norm_coleman_featured_smile_124.htm
...but it's not for the faint-hearted.
January 27, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hitting him in the face with a two-by-four would chip his teeth down to size.
January 28, 2009 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Eric's adorable just as he is
January 28, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot wait for this to be made into a movie. Comic gold.
January 27, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
with Al Franken as Al Franken.
His books helped me survive the last 8 years.
January 27, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya got that right. Now who plays Coleman? I suggest the Coen Bros get to work getting transcripts they can use for the screenplay.
January 27, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, Josh Brolin of course.
January 27, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Coleman? It's gotta be William Devane....hands down.
January 27, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think you probably mean willem dafoe
:)
January 28, 2009 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smilin' Bob?
January 28, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. William Devane has those big teeth.
January 28, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin Bacon. He needs the work after losing all to Bernie Madoff
January 27, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who plays Coleman? Gary Cole, or - for pure irony - Dennis Miller.
January 27, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dennis Miller has the smarmy part down, no question!
January 27, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alfred E Newman
January 27, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your Alfred E. Neuman and raise you a Marty Feldman.
January 27, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Marty is dead. But I'd love to see Don Knotts in the role.
January 27, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though he had a longer run on the stage of the world, Jesse Donald Knotts (July 21, 1924 – February 24, 2006)is just as dead as Martin Alan "Marty" Feldman (8 July 1934 – 2 December 1982).
January 27, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! Well, when you think about it, their deaths qualify them more than most to play Norm Coleman on the silver screen!
January 27, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be worse...could be rainin'!
January 29, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Feldman the guy that played Igor in Mel Brooks's "Frankenstein"?
Good choice. :-)
January 28, 2009 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: Gary Cole playing Coleman...
I first read this as "Gary Coleman" -- I hope everyone else likes that idea as much as I do!
January 27, 2009 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary Coleman has too much charisma to play Coleman.
January 27, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Buscemi.
January 29, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are TOTALLY on the wrong track. Only one man was born to play the Coleman part, and his name is Crispin Glover.
January 27, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Josh Brolin is a great guy but I already hate him after that Bush movie. If he played Coleman he'd be typecast as villian in my eyes for the rest of his life. Devane's too old and fat. I feel for Bacon and he's good enough and actor to pull it off. Gary Cole might be ok, Dennis Miller's hair is too too dark, he's a narcissist who'd try to steal the movie and ruin it, and I'd never pay to see anything with him in it anyway. Crispin Glover is an inspired choice but is still acting? Haven't seen him in anything in years. If you want to go psychotic maybe Jim Carrey or Emo Phillips.
January 27, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Willem Dafoe would be an excellent Coleman. I've seen him do comedy before.
January 27, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a bad choice either. How about Jon Lovitz? Not the right body type but the character fits.
January 27, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about Steve Buscemi? He's worked with the Coens before. Think of the wince reaction to "STFU Donnie yer out of your element."
January 27, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christopher Walken anybody?
January 28, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The younger Coleman, from his high school days, should be played by Hillary Swank.
January 28, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was my immediate thought too. The detective he plays in American Psycho looks just like Coleman.
January 28, 2009 5:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love Walken but he just doesn't seem smarmy enough for the part. He might be good for one of Coleman's goofy lawyers though.
January 28, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention Brolin playing the villian Dan White (brilliantly, I might ad) in "Milk."
January 28, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Coen Bros would have been a good choice when this started (and they would bring a native-Minnesotan take to it) but this is now so bizarre, it is firmly in Tim Burton territory moving head-long to David Lynch!
January 28, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah to hell with it, it's written itself more bizarrely than Hollywood ever could, no one's more entertaining than the genuine actors, I say let Michael Moore make a documentary, preferably an old school one like "Roger and Me" about it. Have Brad Friedman add color commentary.
January 28, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Christopher Lloyd
January 29, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coleman should rest his case now before they make it any worse.
January 27, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fraud, suborning perjury, evidence tampering, conspiracy, Quimby's been a busy little crook, hasn't he?
January 27, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone in a thread yesterday was marveling at how sloppy Coleman's lawyers are being. I'm beginning to wonder if the message here is that Coleman's lawyers just don't care. Are they even trying to win anymore?
January 27, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they've realized that this has turned into a pro bono experience for them, and their hearts just aren't in it anymore.
January 27, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not get carried away here. Yes, Thompson should have signed the app himself rather than having his girlfriend do it for him. But what he was trying to do hardly undermines democracy. Indeed, one could argue that disenfranchising him on a technicality undermines democracy.
By authorizing his girlfriend to sign the application for him, he attested that the information provided was true and correct, and I'm sure a prosecutor could make out a case against him for submitting a fraudulent application if, for example, he made up his place of residence -- even though he didn't actually sign it. So a qualified absentee voter attested to the veracity of his absentee application, but just didn't do so in the formalistic means proscribed by law. Rules are rules and all that, so his vote doesn't count. But this isn't any more a voter fraud scam than the Mickey Mouse/ACORN crap redstate.com et al. were drumming up on October. Let's not forget why we're better than them, please.
--EZE
PS I don't mean to pick on you, Grouch. This is really a reply to the tone of the post. But it also seemed to fit the "fraud" part of your post.
January 27, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why there's a movement in Minnesota to change the absentee voter laws to make it easier. When that many absentee ballots get rejected something is wrong with the system. Odds are virtually all of those rejected ballots are legitimate.
January 27, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right eze, only when the signatures don't match how are you supposed to tell which one is authentic? This guy and his girlfriend are clearly idiots. But the bigger idiots are the Coleman lawyers who brought him in as a prime example of a voter who was wrongly excluded.
January 27, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only that the guy was there, in open court, testifying that (1) he was the voter, (2) he authorized the signature on the application, and (3) that he signed the absentee ballot. I'm assuming he also has a drivers' license, so we can, in fact, verify that it's his vote. I'm not saying that means it counts. As I think I said, rules are rules, and the vote shouldn't count. The system would collapse if you had to have a full-out trial over each ballot.
But that doesn't make this fraud. This guy had the right to vote and lost it because he #$%^ed up. That's a lot of things, but fraud ain't one of them.
Thanks,
--EZE
January 28, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Tone. Because I want nothing more in life than to be properly respectful to Slimy Norman Quimby. The guy actually did misrepresent himself in order to vote - isn't that fraud? And they're getting together to organize their fishing expedition, which includes "doctored" evidence - aka tampering.
Authorization has nothing whatever to do with it.
Tone. Right, tone. Shall I genuflect in Normie's general direction? Will that help?
He's human refuse of a low order. My only concern is that I am failing to be properly insulting.
January 27, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It IS voter fraud. You are not only certifying the info in the envelope is correct, you're certifying your own signature. Since no one sees the vote til after the envelope is certified, if you have someone else's signature on the envelope how are elections officials supposed to know what is inside is truly the voter's? THAT's why the ballot was rejected - and I'm quite sure that's correct under the law.
And really, does anyone doubt for a second that had this been a Dem-leaning voter doing it the right wing would be up in arms? For that matter, they might well have gotten a Bushie US Atty (you know, like Rachel Paulouse) to investigate it.
January 28, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make it a poor urban black couple that voted Democratic. The Republicans would surely call it voter fraud, but I doubt you would agree.
I'm not familiar with Minnesota's statute, but a classic element of fraud is scienter (intent to deceive). I think that's lacking here. He just got confused as to the rules. He wasn't trying to pull a fast one to prove that his girlfriend was good at faking his handwriting.
Again, I agree the vote shouldn't count, and that Coleman's lawyers were dumb for putting this guy on the stand. But the original post on the main site said something like "throw him in jail," which is entirely over the top.
January 28, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point (about the intent argument). But depends on what's being certified - I don't live in Minnesota, but if you've got to certify the signature is authentic, then having someone else do it is untrue. And that's intent (intent to have someone commit the act that is false) . . .
Any case, this appears to be a losing proposition for coleman.
January 28, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here we keep seeing Franken described as a "comedian." Could it be that Coleman is auditioning for a second career--in effect swapping places with Franken? Someone should clue him in that to succeed, his jokes need to be funny.
January 27, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Coleman is auditioning for anything, it's Mayor of Wasilla.
January 28, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the Punk'd camera crew lurking close by?
January 27, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh man, what a sweet gig covering this trial would be. It's like being paid to watch the Daily Show.
January 27, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Coleman just trying to delay the seating of Franken?
January 27, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that's the real reason for this charade, yes. Which means the RNC will probably continue to pump funds into litigating this as far as they can possibly take it.
January 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having seen and heard strange decisions come from courts and arbitrations I am waiting for Franken to take the oath of the Senate before jumping for joy. Anything can happen. This may go against Franken and then have to be appealed again. This is going to go to who has the staying power.
January 27, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, anybody else's complaint would have been dismissed by now. I guess Coleman spent that illegal campaign money on buying some judges
January 27, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Article I Section 5, United states Constitution:
Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members . . .
Ho-hum. Just a god-damned scrap of paper, right, Senator Reid?
January 27, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on. Its been the practice of the Senate to wait until someone has been certified the winner by their state before they are seated. Minnesota, somewhat unusually, provides that there is no certification until the contest procedure is over. So the Senate is properly waiting until Minnesota certifies Franken as the winner. There will be a decision in a couple weeks.
January 27, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people never learn. This has been thrashed over and over. Franken's certification is not going to happen - according to MN law - until this "contest" is resolved.
I guess it's just more fun for some people to beat on the Senate Dems than face facts. Quimby's lost in any case, the question is when the court hands him his walking papers. Soon enough...
January 27, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Franken's certification is not going to happen - according to MN law - until this "contest" is resolved."
But that doesn't mean the Senate can't seat Franken PROVISIONALLY just like they did Mary Landrieu, does it?
January 28, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"there will be a decision in a couple of weeks" . . . . well, do you want to bet on that? It will take several weeks (i.e., more than a couple) according to local news media, for the 12,000 subpoenaed ballots to be re-examined . . . and then they get back to all the other points of contention in the trial. And what if, should he lose at this stage, Norm decides to appeal? And, in that case, suppose Tim Pawlenty decides to withhold his signature from the election certificate? Further delays---for months or years.
The reason I brought up Article I, Section 5, is "because it is there." The Old Grouch says it's the practice of the Senate to wait for certificates--in other words, that's the hole Sen. Reid dug for himself and into which Blagojevich pushed him with the Burris appointment. Has this always been the practice of the Senate? Is it so hallowed by tradition that the unambiguous language of the Constitution is somehow annulled?
Coleman, with his RNC lawyers, means to play hardball. He knows the verdict of the people can be overridden---look at the 1948 Texas election.
You can read up on Partisanship and Contested Election Cases in the Senate, 1789-2002, in an article in Studies in American Political Development, no. 19 (spring 2005.)
The Senate has been all over the map on the question of applying Art. I, Sec. 5. Maybe this is one case where they OUGHT TO exert their authority and judge the returns! The recount was fair and Norm's team was included at every step of the way.
By the way, one of Norm's Republican antecedents in that Minnesota seat, Tom Schall, was kept out of office for 22 months while the Senate investigated his raising campaign funds from Mpls bootleggers in exchange for promises of protection from federal prosecution.
January 27, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no...Gary Busey was BORN to play the role of Coleman.
January 27, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it but he needs at least one more motorcycle
accident to get into the right frame of mind.
January 27, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://theblemish.com/images/2008/02/gary-busey-teeth.jpg
Gary Busey is perfect for the part of Norm Coleman. No special effects or make-up needed.
January 28, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norm has always reminded me of the sadistic fratboy in "Animal House," Doug Neidermeyer, played by actor Mark Metcalf. But Busey has the perfect teeth, for sure.
January 27, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears from Kleefeld's reporting that two out of Coleman's six "star" witnesses were properly rejected. When you consider that he had maybe 5,500 (out of 11,000) to choose from, you'd think Coleman could have come up with a whole buncha heartrending "horrible miscarriages of justice" to lead off his case. Since he can't, one has to surmise he's really got bupkis, & the whole challenge is all a sham to keep Minnesotans from having proper Senate representation.
I know courts don't like to do this, but in the interest of actual justice, they should move this thing along -- Franken's lawyers should have a standing summary judgment in the people's favor.
And, yes, the absentee ballot system should be easier.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
January 27, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think the judge should have thrown Coleman and his posse out of court after his attorneys filed doctored documents as authentic originals?
Also, I'm with emac, I think Gary Busey would be perfect as Douchebag Norm in the film version!!!
January 27, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving aside who won, or who we want to win, one must ask the question: with this level of incompetence shown by the Coleman team, the Republicans actually *want* this guy in the Senate?
How the mighty GOP has fallen, eh?
January 27, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the irony in all this is that Republicans are the ones who want to create more hurdles to jump over before people are allowed to vote but Coleman's only argument is that the procedures already in place are too onerous and should be ignored.
January 27, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in southern India and this is the kind of election crap they pull here, for godsakes. Coleman should come to Hyderabad -- I'll buy his salwar kameez suits for him.
January 27, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own Rush-loving, born again brother made sure that he took our mother, who had been officially diagnosed with dementia earlier this summer, to vote in Minnesota in the 2008 election. That's pretty sad.
January 27, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why can't I access my dashboard anymore?
January 27, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raymond Massey should play Norm.
http://www.silverscreenings.net/screens/arsenic/images/pdvd_015.jpg
What? He's dead? Dang.
How about this guy, then?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWuFRW0lBaI
January 27, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are all missing the total irony here. The GOP the bastion of standing against voter fraud, stickler of the rules and regulations where they are public that allowing a hint of a non citizen or voter who is not legally registered or proper resident----finding every way to restrict voter access and voter franchise brings to the court two examples of just what their entire voter suppression program is about.
The reason is simple---relevant ethos, in this case it is about power, the power of 58 versus 59 votes in the Senate. In this case they are showing that the absentee rules inherently disenfranchise voters, be it a valid voter who failed to register for an absentee ballot application or another having a witness not follow through---out of expediency but in both cases invalidating their votes.
The irony is so fatal. The thing is this case is not about democracy it is about finding systemic problems in administrating the accounting of the election under the laws and regulations of the State. These votes appear to be properly invalidated and like persons who show up with a valid ID but wrong address or wrong precinct or whatever it is a vote that is not counted. These are the Republican rules.
My guess with 4 hours trying to figure out the earlier evidence problem the patience is becoming clear.....unanimous decision....then what...
Coleman appeals to the State Supreme Court on a matter of law .....
more half baked briefs.
You see here is the courts problem---overturning the democratic decision they are sworn to protect through the laws written.
January 27, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
To add insult to injury, it seems likely that taxpayers across the country are paying Coleman's bills. This diary in Daily Kos tells the story:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/27/191623/438/822/689723
File this one in the "Biting the Hand That Feeds You" Department.
Thanks to Larry Lessig and Joe Trippi for catching this misuse of bailout funds.
January 27, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an independent so I couldn't care less who actually wins this joust.... BUT, there really is something worth examining, when, for example:
1. more ballots are counted than the number of people who signed in to vote??? this is the case in more than one precinct/county
2. someone who puts Daffy Duck as a write-in candidate, gets their ballot tossed as "recognizable marks" or some such silliness.
3. BOTH the Dems and the Reps are rejecting ballots for incredible reasons---how the heck to the candidates/lawyers get to "reject" ballots? I'm not sure of the procedure here, but it would seem rather obvious that the candidates would have a vested interest in "rejecting" a ballot---for any ol' reason!!
TAKE A LOOK at the ballots, folks, and see why they were rejected! The Minneapolis Star Tribune had them on their website.... I spent several hours looking at the ridiculosity of it ALL---
Which ALL leads me to conclude, EITHER candidate is CORRECT to be taking this matter to court, appealing, and stretching this issue to the utmost, because it is a Flawed System.
How much ya wanna bet, they change Minnesota's law, instead of an automatic "recount" (read that, dreadful months of Gore/Bush Redux), to an instant Run-Off election.
And despite being an Independent, I'm cringing at the thought of Franken being any type of representative..... He seems to have little to fill his heart or brain, than his Own Agenda. If he gets in, the Senate will finally have a Court Jester with the Experience to fill those shoes!
Unfortunately, Franken does not have the type of administrative or other experience that a Senator requires.... Er, well, since the Senate is sort of the laughinstock of the World, well, maybe he is just the icing on the cake. Let him go to DC, I'd love to see it all unfold! Very interesting cartoons are coming our way! And no need to spend billions making a movie, just open your paper every day!
January 28, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Independent my aunt fanny. Obviously in the bag for Coleman, fortunately the people of MN voted differently and the votes for were counted.
January 28, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Independent? Pray tell me what were Norm's qualifications? Truly, Al is a better person that Norm no matter what criteria you use. Norm was Busches pet slimy rock, did everything he was told to do by the most criminal admin. we have ever seen.
ANYONE would be better than Coleman. Coleman, who switched sides of the aisle for pure gain, who lost to a pro-wrestler, who has abused his office and the taxpayer and constituent. The only thing propping him up is huge amounts of corporate cash, illegal renting of lodging, under the table cash payouts for his wife, some foreign arsehat buying his wardrobe for him, and who knows what else under the table he is doing. The big Corporatists got together in October and were pounding the tables on how to beat Unions and Fair Workplaces....exhorting each other to dump more cash on Coleman's campaign race because they knew Norm would be on their side and against the common man.
Now, let's hear your gripes about Franken again?
January 28, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do Republicans want to hide from their Party when things get bad. Independent Ha Ha Ha. Sounds like a hybrid Republican to me. Why is it that Republicans want to hide behind this Independent thing.
Here's a idea for Norm Coleman. I'm from Minnesota and know Coleman for the "switcher" that he really is. Maybe he should just do a morph thing like Lieberman and just "switch" back to the Democratic party and become a "hoe" for them like he was for the Republican Party.
January 28, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Coleman strategy is revealed by a national Republican spokescreature: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/27/castellanos.minnesota/index.html
Bush Florida 2000 redux. The champions of equal protection and states rights reappear after 8 years in an undisclosed location.
January 28, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I confused.
The Coleman lawyers presented altered documents as evidence.
Why are these lawyers now in jail for contempt of court?
January 28, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may get kind of crowded in jail with Holder getting voted out of committee for confirmation. Coleman may join his lawyers, and Rove, and Alberto Gonzales, et al.
January 28, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One of the voters was Douglas Thompson, who admitted under oath that his girlfriend filled out his absentee ballot application for him"
Did she work for ACORN? What a bunch of hypocrites the ReThugs are!
January 28, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or does Coleman look like a sad version of Jon Stewart?
January 28, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norm is a cartoon... Elmer Fudd should play Norm! When he speaks he sounds like Elmer Fudd!
January 28, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Bob Thornton gets my vote.
January 29, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink