The scorched earth policy has already been implemented.

I also think the fact that Coleman, who no doubt would like to run again someday, will bow to Minnesota's good-government culture and not stretch this thing out, thereby giving Pawlenty the space to certify Franken. I could be wrong.

You already are wrong. If he was thinking about running again someday and respecting Minnesota's good-government culture he would have conceded at this point. I think you give Republicans far more credit for rational analysis than they deserve. And at this point, the crazies (Bachmann, Rush, Rick Perry) have taken over, tainting the Republican brand even further.

How much of an impact is it going to have to have Mitch McConnell use Franken as a foil, when McConnell is one of the leaders of the party led by Rush, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Bachmann?

When Tom Delay goes on Hardball and defends Rick Perry and continues to talk about secession, he's undermining any credibility the Republican Party has left.

Franken would have been a great foil, had the Republicans not dragged this election out as long as they have, had they not participated in Teabagging, had Michelle Bachmann shut up, and if Rick Perry and Tom Delay hadn't been so irresponsible as to chat up the notion of secession. The grownups are no longer in charge, and the crazies are.

It's too late for Franken to be a foil.

Franken will not be a good foil because he'll be 100th out of 100 in seniority, and will fly under the radar as most junior senators do.

Even Obama, who was pegged from the beginning as a future presidential candidate, didn't make much news as a new senator.

How exactly is the GOP going to demonize Franken? "That liberal Franken, working to undermine our democracy with his questions at the subcommittee meeting!"

I must be bored as hell to be responding to this interminable flight of fancy....but I'm not the one getting paid for this.

Basically the Goober base already has "San Fran Nan", Harry Reid, and Obama to demonize. I just don't see how adding Franken to their playbook does anything substantial to boost their brand...

On the other hand, I can clearly see why they would choose to drag this out incessantly and keep an extra Dem vote out of the Senate.

I'm in total agreement with CT Voter. Franken seems like a reasonable guy compared to the teabaggers, secessionists and assorted whacks currently speaking for the GOP. It's way too late to bring up his SNL days, or show more pics of him in drag. I suppose they could try and dredge up Franken's book, but Rush Limbaugh really is a Big Fat Idiot, so I don't see how that can help either...

If Coleman had any thought of self preservation, he would have bowed out long ago, or at the very least put up a challenge in court that had legal merit to be considered. The only point he made nothing more than coulda, woulda, shoulda. As Al Gore stated in 2000, while he didn't agree with the court decision, he would accept it. Obviously, Coleman is only half the man Al Gore is.

Matt, you're back. Huh. I was beginning to think that maybe you and Elana Schor had run off together...

Anyway, the other comments here are right; the GOP already has Franken to kick around as much as they need. In fact, it's probably easier to whip up a frenzy in the base over the specter of what he might do, as opposed to what he actually does say or do as Senator. (Or then again maybe I'm giving them too much credit not to just make stuff up.)

As for Coleman, even if he had any agency in this decision - his political future is toast. And if he isn't smart enough to figure that out, he's certainly not smart enough to figure out that conceding would be in his long term interest.

You left out Former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill. He was also a "Republican Villain" for a time.

Good article, thanks for the frank assessment, Matt. It's not really heartening that the Republicans would take solace in an easy demonization, given the times and given where that political philosophy has led their party and their nation, but it's pretty clearly true. Franken is a gift.

Imagine Michael Moore in the Senate. This is the next best thing for the war-on-liberals crowd. How many hours will Rush fill with Franken material alone?

Coleman actually concede.

My vote is that Coleman and the rest of the rightwing nutjobbers go for scorched earth.

Really . . . when have we know a neocon Republican to take the smart, no less honorable course of action.

As soon as the Minnesota Supreme Court slaps him down, look for the Coleman to start shopping around in the Federal courts.

Well-spoken like the closeted Republican you apparently are, Mr. Cooper - still trying to kiss the D.C. GOP's asses after you threw your bddy Scooter Libby under the bus to save your own sorry rear end.

To be bluntly honest, I'm damned proud of Al Franken for beating that patronizing, corrupt jackass up in Minnesota. And if you think rank-and-file Democrats are simply going to run away in fear from Sen.-elect Franken upon your stating the painfully obvious, i.e., that Rush Limbaugh and the GOP will demonize him as "arechetypical (sic) Republican villain.", we've got a few choice words for you and you right-wing friends:

Bring it on, clowns. Bring. It. On.

Well there are lots of reasons Republicans should fear Franken-the-Senator finally arriving in DC.

Let's begin with money. It will have cost the Senate Dems a good deal of money to send the best possible team of recount lawyers to Minnesota for the Winter (and part of the fall and spring). Franken will be a draw for any kind of Bean Feeds or Jefferson-Jackson Days Dinners the Dem's want to organize, and as soon as you can say cock Robin, he will have raised the 12 million our side of the recount cost -- and start work on building State Senate Funds, and the fortunes of the DSCC. Franken will be Golden in this sense.

Second, the Republicans are digging themselves into a very serious deep hole in appealing the decision of the Election Contest Court. To understand this, you need to first carefully read the decision, particularly the near ten pages the Court used to discuss and rule on Coleman's arguments rooted in Bush v. Gore regarding Equal Protection. Assuming Coleman does appeal, and the Minnesota Supreme Court writes an opinion that incorporates the ECC's opinion on Equal Protection, they will have completely wiped out any residual remaining of the legal construction of Equal Protection that the Bush v. Gore court lightly brushed at back in 2001. And as much as I have never thought highly of the constitutional reasoning in Bush v. Gore -- there it is, and even though the Court said it was a one-off decision, not to be used as precedent, it has crept in over recent years, including at least one US Appeals Court decision.

Now State Court decisions are not really despositive in the Federal Courts -- but when it comes to Election Law, most of it is State Law, and most of the opinions are State Court decisions, largely because with the exception of issues regarding equal protection based on exclusion of voters based on race, religion, gender, and other matters covered by Amendments to the Constitution that enfranchised African Americans and Women -- election law is largely State Law. The ECC opinion (which Coleman says he plans to appeal) draws a very narrow application of Equal Protection, essentially excluding anything that is, in essence, a random difference in election process. The Court says Equal Protection does not call for "Rigid Sameness" in procedure -- if one county made an error and allowed one Felon to vote by mistake, this does not call for a remedy that invites all Felons to vote and have their ballots counted. Random errors are not violations of equal protection.

I assume that since this seems to be Coleman's main argument at this point, and the core of his appeal, what will happen in the next month in the Minnesota Supreme Court will be an invitation for them to judge, and probably adopt the ECC's careful reasoning on "Equal Protection" as it applies to election law, and my guess is, incorporate it into their own final opinion. They will frame it as an opinion linked to Minnesota's Constitutional guarentee of Equal Protection (very similar to the Federal constitutional construction), but their opinion which will be termed "Coleman v. Franken" could well be determinative beyond the land of ten thousand lakes. I will remind that in Bush v. Gore, in a footnote, the court had to reason its way around another Minnesota Decision, "Anderson v. Rolvaag" when it came to their finding that the Supreme Court had limited jurisdiction in the Florida Election. In essence, what the Coleman Legal Team seems to be doing is allowing the Minnesota Court to deliver a nice kick in the gut to Bush v. Gore, with it's dismissal of a bright line regarding the conditions when Federal Courts can impose themselves on State Election Law.

Sometimes there are times when you really don't want Courts to deliver up a significant opinion that becomes dispositive -- and if one is a Republican, and defends Bush v. Gore (something I am absolutely not) one would not really want an affirmation of the reasoning of this particular ECC, and raising it to a leading opinion of a State Supreme Court. One would think Coleman's Federalist Society buddies would be reading the tea leaves, and telling him to leave the underpinnings of Bush v. Gore alone.

On the other hand, I like the idea of Franken, through no real effort of his own, having his name on a case that delivers a kick to the gut of Bush v. Gore. Just think, before he even gets to the Senate he will have that lovely "laughed out of Court" decision in "Fox (and O'Reilly) v. Franken" as a scalp in his quiver -- and he may just well have "Coleman v. Franken" knocking the guts out of Bush v. Gore too. Who knows what will happen when he gets down to work and isn't just responding to Republicans in Court.

As for the supposed egg throwing at Norm, I think it's the Karl Rove phony "bug in my office" playbook. Who saw it? How do strangers know where Norm Lives?
What are the odds he answers the door by himself?
The story stinks to high heaven.

Just thought I'd add an addendum. Look, I think it's entirely possible and likely that Coleman will fight for as long as he can and this will go one and on. I concede that all evidence suggests that he will fight. But as I made clear in my initial post, I have a hunch he won't. I could be wrong. It's likely I'm wrong. But we'll see just have to see. No reason to get all agita, personal and ad hominem. Just one man's opinion.

Second, as I said, Al's a friend I've known a long time and I think you might like my Portfolio interview with him which I linked to in the original piece. I think he'll be a great and interesting senator. That's not inconsistent with believing that he'll be useful for rallying the GOP at a time when their demonization isn't going that well and that it's in their interest to bow to the inevitable and seat him.

As always, appreciate the passion and engagement of TPM readers.