Franken's behavior and need for anger management counseling.

Last week it was reported that Minnesota's Senator Al Franken mocked and made faces from the dias when Republican Senator Mitch McConnell was making a speech on the Senate. According to "The Hill":

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) scolded Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) on the Senate floor Thursday for allegedly mocking him while he delivered a solemn speech on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

The dust-up came seconds after McConnell delivered a speech on Kagan’s nomination shortly before the Senate voted to confirm her to the high court.Franken, who was presiding over the chamber from the dais, gesticulated and made faces while McConnell explained his opposition to Kagan, according to witnesses.

The television cameras broadcasting the speech on C-SPAN remained fixed on McConnell, missing Franken’s antics from the Senate president’s chair.

McConnell grew increasingly angry as Franken made fun of him before a crowded public gallery and Senate aides lining the chamber walls. Senate aides said they were shocked that Franken would flout the decorum of the chamber during such a solemn occasion.

After McConnell finished his remarks, he walked up to the dais and rebuked him.

“This is not 'Saturday Night Live,' Al,” McConnell said, making reference to Franken’s career as a writer and actor on NBC’s long-running comedy show, according to a witness who overheard the exchange.

After the vote, Franken walked to McConnell's office to apologize but couldn't find him. He has sent a personal note, instead.

"The Leader thought I was disrespectful while he was giving his speech on General Kagan," Franken said in a statement to The Hill. "He is entitled to give his speech with the presiding officer just listening respectfully. I went directly to his office after I was done presiding to apologize in person. He wasn’t there, so I’ve sent him a handwritten note.”

It was pointed out by the folks at Powerline previous episodes of Franken crossing over the line and the need for anger management help.

I was told that Franken has become notorious on Capitol Hill for incidents of this kind. He is described as someone who frequently becomes rageful and lacking in control over the behavior related to his emotions. He is susceptible to outbursts, involving Republican Senators as well as staffers, immediately following which he is consumed with regret. He fits the profile of a guy with serious anger management issues.

Several of the incidents involving Franken have been reported in the Capitol Hill press, if not in the local Minnesota media, and not all such incidents involving Franken have been reported. One Capitol Hill source pointed out published stories including this one (citing several such incidents), this one (involving Senator Corker), and this one and this one (involving Senator Thune). Franken now avoids the Capitol Hill press.

Checking out the incident involving Senator McConnell, I immediately thought of our own reportage on Franken during the 2004 Republican National Convention at Madison Square Garden. John Hinderaker provided readers an account of the "Row on Radio Row" (photograph above). The incident goes back to Franken's days with Air America.

In short, Al Franken is a guy with a problem. It hasn't gotten better since he was elected United States Senator. It may well have gotten worse. Someone who reports on the news for a living really should look into it.

Behavior before Franken ran for the Senate suggested Franken had problems but he generally kept a lid on it. But as one can see, the problem still persists.

"The Minnesota Recount Was Unconstitutional"

That's the title of St. Thomas Law Professor Michael Paulsen's Wall Street Journal article today.

He writes that the approach taken by the state in counting and not counting votes is a violation of the Constitution as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in its famous 2000 7-2 decision in Bush v. Gore.

He says "For now, the only thing certain is that the present "certified" result -- which is that Mr. Franken won by 225 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast -- is an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution."

He begins by saying, "You would think people would learn. The recount in the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a seat in the U.S. Senate isn't just embarrassing. It is unconstitutional."

AP

He makes the humorous observation that this is Florida 2000 but with colder weather. Certainly true today with this morning's temperature minus 22 degrees with a minus 38 degree wind chill.

This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota's muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.

He reminds us of all the problems with a recount when the stakes were much higher -- the presidency.

Remember Florida? Local officials conducting recounts could not decide what counted as a legal vote. Hanging chads? Dimpled chads? Should "undervotes" count (where a machine failed to read an incompletely-punched card)? What about "overvotes" (where voters punched more than one hole)? Different counties used different standards; different precincts within counties were inconsistent.

The Florida Supreme Court intervened and made things worse, ordering a statewide recount of some types of rejected ballots but not others. It specified no standards for what should count as a valid vote, leaving the judgment to each county. And it ordered partial recounts already conducted in some counties (but not others) included in the final tabulation. The result was chaos.

By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.

Bush v. Gore is rightly regarded as controversial -- but not because of its holding regarding the Equal Protection Clause, which commanded broad agreement among the justices. The controversy arose because of the remedy the Court chose for Florida's violation, which was to end the recount entirely. The majority thought that time was up under Florida law requiring that its results be submitted in time to be included in the Electoral College count. That aspect of Bush v. Gore commanded only five votes. Two justices thought Florida should get more time and another chance.

The nub of the problem then as now is not all votes were treated equally. He points out the problems in the Minnesota recount.

Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.

Consider the inconsistencies: One county "found" 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted -- once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines' tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.

Then there's Minnesota's (first, so far) state Supreme Court decision, Coleman v. Ritchie, decided by a vote of 3-2 on Dec. 18. (Two justices recused themselves because they were members of the state canvassing board.) While not as bad as Florida's interventions, the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered local boards to count some previously excluded absentee ballots but not others. Astonishingly, the court left the decision as to which votes to count to the two competing campaigns and forbade local election officials to correct errors on their own.

If Messrs. Franken and Coleman agreed, an absentee ballot could be counted. Either campaign could veto a vote. Dean Barkley of the Independence Party, who ran third, was not included in this process.

Thus, citizens' right to vote -- the right to vote! -- was made subject to political parties' gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken's team played a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman's. The margin of Mr. Franken's current lead is partly the product of a successful what's-mine-is-mine-what's-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team's failure to counter it.

Paulsen, interestingly, not only points out the problem but also a remedy for the problem: a temporary appointment and another election. Interestingly, a lot of people I've talked to say they should have another election.

The Constitution's answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

In a sense, a vacancy has already "happened." The U.S. Senate convened on Jan. 6 with only one senator from Minnesota. Still, the seat is perhaps not "vacant," just unfilled. But if the contest proceeding does not produce a clear winner that passes constitutional muster, a special election -- and a temporary appointment by Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- may be the only answer.

This is a very insightful, well written article. It will be interesting seeing whether the "powers that be" in Minnesota respond to Professor Paulsen's advice.

The Coleman-Franken campaign continues on with challenged ballots and rejected absentee ballots at issue.

The campaign between Norm Coleman and Al Franken didn't end on Election Day. In fact, they've spent upwards of $4 million since then seeking to insure their interests aren't ignored in the recount process.

The major media groups say Coleman has a 192 vote lead while Franken camp claims he holds a 4 vote lead if all the election judge decisions on challenged ballots are upheld.

Remaining issues evolve around what to do with the 133 supposedly missing ballots in Minneapolis, how to handle challenges and what to do about improperly rejected absentee ballots.

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie went out of his way to be involved in the missing ballots issue. He dispatched one of his assistants to help look for the ballots. Ritchie then said if they weren't found they would likely go with the count on Election Day, which begs the question, why count them if the reason for the recount is to insure that votes were properly counted. Initially, Minneapolis' campaign official, who is a democrat, thought the number discrepancy was due to absentee ballots improperly run through the voting machines. Franken campaign objected and then they changed their tune.

Regarding the handling of challenges, it's up in the air whether a majority of the canvassing board will rule on rejected ballots by majority or unanimous votes.

And finally, there's the question of improperly rejected absentee ballots. There are four criteria in state law for which absentee ballots can be rejected. Apparently, there were a number of absentee ballots rejected for some other reason. The Canvassing Board initially ruled it didn't have the authority to include them in the recount, but will revisit the issue this Friday.

The Franken campaign has been most concerned about the absentee ballots being rejected improperly. It will be interesting to hear their position if they are ahead by a few votes after all the challenged ballots are considered. Will they still demand that they be included? I would doubt it.

It seems to me that improperly rejected absentee ballots should be reconsidered. Or if they weren't properly rejected why wouldn't they be included? That seems to clearly be a case of disenfranchisement. (Some argue that Franken would benefit by more absentees being considered while others say it would benefit Coleman more because historically Republicans are more likely to vote by absentee ballot than Democrats.)

Hopefully, this will all end sooner rather than later and the final result will not be in doubt.

Will the Coleman-Franken race end in a tie or just plain close?

That's what one analysis came up with. That based on a statistical analysis of voting patterns, undervotes, etc. (Though it should be noted that Coleman picked up another nine votes since the 206 number was out there.)

Some think that problem votes will tilt Franken's direction from new voters and others unfamiliar with the voting process. Others think it will help Coleman because problematic votes will more likely be from elderly voters who would tilt Coleman's way.

Either way, it's sure to be tight.

Buyer's remorse with Franken?

The latest polling returns from the Minnesota Secretary of State show Norm Coleman winning over Al Franken by 462 votes out of 2.42 million votes. It's certainly too close to declare victory by either side in light of a recount next month. (Hopefully, it won't be a rerun of Florida 2000 controversy.)

But looking at the voting numbers, the race shouldn't have been close if another candidate had been in the race for the DFL. Franken had over 360,000 fewer votes than Obama and nearly 400,000 fewer votes than all eight DFL congressional candidates. In other words, a lot of people ticket split between Obama and Franken. Hundreds of thousands couldn't bring themselves to vote for him no doubt because of his work as a SNL satirist and some of his writings on rape and women and mockery of Christians beliefs. While he certainly brought a lot of money to the table, a candidate with a Minnesota "nice" personality and not the baggage would no doubt have done better.

Franken mockery of all things Christian. And he wants to be our US Senator?

You would think that all the outrageous comments Al Franken has made in the past would already have been aired. It appears not. Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten in her Wednesday column discusses Franken's past mockery of Christianity in her column, "Vulgar mockery of Christians: Is this what we want in a U.S. Senator."

Kersten points out Franken's outrageous description of Christ's crucifixion:

Franken finds Christ's crucifixion to be a barrel of laughs. For example, in his 1999 book, "Why Not Me?" he wrote about his discovery -- as a fictional former president -- of "the complete skeleton of Jesus Christ still nailed to the cross" during an archeological dig. At the Franken Presidential Library gift shop, visitors can buy "small pieces of Jesus' skeleton."

"We would like to display Jesus' skeleton at some future point," Franken went on. "It's merely a matter of designing and building an exhibition space ... . Until then he's very comfortable in a box down in our basement near the geothermal power station."

Very funny. Anybody want to try a joke like that about Mohammed?

Then he trashes the Christian belief that Jesus is both God and man:

Franken also wrote a Saturday Night Live monologue for Jesus Christ that appeared in a magazine. After poking fun at Christians' belief that Jesus was both God and man, he had Christ speculate on having the hots for Mary Magdalene:

"If Mary Magdalene looked like Barbara Hershey, I might have thought twice about this celibacy thing. I mean, the real Mary Magdalene was about four foot two, 135 pounds. And with bad teeth yet."

Then he mocks God.

In Franken's world, God has a mouth as foul as Franken's. In one book, he has God refer to books about liberal media bias as "total bullshit." Later, he describes God as having his head "up his ass."

Then she points to his mockery of Catholics.

But Franken saves his sharpest barbs for those weirdos, Catholics.

In 2006, he and a guest on his Air America radio show joked about Eucharistic communion wafers -- sacred to Catholics as the body of Christ -- and compared them to chips and guacamole. In "Dog Confessional," a proposed sketch for Saturday Night Live, Franken depicted "a series of dogs, played by cast members, confessing to a priest," according to the Washington Post. NBC refused to air it.

In another book, Franken described greeting a New York audience with the words, "Isn't Cardinal O'Connor an asshole?"

Kersten called his campaign for comments. They didn't return her phone calls. I hope other members of the media will call Franken's campaign as well and get an explanation for his outrageous comments. The people of Minnesota need to remember that Franken is now auditioning to be Minnesota's US Senator.

There's a Liberal Colorado Model but what about a Minnesota Model?

There's an interesting, Weekly Standard article by Fred Barnes about efforts by Colorado liberals to take over that state politically. It's touted as The Colorado Model and is viewed by some as the model for a liberal takeover of other states. Funded by mega donors who are willing to spend lots of money to defeat conservative, especially social conservative candidates, they've had quite a bit of success -- winning the governor's office, the state legislature and a US Senate seat.

They've not just targeted political offices but are also building the political infrastructure to sustain their efforts. Barnes, notes after talking with Eric O'Keefe, of the conservative Sam Adams Alliance in Chicago, that there are seven "capacities" necessary for political success...."the capacity to generate intellectual ammunition, to pursue investigations, to mobilize for elections, to fight media bias, to pursue strategic litigation, to train new leaders, and to sustain a presence in the new media." He then goes on to point out organizations and initiatives started to address these capacity needs in Colorado.

Some say that Colorado will serve as model for other states if successful. I think that sort of model is already being instituted here in Minnesota. Liberal think tanks, media mouthpieces, grassroots training organizations, grassroots mobilization efforts and tons of money being poured into local legislative seat races are happening. (Liberal interest groups outspent conservative ones by almost five to one in 2006 in Minnesota; lots of that money came from out of state.) In the last two election cycles, state House Republicans lost a couple dozen seats. Some of that was due to a changing political environment, e.g. the war and frustration with the party in power in Washington, but some was due to massive grassroots and political efforts.

I think conservatives are waking up to the realities of what's happening and responding accordingly, meaning putting more effort into grassroots efforts. I doubt they can match the money of the left but what they have going for them are ideas and the sensibilities of a majority of the people are with them. The left is made up of the extreme social ends of society -- liberal elites and the poor who are often dependent on government. The right appeals to those in between. The left believes that government is the answer to society's problems and accordingly supports high taxes to support their efforts. The right believes that government has a more limited role and the needs of people are best met by individuals and private groups. I believe the right has a more accurate picture of reality because it's rooted in an accurate view of human nature. As always the struggle politically speaking is effectively articulating that vision and moving people to act on it.

The challenges liberals face in Minnesota in a political environment favorable to their party, the Democrats, are an unattractive candidate at the top, e.g. Al Franken and the beginning of a record they'll need to run on -- they've raised taxes by billions of dollars and have aggressively been pushing liberal social policies. Those will start to turn the pendulum in the other direction.