April 16, 2011
"The margin [of Prosser's victory] - 0.488% - is within the 0.5% limit that would allow Kloppenburg to request a statewide recount at taxpayers' expense."
There is a reason why the law draws the line at 0.5%, and JoAnne Kloppenburg ought to ask herself whether she should take advantage of getting in just under the line or whether she should see 0.48% as so close to that line that the same reason really does apply. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and this is a test of character. Ms. Kloppenburg would do well now to give a gracious concession speech.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
I think she has to give one concession speech to be even, then another to actually concede.
Not only that, she'll lose the recount, either that, or the progressive thugs will steal it fair and square this time.
Not going to happen.
It's not the Democrat Way.
Winning, not democracy, is the point.
*spit-take* "Character"?!
This is the woman who wouldn't ask her supporters to stop running that scurrilous, contemptible hit-piece against her opponent.
Ms. Kloppenburg would do well now to give a gracious concession speech.
But she won't.
Character is for chumps.
And autobiographies.
Taxpayers will not be the only ones bearing an expense; Kloppenburg will pay in terms of credibility and future electability if she demands a recount.
She needs to weigh this against the value of the judgeship times the slim probability of winning.
She can't.
I predict that whatever speech she gives, it won't be gracious. More likely, she will refer vaguely to problems with the election and suggest that she really won.
heh-
The "letter" of the law, and the "spirit" of the law used to be married.
Lawyers....
Whatever it takes to maintain "keepers of the Temple" status.
Ms. Kloppenburg would do well now to give a gracious concession speech.
That would require her to either be a gracious person or to be able to fake it. From what I've seen, she's not at all a gracious person.
If the Demos thought they could win this, SEIU would be ordering trunkloads of ballots from IL.
Unless she thinks she can come up with those votes, what's the point of asking for a recount? To keep the cameras around another week? Is it that much fun to be at the center of controversy in a branch of government where it is vitally important there be no controversy?
(A search of the professor's comment sections would show, if anyone so bothered, that I am consistent on this point. I also said that Prosser, when he was 200 votes down, should not ask for a recount.)
Next time I run in to her at Whole Foods, I'll tell her you thought so.
The mistake people make is thinking Kloppenburg has any say in this decision.
The unions and Dem party folks who paid for the campaign will make that decision. Will they waste money on this or save it for the recalls.
Good and gracious persons do not run as Democrats. They just do not fit in.
I should add that the state only pays for the recount, not the army of lawyers deployed to each county or any subsequent legal action.
Based upon her pre declaration of victory, former Assistant Attorney General Kloppenberg lacks the character to contradict her DNC handlers.
She won't speak for herself.
She won't be gracious.
She won't concede.
She won't demure.
She and judge Sumi will torture the people of Wisconsin until August.
WV: pressit, which is what she will do.
The First Time She Won, Kloppy Reckons
Now the Union-Fukk Recount Whores Beckon
Of Morals They're Bereft
Plans of Franken-esque Theft
Union's Got Dibs on Kloppy Seconds.
TosaGuy hit the nail on the head-
It's up to Obama/Trumpka/Soros/Stern.
If they feel this is just a blip on the radar, they'll let it go.
If they feel the critical weapon to bringing down a democracy in favor of socialism, labor, is threatened, they'll go all in.
Votes?
They don't need no stinkin' votes!
As Althouse prefaced this blogpost-
It's about "intent".
The letter of the law says a legally cast vote is a vote.
The "spirit" of the law, according to lawyers (who write the laws) says "voter intent" is over-riding.
Gore V Bush, Washington (State), Franken, Murckowski...etc
Certainly many, many Wisconsin voters "intended" on voting for Klopperhead....
Rejected, provisional, lost,absentee....
If the libtards really, really want this-
they'll take it.
After all, they have the blessing of OldMedia.
After all, what are conservatives going to do? Have another racist tea party rally?
I was reminded here, that for liberals, it is never about doing the right thing, but rather, about winning. I first realized that with Al Gore's attempt to gain the Presidency through recounting only three counties using highly suspect standards, while attempting to deprive as many acting service members their vote as his people could through excessive reliance on formalities.
In short, bending the rules almost to the breaking point when it would advantage him, and then sticking to them in picky detail, when it would advantage him. I.e. winning at any and all costs.
Then, we have seen this sort of thing played out, time and again, since then. Al Franken. Switching in Lautenberg for the NJ Senate seat after it was too late under the law. And, yes, President Obama apparently turning off credit card verification to allow foreign and corporate contributions after rejecting matching funds.
Just keep in mind that for many on the left: Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing when it comes to politics.
And part of that is because politics is where the money and power comes from for them. The purpose of government is to provide them with power, money, and fame. And for that, anything goes.
The dems still want to cheat to win. I predict she will call for a tax payer funded re-count.
The machine is thinking fast about how to find 7500 votes in the back of Al Franken's car.
TosaGuy said...
Will they waste money on this or save it for the recalls.
They will waste money on this, but only tax-payer money. They will raise money from their base with claims about how they need to fight the evil Prosser/Walker/Koch, but they money they raise will be saved for recalls and/or future elections.
Just remember, the number of Franken Units times the Constant of Kloppenburg equals Undisputable Win Insured.
FU x CK = U WI
If it will be a recount and not a case where AFSCME can pull out a bag'o'votes, then let them recount.
It's within the law. If the limit should have been tighter, then change the law. The ex post facto changing of laws was the worst thing the Democrats did in Florida in 2000.
Pogo-
That's one of the posts that go down in blogging lore-
Simply brilliant-
LMAO
Ms. Kloppenburg would do well now to give a gracious concession speech.
OR at least quit claiming its a "free" recount. Its not, and the taxpayers deserve to know how much they will be forced to pay for her vanity.
Hayden: I first realized that with Al Gore's attempt to gain the Presidency through recounting only three counties using highly suspect constantly changing standards, while attempting to deprive as many acting service members their vote as his people could through excessive reliance on formalities
/edited
Thats what got me - yesterday's dimpled chad that counted for Gore doesn't count for Bush today.
She is a Democrat. She has no character where political POWER is concerned. The Republicans don't understand this.
Democrats are gracious only when they are winning.
Gee, so the thieves brought the totals UNDER .5%! Bunch of stinking scoundrels. But they "did it."
They made it "expensive" to see them lose. And, they'll play STALL now for as long as they can, too.
Changing minds, however, isn't what the koppenhoppen candidate did to all of them!
Like any disease, it just raises the temperature.
So, no. I'm not surprised. Most people thought these thieves would be good enough to push Kloppenhoppen into victory. Instead? She lost.
How does this new "name recognition" really help her out? It doesn't benefit Wisconsin.
Fen-
Dimpled chads to pregnant chads-
"intent" of the voter
is highly subjective
"And, yes, President Obama apparently turning off credit card verification to allow foreign and corporate contributions after rejecting matching funds."
It still galls me that he got away with such obvious fraud and corruption. Nobody cared!
Is it me or will a costly recount simply add to the deficit and force Walker to cut the budget somewhere else?
Maybe that is what the liberals want: more ammunition for them, fingers to point.
Makes you think that even winning is not what it's all about or even change.
What exactly makes you think Ms. Kloppenburg is capable of graciousness?
These are people who bullied an 80-year-old woman in THEIR OWN PARTY.
There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and this is a test of character. Ms. Kloppenburg would do well now to give a gracious concession speech.
Well, I think we can all agree that's not going to happen.
Would you really be taking this position if the tables were turned? If Prosser had been declared the loser by such a small percentage, would you really recommend he give a gracious speech and go away?
"If Prosser had been declared the loser by such a small percentage, would you really recommend he give a gracious speech and go away?"
Yes.
Come on, Ann - when she was asked to stop the videos and didn't, she defined her character. That's why I've focused on nothing else: we got to know everything we needed to understand about her in that single episode.
She will request a recount, at taxpayer's expense, because that's who she is.
Wisconsin dodged a bullet.
"...a test of character..."
Not bloody likely, but go ahead.
Surprise me.
People were expecting Prosser to concede, of course, when he was behind by 204 votes.
And Prosser *is* a gracious person.
Dimpled chads to pregnant chads- "intent" of the voter is highly subjective
But thats not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about changing the rules, day to day, depending upon how those rules help Al Gore net votes. A ballot with a tear and a 2 holes counts the day they are handcounting Gore undervotes, but then does not count the next day when they are handcounting counties that went for Bush.
And they almost got away with it.
Democrats suck.
Wait a minute ... if Kloppenhoppen can steal more votes ... and for argument's sake ... let's say she's back to her 200-vote spread ... would that mean she's already given her acceptance speech?
You know the numbers I'd like to see ... if there's a recount? Milwaukee's spread between Kloppenhoppen ... and ANYONE ELSE ON THE BALLOT! Why were ballots printed that had so much information on them ... if 18,000 ballots are counted for Kloppenhoppen that held only one checkmark?
You go to vote ... You take a ballot ... and then ... you distain voting ... even in the mayor's race?
Since the mayor's race was a hot one ... what's his totals?
By 2012 ... the demon-rats should have a computer system that keeps a running total always ahead ... for Obama.
Given that you can go to an ATM ... and press some buttons ... and get just the cash you requested ... How come banks are honest brokers ... and the election system is so corrupt?
You mean to tell me people are supposed to be impressed that Prosser's lead suddenly fell short by .02% of a half vote?
People were expecting Prosser to concede, of course, when he was behind by 204 votes.
That's right. And the count wasn't even official. It was just what the Associated Press had reported it was.
And Prosser *is* a gracious person.
A gracious person who, unlike Kloppenburg, does not seem prone to hasty judgements and conclusion jumping.
oogaoogaooga,
The answer is yes, the Republicans would do just that - give a gracious speech and step down. That is what Nixon did in 1960 and he certainly had plenty of ways to contest that vote. Neither side was particularly clean in that one but the question of the votes in Chicago was really blatant. Yet Tricky Dick was man enough to give a gracious speech and step down. Too bad Gore did not have that much class or his reputation would be much better now than it is. He lost his own reputation because of his actions in Florida in 2000. Kloppenburg should indeed give a gracious speech and step aside. That way she might get back some reputation and be ready to fight another day.
I would be happy with a concession. It need not be gracious. After all, we won't have Kloppenpoodle to kick around any more.
Isn't that bad reasoning? If 0.488 is "close enough" that the same reasoning applies, why bother referencing 0.5? 0.488 should be the new ceiling.
You are not likely to find 7,500 votes in a recount. However, I would not have expected a 7,500 vote counting error in the early reporting either.
That said, as a strong liberal and democrat, it's time to move forward. She should indeed concede.
7K is probably too much to make up. Mostly, I'd like to see a hand recount of Waukesha because it sounds like the clerk there has a long history of electoral irregularities.
Also, anyone who trots out the chestnut, "The other side will do anything to win and we won't," no longer has anything of interest to say, ever.
If there is no recount, many lefties will spend the next two years telling themselves that the election was stolen.
If there is a recount, a lot of them will stop saying it. Those who continue to say it will look unattractive to most other people.
In 2000 I had hoped that the Bush and Gore campaigns could have agreed to a full-state recount in Florida. It would have made the next eight years better.
(And yes, I would want Prosser to request a recount if he had lost by less than 0.5% of the vote.)
She is a DEMONcrat.
Thus ... Graciousness is beyond her.
When the margin was ~200 votes, before a systemic error was exposed, was the Prosser team getting ready to fund the then-inevitable recount? Maybe the right should work to overturn the rule that says the state will pay for any requested recount in close elections. But I happen to believe the state should pay, in either case, and in good faith, as it is the state's responsibility to at least attempt to guarantee that elections are free and fair.
You simply cannot deny that the Waukesha errors are serious and disturbing. What if the Dane clerk had forgotten to count Middleton? What would your position be then? Humans counted ballots all over the state; are they all infallible?
[Please try not to call me names if you respond to this. Concentrate on the actual issue -- an election for a state office with an evident human error where the difference is a slim margin within the threshold for a state-funded recount -- and not on me or either of the candidates personally. Thanks!]
Elinor,
My position is clear. There should have been a statewide recount in Florida in 2000. Kloppenburg should ask for a statewide recount in Wisconsin today. Had Prosser lost by 200 votes in the first official tally, he should have asked for a statewide recount.
Recounts cost money, but so do elections. We spend the money because elections and recounts pay for themselves in the currency of legitimacy.
(And recounts cost a lot less than the original election.)
Elinor, creating a fraudulent argument of hypocrisy from thin air is not impressive logic.
Nothing but a test of their Al Franken "units!"
Kloppenhoppen probably lost by a greater margin. But nobody will find those votes!
The democraps are just pissed off that the shortage showed up. And, they did everything possible in Milwaukee to chisel the amount down so that it came in under .5%.
Cheaters. They probably piss into their beer, too.
Does it matter?
They're just "practicing" to see what they can get away with when 2012 rolls around.
"... this is a test of character."
Remember that dream everyone has where you show up for the final exam and suddenly realize that you've forgotten to go to class all semester?
If it is truly a test of character, Klops is living that dream.
Post a Comment