.<br />Senator Ted Stevens (Alaska) has been found guilty on seven counts of making false statements on Senate financial documents.<br /><br />He has been convicted of lying about free home renovations and other gifts he received from a wealthy oil contractor.<br /><br /><br />Questions:<br /><br />1) Should Ted Stevens withdraw from his reelection campaign?<br /><br />2) Or should he campaign as a convicted felon?<br /><br />.

Edit: corrected an import glitch in the thread topic title.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

Yes, I've been following the trial. It seems that Stevens got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, all right.

I don't know what happens if he's elected and has to serve time . . . who gets to take his place. The Republicans are surely not happy about this one, as they might lose a much-needed seat.

- - -

OTOH, since the topic is "morality and the law of the land," that's much broader than the legalities that have busted Stevens. One could, here, consider "earmarks" as similar ways in which politicians curry favor with supporters by funneling money their way by tacking their requests onto bills that have little relevance to the "earmark." These financial allocations often go undiscussed and are voted in by virtue of the fact that the bill under consideration is passed. I consider this unethical, and not too very different from what Stevens did. The difference is that Stevens broke laws and earmarkers do not. There's little difference at the level of ethics, however, except that earmarks usually go for millions of dollars while Stevens gouged taxpayers for 250,000 or so.

Here's a recent CNN article on Senators and earmarks.
- http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI....earmarks/index.html

quote:

"For a senator, a sitting U.S. senator to tell you, 'I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to spend taxpayer dollars because somehow it might violate the privacy act,' it's ludicrous,"

Another CNN article reports on Senators refusing a moratorium on earmarks even during times of severe budget deficits.
- http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/earmark.vote/

I know that McCain has opposed earmarks for years, and that Obama has almost 1 billion worth since he was elected a few years ago. Ethical?

Senator Ted Stevens � waiting for the jury�s vote
------------------------------------------------------------

It is still not clear whether or not the people of Alaska have chosen to re-elect a convicted felon as senator.

Last night there was a very interesting article on this topic on FiveThrityEight.com, complete with breakdown of voters and projections per precinct.

Isn�t the election over? Aren�t the votes long since counted? you may ask. And didn�t Senator Ted Stevens win re-election by 106,594 votes to Marc Begich�s 103,337, a margin of 3,257 votes?

Actually, no. The answer is negative to all three questions. The jury is still out. For some inexplicable reason, Alaska�s Division of elections is not done counting and tallying the votes.

So what remains to be done?

Well, 9,500 early votes have not been counted. Nor have 50,000 absentee votes (conductes by mail). And furthermore there are an astounding 18,000 questioned votes.

In other words, with that many votes uncounted, Alaskan authorities cannot make the call.

What do we know about the early vote? Quite a bit, actually. Of those that have been counted, Begich has received 61%. (That is about 13% more than on election day -- and, interestingly, closer to that of pre-election polls.)

If all the early votes break according to the same ratio, Begich stands to make a net gain of 1,750 votes from these alone, eating away more than half of Stevens� meagre lead.

Absentee ballots are essentially early votes by mail. There are 50,000 of these. Nate Silver has done a projection based on the hypothesis that absentee votes behave halfway between that of regular votes and early votes. If so, they would break 47% to Stevens and 53% to Begich. That�s conservative. But if he�s right, that means another net gain of 4,700 votes for the Democratic candidate.

Even leaving the "questioned" ballots out of it (another net gain of 250 votes?), the projection has Mark Begich finally defeating Ted Stevens by about 3,000 votes.

Naturally we won�t know until the election officials of Alaska have finished their duty at the abacus. But when the jury does come in, Republicans elsewhere in the USA may still feel a sigh of relief (or woe the result, as the case may be) that a convicted felon will not be representing the Party and the good state of Alaska.


-- HeartPrayer


PS. There are two other Senate races left to call:

-- Georgia�s Saxby Chambliss (Republican incumbent) faces a runoff against Jim Martin (Democrat). (Chambliss failed to get 50% of the vote.)

-- Minnesota is conducting a recount of the race between Norm Coleman (Republican) and Al Franken (Democrat). Out of 2.9 million ballots cast, only a few hundred votes separate the candidates.

In the event that the Republican candidates should finally lose all three races, the Democrats will have filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. That, however, is counting Independent Joe Lieberman as part of the Democratic caucus. That�s actually a tall order.

Good news from Alaska!
-------------------------------

Clearly vote counting in the state that calls itself "Land of the Midnight Sun" is less efficient than moose hunting. Believe it or not, they�re still counting votes up there. As an additional 17,100 ballots have been counted, the lead has swung to Mark Begich by just over a thousand votes.

25,000 ballots remain to be counted, including 8500 provisional ballots. Given that the lion�s share of these come from the Anchorage area, where Begich enjoys stronger support, the pendulum is extremely unlikely to swing back the other way.

Republicans may well be relieved of the embarrassment of having a convicted felon represent them as Alaskan Senator.

HP, that's not unusual for an election. Absentee ballots and the military vote aren't usually tallied in for days.

For another close vote, check out the one between the buffoon, Al Franken (D), and the incumbent, Norm Coleman (R) in MN. The difference now is only about 206 votes, with an official recount coming that will attempt to consider the "intent of the voter" (can you say "Florida 2000"?).
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...?partner=rss&emc=rss

While the Dems castigate Stevens for his illegal, unethical practices, they appear to be giving Franken a huge pass for his past past problems, including tax delinquency and a porn article written for Playboy.
- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...ry?id=4921109&page=1
This one the Republicans need to win.

Minnesota: one of the remaining 3 senate races
------------------------------------------------------

Since the Minnesota Senatorial election results showed less than 0.5 % separating the candidates, there will automatically be re-count. Makes good sense.

Some Republicans are howling about "cheating" being the reason for Coleman�s dwindling margin, which as you pointed out now stands at about 200 votes. (200 votes difference out of 2.9 million cast is actually about 0.007 %!)

Hardly! Another article described an elections audit (not the same as a re-count), and that it is a result of this that the margin has been adjusted. In fact I recollect key Republicans lauding its thoroughness and objectivity.

As I recall, there was for instance a town that forgot to call in their votes on November 4th, due to a misunderstanding between two election officials. Both thought the other would do it. That alone reduced the margin by almost 200 votes. As I understand it, most of the rest is arithmetical errors.

Nor will it be that the re-count is tantamount to "divining" the "intent of the voter", as you seem to suggest. I am sure the re-count will happen in full accordance with Minnesota election laws and practices.

What is uncouth, however, is Norm Coleman�s noises in public that Al Franken should concede, rather than allow the re-count that Minnesota law directs. And he�s doing so professing a concern for costs! The re-count is calculated to cost a mere 3 pennies per ballot. That�s 87,000 dollars -- which is probably less than incumbent Senator Coleman will be paying his lawyers and PR consultants.

Respectfully,
HeartPrayer

PS. It seems I failed to address your mention of the "charges" that Republicans are leveling at Mr Al Franken.

I haven�t read the Playboy article in question, nor do I intend do so, but I understand it was a satirical piece written about 8 years ago. Is that supposed to somehow disqualify him?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the allegations of tax-delinquency against Franken come from a blogger with close connections to Steve Coleman and the Republican Party. (If you want to read this garbage check out "Minnesota Democrats Exposed".)

Blogger Michael B. Brodkorb puts it rather eloquently himself: "If you read Minnesota Democrats Exposed and can�t figure out that I am a partisan Republican, you are a moron. Turn your computer off and get your head examined." �Nuff said...

This is a typical dirty trick: digging up ancient history (not even necessarily true) in the challengers past -- or repeating such tripe -- instead of the incumbent being forthright enough to stand for election on the basis of his own record.

Even if both "charges" against Al Franken are true, that hardly compares to Senator Stevens being convicted for corruption while serving as a public official.

HP, Franken's tax problems weren't invented by a blogger, and this plus his far-left views as expressed on Air America along with his pornographic piece in Playboy do constitute significant considerations concerning his worthiness to serve in the U.S. Senate. That's all up to Minnesotans, however, who have shown a penchant for electing far-out characters -- like the wrestler, Jesse Ventura, for their governor a few years ago.

Democracy . . . yessirree . . .

Absolutely! I agree that impacts on how Mr Franken should be evaluated by the voter, just as Mr Coleman and his record needed be evaluated. To my knowledge Minnesotans made that decision when they voted on the 4th of November.

The re-counting of the votes is a different issue entirely.
And I am confident that that process will be fair, even though it is surrounded by noise. The current allegations against Mr Franken are merely part of that noise...

The voice of Alaskans: "Ted Stevens is out!"
------------------------------------------------------

The votes are finally in. Ted Stevens is out.

By a margin of 3,724 votes Mark Begich wins, and take the Senate seat that Ted Stevens held for almost 30 years.

Technically votes are still being counted in Alaska, but with only 2500 votes from overseas remaining, it is literally impossible for Stevens to close the gap.

Congratulations to Mark Begich for beating an 85 year-old convicted felon by a 0.01% margin. That's quite an accomplishment, and a strong mandate for change!

LOL. Well, Ted Stevens was a force to be reckoned with, and after 40 years (not 30) as I mistakenly wrote, he knew the ins and outs of power dealing in Washington. Alaskans knew he "brought the bacon home". Heck, he even has an airport named after him!

So, yes, I�d say this is quite an accomplishment in this Red state.

More fascinating, however, would be whether the Senate would have thrown Stevens out, had he been elected. That we�ll never know.

Quick and decisive Democratic action against corruption
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Republican Senatorial colleagues may well have dithered when it came to censuring convicted felon Ted Steven, but thankfully Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is acting decisively against Governor Blagojevich, who is as yet unconvicted. In fact, every single member of the Democratic Caucus signed this letter that draws a clear line in the sand:

quote:

Sent by a unanimous Democratic Caucus


Dear Governor Blagojevich:

We write to insist that you step down as Governor of Illinois and under no circumstance make an appointment to fill the vacant Illinois Senate seat. In light of your arrest yesterday on alleged federal corruption charges related to that Senate seat, any appointment by you would raise serious questions.

It is within the authority of the Illinois legislature to remove your power to make this appointment by providing for a special election. But a decision by you to resign or to step aside under Article V of the Illinois Constitution would be the most expeditious way for a new Senator to be chosen and seated in a manner that would earn the confidence of the people of Illinois and all Americans. We consider it imperative that a new senator be seated as soon as possible so that Illinois is fully represented in the Senate as the important work of the 111th Congress moves forward.

Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.

We do not prejudge the outcome of the criminal charges against you or question your constitutional right to contest those charges. But for the good of the Senate and our nation, we implore you refrain from making an appointment to the Senate.

Congratulations Chambliss -- and Franken!
-----------------------------------------------------

L'affair Franken is far from over! Next will come the lawsuits, with disputes over recounting procedures. They should simply have a runoff between Franken and Coleman now that the other candidate (Barkley) can be ruled out. Neither Franken nor Coleman got more than 42% of the vote.

Chambliss (R) won in a run-off election and got 58% of the vote while the Democrat, Jim Martin, got only 42%. In most states, a clear majority is required for such an important office. Let the people of MN vote again on who they want to have representing them.

Will Coleman abide his own word -- or give evidence of hypocrisy?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have watched live video coverage of the re-count proceedings, and they have been extremely fair and transparent. Coleman has exhausted his legitimate appeals. All that remains is pointless maneuvering.

Ah, and do remember, Coleman is the chap who implored Franken to throw in the towel -- to save taxpayers the "expense" of a re-count. Surely he would not stoop to burdening the courts?

Coleman also struggled vehemently to not re-count votes that he has now appealed to the state supreme court. Surely you expect a good, "honest" man like Coleman to abide by his own suggestions? Surely you don�t think he is going to show us that he is a hypocryte?

PS. How strange that no leading Republicans were advocating a run-off when Coleman was leading by a few hundred votes. Did you hear anybody, say from the RNC, voice such a suggestion?


A suggested election reform
-------------------------------

I�ll give you my opinion: I think all but local elections should be taken out of the hands of States, so that national standards can be applied. This could either be done at the Federal level, or through some sort of decision process involving State election representatives.

Reforms should include:

1) Paper trails that allow verification of results, and reliable recounts.
2) Standards to ensure a clear ballot; rules to prevent intentionally misleading ballots.
3) A requirement that all absentee ballots and early votes actually be counted on election night.
4) Automatic re-runs for state representatives when no candidate receives a plurality.
5) Automatic re-counts when results are within 0.5%.
6) Automatic re-runs if the results are within, say, 0.1%.
7) No release of voting results until all voting offices have closed.

.
Let me amend that: The use of Instant Runoff-Voting, whereby voters rank candidates, and the votes of candidates with fewest votes are redistributed according to these expressed preferences, would be an even better way to go.

a) It would prevent significant delay in declaring a winner.
b) It would avoid the cost of run-off elections, and associated campaigns.
c) It would avoid the less representative elections that are inherent in run-offs.

PS. How strange that no leading Republicans were advocating a run-off when Coleman was leading by a few hundred votes. Did you hear anybody, say from the RNC, voice such a suggestion?

Oh come on! That's politics, and it would go the other way if the roles had been reversed.

I have watched live video coverage of the re-count proceedings . . .

Some people have WAAAYYY too much time on their hands!

I do like your suggestions for sound election processes. The only thing I'd add is that anyone elected for a federal office or state governor ought to have gained at least 50% of the vote (or electoral delegates in the case of the Presidency).

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
PS. How strange that no leading Republicans were advocating a run-off when Coleman was leading by a few hundred votes. Did you hear anybody, say from the RNC, voice such a suggestion?

Oh come on! That's politics, and it would go the other way if the roles had been reversed.

Which of course is why a proposal to hold a run-off, voiced now, after a thorough re-count leaves Al Franken the winner, can only be interpreted as "politicking" on behalf of the losing party.

Will Coleman abide his own word -- or give evidence of hypocrisy?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by HeartPrayer:
Ah, and do remember, Coleman is the chap who implored Franken to throw in the towel -- to save taxpayers the "expense" of a re-count. Surely he would not stoop to burdening the courts?

Coleman also struggled vehemently to not re-count votes that he has now appealed to the state supreme court. Surely you expect a good, "honest" man like Coleman to abide by his own suggestions? Surely you don�t think he is going to show us that he is a hypocryte? [/QB]

So, then, what expectations do the Coleman team have? Let�s hear what their own lawyer has to say.

quote:

�I think that�s probably correct that Franken will still be ahead and probably by a little bit more. But our whole argument was a constitutional argument, and it�s an argument suitable for the Minnesota Supreme Court, not for the trial court. So we�ll see whether we were right or not.�

Joe Friedberg, attorney
for Norm Coleman (ex-Senator?)


Enough said.
In other words, they have no realistic expectation of ending up with the most votes, no matter how they�re counted -- if they�re counted in a fair and legal manner.

All the maneuvering has one simple objective: To delay as long as possible the seating of Minnesota�s second senator, Al Franken, and to delay as long as possible the day when Democrats gain 59 Senators.

This is nothing more than grotesque anti-democratic tactics, and a blatant attempt by the Republican party to rob Minnesota of it right to due representation in the United States Senate.

If this was the other way around, you would have heard howling from Fox News and the National Review! (And probably from Phil as well.)

-- HeartPrayer

Just to update on l'affair Stevens, especially in light of the thread topic. Turns out the prosecutors need to pay a little more attention to the law of the land themselves.

- see this link

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,