• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Recount judge blasts Wall Street Journal

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
One of the judges of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board has just come out with a blistering response to the Wall Street Journal opinion piece hit job, which smeared them and what they were doing in the recount.

Consider the following:

1) The canvassing board consists of one secretary of state and four judges, one of whom is the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

2) Of the 5 members of the canvassing board, 2 are Republicans, 2 are independents (one of whom was appointed by Jesse Ventura when he was governor), and ONE is a Democrat.

3) Of the 9 decisions made by the canvassing board during the recount, 9 were unanimous, and not one was a split decision.

4) The canvassing board made all 9 decisions based on Minnesota law. Not one of them was in Franken's or Coleman's pocket.

5) The writer of the WSJ opinion piece hit job is Trent England, member of a Neocon think tank called Evergreen Freedom Foundation. And what is the Evergreen Freedom Foundation? A private interest law firm for its contributors, disguised as a public interest policy organization. You can read more about them here.

The Wall Street Journal is not what it used to be, now that Rupert Murdoch has taken over. At worst, this opinion piece hit job could be called libel. At best, it is yellow journalism of the worst sort, conceived by a partisan hack, for the purpose of spreading partisan lies.

Finally, there is a good reason the WSJ opinion piece hit job has been pushed hard by FOX News today. Murdoch owns FOX News too. What a coincidence...NOT.

Article is here
.
 
Last edited:
Good to see someone is standing up the pathetic standards journalism has fallen to. It must be tough to be on the receiving end of such a pathetic smear piece.
 
To clarify:

The author of that letter is a judge who is a registered independent, but was elected in a heavily democratic district. He accuses the WSJ editorial of misconstruing the facts, but does not dispute a single factual claim they made about the double counting of ballots, the discovery of new ballots, or the rulings on challenged ballots. Instead, he takes issue with their terminology, such as "meek" and "undeserving," and complains that he was wrongly maligned. Powerful stuff.

3) Of the 9 decisions made by the canvassing board during the recount, 9 were unanimous, and not one was a split decision.

? There were 9 open meetings, not 9 decisions. They made hundreds of decisions, and the author of that letter merely claims that "all the major ones" were unanimous.

4) The canvassing board made all 9 decisions based on Minnesota law. Not one of them was in Franken's or Coleman's pocket.

What are you basing this on? Did you review the decisions?

5) The writer of the WSJ opinion piece hit job is Trent England, member of a Neocon think tank called Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

What are you talking about? The editorial that this letter is in response to was written by the editorial board of the WSJ, not this "Trent England" guy.

The Wall Street Journal is not what it used to be, now that Rupert Murdoch has taken over. At worst, this opinion piece hit job could be called libel.

No, it couldn't.
 
Hmm...even if the article in question is in fact deliberately deceptive, which is entirely likely as far as I'm concerned, it's still just an op-ed piece; hate to say it. I read a deliberately misleading op-ed piece at least 3 or 4 times a week, and I don't pick up the paper every day. It's still crappy, but it's just not that big of a deal, frankly.

Op-ed articles are not journalism. There's certainly nothing wrong with complaining about the most absurd ones (although 90% of them are nauseating, really), but if we expect the authors to approach them like legitimate journalism, even through the act of accusing them of criminal activity when they don't, we risk lending the art as whole a credibility that it does not deserve. Op-eds are not news. They have no more journalistic legitimacy than super-market tabloids.

EDIT: This is surely not the last we will hear about it, the whole op-ed world is going to be tripping over itself in a rush to accuse the Minnesota recount of illegitimacy, even if the results turn around. The actual legitimacy of the recount is practically irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Dana is slipping.
 
I'm not sure how the publication of this op-ed in the WSJ reflects anything at all about the journalistic quality at WSJ. Can someone help me on this?

And it is a fact that some ballots that were damaged and replaced were counted along with the repleacement ballot, that hundreds of ballots miraculously appeared after-the-fact, and that rulings on challenged ballots were suspect, i.e., considered dubious by third-party observers. These are indisputable facts.

So the respondent to the op-ed piece is really carping about the tone that op-ed author took in his piece.

How can a poster here rely then on a complaint about tone to conclude that the original piece was libelous? :roll:
 
I'm not sure how the publication of this op-ed in the WSJ reflects anything at all about the journalistic quality at WSJ. Can someone help me on this?

And it is a fact that some ballots that were damaged and replaced were counted along with the repleacement ballot, that hundreds of ballots miraculously appeared after-the-fact, and that rulings on challenged ballots were suspect, i.e., considered dubious by third-party observers. These are indisputable facts.

So the respondent to the op-ed piece is really carping about the tone that op-ed author took in his piece.

How can a poster here rely then on a complaint about tone to conclude that the original piece was libelous? :roll:
Well you know all those elections volunteers driving around with trunkloads of ballots that they forgot about.
 
To clarify:

What are you basing this on? Did you review the decisions?

No, it couldn't.

He is right, though, RightinNYC. All of the major decisions that we heard about were unanimous. And, it is logical that all of the minor ones leading up to the major ones did just that...lead up to them. That means that all of the minor disputes were resolved before the major votes.

What everyone is missing is the thrust of the WSJ article, which is that Franken picked up about 200 votes more than he should have, and that several more that he had to begin with before the recount were questionable. But, we should all keep in mind that, the original author pointed out, the majority on the board were not registered democrats and that there was a fair representation and hearing for all sides.

The election is over, let's stop bickering. Coleman can run for governor or for Amy K's seat when the time comes.
 
Back
Top Bottom