Suddenly, Mark Sanford is behind in the nuttiest '12 GOP Presidential candidate primary.  Bobby Jindal is going to have to do something drastic to catch up.

There's no way anyone buys that this is about stepping up her profile.  Palin was only in her third year in office.  When you resign because your can't handle the criticism and scrutiny of being a Governor of Alaska, a state largely under your party's thumb, it's hard for people to trust you to be stable as their Commander-in-Chief.  Regardless, if she runs, she'd be both the most inexperience/unstable candidate to run.

Palin's a first-term Governor who largely won based on the corruption of her successor in a primary fight against an anemic Democratic Party.  She'll find her status as a celebrity will not lower the scrutiny and Americans aren't as "unconventional" as she is.  There was reason to believe that her re-election was more than a sure thing.

This is just bizarre.  And the fact that this was rolled out the way it does reeks worse than Stanford.  Palin's emotional press conference shows a person who is not convinced in what she is saying.

What her rationale boils down to is that the person who gleeful pushed the most inflammatory rhetoric and demogogery about Obama now wants out of politics because she's sick of people "who tear people wanting to make positive changes in politics down."  As a political farce, it's hilarious.  But the fact that she may actually believe this without choking on the irony is amazing.

If anything, McCain's got to be pissed.  Had he saw this coming, he could of told all those voters afraid about Palin becoming VP that they apparently had nothing to worry about.

Who bet that McCain would serve in office longer than Palin?  Anyone?!?

I don't think David's post did the latest Quinny poll justice as how bad things look for Governor Strickland in this poll.  He saw a double digit drop in his approval and favorability ratings . . . in a month.  Both are now below 50%.

Ohioans have declared the honeymoon is over with Strickland.  They disapprove of his handling of the economy and the budget in particular.  It's safe to assume that with Ohio's unemployment in double digits, the economy is the primary motivator in the souring on Strickland.

For the first time, Strickland's approval rating is below 50%-- sufficient below 50% beyond the margin of error for the poll.  A sub-50% approval rating a year before an election is a sign that an incumbent may be in danger (then again, see Bush '04 and plenty of other examples of politicians that won re-election with bad poll numbers a year prior).

Among Republican voters, Kasich now leads by a statistically insignificant margin over DeWine since May's poll showing DeWine ahead.  However, whereas Strickland still clearly beats Kasich, he's now in a statistical tie with Mike DeWine.  So Republicans are presently supporting the weaker general election candidate.

Does it mean the Strickland is doomed?  Hardly, but it does suggest that the fate of the election largely hinges on something beyond any Governor's control: the economy.  If the economy is perceived to be substantially improving in Ohio a year from now, Strickland's numbers will likely rebound.  Until then, his polling standings may continue to weaken.  It's the trend line that has everyone in ODP breathing in a paper bag.  The reality is that it won't take a substantial bump to get Strickland back into above 50% territory again.  Once the budget impasse is resolved, voter negativity may lessen some, too.

And, it should also be noted that Strickland still leads against Kasich by a significant margin, and Mike DeWine has not announced any intention to run for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.  Strickland's favorability, at its lowest point, is still substantially higher than any of the potential GOP candidates.  Also, the GOP candidates are likely unknown and there's a potential that Ohioans may not exactly take a shine to them once they become known alternatives (of course, the opposite could happen, too.)

Strickland knew he'd have a fight on his hands.  And he's a fighter.  This poll is a wake-up call for Democrats not to get complacent just because we've done well in the State the last two elections.  Frankly, if we didn't win in 2006, we didn't deserve to be a political party.  Next year, we'll likely have a fight on our hands.

But the person who should most be concerned about this poll has to be Lee Fisher, who wears Ohio's economy like a lodestone around his neck since he voluntarily took on as his pet project economic development in Ohio as Lt. Governor.  The fact that Ohio presently has only an interim Director in that key economic development post is a result of Fisher's Senate campaign.

I don't know if Jennifer Brunner is exactly bulletproof on voter anger over the economy, but I know that Lee Fisher is practically wearing a magnet for criticism.  And Rob Portman would like nothing better than to have a Democratic opponent he can present to Ohio voters as the person to blame for Ohio's economy.  I don't think I'm far off base saying that support for Strickland has been deeper and wider than it's been for Fisher.  If this has made Strickland vunerable, you can't help but wonder what it could do to Fisher.

A new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Strickland has taken quite a hit in his favorability numbers, but Ohio supports adding slot machines to racetracks. He now has an approval rating of just 46-42, compared to 57-29 back in early May.

Strickland isn’t alone, the lousy economy has caused low poll numbers for Governors nationwide according to Quinnipiac. The poll also shows Strickland with a fair lead (43-38) over John Kasich.

The poll also showed that voters approve of Strickland plan to place slot machines at racetracks by nearly a 2:1 margin. The major sticking point in voters support for slot machines however, is that a majority also believe the matter should be decided by a referendum.

The polls also shows that while Ohioans oppose gay marriage, they're almost evenly split on civil unions. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority support the pending legislation that would outlaw discrimination of gays.

Given that Keno has failed to deliver the promised revenues, I cannot say I really blame the Republican Senate President from wanting to hold hearings testing the feasibility of slot machines at horse tracks in order to generate revenue.  Is it political grandstanding?  Sure, but maybe somebody should be asking how much revenue we can really expect from expanding gambling if the limited permitted instances of gambling already allowed in the State are not in high demand with Ohioans.

Let's not forget that the horsetracks want slots to supplement the losses that are killing the industry in the State.  Someone care to explain why the repressed gambling constitutency in Ohio hates the ponies so much but will love nickle slots?

Will an increase in supply really lead to more demand for gambling in Ohio to the point where an industry that currently has an utter lack of demand suddenly generates enough of a demand to be profitable?  And isn't there something inherently wrong with hoping that the gambling industry becomes profitable during a recession?  And at what point do you expand gambling opportunities in a State that opposition to a full-blown casino seems rather impossible to defend?

Don't get me wrong.  I still support Governor Strickland, and I'll be just as vocal for an advocate for him as I was in 2006.  However, I do think that there are some serious questions that need to be addressed.

Frankly, I just wish one chamber of the legislature would be the first to blink and say we aren't cutting taxes this year because we need to resolve this deficit.  That would seem to be a much more sane route to go than explanding slots.

Well, the good news is that Connie claims that the Plain Dealer's proposal wouldn't implicate yours truly, so I'm apparently free to discuss the web chat with Connie today without a fear of a frivolous lawsuit.  Let's be clear what this was: a newspaper holding a web event in order to capture attention and traffic to its site due to a controversy brewing in the blogsphere.  In short, a newspaper was trying to cash in on this bloggin' thang.  That's it.  If it were for damage control, it failed because I dare say nobody participating in it left with a changed mind.

First, the conflict of interest issue.  Connie brushed it off as saying it was considered but that it's not a problem.  Frankly, given that Connie stated in her column that this proposal is a legislative initiative supported by her employer, I don't see how Sherrod would have any choice but to abstain from voting on it if the opportunity ever arises.  So on one particular issue, Ohioans lost one of their votes in the U.S. Senate.  That's no small matter. 

She engaged in a strawman's argument that anyone who claimed that Sherrod suggested this proposal for her to write about was absurd.  Yes, such a person would be absurd.  So absurd, that I cannot find any example of anyone actually doing that. 

What Connie's column does make clear is that her corporate employer's lawyer came up with a legislative proposal that her employer supports in its own self-interest that she learned about from her employer and that she's now writing a call-to-arms to get Congress, where her husband serves, to make into law.  THAT is what some of us have had an ethical problem with: using a wife of a politician for corporate lobbying.  This isn't just some opinion piece where Connie is pushing a policy she personally supports.  She advocating for the adoption of government policy favored by a corporate interest.  She has, obviously, more than just a personal interest in the matter.  While I don't share the view that she should be required to register as a federal lobbyist as a result, I do think it's closer to that kind of activity than the average citizen's letter to the editor that she tried to make her column sound to be.

Second, the backpeddling.  Either Connie was uncharastically poor in her writing in defining what this proposal would implicate, or she's seriously trying to dial it back in the face of blistering criticism from the blogsphere.  Much of the webchat was spent in discussing who would NOT be implicited under the proposal: 1) Yahoo! 2) Google; and 3) bloggers who comment and "print limited excerpts of PD content with attribution and hyperlinks back to the PD website."  She said the proposal would only implicate those news "aggregator" sites which either: a) print without attribution in full PD content, or b) give such a sufficient summation of PD content that a reader is unlikely to click thru to the PD's site to read the full story.

I'm pretty sure existing law already protects them from a).  Given that this proposal is billed as "saving" the industry, I pressed Connie to give an example of b).  She cited only the website The Daily Beast.  A website that "print limited excerpts of PD content with attribution and hyperlinks back to the PD website.  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find that The Daily Beast has even USED content from the Plain Dealer.  So when you actually review Connie's statements in the totality you either are left with the impression that the proposal either implicates so few sites it cannot possibly generate enough revenue through these licenses, or that its so ambiguous that its hard for people to know who does or does not truly need to enter into a contract to cite to PD's content.

And that's the genius of the proposal.  The standard is so ambiguous that many will sign fairly cheap contracts to avoid the threat of litigation even though they probably don't need it.  If it weren't essentially a legal extortion scheme, you'd almost admire its creativity.

The real unraveling came, though, when Connie was asked about her own use of other publications' work in her editorial columns (like the N.Y. Times or the Washington Post).  She gave the very rationalization of a blogger who does what I do, except her printed column doesn't have links to the source material.  And that's when it hit me.  Newspaper reporters aren't threatened by bloggers.  That's why when Matt Naugle posted video of shirtless Lee Fisher, they all swooned to report it.  But editorial writers and columnists are.  Connie would be hard-pressed to write relevant political columns if she had to operate under the very rules she seeks . . . at least in the printed version of her columns. 

Who in the Ohio Congressional delegation is going to introduce this legislation?  Is any of them going to even support it if if comes to a vote?  That's a story the Plain Dealer won't report.  Because for all the bandwidth Connie and the PD used up today to defend her column, there are two realities that escape them: 1) even if this proposal were law today, they'd still be out of business in six months; 2) there's no way in hell this is ever going to be made into law because its too unpopular, too unworkable, and too ineffective.

Connie breathlessly echoed the arrogance of a dying industry that holds its emerging replacement in contempt.  She claimed that it was impossible that the reporter who broke the story leading to the Cuyahoga Sheriff's resignation could not done so as a blogger.  Since Connie admitted being a fan of mine, which is mutual by the way despite our present disagreement, she surely had already read that I knocked that point down by citing Talking Points Memo work on the U.S. Attorney scandal and Huffington Post's reporting about Iran.

In fact, many of the newspapers who have been announced as "deceased" are in existence in a purely online format.  They just don't have the bloated payrolls they had when they were in print.

In the end, my first question was the most revealing.  I asked whether the fact that they were responding to this via a video web chat as opposed to a printed column a concession that printed media is dead as an effective medium for timely distribution of information.  The fact that Connie believes that her paper's online activities are designed to only augment their printed functions shows a misguided viewpoint as to the future of her industry.  Another commenter echoed the "augmented" argument and claimed that if it weren't for the printed column, we wouldn't have had anything to chat about.

Except I only learned about Connie's column from blogs, and I've only seen it on the Internet.  That's the most likely way Connie's columns will ever be read outside Cuyahoga County.  The second the Plain Dealer realizes that its their printed version that's holding them back, and not the Internet, the sooner they'll be on a road to economic stability.

Sorry for the short notice, but the Plain Dealer apparently realizes that they've got a controversy in which to get web traffic with.  They've announced that in fifteen minutes, Connie will discuss:

Connie Schultz will join us at 11 a.m. Thursday to talk about her Sunday column on newspapers getting credit and pay for their work.

She'll also discuss handling haters, writing about political issues while being a political figure herself, and other topics pertinent to Northeast Ohio readers at 11 a.m. Thursday on More to the Story. Log in at cleveland.com/news-videos to join the conversation.

Even though I linked to it without entering into a licensing agreement in which I paid money to the Plain Dealer to promote their event here, I will honor Connie's wishes and wait twenty-four hours from discussing anything she had to say there.

When I hear them promote this as her discussing "handling haters," I can't help but predict that they'll dismiss the criticism by focusing on Tim Russo and his grudge with the Brown campaign.  Unfortunately for them, I'm in 100% agreement with Tim on this, and I gave full-throated support for Brown over Hackett, support Hillary in the Presidential primaries, and have never had anything negative to say about Connie until this column.

Be sure to sign in and watch.  It should be interesting!  And come back on Friday for our discussion about Connie's response to the criticism!

P.S.-  Isn't the fact that she responding to the controversy of her printed column in a web video chat, and not her printed column, a concession that the printed medium of newspapers is already dead?

At the time, I tweeted that Mark Sanford was the GOP's Muskie.  I thought I was being hyperbolic.   I was wrong.  Any guy who talks about his mistress being his "soul mate" while publicly profession to trying to "fall in love with his wife again" has a disconnect to reality.  Here's a pro-tip: if your infidelity has caused problems in your marriage and you're trying to reconcile with your wife, STOP TALKING TO THE MEDIA ABOUT HOW MUCH IT PAINS YOU TO LOSE YOUR MISTRESS.   I'm no expert on womyn, but I've got to think it makes the reconcillation an even tougher sell.

Remember when the Iowa caucuses used to be when Presidential campaigns ended?  Obama has seen more opponents' careers vanish before they could even organize campaigns.  It's like when he ran for the Senate and his Republican opponent's biggest fear was voters confusing him with the recently indicted and convicted Governor... then the sex club scandal and the next thing you know Obama is walking past carpetbagging Alan Keyes to the U.S. Senate.

Clinton melts over Bosnia and a series of politically malpractice decisions to ignore caucus states.   Boom, President.

When the cast of challengers are Mitt Romney (who has kissed any chance of ever winning Michigan goodbye, has a history of jaw dropping flip-flops, and only did as well as he did as the consensus anti-McCain candidate,  but couldn't even beat McCain in 2006), Sarah Palin (wildly popular with the base, but largely viewed as the Dan Quayle figure that scared people away from the McCain ticket), and Haley Barbour are the leading potential challengers, you've got to think things are looking good for Obama.

And the scary thing is: we're only seven months into his term and we've seen countless "the Republican's Obama" figures implode.  Being declared the Republican answer to Obama is like being promoted the # 3 ranking member of Al-Quada.    It's a short term before that spot becomes vacant again.  I can't wait until people start talking about Ken Blackwell being the Republican answer.  It's only a matter of time.

Chris Celeste, who once held Senate aspirations of his own, has endorsed Jennifer Brunner in her bid to become Ohio’s next Senator.

The full endorsement:

To My Friends & Other Ohioans Interested in Ohio's Future:

As some of you know, for the past six months I actively explored entering the Democratic primary for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Senator George Voinovich. As part of that process I spoke at length with personal friends and advisers in Ohio and nationally; as well as with both of the already announced Democratic candidates, Lt. Governor Lee Fisher and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. For a variety of personal and political reasons--and despite my strong desire to be an agent of change in the public realm--I ultimately decided entering this particular race, at this particular time, would not be in my party's, or my, best interest.

That said, my belief that this election is crucial to Ohio's future remains unchanged.

The problems (and opportunities) we face in this state are too large to be tackled by local or state officials alone. Long overdue urban revitalization. Reinvention of our historic manufacturing base. Exploding health-care costs that choke families and business alike. Outdated education systems that fail our children. Again and again, we face changing realities in our communities whose scale and complexity require political leadership at the federal level capable of sustained, creative--at times even courageous--reinvention. In my opinion, this isn't just about electing one party versus the other. It's about electing one type of leader versus another. Like our recently elected president, what we need is a leader with the courage to lead, especially when the path ahead may be challenging or unpopular. Not just another politician (Democrat or Republican) with a "wait-and-see" attitude.

As it turns out, much like in the last Presidential primary, two well-regarded and experienced officeholders are now making their case to Democratic primary voters about why they should be the party's nominee in the Fall. They are both formidable politicians who have won statewide, and worked long and hard on behalf of Ohioans. And while I respect both Lee and Jennifer for their commitment to public service, after much thought, I have decided to support, invest in and personally work on behalf of Jennifer Brunner in the Democratic Primary for the United States Senate.

Jennifer's public leadership demonstrates an impressive mix of creativity, collaboration, and courage. Whether spearheading innovative drug-intervention methods from the bench, or being an early and consistent advocate of equality for all Ohioans, or protecting the basic integrity of our election process itself, Jennifer Brunner is a not a wait-and-see politician. Equally important, as a woman who started her own law practice in the corner of her home while raising a family, Jennifer has an intimate appreciation for what everyday Ohioans encounter when they face off against their own daily struggles. This combination of political and personal tenacity make Jennifer a woman unafraid to lead. Already her efforts have garnered positive national recognition, including being awarded the 2008 John F. Kennedy "Profile in Courage" Award for her stewardship of Ohio's election reforms.

It's for these reasons and many others I am speaking out on behalf of Jennifer now, in her primary race. And why I believe she will also be the Democratic Party's strongest candidate on the ballot in November. Please join me in being an early, vocal, and unapologetic supporter of Jennifer Brunner in the Democratic Primary for the United States Senate.

It is time for Ohio to recapture its historic spirit of pioneering leadership -- and I believe Jennifer's election as an unrelenting agent of positive change, as well as our state's first female United States Senator will do just that.

With respect & enthusiasm,

Christopher
Christopher A. Celeste

Robert Portman is the type of candidate that Democrats all over the country dream of having the Republicans run: a Bush alumni with little name recognition and direct ties with many unpopular issues. I won't lie, there are plenty of times where I just have to sit back and ask myself "what the hell are they thinking?"

So in the spirit of knowing the enemy, I want to review Portman's strengths. Just what is it that he brings to the table?

Item #1: Money

Well the most obvious thing he's got is money, quite a bit of it actually. Portman had a significant wad of cash left in his old House campaign fund before he even started his Senate run. It doesn't really what your message is in politics; you'll need money for people to actually hear it.

Portman's independent funding may also leave to Ohio Republican Party with extra cash to play defense or to boost other candidates.

Item #2: Connections

Portman also has connections. While many of us hope these connections will be the very things that sink him, you have to remember that good ole Dubbya isn't exactly the rallying point that he used to be. By next November, he might not be relevant at all.

Furthermore, Portman seems to be trying to position himself as a kind of outsider’s insider, saying he knows how the system works and will use that knowledge to Ohio's advantage.

Well here's the thing about that, I'm 22-years-old and I too know a bit about how the system works. You sell little pieces of your soul everyday to get a fraction of what you want, and then you turn around and call it a huge success.

While I have to respect Portman's taking the issue head on, I can't really see this working out (especially following an election where changing the system was a major talking point for both sides of the aisle).

Conclusion:

So am I saying that Robert Portman is infallible? Not even close, the man has many flaws that we'll all take great joy in pointing out later on in this race (and the wait is just killing me). All I'm saying is that we need to start thinking about Portman as a serious candidate, whether he is or not.

When he comes to your town, go see him. Get him on the record on many issues now, while he's still appealing to the Republican base. Don't you remember all that fun stuff Jerid found when he did the same thing to the Republican Presidential candidates during the New Hampshire Project? This will also create plenty of fun later on when Portman tries to back away from many of these claims.

Like a cat with a wounded mouse, I can't just let go.  I'd link to Connie's column, but she, and her employer, apparently objects to bloggers linking to their website content without signing contracts and paying them money.

But Connie's entire case as to the relevancy of her newspaper was to cite the work of one of its reporters (even for the Indians, that's a bad batting average) in bringing down the Cuyahoga County Sheriff.  Of the entire payroll at the Plain Dealer, the work of only one of its reporters can be cited to justify a radical restructuring of our nation's intellectual property laws.  (That dude better getting something better than a membership with the Fruit-of-the Month Club at the end of the year.)

But couldn't that reporter had done the same thing if he were a blogger?  Of course he could have.  Being employed by a newspaper had nothing to do with his ability to (gasp!) do his profession.  Look at Talking Points Memo's Bush U.S. Attorney firing scandal (which resulted in the resignation of AG Alberto Gonzales) or Huffington Post's most recent reporting on what was occuring in Iran after the "elections."

The blog, the Daily Beast, isn't killing the Cleveland Plain Dealer.  How can a blog that almost never publishes information about Cleveland killing the PD?  Maybe Connie will answer that and other criticisms in her next column.

Heck, even look to Matt Naugle's old site on the reporting of Marc Dann and this site's (i.e.- yeah, I'm tooting my own horn) advocacy that Ohio's constitution would suggest that Dann could be impeached over his multiple transgressions.  In that case, the Ohio Democratic leadership adopted the advocated legal position of this blog as their own in the face of blistering criticism by... you guessed it, old media organizations like the Cleveland Plain Dealer which breathless mocked the impeachment drive as somehow illegal even though it had never consulted anyone educated on Ohio constitutional law.

One of the most ridiculous aspects of the memo Shultz promoted was its premise that everything newspapers did was noble and vital to society, but everything anyone else in the media (including bloggers) was somehow parasitic.  As I pointed out in my last post, newspapers are just as much "news aggregators" as blogs or anyone else.  And what the memo does not acknowlege, either out of ignorance or because they just don't want to admit that it happens, is that blogs are a significant source for their news, too.  They (shudder) aggregate news from (gulp!) BLOGGERS.  If newspapers demand an exclusive right to be compensated when others cite their work, then people will just stop citing their work and they'll likely become less relevant.

Either newspapers aggregate news from bloggers, or its just an amazing coincidence that shortly after I cited an Ohio constitutional law hornbook as evidence that Dann could be impeached, the Columbus Dispatch published an interview with the authors of that handbook confirming my analysis that the impeachment clause does not require the commission of a criminal offense as grounds for impeachment.  Or that a Plain Dealer columnist later cited (without attribution) this site's analysis of Fisher's campaign finance reports as evidence that Fisher's finances were not as strong as advertised and likely unable to continue at that pace.

Tim at BloggerInterrupted, OhioDailyBlog, Plunderbund, we're all seen at one time or another our take on the issues of the day passed over anonymously in media reports as what "some people are saying."  Occasionally, a risk taking reporter will go so far as to actually attribute such views as coming from ... BLOGGERS!

It's odd that the Plain Dealer, with its podcasts and blogs, is saying that the printed newspaper, with its massive production and delivery costs, is it's only means of making money.   It's odd that a paper that reports that 10% of the city's population has moved away can't is blaming the Internet for its problems.  The PD's website runs very little ad space on it.  In fact, unless you're looking to run a classified ad that you could run on Craiglist instead, you'd be hard pressed to find anything on the website as to how to buy an online ad its web readers will see.  The law of fair use is the least of the cause of the paper's problems.

We watch our traffic information enough to know it's not just a coincidence.  We're read by reporters just as much as we read them.  That is the relationship between the blogger and the reporter.  Some journalists can live with that.  Others are so arrogant and vain they cannot comprehend treating a blogger as an equal.  When we're commenting on a story in the public interest, we're parasites.  When Connie Shultz does it in order to promote some harebrained idea to protect her employer's corner on the market, it's thoughtful social commentary.  That is until Connie Shultz begins blogging for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

"One of us.... one of us.... one of us...."  AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Oh man, you can’t make this stuff up.

Pennsylvania State Senator John Eichelberger is taking a lot of flack after stating “we’re allowing them to exist” in a radio debate on gay rights.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, he’s still refusing to apologize for his remark.

So, is that compassionate conservatism or what?

Finally, I think we're starting to see a more balanced reporting on judicial activism that points out that conservative jurist also "legislate from the bench." In fact, one of the defenses against Sotomayor over this case is that the U.S. Supreme Court had to announce new law to reach its conclusion-- an act heavily criticized by Justice Ginsberg's dissent. A dissent in which the Republican justice Sotomayor will be replacing joined in supporting.

Again, I don't see the Ricci firefighting case really become the watershed event in Sotomayor's nomination. It'll be a Republican talking point, but not a real factor in her confirmation.

Franken may be sworn in within a week.

Here's a copy of the MN Supreme Court decision.  Essentially, it finds that each of Coleman's legal arguments lacked evidence.  Ironically, the Court notes that because of the prospect of fraud, absentee voters are required to strictly comply with the requirements in casting such a ballot.  Ironic because Coleman, the Republican, argued that the standard should be substantial compliance-- a more lenient standard.

This is more than just a Minnesota issue.  The Republicans, foolishly, made the Senate elections in 2008 a referendum on whether Americans would want Obama to have a super-majority Democratic Senate or a sizeable Republican presence to keep him in check.  They nationalized the Senate races.  And from 2006 through 2008, Americans have largely been saying they wanted a strong Democratic majority in the Senate.  The national Republican Party has spent over a million of dollars trying to block Franken's seat for no other reason than to prevent another Democratic Senator being seated and, since Specter's switch, the Democrats from having 60 members--a number which is sufficient to invoke cloture on pure party-line votes.

Franken's legal victory, and Coleman's belated concession, hopefully is an end to the Republicans attempt to win in the courtroom that which they could not win at the ballot box.

Of course, the Republican attempt to disenfranchise Minnesota voters failed.  But what's even more troubling than the GOP strategy of using the law to prevent democracy is the utter lack of criticism by the media of it.  Remember the public pressure on Al Gore to concede Florida?  The Brooks Brother riots in Florida?  The endless criticism of Gore as a sore loser?  None of that was heaped on the Republican Party as it tried to prevent the results being certified even after they got their automatic recount.

Today is a victory of the rule of law and democracy.  But the people of Minnesota have been without a Senator for six months for no other reason than a national party wanted to engage in legal obstruction to avoid the constitutional consequences of their electorial losses.  Given the hysteria by the Republicans in criticizing Obama over his response in events in Iran, their hypocrisy is, as always, breathtaking.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has just ruled unanimously for Al Franken over Norm Coleman in the MN Senate race.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has previously said he would abide by the courts decision if the court ordered him to sign an election certificate. The Court stopped shy of issuing such a requirement, but did say Franken was "entitled" to it.

UPDATE: Norm Coleman has conceeded. It's over, it's finally over.