It's important to maintain a proper balance between regions. Remember that without the electoral college, the slave states will feel at risk of underrepresentation.

Wait, this is 2009, not 1809? Oops, never mind.

I'm in Minnesota too, and caucuses are participatory democracy. Resolutions get debated, candidates appear in person, those who want to be delegates may have to convince others they can represent them, and those who want to be party officers have to be elected. It may not be as convenient as going in and out to vote in a primary, but sometimes democracy requires effort, not merely an opinion.

I'll try to explain it. The right to contest an election in court assumed much more straightforward issues, not the endless fighting expedition Coleman embarked on. Since the election contest court is subordinate to the state supreme court, the losing candidate has a right to appeal. The interesting part comes after that, because it's disputed whether certification of election comes after the state legal process is done, or when the whole legal process is done, meaning certification wold have to wait until the federal courts were done, if Coleman chose to take it there, and maybe even after that he could appeal to the Senate. Basically, Minnesota enshrined in law procedures determined in an equally close recount in the 1962 governor election, but the candidates didn't stall. In fact, even with having to work out procedures that were already law this time, they finished right about this time, when the losing incumbent decided to stop the appeals.

Like another commenter mentioned, the prevailing theory on the Franken side is the court gave Coleman's weak case maximum leeway to reduce the grounds for appeal. He clearly intends to appeal anyway, based on a claim of equal protection violation because counties varied in how well they followed absentee procedures. My two cents, the mistakes favored Coleman, and that alone might be enough for a court to reject his claim. Moreover, though mistakes varied, unlike Florida 2000, there was only one set of procedures for the whole state, so the Bush v. Gore claim doesn't apply.

This sounds a lot like the debate over health insurance in that other developed nations cover a lot more of students' costs, if they don't make college outright free to students. We're the outlier in having a system that discriminates by ability to pay.

If free education just makes people lazy, then why is primary and secondary education not destroying the country? And why aren't foreigners a bunch of lazy people who won't work? Somehow, oddly, they aren't.

It's a good reform to end the private student loan industry (or at least end the government guarantees and subsidies, which should be the same thing) and bring it back under the government as intended. However, then we need to look at the good for the whole country in increasing the education level, and ask whether high education should be free too, just like primary and secondary.

Oh, they won't eat crow, but that means only they won't admit they screwed up. Conservatism was in the dumps for a generation after opposing everything FDR tried to do. If Obama's policies work, the complete lack of Republican/conservative support means a generation in the wilderness. I think that's really what scares them.

Ohmigosh, there are some of Glenn Beck's loons hanging out here. I guess we should applaud their courage for stepping out of their bunkers long enough long to say "ACORN blah blah blah".

True conservatives like Bachmann aren't yet in reeducation camps, but Minnesota has already put them in a designated area. There aren't any actual fences and conservatives are allowed to come and go, but the area is clearly marked on a map. We call it "the 6th district".

Seriously Minnesota, and embarrassed Americans of all states, her opponent received a huge influx of cash last year, but it came just days before election day and he didn't have time to put it to use. Next year, help her opponent when there's still time.

I mean that literally. Is there someone at DOJ who might be willing to talk to you, maybe your next Salon Radio interview? Sometimes it seems there are two different administrations, one respectful of civil liberties and another run by the bushies.

The card check provision doesn't end secret ballot elections. It just let's the workers decide if they want one, instead of management getting to decide for them. Why is it managment's choice? Shouldn't workers get to decide this themselves?

If it sounds like unions can't lose, think about it a moment: winning an election requires getting a majority of those who bother to vote. Card check requires a majority of all workers, so those with no interest count as no votes. The labor would even think this is an improvement shows how messed up elections are right now.

And who is better able to intimidate workers: the organizer who can't enter the workplace and is awfully unlikely to get away with physical intimidation (does anyone even have an example of this happening?), or the employer who can threaten to close the facility, worsen working conditions, and fire the individual worker (probably with an attempt to fight hte unemployment claim thrown in)? This whole union-boss intimidation notion is nonsense.

Nonethless, the debate over cardcheck is meant to be a diversion. There are other important provisions in the bill, and quite possibly the arbitration provision is a bigger threat to management, but it's hard to sell people on being afraid management will have to bargain in good faith. So they scare people with the loss of secret ballots instead.

There's no need for the whole state of Iowa to be embarrassed. Just the one district.

It is amazing that as Republicans seek desperately for leadership, they keep trying different faces of crazy. It's like a connection to reality is a disqualifier.