Maybe this qualifies as rumor only, but supposedly the third-party candidate in the Minnesota Senate race was at least partially bankrolled by GOP sources.

Had the third-party guy not been in the race, everything I saw at the time suggested Franken would have trounced Coleman decisively.

Thus, the goopers are pissed that their attempt to cheat Franken out of the victory finally failed. Figures. The goopers lose all around on this one. Assholes.

"so another Republican can be displaced and lose an important seat"

There is actually a word for this that might help you say what you're trying to say in fewer words. The word is:

"DEMOCRACY"

fbair1? Uncle G? You guys were so concerned that we wanted to crush your freedom of speech. And here Bizona and I invite you, nay implore you, please: speak more! Tell us! Proclaim to the highest heaven this knowledge fbair1 has of

--network televion news, (which are all Liberal democrat owned)

, and you shut your own selves up? Come on, guys! We want to hear all about the political affiliations of each and every network TV news station owner. This is important news fbair1 has! Because I thought at least one, Rupert Murdoch, was very conservative and Republican; indeed, that many owners were pushing a GOP agenda. If that's not true, we need to hear it!

Let it be on record that we've now begged fbair1, several times, to present his or her evidence of this liberal ownership of the media. We don't want fbair1 to shut up! We want him or her to speak! Speak! Exercise your freedom of speech and present this important news to us all.

Or admit you were lying, if you have no such data.

I am entirely serious, and--I hope--respectful, when I tell you that I'm not quite sure why you've directed your last post to me. In my comment, I referenced fear-mongering among the "right wing," which I consider to be as descriptive of the vast majority of Republicans as "left wing" is descriptive of the vast majority of Democrats. I also thought it was apparent that I was referring specifically to politicians, pundits, and talk-show hosts. And the two examples of fear-mongering I mentioned were specific to terrorism; I don't know how you got the impression that I was referring to your discussion of economic stimulus packages or healthcare reform.

As for my request that you return to the topic, asserting that I told you that you "cannot talk anymore about war" seems a little hysterical. First of all, I made a request--which as far as I know, is quite different from issuing edicts--and if you'll reread my post, you'll see that I was referring to back-and-forth sniping, not discussions of war. Further, when I realized I was doing something similar with SoberJones, I sheepishly admitted my hypocrisy, and cut it out.

As for your other points: I think Al Franken won, too. And it is obvious that he did not win by a clear majority; I would suspect that a number of sitting senators and representatives were elected by a plurality, rather than a majority of voters. I believe the same can be said of Presidents Bush and Obama--in fact, of most of the presidents in the past few decades. I'm not sure why many people seem to believe that election by plurality is somehow shocking or illegitimate. I certainly believe that Franken has shown courage in the past, and I consider him UNLIKELY (as I said) to become an appeaser (my opinion). I made no assertions about how Franken will perform in office. As you said, his success or failure will be determined in the months and years to come.

AMEN! And AMEN!!!

Here is what I found about the big three - I say fbair1 won the argument.

NBC is as publicly owned company whose CEO is Jeffrey Zucker:

• http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6596&name=Jeff-Zucker

Political party listed as "other"

$10,000 in campaign contributions to NBC PACs

Employes Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews

ABC is a publicly owned company whose CEO is Robert Igher:

• http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Robert_Iger.php

Iger has contributed $150,100 to various Democratic causes and $25,100 to Republicans

CBS is a publicly owned compan whose COB is Sumner Redstone:

• http://www.nysun.com/national/political-affiliations-of-viacom-board-could/1993/

Viacom's chairman and chief executive, Sumner Redstone, is a self-described "liberal Democrat" and a prolific donor to Democratic campaigns. Of the company's 13 board members, eight contribute primarily to Democratic candidates and party committees. Two other members of the board, Joseph Califano and William Cohen, held cabinet posts under Democratic presidents.

So, taken in concert with the Rupert Murdoch example, not quite the conclusive coup for the liberals that was claimed. fbair1's claim that

--I watched network televion news, (which are all Liberal democrat owned)

seems quite false. I'm interested also in the records of CNN's and other influential cable news stations' owners. But thanks for at least responding honestly.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your post.

I took the "fear-mongering" comment to be directed at just on side of the isle and did not realize you were limiting it to the subject of terrorism.

My bad

fbair1 said _all_ were Liberal democrat owned.

--I watched network televion news, (which are all Liberal democrat owned)

You showed that ABC and CBS's ownership were Democrat supporters; that NBC's was unaffiliated, and that its contributions were fairly minute; and left unrefuted the fact that Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox, is an archconservative Republican. That's 2 on one side, 1 on the other, and 1 unaffiliated. That's not "all network TV news is Liberal Democrat owned." fbair1 made a false claim.

We still need to hear about the cable news providers, such as CSPAN or CNN, et cetera. If it turns out that 5 TV news providers are Republican, and 3 or 4 Democrat, would I then, by your argument, be justified in saying "all network TV news are conservative Republican owned?" That is what is implied by your granting the "win" to fbair1, based on 2 to 1 to 1 equaling fbair1's "all."