Today’s Wall Street Journal carries another editorial (“Minnesota’s missing votes”) on the recount in Minnestota’s Senate election. It was the Journal’s original editorial on the subject that prompted me to write “Minnesota 101” for NRO. I am a great admirer of the Journal’s editorial page. It may never have served a more important service than it is now in resisting the Age of Obama, but its commentary on the recount is, in my view, unimpressive.
The Journal doesn’t show much familiarity with the facts related to the implications of wrongdoing in their two editorials on the Minnesota recount. In particular, today’s editorial shows no evidence of familiarity with (i.e., of its author having read) the three-judge election contest panel decision in favor of Franken. The decision bears reading by anyone seriously interested in the facts of the case. I am sorry to say that reading the decision persuades me that the Journal’s encouragement of Senator Coleman’s pursuit of an appeal is misguided because he has no chance of winning such an appeal.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.