On the same day that the Minnesota Canvassing Board certified the results of the November 4 election, resulting in Democrat Al Franken's apparent victory in the state's U.S. Senate race by 225 votes, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh baselessly claimed that Franken "stole the race" and asserted that "The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things." However, as Media Matters for America noted, the Journal "story" Limbaugh referred to was an editorial, which simply asserted that there was double counting, echoing the accusation by the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman; it did not cite reporting to support its claim, only quoting State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a member of the canvassing board, who the Journal said "has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting.' "

From the January 5 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: Thanks, and many other of them. Hey, Rush, the reason I'm calling is when you started talking about Caroline Kennedy -- I'm starting to really get pissed off about a lot of different things going on here. And -- and, you know, we talk about Caroline Kennedy, we talk about Al Franken, and it's been building up for a while.

You talk about the Blago thing. You talk about everybody else. And what's really starting to frustrate me is the lack of accountability on the American electorate. We can't keep blaming Blago. We've gotta start blaming the people that are putting these people in office, and start holding us to accountability. And that's what has me frustrated. It hasn't been talked about a lot. And Rush, I tell you, you've told me one thing that I've always held to heart.

LIMBAUGH: Yes.

CALLER: Is you said you always have faith -- always have faith in the American people.

LIMBAUGH: I do.

CALLER: And I -- and I'm trying to believe in that. But we keep electing -- we keep electing these officials, and help me dissect that.

LIMBAUGH: We did not elect Al Franken. He stole the race. They are stealing the race up there blind in front of everybody's nose. They are counting absentee ballots. The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things. That's just -- the Democrats are stealing the election up there. The Democrats run Illinois and Chicago. Of course they elected Blago and Obama and everybody else. That is -- that's not gonna change.

In a January 5 update to her website, author and syndicated columnist Ann Coulter announced that the appearances she was scheduled to make on the January 6 edition of NBC's Today had been canceled, but that she would be appearing that day on CBS' The Early Show. As Media Matters for America has noted, Coulter recently announced that she was scheduled to appear on Today to promote the release of her new book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America, which Media Matters found to contain numerous falsehoods and inflammatory statements. As Media Matters noted, hosts and anchors on NBC itself and affiliates -- including Today co-hosts Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer, Tonight host Jay Leno, Hardball host Chris Matthews, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, and CNBC's Big Idea host Donny Deutsch -- have expressed disapproval of, in Leno's words, Coulter's "harsh" and "nasty" statements, or criticized the media for promoting her.

For instance, discussing Coulter's October 8, 2007, appearance on The Big Idea -- during which Coulter asserted that "we" Christians "just want Jews to be perfected" -- Deutsch said on the October 12, 2007, edition of Today: "And I think that's what -- we're playing dangerous with words in our society that there's no accountability. There's a glibness that we in the media kind of elevate, and I'm here to kind of say I'm personally tired of it, and I think America is tired of it also." Deutsch later told Vieira that someone might ask, "Aren't we part of the problem?" Vieira responded: "Of course we are. We're perpetuating it."

In a January 5 blog post, Politico staff writer Michael Calderone also noted Coulter's announcement that her Today appearance had been canceled, writing: "Media Matters has been picking apart the book, and last week asked the following: "Is NBC going to help Coulter sell this book?" Seems like they're not."

From Coulter's website:

On the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough falsely suggested that assertions in The Wall Street Journal about the Minnesota Senate race -- including the Journal's reference to "double counting" of ballots -- were the result of "reporting." Scarborough stated, "The Wall Street Journal is saying that there's some irregularities they need to investigate, double vote counts. I'm sure there's going to be a big debate about that," and later said, "The Wall Street Journal is writing today, reporting today, that there are a lot of discrepancies, a lot of inconsistencies, double votes being counted." But the Journal simply asserted that there was double counting, echoing the accusation by the incumbent, Republican Norm Coleman; it did not cite reporting to support its claim, only quoting State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, a member of the canvassing board, who the Journal said "has acknowledged that 'very likely there was a double counting.' "

Moreover, as Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall noted, at no point in the editorial did the Journal note that the canvassing board, which reached a unanimous decision rejecting "challenges to unmatched original damaged ballots," is bipartisan and has, in Marshall's words, "at least as many Republicans as Democrats, and may actually have more Republicans than Democrats":

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is an elected Democrat. He serves on the canvassing board automatically. For the rest he picked two Republican state Supreme Court Justices (justices appointed by Gov. Pawlenty (R)), one Independent judge appointed to the bench by former Gov. Jesse Ventura, and a fourth county judge who may be a Democrat or an Independent (we don't know because it was a non-partisan election).

Needless to say, the Journal doesn't mention this, but hints at it in this feeble excuse, claiming that the rest of the canvassing board has been "meek" in the face of Ritchie's "machinations."

The January 5 Journal editorial stated:

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.

However, the Franken campaign has argued that the evidence does not show that double counting occurred. In a December 24 order, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the State Canvassing Board's decision.

In addition, in a later segment of Morning Joe, Scarborough asserted, "The Wall Street Journal reporting this morning that there are some irregularities in Minnesota," and asked NBC News' chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd, "Tell me, how ugly do you think it's going to get before Franken's seated?" Todd responded in part by asserting that the Journal's editorial page has an "obsession over voting irregularities," adding: "I think they have the assumption of shenanigans when maybe we don't know that there are shenanigans in this case."

As Media Matters has documented, Scarborough has repeatedly invoked his "theory" that Franken "can steal" enough votes in the Minnesota race for U.S. Senate to emerge victorious, raising "steal[ing]" votes at least six times since the recount began on November 19.

From the January 5 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: We are. And also, Al Franken --

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: -- may be ruled the winner today. The Wall Street Journal is saying that there's some irregularities they need to investigate, double vote counts. I'm sure there's going to be a big debate about that --

BRZEZINSKI: But it's not over. It's just not --

SCARBOROUGH: It's not even close.

[...]

BRZEZINSKI: The final ballots in Minnesota's still-undecided U.S. Senate race will be certified today, but that doesn't mean there is a winner. Democrat Al Franken has emerged with a 225-vote lead over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, but now there is a seven-day waiting period pending any new lawsuits.

SCARBOROUGH: And there will be lawsuits, Mika.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, there will be.

SCARBOROUGH: As we reported earlier, The Wall Street Journal is writing today, reporting today, that there are a lot of discrepancies, a lot of inconsistencies, double votes being counted. In fact --

BRZEZINSKI: It's such a mess.

SCARBOROUGH: -- the Democratic secretary of state is saying --

BRZEZINSKI: It's a shame.

SCARBOROUGH: -- there are probably double vote counts, but we're going to certify it anyway, so it's going to be a mess.

BRZEZINSKI: It'll be interesting to follow that one.

[...]

BRZEZINSKI: And the final ballots in Minnesota's still-undecided U.S. Senate race will be certified today, but that does not mean there'll be a winner yet. Democrat Al Franken has emerged with a 225-vote lead over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. But now, there is a seven-day waiting period pending any new lawsuits. Do you think there will be new lawsuits?

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, yeah. Let's check in right now with NBC News political director and NBC News chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd.

BRZEZINSKI: Newly minted.

SCARBOROUGH: Chuck, The Wall Street Journal reporting this morning that there are some irregularities in Minnesota. Tell me, how ugly do you think it's going to get before Franken's seated?

TODD: I don't think it's going to be that ugly, because it is -- you know, Minnesota isn't -- isn't like, well, Illinois, OK, where you feel like there's always corruption around the corner. It's a very clean-government state. This is a state that always has one of the highest voter turnouts. There's a lot of confidence in government in that state as opposed to other states. So, while I understand The Wall Street Journal editorial page's obsession over voting irregularities -- and it is a Journal obsession, led by John Fund, who is as knowledgeable about this stuff as anybody there is -- but I think they have the assumption of shenanigans when maybe we don't know that there are shenanigans in this case.

And I think you're -- this is what you're going to see today. Number one, Franken will be -- the canvass committee will say he's the winner. Now, the Republican governor and the Democratic secretary of state both have to certify it. The governor has said he's not going to certify it until all the lawsuits are done.

So the irony to this is, is I think you'll see Roland Burris as a United States senator before Al Franken, but it certainly looks like today that both of them are on their way to becoming senators.

On the January 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham continued his attacks on the poor, stating: "[P]oor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals." Cunningham added: "All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior."

As Media Matters for America has documented, Cunningham made similar remarks on his October 23 broadcast, asserting, "The reason people are poor in America is not because they lack money, it's because poor people in America lack values, character, and the ability to work hard." Additionally, Cunningham stated on his October 27 broadcast: "Among the so-called noble poor in America ... [b]irth control is not used so illegitimate children can be brought into the world, so the mom can get more checks in the mail from the government. And then once the child is born, that is the key to financial riches in the poor communities -- white and black -- in America."

Talkers Magazine lists Cunningham on its "Heavy Hundred" list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." Cunningham's weekend show, Live on Sunday Night, it's Bill Cunningham, is syndicated nationally by Premiere Radio Networks.

From the January 4 broadcast of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:

CUNNINGHAM: I cannot say it too often or too many times. Nothing FDR did in the 1930s stopped or alleviated the Great Depression. Almost everything FDR did in the 1930s exacerbated the Great Depression. There's nothing LBJ did in '64, '65, and '66 that helped the plight of African-Americans; in fact, it hurt them. Almost all their actions brought about the law of unintended consequences. The goal of model cities, Section 8 housing, and food stamps was to give the poor people money, not understanding that poor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals.

All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior.

So LBJ and the Democrats and Republicans had the best of intentions to solve poverty by giving to poor people money, acting as if that was the resolution of their problem, when just the opposite occurred. By giving poor people money by acting irresponsibly, they incentivized more irresponsible behavior.

During the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer suggested that there is "a cloud over" Democrat Al Franken -- who reportedly leads incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R) by 225 votes upon completion of the Minnesota Senate recount -- because a potential legal challenge by Coleman or filibuster by National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) chairman Sen. John Cornyn (TX) could impede efforts to seat Franken in the Senate. Additionally, Brewer said that despite a potential legal challenge or filibuster, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is "saying we should get him [Franken] in right away." But in purporting to represent Schumer's January 4 remarks, Brewer did not mention that Schumer reportedly said "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course." Schumer concluded: "With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible."

Brewer did not explain how a potential legal challenge by Coleman or a Senate filibuster by Cornyn constitutes "a cloud over Franken." As Media Matters for America has documented, numerous media figures have similarly warned that a "cloud" hangs over President-elect Barack Obama because of the scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) or asserted that the scandal threatens to cast a "cloud" over Obama's presidency, despite the absence of any actual allegations of wrongdoing by Obama or his staff.

As Media Matters noted, in a January 4 post on ABC News' The Note, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl uncritically quoted Cornyn's baseless assertion that Schumer "believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires."

From Schumer's statement, as posted on the TPM Election Central blog on January 4:

With the Minnesota recount complete, it is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner, and while there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota. Even if all the ballots Coleman claims were double counted or erroneously added were resolved in his favor, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible.

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the January 5 edition of MSNBC Live:

BREWER: Senator [Harry] Reid [D-NV] says, look, we can -- we pick who sits in the Senate. The House picks who sits in the House. Is that true?

NATE PERSILY (Columbia Law School professor): Well, the Supreme Court actually has issued a decision right on point, and it said that, you know, the qualifications in the Constitution as to age, citizenship, and residency are grounds for disqualifying someone, but you can't just decide who can sit there. So if the Democrats wanted to deny seats to all the Republicans, they can't do that.

Now, there might be special circumstances here, because Blagojevich and this appointment are sort of under a cloud of suspicion of impropriety. And so, some people are saying, well, you know, they can deny a seat to [Roland] Burris because it's almost as if there's sort a bribery angle to this, but I think that's a pretty hard road for them to hoe.

BREWER: And -- and don't they have more control over who sits in the Senate, like, once the senator is actually there, seated in the Senate? Can they do anything about a person who's just incoming and hasn't necessarily done anything wrong?

PERSILY: Well, it's -- what they're -- people are saying is that they can deny him a seat because it's almost as if this is like a -- say a bribery type of case, right? So that there is this cloud that's hanging over the appointment, so therefore that it's almost as if someone were buying an election.

BREWER: Interesting that you bring up this cloud hanging over the appointment, because we're looking at Minnesota, where, today, they're considering whether to name Al Franken as the winner. It appears that he's ahead in the recount. That being said, you've got Norm Coleman who's challenging it, perhaps legally. We may see a legal challenge. John Cornyn of Texas says he's going to filibuster Al Franken being named to that seat. So isn't there a cloud over Franken, and yet you have Schumer saying we should get him in right away?

PERSILY: Well, that's right. What the Constitution says is that each house -- either the House of Representatives or the Senate -- is the judge of the qualifications, returns, and elections of their members. And there have been instances where they've said, you know, there's something suspicious in a certain election, therefore we're not going to seat them. That requires a majority vote of the Senate, and so, we'll see if they can prevent a majority vote from happening.

In criticizing a large-scale economic stimulus plan favored by President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, a January 2 Investor's Business Daily editorial echoed other media by citing two historical examples -- the New Deal and Japan's "lost decade" -- as purported evidence that stimulus spending is "the least effective way to give the economy a boost." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, according to prominent economists, economic conditions in both 1930s America and 1990s Japan were improving following major increases in stimulus spending -- trends that were reversed only when the respective governments decided to cut spending and raise taxes in an attempt to reduce the deficit.

Criticizing the New Deal, IBD asserted:

In the 1930s, for instance, we went on an infrastructure binge, building new roads, dams and schools; electrifying the rural south and enlarging our ports, among other major tasks.

Granted, some infrastructure improvement was called for. But all that activity didn't pull the the [sic] country out of depression -- not by a long shot. Unemployment averaged 17% in the '30s, and it wasn't until 1941 -- the start of World War II -- that GDP returned to its 1929 level.

However, IBD's use of the average unemployment rate during the 1930s is misleading; historians and progressive economists have noted that unemployment fell from the time the New Deal was launched until 1937, when, according to Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reversed course. In a November 10 Times column, Krugman wrote: "After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections."

Additionally, IBD's assertion that "[u]employment averaged 17% in the '30s" appears to be based on unemployment data that does not include government-relief employment created by New Deal programs. Indeed, former Wall Street Journal writer Amity Shlaes -- whose 2007 book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, has been frequently cited by conservative media figures to dismiss the effectiveness of the New Deal -- acknowledged that her unemployment figures excluded "make-work jobs," instead relying on data compiled for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by economist Stanley Lebergott. In a November 29 Wall Street Journal column, Shlaes wrote, "To be sure, Michael Darby of UCLA has argued that make-work jobs should be counted. Even so, his chart shows that from 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never gets below 9 percent" [emphasis in original]. After World War II, BLS ceased counting those in work-relief programs as unemployed, as noted by economist Gene Smiley in a 1983 Journal of Economic History article.

Of Japan's "lost decade," IBD wrote:

Japan followed the same Keynesian game plan after its real estate bust of 1989. To the applause of many American liberals, hundreds of trillions of yen were spent on infrastructure, raising outlays on big projects from 6.5% of GDP in 1990 to 8.3% in 1996 -- even more than contemplated under Obama's plan.

That didn't work either. The 1990s were a "lost decade" for Japan's economy, and the country is still stagnating. Its infrastructure boom did have one lasting legacy, however: Japan is now the most heavily indebted nation in the OECD.

However, contrary to IBD's assertion that stimulus spending "didn't work" in Japan, Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in his September 1998 book, Restoring Japan's Economic Growth, that "the 1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997." Other economists and media figures agree with Posen that the positive effects of the mid-decade stimulus packages in Japan were curtailed by attempts to scale back spending and increase sales taxes, as Media Matters has noted. Krugman, for one, points to Japan's fiscal stimulus packages as having "probably prevented a weak economy from plunging into an actual depression."

From IBD's January 2 editorial, "For Real Stimulus":

The massive new spending program that is being pushed by congressional Democrats emboldened by their newly enhanced majorities may come up as soon as Tuesday, when they return from their holiday breaks.

Unfortunately, they've picked the least effective way to give the economy a boost. Those who argue for hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects and "green jobs" have it all wrong. We've tried those remedies before and found them wanting.

In the 1930s, for instance, we went on an infrastructure binge, building new roads, dams and schools; electrifying the rural south and enlarging our ports, among other major tasks.

Granted, some infrastructure improvement was called for. But all that activity didn't pull the the [sic] country out of depression -- not by a long shot. Unemployment averaged 17% in the '30s, and it wasn't until 1941 -- the start of World War II -- that GDP returned to its 1929 level.

Japan followed the same Keynesian game plan after its real estate bust of 1989. To the applause of many American liberals, hundreds of trillions of yen were spent on infrastructure, raising outlays on big projects from 6.5% of GDP in 1990 to 8.3% in 1996 -- even more than contemplated under Obama's plan.

That didn't work either. The 1990s were a "lost decade" for Japan's economy, and the country is still stagnating. Its infrastructure boom did have one lasting legacy, however: Japan is now the most heavily indebted nation in the OECD.

If President Obama and his fellow Democrats get their way, the U.S. may soon be trudging down the same path. Next year, reckons budget expert Stan Collender, the deficit may hit $1.3 trillion, or 8% of GDP, as Congress tries to spend its way out of recession. That's roughly $13,000 for every taxpayer.

In a January 5 article, Washington Times reporter S.A. Miller reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) "back a card-check bill that would allow unionization of a workplace if the majority of employees sign union cards, eliminating the secret ballot that workers cast to decide whether to allow a union." In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) that Pelosi and Reid support does not eliminate employees' rights to a secret ballot. As The New York Times reported, "Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization" [emphasis added]. Moreover, supporters of the EFCA say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.

The House Committee on Education and Labor has described the claim that "[t]he Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's 'secret ballot' election process" as a "myth" and stated on its website: "The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer."

Further, by referring to the EFCA as "a card-check bill" in the Washington Times article, Miller used language frequently employed by opponents of the EFCA.

From the January 5 Washington Times article:

Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid back a card-check bill that would allow unionization of a workplace if the majority of employees sign union cards, eliminating the secret ballot that workers cast to decide whether to allow a union.

The bill, dubbed the Employee Free Choice Act, passed the House last year but died in a Republican-led filibuster in the Senate.

The measure is a top priority for the Democrats' union allies. The question is how soon will Democratic leaders bring up the bill and risk political defeat while suffering criticism for kowtowing to union bosses.

Republicans vow to stand firmly against the legislation. Their argument in defense of a secret ballot, which is a cornerstone of American democracy, will take considerable effort to rebuff.

Still, the bill's supporters are confident.

"I have no doubt it will pass and will be signed," said William Samuel, government affairs director for the AFL-CIO.

In a January 4 blog post on ABC News' The Note about the Minnesota Senate race, senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl uncritically quoted Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman John Cornyn's (TX) assertion that "[o]ne can't help but wonder why Senator [Chuck] Schumer [D-NY] believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires. ... It appears that if Senator Schumer had his way, Minnesota's election laws would be disregarded." In fact, Schumer has not advocated bypassing legal requirements. In a January 4 statement -- which Karl did not provide -- Schumer reportedly said that "it is now clear that Al Franken won the election," but added that "there are still possible legal issues that will run their course." Schumer concluded: "With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible." Schumer did not say that Franken should be seated "without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor."

From Schumer's statement, as posted on the TPM Election Central blog at 2:15 p.m. on January 4:

With the Minnesota recount complete, it is now clear that Al Franken won the election. The Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow to wrap up its work and certify him the winner, and while there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota. Even if all the ballots Coleman claims were double counted or erroneously added were resolved in his favor, he still wouldn't have enough votes to win. With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible.

From Karl's entry on The Note, posted on ABCNews.com on January 4 at 8:42 p.m.:

Republicans are loudly complaining that Democrats -- specifically Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer of New York -- have declared Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota Senate race.

The state canvassing board is expected to conclude Monday that Franken has won by 225 votes, but legal challenges continue and Gov. Tim Pawlenty won't certify the results until those challenges run their course.

Meanwhile, Minnesota now has only one senator. As of noon Saturday, Norm Coleman was no longer a senator -- his term expired. It's unclear whether he will now be booted from his offices, but he has no legal standing to either his office space or his staff.

Here is the statement from Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn, who basically calls Schumer a hypocrite for proclaiming the uncertified Franken a senator while refusing to recognize the uncertified Roland Burris -- indicted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill Barack Obama's vacated seat -- a senator:

"While I recognize that as the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the 2008 elections, Senator Schumer is not ambivalent about the outcome of this election, his victory proclamation for Al Franken is troubling on at least a couple of levels.

"First, there is the matter of Minnesota law and double standards. One can't help but wonder why Senator Schumer believes Al Franken should be seated without an election certificate signed by both the Secretary of State and Governor, as Minnesota law requires, when that is the very reason Democratic leaders are citing for not seating Mr. Burris from Illinois. It appears that if Senator Schumer had his way, Minnesota's election laws would be disregarded.

"Then, there is the pending Supreme Court case and likely election contest that will ultimately decide, consistent with Minnesota law, who won the election. Senator Schumer's exultations are premature to say the least. Minnesota voters' choices must be respected and not the choices of political leaders in Washington.

"Finally, as the new Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over contested elections, Senator Schumer will likely play a key role in determining who ultimately assumes this Senate seat. Pre-judging the outcome while litigation is still pending calls into question his ability to impartially preside over this matter when it comes before the Committee, as it most certainly will."