Craig - I have to disagree with you strongly.

First, on the Strib, yes, they made a mistake - a very small one.

It was Lott who turned a typo into a towering case of Canvassing Board malfeasance. He LED his piece with this example. So the reason I picked on Lott instead of the Strib is all about proportion; the Strib's error was simply not in the same league as Lott's. We get paid to make judgments about what's important; I stand by this one.

When a writer is accusing a public body of blatantly turning a vote for Candidate A into a vote for Candidate B, evaluating that claim certainly does "advance a significant issue." We all know the power of misinformation in this society.

The reason I haven't focused on Lott's inconsistency argument is that I haven't had time to evaluate it. It requires a very systematic look, and it's not easily confirmed (or refuted) without looking at the entire universe of ballots.

Given Lott's veracity on clearer examples, I'm not optimistic about his comprehensiveness -- for example, including a full battery of examples going against Coleman --- but have not written about this until Craig's critique because I don't have objective facts to judge or critique.

But again, Lott hasn't lead EITHER of the two pieces with these more complex assertions. In two different pieces, he's produced three marked Coleman ballots he claimed canvassers counted for Franken - none of the three proved out. And on his first piece, he lead with four Coleman votes that were rejected - all for identifying marks (signatures and in some cases, addresses) that statute clearly says must be tossed.

Here's what I think you're missing in your critique, Craig. I've focused on things that can be objectively verified - and have been right about the seven cases I've examined. I would say, cliche that it is, the facts have a liberal bias in this case. That a liberal makes the argument shouldn't really obviate it.