Now Bachmann’s spreading recount fiction

Thanks, Sixth District voters and Bob Anderson — you’ve subjected us to two more years of Michele Bachmann’s national TV interviews.

Last night’s Hannity & Colmes appearance was a doozy: Bachmann not only picked up the car-ballot fiction that other Republicans have sworn off, she mangled it and made up new falsehoods.

Here’s the video (there’s four minutes of non-recount stuff first), with an annotated transcript below:

BACHMANN: [Franken] wants to stuff the ballot box with rejected ballots.

HANNITY: All right. He wanted to do that, we found, what, 30 some odd ballots in a car, and then we didn’t find them in the car, so there was some dispute over that. But more importantly it seems like every time that — this was before a recount even began.

Every county, these heavily Democratic counties started oops, oh we found a hundred votes here. We found 300 votes here. Why do I suspect funny business? And do you suspect it as a potential?

BACHMANN: Well, it’s interesting, and I think it calls into question what the record keeping is and who is watching the books, because two of these cases, one, Sean, that had a hundred votes deducted from Coleman, added to Franken, those 100 votes came after business hours when no one was around.

[Comment: Wrong. In both places that made simple tallying errors  — Pine County and Two Harbors — no Coleman votes were deducted. Also, in neither case did votes come in “after business hours.”]

Another one had 17 votes coming out of a Democratic county. Again, where it was after business hours where no one was around.

[Comment: If Bachmann is talking about Hennepin County’s ballots, she a) gets the number wrong — it’s 32 — and b) gets possession wrong. Election judges or the city’s election director had custody at all times.]

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Hey, Congresswoman, it’s Alan Colmes. Welcome to our show.


COLMES: First of all, good to see you. The 32 — those votes have been discounted as — in terms of they’re legal, everybody even the lawyer for Coleman agrees they’re legal.

HANNITY: I said this.

COLMES: So if they’re going to go there, and steal 100 there or 17, they can do better, steal a thousand. You know? Do better than that.

BACHMANN: But isn’t it — isn’t it curious that all of these votes are for Franken?

COLMES: No, it’s not.

BACHMANN: There isn’t one vote found for Coleman?

[Comment: Wrong. Coleman picked up seven of the disputed Hennepin County votes, and county pre-recount canvasses picked up dozens of Coleman votes.]

COLMES: They found actually nine votes today for Coleman, but they’re not all for Franken.

BACHMANN: That’s on the actual recount where they were found.

COLMES: On the recount. There should be a recount.

BACHMANN: Not in somebody’s trunk of their car.

COLMES: Well, there was nothing in the trunk of a car that was found to be untoward or inaccurate, or not countable. So that’s been discounted.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (13)

  1. Submitted by Dan Hoxworth on 11/19/2008 - 11:29 am.

    No matter what your party or affiliation re-electing Rep. Bachman is an embarrassment. Given the intensity and divisiveness of the Coleman-Franken Senate race (Barkley stayed clear of this)and Bachman’s re-election, Minnesota’s reputation is no longer one as a bastion of thoughtful politics, but of highly partisan, Rovian politics, which disgusts rather than informs.

    It is a sincere disappointment to see this in the land of Humphrey, Mondale and the Andersons. I hope that we can transform our electoral process to call for a requirement for a majority vote requirement (run-off) or instant run-off voting.

  2. Submitted by Annalise Cudahy on 11/19/2008 - 12:24 pm.

    In purely Machiavellian terms, Bachman is Minnesota’s gift to the Democrats nationwide. Her comments here were so outrageous, as is nearly everything she says, she provides a point for everyone to rally around.

    The Democrats have such a hold on power that an internal fight is inevitable. The potential bailout of auto makers is very likely the first such fight. By having a person like Bachman still around, there is something that Dems can unite behind – debunking her lunacy.

    Good government? Hell, no. But it’s great politics.

  3. Submitted by Rod Loper on 11/19/2008 - 02:00 pm.

    I would like to see her get a regular slot on
    KSTP talk radio so we could get her revealed truths straight up. Make Bob Davis give her a half hour chat every week.

  4. Anonymous Submitted by Anonymous on 11/19/2008 - 05:12 pm.

    I’m sorry, but these (incorrect) stories wouldn’t have such legs if the Democrat party didn’t have a history of massive voting fraud. I think karma is coming back to bite ’em.

  5. Anonymous Submitted by Anonymous on 11/19/2008 - 07:08 pm.

    Just checking, JB Saunders: I’m wondering what history of “massive voting fraud” you allude to. Or are you just a Bachmann twin in making such a broad and unsubstantiated accusation.

  6. Submitted by Aaron Klemz on 11/19/2008 - 08:08 pm.

    Note: The Lake County recount confirms that the 100 vote correction there was RIGHT. But you won’t hear that on Hannity and Colmes, willya?

  7. Submitted by Bob Anderson on 11/19/2008 - 08:43 pm.

    Your welcome David Brauer, but don’t thank me,thank the media for keeping me in a box,and the Democrats for putting up a paid lobbyist as their candidate in a already difficult challenge to win in the most Conservative district in the state. Bob Anderson

  8. Anonymous Submitted by Anonymous on 11/20/2008 - 08:10 am.

    Marcia, Marcia, where to begin….

    On December 14, 1984, Chief Judge Frank Mc­Garr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Dis­trict of Illinois publicly released the federal grand jury’s report on the 1982 [Illinois Senate] election—only the third time in the history of the court that a grand jury report had been made public.[15] The evidence re­vealed substantial vote fraud in Chicago [Democrat controlled Chicago] during the November 2, 1982, election and found “that similar fraudulent activities have occurred prior to 1982.”[16]

    What particularly struck FBI agent Ernest Locker was how routine vote fraud was for the pre­cinct captains, election judges, poll watchers, and political party workers he interviewed. They had been taught how to steal votes (and elections) by their predecessors, who had in turn been taught by their predecessors. Based on his investigation, Locker came to believe the claims, hotly debated among historians, that Mayor Daley threw the 1960 presidential election for John Kennedy with massive ballot stuffing in Chicago.[17] This type of voter fraud, stated Locker, “was an accepted way of life in Chicago.”[18]

  9. Anonymous Submitted by Anonymous on 11/20/2008 - 08:19 am.

    Want something more recent? How about the activities of the Kerry campaign in Wisconsin?

    In Wisconsin—a state that John Kerry won by only 11,000 votes—the technique of running com­parisons between the voter registration list and other databases was employed in a 2004 investiga­tion of possible voter fraud in Milwaukee.[61] The Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investiga­tions Unit, working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the local district attorney, and the FBI, used Google databases, motor vehicle records, telephone direc­tories, Assessor’s Office records, and U.S. Postal Service records to investigate allegations of voter fraud. They uncovered a variety of problems:

    5,217 “students” who were registered to vote at a polling place located within the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee who listed as their resi­dence an on-campus dormitory that housed only 2,600 students;
    At least 220 ineligible felons who had voted;
    370 addresses that were not legal residences in the city;
    Residents of other states (such as a voter from Chicago) who registered and voted in Milwaukee;
    Numerous staffers from out of state who were working for the Kerry campaign or the Environ­mental Victory Campaign, a political action committee, and who illegally registered and voted in Milwaukee; and
    Hundreds of homeless individuals registered as living at office buildings, at store fronts, and in multiple locations who were “able to vote in different districts and, by sheer number, could have an impact on a closely contested local election.”

    Although the Milwaukee Report does not identify which political campaign was involved, information in the report describing the individuals makes it clear that it was the Kerry campaign. For example, the description of campaign worker 6 on page 49 matches Andy Gordon, who was the Kerry campaign’s Deputy Political Director in Wisconsin. See also Democracy in Action, Kerry General Election Wisconsin Campaign Organization, at (last visited May 11, 2008). Similarly, though the report does not identify the 527 organization involved, it cites a press release from the Environmental Victory Campaign that makes the connection.

  10. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 11/20/2008 - 11:18 am.

    And did this group in Milwaukee also review votes for George Bush? I would guess they should have. But then, Bush had the Florida Secretary of State and the United States Supreme Court on hand to disenfranchise voters and bar a complete recount to be sure he won in 2000 and the Ohio Secretary of State, with the aid of Diebold machines, made sure he won in 2004.

    Chicago, of course, does have a reputation for dishonesty in government. But then, Minnesota IS NOT Illinois.

  11. Submitted by Cecil North on 11/20/2008 - 11:55 am.

    Mr. Saunders,

    As they say in the law biz, a grand jury can be pursuaded to indict a ham sandwich. Got any examples of successful prosecutions of voter fraud? Or would you rather just keep dumping chum in the water.

  12. Submitted by Jeff Urbanek on 11/20/2008 - 04:26 pm.

    where did the widget go?

  13. Anonymous Submitted by Anonymous on 11/20/2008 - 08:24 pm.

    Mr. North,
    I thought what I had posted was pretty damning, but if you want the whole thing I can tell you that “sixty-five individuals were indicted for federal election crimes, and all but two (one found incompetent to stand trial and another who died) were convicted.”

    How’s that–63 enough for you?

Leave a Reply