Yes, it's true that, as Jason noted, the consistently pro-Norm-Coleman Bemidji Pioneer has run an editorial urging him to end his appeals. But reading between the lines, I wonder whether there might be a double game afoot here. First, the paper twists the knife in Coleman's side by suggesting he "won" in November, and that Franken perhaps should have conceded then:
[Coleman] barely won the November election, a scant 215 votes out of 2.9 million ballots. Because of the slim margin, a recount was automatic, even though Sen. Coleman urged his Democratic opponent, Al Franken, to respect the voters and call off the recount.
Next, it insinuates that the Minnesota Supreme Court didn't count as many ballots as it should have:
It threw out most of Sen. Coleman’s arguments, opened only a fraction of disputed absentee ballots, and concluded by awarding the election to Mr. Franken.
And, finally, it offers this kicker:
[A]t some point, incessant appeals serve no more than to obstruct the process than to guarantee justice. It’s not unlike the Death Row inmate who exhausts all his appeals, taking years, and reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. And how many cases does the high court acquit?
Yeah, Norm, why stay alive for a few more years, with some small hope of a reprieve, when you could just opt to die right now?
So, straightforward (if somewhat poorly worded) call for Coleman to step aside? Or cunning effort to play on his pride, sense of grievance, and fear of death, to persuade him subliminally to continue his appeals? You be the judge.
--Chrstopher Orr