What will Al Franken say about his rude remarks? (We ask, and get his spokester’s reply)
March 20th, 2007 – 11:25 PM by Eric BlackGood Wednesday morning Fellow Seekers,Â
The question of how Minnesotans will respond to the reminders they will receive about Al Franken’s rude comments hangs in the air over the developing 2008 Senate race. Republicans have telegraphed as clearly as possible that they will use the full anthology to portray Franken as angry, divisive, and crude.
The day Al Franken announced his Senate candidacy, the Minnesota Republican Party circulated a “research briefing” headlined “The Facts About Al Franken.”
It’s a compendium of remarks, by and about Franken, including a number of rude comments, especially his reference to Sen. Norm Coleman as “one of the administration’s leading butt boys,” which was featured in a recent Big Question post.
The buttboy gibe did not just slip out in the give-and-take of an interview. The remark first appeared in Franken’s most recent bestselling book, “The Truth (with Jokes),” written and edited, presumably in calm moments, and published in 2005, long after Al Franken had begun laying the groundwork for his Senate campaign.When asked about that particular remark, Franken has said that to make the same point in future, he will substitute the word “lapdog.”
(In the same book, by the way, Franken also made the somewhat less famous observation that all Republicans are “shameless dicks.” In the next sentence, he acknowledged that to be an overgeneralization, then amended it to say that he meant only that all Republican politicians are classless dicks.)
Many Democrats are alarmed, either because they personally find such language offensive, or because they worry that Franken’s vulgar past will offend swing voters and undermine Franken’s electability.
So the issue of Franken’s potty mouth and name calling is out there, and Franken, among others, has to deal with it. Much about the race may depend on whether Franken can strike a winning new tone going forward, one that is at once more senatorial but still authentic. And part of that will depend on how convincingly he can explain his past remarks.Â
The Big Question called Team Franken to ask what he will say about the question when (not if) it arises.
Franken declined to get on the phone with us directly. But his spokester Andy Barr, after talking over the subject with the candidate, sat down with us and offered a sort of first draft of the answer. It went like this (the quotes are from my notes, not a complete transcript, and arranged to make them easiest to follow; in reality there was much more back and forth)/
Barr: “People know what a joke is and what satire is. Sometimes some people don’t like the satire or don’t get the joke. But it doesn’t reflect on the character of the person who made it…
“Al has been participating in politics for the last decade through satire. Al is who he is, and that includes being a guy with a sense of humor…He’s proud of his work as a satirist…
“Humor does sometimes cross a line of being tendentious. Sometimes that’s what makes it work…
Doug Tice asked Barr whether it is reasonable for voters to use the rude cracks in assessing whether Franken has the temperament and dignity to be a senator.
Barr replied that Franken is ready to talk substantively about the very serious issues facing the country and he challenges Coleman to do the same.
“This election will be a referendum on whether Norm Coleman deserves another term, not a referendum on Al’s career as a comedian.”
I suggested that while many an election can be characterized as a referendum on the incumbent, that can’t really be separated from the question of whether voters believe they would prefer the challenger.
“It’s also about whether Al can do a better better job as senator. It’s up to him to make that case.”
What think about the Barr/Franken explanation and what think about whether voters will accept it?
170 Responses to "What will Al Franken say about his rude remarks? (We ask, and get his spokester’s reply)"
Worried about “potty mouth”? Dick “*$#&$^@%#)!” Cheney seems to have done alright with it. Besides (re: calling Coleman a “buttboy”) a man should be able to call a spade, a spade. If the truth hurts, so be it.
T.he liberals and the liberal media will give Mr. Franken a pass on any of these hatefull, mean spirited comments, that he seems to totally believe in
Well, Steve, obviously since we’re here he isn’t getting a free pass from the media. So you’re half wrong for sure.
No such thing as a free pass in the dfl.
On this, the only free pass awarded will be on crocidile tears shed by legions of ditto-pillheads.
So Franken claims all of these remarks were made satirically. Are we to believe he is a Rebublican now, or just someone making jokes about politics and not serious about the issues. Al’s really backed himself into a corner on this one I feel, but he really doesn’t have a choice. The evil spouted in his books is actually quite disturbing. What is he supposed to do, admit everything is from the heart, or everything is a joke. If everything is a joke in his books how are we supposed to know how he really feels on issues? Everyone with half a brain can see he is disguising his mean spirit behind the satire label. Looks like we have another DFL Flip Flopper on our hands.
Otis said it - he could simply quote our VP and tell all the conservatives rolling on the ground over this stuff to go !@#$! themselves.
Keith “the con man” Ellison can get a pass even though he had a stack of unpaid tickets, taxes and fines a foot thick. Angry Al will get a pass on his meanspirited potty mouth. The liberal Star and Sickle will protect their own.
I guess that’s to be expected from a political party led by Howard Dean who loudly proclaims that he “hates Republicans and everything they stand for.”
Al Franken and Howard Dean are both a couple of drama queens, so filled with hate and rage it has warped their tiny minds.
Voter it right on point. Keith Ellison blatantly breaks the law, conservatives and republicans call him on it and all of a sudden, they hate him because he is Muslim. I have a weird feeling if Ann Coulter ran for office, there would be more than a blog asking about her past comments. Al Franken is just another far left liberal who disagrees with anything from the right simply because its the right.
Hey Ed, have you got a link to Dean “loudly proclaiming” that he “hates Republicans and everything they stand for”? Or are those just your words you’re putting in his mouth b/c you hate Democrats and everything they stand for?
Dora:
Here is your link and article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/30/104654.shtml
Dean: ‘I Hate Republicans’
The front-runner in the race to head up the so-called party of compassion and understanding said unabashedly on Saturday that he “hates” the opposition.
“I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.
It’s not just Al Franken’s recent past that will come back to haunt him. Back in Al Franken’s SNL days, he did a bit on Weekend Update where he talked about the “Me” decade and said, “It’s all about me, Al Franken.” Who knew how prescient that remark would be almost 30 years later.
Anyone that believes Al Franken’s motives for running for the Senate go beyond just beating the “evil right” also believes that everything that comes out of Ann Coulter’s mouth is the truth. If you truly listen to these people, all you hear is it’s all about “Me.” These people do not care about society as a whole, they only care about themselves, their fame and the self importance of what comes out of their precious, witty mouths. If you think these people are worried about you, think again.
We require elected officials that have the ability to think beyond themselves and their own interests and focus on the real issues that America faces and the solutions needed to address these issues. We need elected officials that are willing to risk their re-election to do the right thing, even if the right thing is not what the public wants to hear.
Instead, we have created a system where elected officials have to be more interested in getting re-elected than worrying about the important issues. What’s important is getting re-elected. The issues are for the next guy. Then at election time, we focus on electing the least offensive of the candidates and hope for the best. Rather than chastising the candidates for their “it’s all about Me” attitude and attracting qualified individuals that will get the job done.
This process has to change. Unfortunately, Al Franken is not the way to change things because, “It’s all about me, Al Franken.”
I don’t believe Al Franken will represent Minnesota well. I think he is cut from the same cloth as Jesse Ventura in that he is in the race for personal reasons and more notoriety. We don’t need another Ventura-type candidate in office who can’t control his mouth and will never recover from his past.
It’s not just about hating Republicans. Calling Coleman a “butt boy” is the same as calling him gay in a way that is offensive to the gay community. Using a “You’re Gay!” statement as an insult to someone else is hateful and is definately no way to attract voters that are homosexual or sensitive to comments such as this. Under legislation passed by DFL lawmakers and supported by the folks with the “What would Wellstone Do” bumper stickers, using language like this is considered hateful. Yet we are supposed to give him a free pass on this based on the fact that he’s a comedian? Remember the last time we elected an entertainer who made offensive remarks? Truly there must be a better choice for the DFL than Franken.
The best thing the DFL can do to ensure a Coleman victory is run Al.
Unlike Ellison, Franken has to win in a statewide election.
They’d be better off running the oath breaking Wetterling than Franken.
He’s a freaking comedian, ladies. Get over it.
Pathetic. From Cheney’s effenheimer on the Senate floor to Coulter’s effenheimer at the CPAC convention, conservatives have set the bar for public decency really, really low.
Trying to criticize a professional comedian for using coarse language, as part of his JOB, is just another trumped-up example of faux umbrage. The leading conservative candidate divorced his wife by press conference; Meet the Press features corrupt, disgraced, and soon to be convicted crook Tom Delay; and leading conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh gets a free pass for flying back from a Caribbean sex-vacation with illegal Viagra.
Spare me your puffed-up umbrage, you hypocrites.
I’m sure Mr. Franken was not alluding to Mr. Coleman’s secret longings.
He was, I’m sure, referencing the flip-floppin, NY Jew’s political strengths.
Mr Coleman has demonstrated the highest levels of proficiency in the following descriptives: apple-polish, bootlick, brownnose, crawl, curry favor, fawn, grovel, insinuate oneself, kiss butt, kowtow, lick boots, seek favor, toady, truckle.
“You’re doing one heck-of-a job Normie!”
-G.W. Bush POTUS 43
Can we keep focused on the real issues here?
One side talks about Norm and a stupid dumpster or what his father may have done while the other side talks about Al and his past jokes and what a ‘butt boy’ is.
I spent about 8 hours with my grandmother trying to figure out which medicare plan was best for her, every week I pay more at the pump to fill up my gas tank, the housing market wobbles along like it’s teetering on a cliff’s edge, and the world news stories are all about countries and their nuclear ambitions or unrest in some part of the world.
We are clearly focusing on the wrong things here. Let’s fix the country already. In the 2008 election I plan to vote for the man or woman that will help Minnesota and the country, and I don’t particularly care what party they belong to.
All of this other jibber jabber is just wasting time and keeping us focused on the wrong goals. Enough already.
rude, phooey. it’s accurate.
flaming right-wingers, those “family friendly republicans” who are seeking gay sex and drugs in the shadow of their megachurch, running various scams and getting rich due to an election certificate, and starting murderous unjustified wars overseas because “he threatened my daddy,” deserve no quarter.
it goes back to nutty gingrich and his “contract on america,” and the tone has gone down the tubes every day since then.
once the vast right-wing conspiracy comes back to polite society, they will deserve respect.
until then, the goofballs are fodder for satire and comedy, and they better expect it.
nothing wrong with Al, he was about the first to stand up against the monolith. if this was chicago, I’d deliver 27 votes for him from our household. sadly, I have but one, but I’ll pull the wife and the two grown sons along for a total of four legal ones.
Has Minnesota really fallen so far in the crapper that the only guy able to beat Norm is some two-bit comic that is bored with his life and now wants to represent a state he hasn’t lived in for 30 years? Franken is a joke. It is too bad. If his comedy was as funny as his candidacy, he wouldnt be interested in wasting Minnesota’s time. How is that radio station gig going for him? If the rest of America didnt listen to him, why do we now?
The pass the Star Trib is giving Franken is in the first paragraph:
“Republicans have telegraphed as clearly as possible that they will use the full anthology to portray Franken as angry, divisive, and crude.”
See? Al Franken isn’t angry, divisive and crude. The Republicans are just using everything he’s ever said to make him *look* that way.
“Has Minnesota really fallen so far in the crapper…”
It has? How so?
Les is right. There has got to be a better candidate than this loser. Did we learn anything when we elected a wrestler as Governor? The guy is a washed up comic that cant even hold down a DJ job. There is no way he will be the dems choice.
Somehow it seems appropriate that the best the Democrats have to offer is a comedian (and not a particularly good one, at that!)
It has because the moron this blog is referencing is being considered for senator.
beth_el nailed it. I am sure black and tice’s team franken membership badges and decoder rings are in the mail!
LOL, DJ Tice a franken fan ?!? adam, you are a hoot! you never read his editorial page stuff in either newspaper ?!?
let’s just say he’s not rabid, but he probably mutters periodically that hannity and pillboy are too liberal to have their radio jobs….
My guess is that Adam actually has a job and doesnt spend his time posting about how crappy the world is and how seriously evil all republicans are.
Failed DJ? Actually he steped down to run for Senate.
And a bad comedian? So Saturday Night Live was not funny?
sw old chap -
“flaming right-wingers, those “family friendly republicans” who are seeking gay sex and drugs in the shadow of their megachurch, running various scams and getting rich due to an election certificate, and starting murderous unjustified wars overseas because “he threatened my daddy,” deserve no quarter.”
How about a dime? A penny? A ha’-pence?
Whatever. They’ll settle for a euro or an Iraqi dinar. The problem is, however that gets settled, is that the party currently in sway to these sashayin’-in-the-closet mass murderin’ mega-church-swellin’ demons is also the party that takes real, real seriously some issues the other party doesn’t. And the longer half the populace pretends they aren’t real issues the worse it gets.
Saturday Night Live WAS funny. Not necessarily, Al Franken, though. His routines were self-indulgent and boring.
I’m having trouble understanding why Coleman supporters are so upset by a Franken candidacy. The man - Franken - is something of a buffoon. As has been noted, his style doesn’t seem to appeal to the moderate voters that the Dem candidate will need to attract in order to defeat Sen Coleman. Seems to me like a Franken candidacy is a dream outcome for the Republicans. If the DFL were to find another Klobuchar, the Republicans would likely have a much harder time retaining the seat.
Franken is a great candidate.
He’s funny and great on camera. His books reveal a deep understanding of the issues and an authentic desire to serve the people of the state.
And, while we should probably admit that he does come off as a bit angry, there is a big part of the electorate that is also very angry. Democrats have not done a good job of reaching out to this angry, disenchanted portion of its base - they have been unable to, I should say, out of fear of being labeled unsupportive of the troops.
Mr. Franken isn’t going to have this problem. With his USO tours and his charm, he can use angry rhetoric without seeming angry. He’s going to be well funded. He has family ties here and was actually raised in the state. He has never been an elected official from the other party. He has not been allied with one of the most unpopular public figures in the historical record.
Norm is going to have some serious trouble. The DFL doesn’t need a serious candidate to beat Norm - just a loud and photogenic one. If the GOP wants to hold the seat, they should draft Gov. Carlson or someone else who might possibly win a DFLer’s vote when they don’t really want to vote for Franken. Coleman isn’t going to get that vote. If they stick with Sen. Coleman, I think the GOP needs to hope for a strong third party candidate if they hope to hold the seat. They’ll probably get one, though.
oh, I very much liked al’s fake lincoln commercial, doing the circumcision in the back seat to show how smooth the ride was. he did a lot of funny stuff, and his send-up of pillboy rush in rush’s style in print was hilarious.
the neocons are laser-focussed on several issues to the total exclusion of many other significant ones that most of the population care deeply about. thus, the pendulum effect of politics is that the neocons are doomed. DOOMED. just watch bush and the bushleaguers trying to keep their little backdoor deals covered up when the Congress that most of the population elected to dig ‘em out from undercover, and tell me that they don’t have something serious to hide. they’re scurrying like weasels trying to cook the books as the inspectors come off the elevator.
let’s have a little fun with the changeover, eh?
I’m not sure whether the pain reliever “tryopenin” fake ad was al’s or o’donoghue’s on the first SNL (and repeated many times the first two years.) that was also hilarious. wonderful satire.
it’s totally lost on the neocons, no humor. their idea of a good time is to sit around the smoking room at the club, and come up with slanderous digs on good people who happen to oppose their cause of the day.
back in nixon’s day, in orange county, it was done on the sly, whispers on the street. with nutty gingrich, that conniving adulterous bach-bencher, it was Public Job #1 to twist the language backwards and make it squeal like a pig.
I just can’t get enough of it that when somebody pokes their thick skins like al, the neocons scream like they’ve been tasered. marvelous good entertainment for kids of all ages.
this is a tonic. keep it up, al.
Paul, which particular issues are you saying the GOP takes seriously while the Democrats do not?
You’re usually a very fair and level-headed poster here. It seems like, and I may be wrong, but it seems like you’re saying half the population doesn’t think the war on terror is a serious issue.
I don’t think that this is fair or level-headed. I mean, you’re entitled to come to whatever conclusions you like about the actions of whatever public officials you think you should criticize, but don’t pretend like there aren’t real signficant differences between what the two parties think we should do persuant to that very serious question. Just because some Democrats think that the war in Iraq is counterproductive towards the war on terror doesn’t mean that they don’t take the war on terror seriously. Just because a precious few of them take civil liberties seriously doesn’t mean that these same folks don’t take the security situation seriously.
I also don’t mean that there aren’t some politicians out there who don’t take some serious issues seriously. But by and large, whatever their party, I tend to think that elected officials care a lot and seriously consider competing values, then make decisions based on those considerations. There are a lot of trade-offs in governance.
Swschrad, the shift key on your keyboard is there for a reason. Humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I hate the thought of subjecting Minnesota to more national ridicule by electing another goofball, in the vein of Jesse Ventura. They do have a lot in common: Jesse was funny while not trying to be, and Al isn’t funny while trying to be.
“Saturday Night Live WAS funny. Not necessarily, Al Franken, though. His routines were self-indulgent and boring.”
WAS funny, yes you are right. As far as his routines, he was mainly a writter, he wrote alot if not most of the skits from start to, oh about the time it went down the crapper.
My main point is some people are trying demonize this guy as some hateful, angry person when this is not the case. Is he passionate, yes. But not hateful. He didnt fail as a DJ, he wasnt very good, but he didnt fail. He was funny, still can be, maybe the humor doesnt suit you, but I am sure you probably laughed at his skits that he wrote, but I am sure if you found out it was his jokes you were laughing at you would stop laughing becuae your partisanship dominates you.
As far as him being a senator, eh, I am not too sure. But he does know alot about alot of things, I am sure people will try to discredit that, but he does have a degree from Harvard. Of course he hasnt held any office, but he has been around the political scene, what good that does who know. I dont like that he is a lighting rod for the right and he seems to skirt around issues that are a bit controversial, but he is more open than many other candidates. Either way if it came down to Franken and Coleman I would have to go with Franken, unless there is a strong third party candiadate in the race, and with these two guys, I think Minnesotans might just sway in that direction. I think that this race is the Independence Party to win.
Justin -
That’s not exactly what I mean. It’s certainly true that being firmly opposed to the war and firmly on the side of civil liberties doesn’t mean you don’t take terrorism seriously. Although always basing your politics on caricatures of your political opposition is itself a sign of not taking anything seriously. But believe it or not I don’t have time to expand now.
I am certainly not trying to “demonize” Al Franken. My point is that the Democrats, if they want to win seats, need to put up serious candidates and not try to rely on name recognition. Patty Wetterling? Puhleeeese! Al Franken is a goof, and would not serve his constituency well. This has nothing to do with partisanship; I voted for Amy Klobuchar because she was a QUALITY candidate.
Al Franken is still real funny except when he’s half-blind with anger. The constant “he’s not funny” from the right doesn’t play well to the undecideds, because it doesn’t really seem to be true. Meaning, Al should lose the anger and concentrate on the (genuinely) funny.
I also think there’s a layer of seriousness in Franken that was much thinner in Ventura.
Paul, as I said earlier, humor is a subjective thing. If you think Al is funny, more power to you. I personally thought the majority of his on-camera stuff was pretty mundane. And I think Jesse WAS trying to be serious. Again a subjective thing; how exactly do you measure seriousness?
So if I don’t think Al Franken is funny, that means I’m part of “the right?” I guess that must mean if you think he is funny, you must be on “the left.” And if you think he’s REALLY funny, you must be a Communist.
This statemant from Franken’s spokeman is asinine:
“Barr: ‘People know what a joke is and what satire is. Sometimes some people don’t like the satire or don’t get the joke. But it doesn’t reflect on the character of the person who made it…’” Source: Star Tribune, March 21, 2007
By this logic, Coulter’s joke about John Edwards doesn’t reflect poorly on her character. This defies logic. Imagine if a Republican made this statement in defense of Coulter - oh, how the left would be outraged!
It strikes me as odd that people would describe Al Franken as “half-blind with anger”. ??? I have read several of his books and that is hardly an apt description. He is quite lucid, has his facts right, and the humor is the spoonful of sugar that makes it possible to read about such things without throwing the book out the window in blind anger. Contemplating the hypocrisy of Tom DeLay, who claims to be of the conservative cloth and yet blocked legislation to update labor laws in Saipan that would protect women working in sweatshops there from being forced into prostitution and forced to have abortions when they become pregnant. This is well documented and should offend everybody no matter what your views on abortion are. Or Bill O’Reilly and his loofah/falafel confusion–he’s a hypocrite and somebody needed to expose him for what he really is. Al Franken does his exposes in a humorous, not an outwardly angry way. There is a lot for thinking people to be angry about (always has been). Al is very intelligent, well-versed on the issues and he has dedicatedly worked for years to bring the truth to the forefront. People who dismiss him outright as a serious candidate are probably not completely familiar with his work of the past several years, in print and on the radio. From him I learned to take a deep breath and make a point of checking out Right Wing rhetoric, however unsettling that may be. Ignorance is dangerous.
bsimon says, quite correctly:
I’m having trouble understanding why Coleman supporters are so upset by a Franken candidacy. The man - Franken - is something of a buffoon. As has been noted, his style doesn’t seem to appeal to the moderate voters that the Dem candidate will need to attract in order to defeat Sen Coleman. Seems to me like a Franken candidacy is a dream outcome for the Republicans. If the DFL were to find another Klobuchar, the Republicans would likely have a much harder time retaining the seat.
*****
Franken’s only rationale, as far as I can see, is that he thinks he should be a senator. I think I should be King of Portugal. Oddly enough, I am aware of no one in Portugal who shares my view.
Here’s the difference between Al Franken making rude comments and an elected official making rude comments.
He’s a COMEDIAN. Making rude comments was his job, it’s the way commentators earn big money in this country, just ask Ann Coulter.
We hold political candidates responsible for what they did in previous careers, as we should. It says a lot about the kind of people they are. And call me crazy, but I would rather see a former comedian elected than…oh, say…a guy in private business who spent his career making millions off no-bid government contracts. Or a guy who who marches in lock-step with the current administration.
At least the comedian’s honest.
No, I’m not saying you have to be conservative to think he’s not funny. I’m saying I’ve read it a lot, and it seems to be an idea that gets trotted out a lot on cosnervative sites especially. It’s a staple over at Powerline, for example. And it strikes me as a tiny example of the sort of tin-eared repetition of an opinion as if it’s a fact that I associate with the other wing of politics these days.
Someone can say he doesn’t believe he’s funny, but if you say “he’s not funny,” for the large group of people who find him really funny that just comes across as dumb and it says something about the person saying it, not Al Franken.
And if it’s modified to “I don’t find him funny,” what’s the point? For that same group, you’re announcing you have no sense of humor.
The phrase “he’s not funny” is not verboten, it just has to be used judiciously. Adam Sandler, in general, is not funny. With occasional exceptions.
Congratulations, Paul, on the finest example of circular logic I have ever seen. So if I think that, in general, Al Franken is not funny, I’m “announcing I have no sense of humor.”
But since you don’t like Adam Sandler (obviously,) you can make the factual statement that he is not funny. And I suppose YOU have a sense of humor.
Weird.
LS1985:
Yup, An honest comedian with a potty mouth will make a great Senator. We can put him in charge of inter-party negotiations on all Senate bills. Everyone will be ready to compromise when he points our thier being “butt-boys” for whomever.
I can only continue to hope the DFL actually nominates him.
Just picture this. Assuming Hilary doesn’t get the presidential nod, just imagine the hilarity (play on words) in the Senate majority. They’ll be the funniest man/woman comedy team since George and Gracie. At least the funniest since Stiller and Meara.
Hey *Dustin*! I think you maybe be more than a little confused as to the meaning and use of satire. When in doubt I usually check a dictionary before I stuck my foot down my throat.
FYI:
Main Entry: sat·ire
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
“Republicans have telegraphed as clearly as possible that they will use the full anthology to portray Franken as angry, divisive, and crude.”
What? They can’t just let Coleman run on his record?
Franken spokester Andy Barr informed us this morning that Franken does not believe he repeated the Coleman “buttboy” remark to the New Statesman magazine. Rather, the New Statesman writer used the quote from “The Truth.”
We’ve changed the post above from the earlier version, which said that Franken had made the remark both in the book and in the New Statesman interview.
“Although always basing your politics on caricatures of your political opposition is itself a sign of not taking anything seriously. But believe it or not I don’t have time to expand now.”
I do believe it.
And I do basically agree with you that always basing politics on caricatures of political opposition can be a sign of not taking anything seriously.
I just don’t think that this is what is happening with Franken. I think that he has based politics on caricatures, it seems untenible to argue otherwise. But I also think the extent of this behavour is something significantly less than “always”. I also think that there will be a great effort to show examples of when he has caricatured his opposition - and that it is likely that the view you’re expressing, that he “always” does this might be adopted by the public as a result of a well financed public relations campaign.
Such is the suckyness of politics.
But, in my humble view, Coleman’s refusal to acknowledge the substance behind those parts of Franken’s politics which are not motivated by an attempt to charicture his opposition, Coleman himself attempts to caricature his opposition.
And, also in my humble view, Coleman is not more skillful in this art than Franken is. He certainly does not have as much relevent experience as Franken does in this area.
I continue to believe Franken is a great candidate. There will be very, very much out of state money driving an gloves off campaign for this senate seat. Typical DFL candidates have lost when the capaigns get nasty because they either seem legitimately meanspirited (like Hatch) or they seem like pushovers (like Wetterling).
Franken is going to laugh and then send back a zinger that hurts a lot more than what Coleman can muster. Just what I think.
Hey, Sveden! Perhaps you should get a grammar book to go along with your dictionary! (…I usually check a dictionary before I stuck my foot down my throat.)
jim, relax. You’re putting thoughts into my head or I’m not writing clearly.
I mean “to those who find him funny” you’re announcing you have no sense of humor. And that’s a large group, and it’s not just wacked liberals who agree with him on everything.
That’s the reason I’m saying it’s worth thinking about for conservatives: there really are a lot of people who think Al F is seriously funny. That’s it. It’s just an observation on not harming your own argument by not seeing past your own nose.
I was intending the Sandler thing as basically funny.
Though I do believe with some confidence that you run the risk of offending or signalling something important to far fewer people with the flat-out sentence “Adam Sandler is not funny.”
When Franken uses terms like ‘butt boy’ (which implies gay pediphile sex) he’s lauded as being satirical and funny, but when Coulter tells a joke and says something similar she is attacked as hateful and bigotted. Its another case of double-standards enabled by the MSM.
Its the hypocrisy stupid.
Paul, as I said, “funny” is a relative term. Your comment about Adam Sandler, in my opinion, is not particularly funny. And I am not a big fan of Adam Sandler. (Although, in my opinion, he’s funnier than Al Franken.) I think I’m beginning to understand why you find Franken so funny.
It sounds to me like you believe saying “Adam Sandler is not funny” would offend fewer people than saying “Al Franken is not funny.” Actually, neither statement offends me, but I believe your premise is wrong. I would venture that there are currently more fans in this country of Adam Sandler as a comedian than of Al Franken as a comedian.
Quite honestly, as a politician, I think you’d find that Al Franken doesn’t have a huge following outside of Minnesota.
It is fair to categorically state - as a fact - that anyone who does not find the Stewart Smalley (Al Franken) skit with Michael Jordan to be funny is in serious need of a humor transplant.
This fact has no discernable relevance to Mr Franken’s political candidacy.
OK, I concede, the skit with Michael Jordan was funny. But like I said, most of the Stewart Smalley stuff was self-indulgent and mundane. Just my opinion.
I have fabulous idea. Let’s move George Carlin here, and have HIM run for US Senator from Minnesota. Now THERE’s a funny guy!
jimbokoz says
“Let’s move George Carlin here, and have HIM run for US Senator from Minnesota. Now THERE’s a funny guy!”
And this explains, I think, the entire problem. The anti-Franken crowd apparently has more knowledge of his talents (or lack therof) as an entertainer than his policy positions. The critics seem more willing to point out, ad nauseum, his ‘butt boy’ comment rather than engage in a rational discussion about his policy positions as compared to those of Senator Coleman. I’m not sure of what this is indicative, perhaps they are incapable of defending Senator Coleman’s record, and thus have to divert attention from it by attacking Franken’s rude remarks. But I can’t help but ask, if Franken’s mud slinging is so reprehensible, why are they so eager to get down and roll around in it with him?
And I ask that as someone who has no plans of voting for Franken (or Coleman).
Regardless of all this rhetoric, the lefties will vote for Franken, the righties will vote for Coleman. Some of the middle will vote for Coleman because they feel more comfortable with a traditional politician. As Ventura proved, a non-traditional politician has appeal to a large bloc of potential voters, ones that traditionally stay home on election day. I think Franken will appeal to these voters. Coleman’s biggest negative, one I feel he won’t be able to overcome, is the baggage associated with this failed administration. Bush’s baggage grows more each day.
“It sounds to me like you believe saying ‘Adam Sandler is not funny’ would offend fewer people than saying ‘Al Franken is not funny.’
Interesting. Is that because I said declaring “Adam Sandler is not funny” would offend fewer people than saying Al Franken is not funny?
I didn’t say I intended teh original Sandler wisecrack as “particularly” funny. Just, you know, internet scribble-it-down based on a third of a thought funny.
You seem ticked on the matter, though I was never intending any kind of shot at you, or at people who find Al franken ot funny; just offering some straightforward poltical communication ideas aimed at my fellow conservatives is all. So let’s just call it a day, okay? And agree, without further equivocation, that Lucille Ball was not funny.
Franken plays into the hands of his attackers if he stoops to this fools’ argument.
I for one look forward to Franken’s future campaign ads where real and fictional accomplishments blend in a seamless biography … His days as an eyewitness reporter with a self designed satellite dish on his head, his career as a self help guru, his blue collar beginnings as a banana-chomping loader driver, his success as the founding figure of a liberal radio station.
Anymore, people are voting for the personality, and people respond well to a personality that doesn’t get defensive when challenged about statements that should be obvious. Franken should keep spinning his “lingua franken” and let the square-as-hell spin artists try to make any of it stick.
Plenty of Franken’s comedy has been based on the geeky role one takes when one actually understands the issues at stake (nerd) and takes them seriously (spaz). Amazing that his critics have taken a church lady stance that makes them look even more square than his most buttoned-up persona.
Say, olly, that was pretty good.
Paul, what do you have against Lucille Ball? How did she get into this discussion? I guess I did chuckle at the old “I Love Lucy” shows, as I admit I even chuckled at some of Al Franken’s comedy. So I wouldn’t say she’s not funny (to me!)
The 3 Stooges? Now that’s funny! Al Franken as a US Senator? Even funnier!
Justin -
I wasn’t intending to say that Franken does that - basing his politics on caricatures. Although he might. But I was talking about a larger group than politicians on either side.
bsimon says:
The critics seem more willing to point out, ad nauseum, his ‘butt boy’ comment rather than engage in a rational discussion about his policy positions as compared to those of Senator Coleman. I’m not sure of what this is indicative, perhaps they are incapable of defending Senator Coleman’s record, and thus have to divert attention from it by attacking Franken’s rude remarks.
I think you’ve hit the nail right on the head, judging by the “content” of the posts by his detractors.
I listened to his radio show since it first went on the air, have read his books and even got the chance to hear him speak once. He’s got a very good grasp of politics and policy and can make very insightful comments about topics of the day. My only hedge when it comes to him would be his temperament. On several occasions I have heard him when he’s become frustrated with someone/thing and he can go off on a personal vent where he blurts out things that would seem un-statesmanlike (if he were a candidate). Maybe this will change during the course of his campaigning and his skin thickens.
3 Stooges - yes. Pretty damn funny. And SCTV, and Buster Keaton, and (in a similar vein) Clint Eastwood in the Dirty Harry/spaghetti western era.
To bsimon: Just so you understand my position. If you go back to my first posts, I made mention of the fact that I didn’t think Al Franken was necessarily that good a comedian, and that the Dems seem to rely more on name recognition that on substance.
I never said that Franken didn’t have a grasp of the issues; but then again, there are thousands of people that do. I do have a problem with some of his positions, but isn’t that my right?
The points I am trying to make are:
a)Al Franken is a goofball, and we don’t need another elected embarrassment in Minnesota (ala Jesse Ventura.)
b)His ability or inability as a comedian/satirist does not qualify him to be a US Senator.
The comment about George Carlin was COMPLETELY tongue-in-cheek; my feeble attempt at satire (you know, someone not from here, e.g. Hillary Clinton, running as Senator after setting up residence; and trying to point out that if we want to elect a comedian, let’s at least elect one that’s REALLY funny.)
Anyway, I’m not running, but I am also throwing my hat in the ring for King of Portugal.
jimbokoz,
regarding your two points that
“a)Al Franken is a goofball, and we don’t need another elected embarrassment in Minnesota (ala Jesse Ventura.)
b)His ability or inability as a comedian/satirist does not qualify him to be a US Senator.”
I actually agree on both points. What is interesting though, is the characterization of the Dems as relying more on name recognition than substance; the DFL doesn’t control who runs for the endorsement. Franken hasn’t yet been endorsed by the party or won the primary. I’m not betting that he won’t achieve those goals either, but isn’t it a little early to indict the ‘Dems’ for something they’ve not yet done?
For Ed and champrj: “That was a little out of context,” Dean answered. “I don’t hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do.”
Dean didn’t get the nomination because he was a vocal critic of the Republican agenda especially at a time when most of the country supported it.
Franken will have to deal with his comments and not push it off to his spokesperson. If he can’t handle it then he shouldn’t be campaigning.
bsimon: My name recognition comment stems from the Patty Wetterling fiasco(s). Patty Wetterling is certainly a pitiful figure, but really was a one-issue candidate. I don’t live in the area that elected Michelle Bachman, but quite frankly would not have voted in that particular race; I never saw a race that had 2 candidates I liked less. If the Dems had put up someone decent, that seat was theirs for the taking.
I guess saying the Dems will do the same thing in the Al Franken candidacy is a bit premature.
As a resident of the Sixth District, I am already represented in Congress by someone who imagines herself on a mission from God. (I hasten to add that MN-6 is hardly the only district in the republic to be so represented.) Even if the worst accusations against Franken are true (and I believe them to be exaggerated) he would be an odd change from the rest of the Congress. If I was pleased with the performance of the federal government over the last several years, that might seem a bad thing. I’m not.
Franken can represent me as well as Norm Coleman, though that may be damning with faint praise. If his caustic wit causes problems, at least it will be interesting to see the rest of the Congress fall over itself pretending to inhabit a higher moral plane.
Oh well, better the God we know than the one Congressman Ellis is representing.
I seem to recall during my formative years in parochial school that I learned there is only one God but that he would be called by many names.
Well, Dora, you believe in whatever helps you to sleep at night. I refuse to get into any discussion about the whacked values of Islamic extremists, who cannot be serving the same God in which I believe.
I don’t consider Ellison to be a “whacked Islamic extremist”. Perhaps you do. I personally don’t think the whacked values of any religious extremist serve God.
Time will tell. As I said, whatever enables you to sleep well at night, that’s what you should believe.
You know, jimbokoz, I can’t just let it slide. Your blatant prejudice against Muslims is offensive and not part of the repertoire of a critically thinking person. You speak from fear about that which you do not understand. You need to educate yourself before you publically embarrass yourself any further.
The Real Me – formerly known as Gordon (registration wouldn’t let me use my old blog/real name). Oh well, I might like The Real Me better.
A recent Rasmussen poll has Coleman leading Franken by 10 percentage points. But the real news was that 10 percent of respondents said they would go third party in a Coleman-Franken race. That was referred to as a surprisingly high number, especially considering no third party candidate has announced.
Sounds like an opportunity for the Independence Party. I hope a viable candidate emerges and starts organizing soon.
Thank you RLW; you said it so well I don’t have to feed the troll.
Dora said: “For Ed and champrj: “That was a little out of context,” Dean answered. “I don’t hate Republicans as individuals. But I hate what the Republicans are doing to this country. I really do.”
Dean didn’t get the nomination because he was a vocal critic of the Republican agenda especially at a time when most of the country supported it.”
Timing is everything ain’t it? NOW that the wishy-washy tide of public opinion has finally turned against the war and other neo-con activities, I think Dean’s “enthusiasm” would be met with greater agreement instead of the derision it got then. The voters really are a fickle lot.
I expect that the people of Minnesota will decide about Al’s previous remarks. Depending on how badly this war goes, perhaps the people of Minnesota will want someone who speaks plainly instead of our Senator who has tried to have every position at once, and has supported this Republican administration 90% of the time! I will vote for courageous political speaking that represents my views!
Garrison Keillor is apologizing for his anti-gay column remarks (were these published in the Star?!). I hope the Star with their newfound principles bans the columnist.
Come on Eric - show some backbone and criticize a lefty for a change!
PS - I don’t see the lefties crying over this like they did when Ann Coulter told her “joke”.
RLW: Yes I do speak from fear. If you don’t fear the radicalism of Islam, you are truly a moron. I’m sorry if I offended you. I was really offended September 11, 2001.
No Cash you won’t see that. You won’t see much from the left when it comes to criticizing their own. And I admit I do the same thing. I didn’t say much about Coulters remarks. Didn’t really mean much to me. I am not offended by what Franken says. I know that I couldn’t stand the guy when he did his Smalley bit and there is not a chance inm hell that I would ever vote for him.
I do get more enjoyment listening to the leftist hypoctites.
I get much more upset about the “peace marchers” that burn American soldiers in effigy, burn and desecrate our flag and our recruiting offices.
Then you have the likes of RLW who castigate posters…”Your blatant prejudice against Muslims is offensive and not part of the repertoire of a critically thinking person. You speak from fear about that which you do not understand.”
Just how many “truths” about the violent muslim religion do yo need? In my opinion it is the accuser that fails to see the danger that should make you fearful.
Let’s not let RLW in the jury box the the “flying imams” bring our fearful, concerned citizens to trial.
Actually, I suspect it would be a fruitful experience for some people to have a decent lawyer put them in the shoes of the people on that flight, maybe with some kids in tow.
I can’t let this slide. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the world who believe that violence and murder in the name of Allah is justifiable. Yet the liberals of this country want us to believe we are small-minded if we fear this. Are you people crazy?
Well, what is unfortunate is that your fear has caused you to be unable to differentiate between a Muslim and a terrorist, which is a radically bad disability to have. There are things you should be afraid of, but the Muslim congressman from the 5th district is not one of them. If you learn more about the real dangers, you can concentrate on those and not misdirect your energies. You appear not to understand that there is a small group of Muslims who are terrorists and get a lot of attention but you should not confuse them with the billion or two other Muslims who are not. Lose the ignorance–it’s ugly.
And you obviously seem oblivious to the violent Christian religion and the rivers of blood that they have spilled over the centuries. Are you familiar with the “truths”? And do you want the violence to end or do you just want the Christians to win?
It’s like people who smoke cigarettes to cope with their fear of terror attacks.
Rlw,”And you obviously seem oblivious to the violent Christian religion and the rivers of blood that they have spilled over the centuries”
More hits on the “evil Christians”
And MinnJRJ says: “as a resident of the Sixth District, I am already represented in Congress by someone who imagines herself on a mission from God.”
No Minn, the Blues Bros were on that mission. Michelle believes in God. SHe just isn’t afraid to say so and when she does she takes the heat for it.
I was about to post an explanation of the difference between extremists and true believers but I’m pretty sure it’s a sublety that will be lost on the intended audience anyway. When someone decides they enjoy being willfully ignorant there ain’t a whole lot that can be done.
Here’s a couple links that relate to the general topic: the reaction of some western liberals to the reality of radical Islam, including their reaction to people who identify it and resist it:
http://www.slate.com/id/2161171/fr/flyout.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117444558006143724-lMyQjAxMDE3NzI0MTQyNDE1Wj.html
The second one is really amazing. Actually, so is the first. Here’s the opening of the second:
“A French court is tomorrow expected to decide whether I and the newspaper I edit, Charlie Hebdo, committed a crime by publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. If the court finds me guilty of “publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion,” in effect racism, as the organizations of French Muslims that are plaintiffs in this case claim, I could be imprisoned for six months and fined thousands of euros. A great deal is at stake, for free speech in France and Europe, in the outcome of this trial.”
As for local angles:
I don’t think Keith Ellison is an Islamic radical. I think he’s a well-meaning and basically looking-for-justice Minneapolis super-liberal who happens to be Islamic. I don’t think he’s really thought about it all that much; I think he’s not the one with the power in the relationship with CAIR; and like almost any Minneapolis liberal he assumes that any talk like you guys are engaging in here is racism or fear-mongering or talking points or something.
And he doesn’t pay much attention to Europe, and he doesn’t spend any energy wondering about the organizational antecedents of CAIR and the MAS and so on.
Finally, he doesn’t wonder much about the plight of genuinely moderate Muslims in Europe over the last 20 years as the PC culture there stifled any criticism of the radical version that was taking over a lot of mosques.
I think what tears it for me is how I know that Europeans like Chirac, or American liberals like the writers Hitchens describes here, also style themselves courageous in the face of the evil W.
Another comment to RLW and the murderous Christians. Just when did this happen. Dark ages, middle ages? Do you think that the same murder rate was happening in China at that time? India? With the muslims of that era?
Lets fast forward to modern times.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ethnic cleansing in Africa. Hmmmm, not done by Christians. In fact it is one of the “Left-wing Truths” to believe that Christians have killed more people over time. It is really the non-Christians.
But why should facts matter? Bush Lied!!
otis - someone else could post an explanation as to why that distinction is more complex than you might want to think about but then you’d just call me a racist ignorant person. Speaking of ignorance, do you pay any attention at all to Europe?
Well, of course it’s a hit for the “evil Christians”, and not one for the “love thy enemy turn the other cheek follow the teachings of Jesus” Christians. Were you somehow offended?
What about CAIR, rlw? have you done a real careful analysis of that organization, its history and agenda? Or are you content to leave that sort of thing to ignorant people?
I understand that you are speaking about the Christians otis. But it is well known that many, the majority in many countries may not participate in the violence, but they do not condemn it (and may promote it)
Well, someone kind of lit a fire that has never quite gone out since the First Crusade, when as a warm-up they killed entire towns of Jews, because, well, just because, and sometimes entire towns of Christians because they were sort of on a roll and didn’t want to break their rhythm. There were subsequent Crusades, the Inquisition, the enslavement of Africans, the genocide of the native peoples of North and South America. The fact that terrible deeds were done by the Mongol hoardes et al no way exonerates the Christians. It just lumps them in with the worst of the worst.
Our current adventure in Iraq has not infrequently taken on Crusade-ish overtones. It’s very disturbing.
Europe?
Here’s a point: if it wasn’t for what we know about the extremists in the religion, we would treat the Islamic demands for various things with the same back of the hand we give and should give the anti-choice Christian pharmacists.
But as it is, what do we do with people who really, at bottom, seem to share the agenda of the extremists, just not the tactics? Is that okay? Is it even an okay question to ask? If you say no, read about Europe.
Masterful non-answer, rlw. When you feel like returning to reality and today, let us know.
What’s your point about CAIR? They seem like a mixed bag with the more ominous features in the background. I would approach with extreme caution, but would approach.
Paul: Don’t make something simple, complex.
Brian: You misunderstand then. I didn’t single out any religion.
And you might be right about the failure of the general populace to condemn atrocities. Why I could point to examples of that at any point in history, at almost any location. Why, I could probably identify some of that here in Minnesota, today.
“Europe?”
Okay. Wow.
Various things?
By Europe, I mean what is your point? There are several billion that one could be alluding to. Good grief.
Extreme caution is what I would say. And with the balls to say to them: jerks, drop the lawsuit-happy tactics and start condemning terrorism with all your heart and with all your time, with what you actually pour your energy into, because anything short of that and you are not a moderate Islamic group. That’s just based on sad reality.
And drop your support of the imams’ lawsuit because you know as well as we do what a crock it is.
I’d say that to Keith E., too.
RLW, “Our current adventure in Iraq has not infrequently taken on Crusade-ish overtones. It’s very disturbing.”
Very credible argument here. Can’t argue with this line of thought
Okay, sorry. RLW: the situation of Muslim non-assimilation in Europe is on eof the defining issues of the day, and one of the driving forces behind a lot of what baffles you about modern Amweican conservatives.
A small taste, from the Wall Street Journal today:
“A French court is tomorrow expected to decide whether I and the newspaper I edit, Charlie Hebdo, committed a crime by publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. If the court finds me guilty of “publicly abusing a group of people because of their religion,” in effect racism, as the organizations of French Muslims that are plaintiffs in this case claim, I could be imprisoned for six months and fined thousands of euros. A great deal is at stake, for free speech in France and Europe, in the outcome of this trial.”
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117444558006143724-lMyQjAxMDE3NzI0MTQyNDE1Wj.html
The fellow at the center of that lawsuit is also being supported by intellectuals in Europe, not just condemned.
But the trial is being pushed by Chirac, among others. It’s sort of a general topic: the reaction of some western liberals to the reality of radical Islam, including their reaction to people who identify it and resist it.
Brian: “Can’t argue with this line of thought”. You really can’t but a lot of people try to.
Paul: Agree totally, religious attacks on free press are out of line.
Good thing we don’t have any of that here!
And on the general topic in the States of how some liberals react to those who confront radical Islam:
http://www.slate.com/id/2161171/fr/flyout
It’s a Hitchens piece on some stateside reviews of a book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali woman who was the collaborate with the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was assassinated a while back.
“‘Infidel’ describes the escape of a young Somali woman from sexual chattelhood to a new life in Holland and then (after the slaying of her friend Theo van Gogh) to a fresh exile in the United States.
“Two of our leading intellectual commentators, Timothy Garton Ash (in the New York Review of Books) and Ian Buruma, described Hirsi Ali, or those who defend her, as “Enlightenment fundamentalist[s].” In Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, Buruma made a further borrowing from the language of tyranny and intolerance and described her view as an “absolutist” one.”
Yeah, while I wasn’t there and I didn’t see it firsthand,, the imams’ lawsuit does strike me as more than a crock but even a just plain bad idea. Fying is touchy these days and I’m not allowed to say the word “bomb” or carry a bottle of water through security, so they can just straighten up and behave like the rest of us. We all are expected to alter our behavior for the safety of everyone when we fly. In other settings, I might be sympathetic, but on a plane, well, get over it.
Otis - I detect your sarcasm with regard to attacks on the free press and pretty easily sidestep it.
otis, we don’t have it here. Lose that idea. It’s dumb. We have a market that is imperfect and an ever great variety of voices.
The article you may not have read yet: that is the real thing. It’s liberals doing it. It’s being done to protect radical islam. Deal with it.
I guess you misunderstood me this time otis, My comment was pure scarcasm
Look I’m sorry I’m touchy. But it does get old having one’s attitudes and concern being called ignorant by people who, on some topics, really shouldn’t say that about other people.
All I want to hear is a careful convincing explanation of why trends in Europe are never ever going to happen here; and why there is never any reason whatsoever to think about the organizational antecedents and actual expressed views of a group like CAIR or MAS.
Paul: I haven’t read the article but I stand by my comment. Religious attacks on the free press are wrong- and that ain’t sarcastic. If there are some “liberals” defending the attacks then I believe they are wrong too. Same with the imam flying case- they are full of B.S. and are not forthcoming with their true agenda.
I utterly support the free press and find such a lawsuit appalling. Cartoons. CARTOONS. Get over it. A drawing cannot harm anything sacred. Not everyone agrees about what is sacred. Deal with it. Move on.
Brian: OK! I’ll try to be more observant!
And I’d like to add: Like Ferris Bueller says, “isms of any kind are bad”. I think that thought applies here even without the suffix “ism”.
Gee whiz RLW, we must be some p*** poor examples of liberals if we don’t support the imams or the criminalization of cartoonists. What’s left to attack?
good one otis.
All we want over her eon thsi side of things is: take this stuff seriously. That’s it. And grant some of us the repsect that we take it seriously too.
The thing is about that lawsuit is, it’s the tip of the iceberg on what liberal attitudes have done and are still doing to make it very hard for traditional Europe to mount any kind of muscular cultural defense against very aggressive and radical political Islam.
I don’t know where it’s headed there or here. But I’m pretty sure it’s illogical to react out of shame at all about our own backgrounds and traditions. Whatever opprobrium we in the west deserve, it’s utterly irrelevant. Keeping religion out of the spaces the cabdrivers and check-out women are trying to take it is very, very important. It’s the bottom line; we have to be very firm on that with people bringing it up - as is Omar Jamal, of the Somali Justice Center.
And the thing is, the sad reality is, that for some political Islamic actors, there is a larger agenda. That is a thing that distinguishes it from the Christian pharmacists; those guys really do care about the issue of birth control and the morning after pill, it’s very central; for some Islamic political actors, the issues they’re talking about are tools, not ends.
It’s easy to laugh off the chance of their succeeding to any extent, but it’s dishonest to laugh off the reality of the agenda.
Boy, I take a little break and wow! A really spirited discussion. Yes, RLW, I agree that there are millions of peace-loving Muslims in the world. But it is difficult to ignore the fact that nearly all terrorists are Muslims. When you figure out how to tell which is which, let us all know. This crap of “offending” these people has to stop. Perhaps the peace-loving Musloims should rise up and work to stop the terrorists. Now wouldn’t THAT be a novel idea!
Pretend I’m posting this link under a nom de plume:
Now there’s a columnist. Totally aside from his views, he’s a columnist. The Strib’s only real columnist in that old Royko sense is Reusse.
I do think that it is hard for Americans to understand Europe and what is going on there. The Muslims claims of harm and need for reparations is off the deep end, but so is the blatant racism on the other side. In France, they don’t allow Muslim girls to cover their heads in school because, well, because they can’t have them identifying themselves as Muslims. Mainstream French people will say, “I am a racist, and the Arabs should all be sent back to where they came from.” Okey-dokey then.
See ya. Again, pardon the irritation. I react to irritants sometimes.
When you are facing the issues they’re facing, the head scarf law is at least comprhensible. What’s weird is i’m pretty sure Chirac is pushing that law too.
See ya. Seriously.
Yeah, buona notte.
See? Religious nutcases are the root of about 90% of the world’s problems. Religious being ALL INCLUSIVE.
P.S. and if religious nutcases the world over respected their teachings of tolerance we wouldn’t even be having this stupid conversation, which has strayed far away from Mr. Franken’s campaign.
I do think it’s important on a moral and practical to differentiate between “religious nutcases” and “religious nutcases combined with mass murdering suicide cult.”
Declaring the problem to be religious nutcases of all sorts strikes me as managing to deny what the problem really is by defining it in a way that satisifies - I hate to say it - a liberal implulse.
It’s not okay to zero in on the Islamic variety; that’s demonizing. But is it okay to zero in on nutcases religion in general, especially when you manage to make Michele Bachmann the enemy along with the Islamic nutcases. And for some reason that’s not demonizing.
But we’re never gonna ever be rid of religious nutcases and tell you the truth, I’m not sure I’d want to be. I kinda like most of our religious nutcases. I don’t agree with ‘em on much but I trust them to abide by the rules basically and not blow me up, with the rare exception.
In this battle, Michele Bachmann is my ally, not my enemy.
And in this battle part of what’s necessary is to not shy away from what the problem actually is, because by shying away you don’t much to force the issue within Islam, which is the main thing that has to happen.
CAIR, it seems to me, is all about deflecting that focus. We’ve averted our eyes for decades and it hasn’t worked. It really hasn’t worked in Europe.
The only possible rationale for pretending the problem is something other than what it is is that by talkign about it too much, maybe we help make it real. I honestly think at some level that’s what the left beleives, and there isn’t nothing to it. I get the impulse.
By the way, the one article Hitchens is critiquing, in the NY Times by Buruma, is not worthless. He mainly chides Ali for seeming to describe her adopted Holland in what strikes him as unstintingly glowing terms.
I believe hs’s trying to be fair, but for me he misses a point: that in the context of responding to the diabolically dark vision of radical Islam, the west doesn’t have to be perfect to deserve being defended as if it were.
Is this what it takes to sell out the soldiers? And this is only a partial list- sorry about its length.
Aquaculture Operations: Provides $5 million for payments to “aquaculture operations and other persons in the U.S. engaged in the business of breeding, rearing, or transporting live fish” (such as shellfish, oysters and clams) to cover economic losses incurred as a result of an emergency order issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on October 24, 2006.
Spinach: Provides $25 million for payments to spinach producers that were unable to market spinach crops as a result of the FDA Public Health Advisory issued on September 14, 2006.
Hurricane Citrus Program: Provides $100 million to provide assistance to citrus producers (such as orange producers) in the area declared a disaster related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
NASA: Provides $35 million to NASA, under the “exploration capabilities” account, for “expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.”
Corps of Engineers: Provides $1.3 billion to Corps of Engineers for continued repairs on the levee system in New Orleans.
FEMA: Provides $4.3 billion for disaster relief at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill would eliminate the state and local matching requirements for certain FEMA assistance (in connection with Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis) in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida, and provides that the federal portion of these costs will be 100%.
HUD Indian Housing: Provides $80 million in tenant-based rental assistance for public and Indian housing under HUD. Crop Disaster Assistance: Provides roughly $3 billion in agriculture assistance to crop producers and livestock owners experiencing losses in 2005, 2006, or 2007 due to bad weather.
Shrimp: Provides $120 million to the shrimp industry for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina.
Frozen Farmland: Provides $20 million for the cleanup and restoration of farmland damaged by freezing temperatures during a time period beginning on January 1, 2007 through the date of enactment.
Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program: Provides $283 million for payments under the MILC program, to extend the life of the program for one year, through September 30, 2008. MILC provides payments to dairy farmers when milk prices fall below a certain rate.
Peanut Storage Subsidies: Provides $74 million to extend peanut storage payments through 2007. The Peanut Subsidy Storage program, which is set to expire this year, pays farmers for the storage, handling, and other costs for peanuts voluntarily placed in the marketing loan program.
FDA Office of Women’s Health: Provides $4 million for the Office of Women’s Health at the Food and Drug Administration.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Provides $60.4 million for fishing communities, Indian tribes, individuals, small businesses, including fishermen, fish processors, and related businesses for assistance related to “the commercial fishery failure.” According to the Committee Report, this funding is to be used to provide disaster relief for those along the California and Oregon coast affected by the “2006 salmon fishery disaster in the Klamath River.”
Avian Flu: Provides $969 million for the Department of HHS to continue to prepare and respond to an avian flu pandemic. Of this funding, $870 million is to be used for the development of vaccines.
Secure Rural Schools Act (Forest County Payments): Provides $400 million to be used for one-time payments to be allocated to states under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. This program provides a funding stream (known as forest county payments) to counties with large amounts of Bureau of Land Management land, in order to compensate for the loss of receipt-sharing payments on this land caused by decreased revenue from timber sales due to environmental protections for endangered species. The authorization for these forest county payments expired at the end of FY 2006, and counties received their last payment under the Act in December 2006.
LIHEAP: Provides $400 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).
Vaccine Compensation: Provides $50 million to compensate individuals for injuries caused by the H5N1 vaccine, which is a flu vaccine. Payment to Widow of Rep. Norwood: Provides $165,200 to Gloria W. Norwood, the widow of former Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), an RSC Member, who passed away last month. In the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), Congress provided $162,100 to Doris Matsui, the widow of former Rep. Robert Matsui.
Capitol Power Plant: Provides $50 million to the Capitol Power Plant for asbestos abatement and safety improvements. Liberia: Provides that money appropriated for FY 2007 for the Bilateral Economic Assistance program at the Department of Treasury may be used to assist Liberia in retiring its debt arrearages to the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the African Development Bank.
SCHIP: Provides $750 million to the Secretary of HHS to provide assistance to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) “shortfall states,”, in the form of an amount “as the Secretary determines will eliminate the estimated shortfall.” This provision is direct spending that is essentially capped at $750 million and designated as an emergency to avoid PAYGO constraints.
Minimum Wage Increase: Increases the federal minimum wage from $5.15-per-hour to $7.25-per-hour over two-plus years-a 41% increase. Yields $16.5 billion in private-sector costs over five years.
Tax Increases and Shifts: Implements several tax increases and shifts, including: denying the lowest maximum capital gains tax rate for certain minors and adults, extending the suspension of interest payments due to the IRS, and adjusting the deadlines for corporate estimated tax payments. Costs taxpayers $1.380 billion over the FY2007-FY2017 period.
What?
Paul S asks, rightly, “What?”
I suspect - and this is a SWAG - that the poster formerly known as Off-Truth is attempting to make a point about a pork-laden Iraq appropriations bill. But I could be wrong.
No Minn, the Blues Bros were on that mission. Michelle believes in God. SHe just isn’t afraid to say so and when she does she takes the heat for it.
And? You could say the same about most members of Congress: they believe in God and are not afraid to say so. That, of itself, is not at issue. Bachmann and others seem to think they are personal representatives of God’s own truth, and in that measure they are not unlike radical Islamists who make the same conceit.
All we want over here on thsi side of things is: take this stuff seriously. That’s it.
That may be true for you, but that is certainly not true of many. “Just how many ‘truths’ about the violent muslim religion do yo need?” Declaring an entire religion to be violent is something very different from taking seriously the threat posed by radical extremists.
If it’s true for anyone, MinJRJ, then it’s the serious isssues you should address.
I suspect you’ll find the level of venom you perceive will decrease as some issues are more regularly acknowledged as containing some substance. It is starting to happen here and that’s good.
“Bachmann and others seem to think they are personal representatives of God’s own truth, and in that measure they are not unlike radical Islamists who make the same conceit.”
And in the measure of leading and inspiring a worldwide mass murdering suicide cult, they are somewhat more unlike.
To repeat (again): I don’t just tolerate American politicians who wear Chrstianity on their sleeves; I like them. They are part of the fabric. Even in incidental ways, in ways related to reactions to them, they’re part of what has made this country what it is.
I would hazard that when evangelicals start espousing liberal ideas, as they are on environmental stuff, and point to the word of God as one reason they are doing so, we will very quickly hear less outrage on the how awful it is to be inspired by g(G)od.
if it weren’t for the background noise - din, actually - of terror emanating from and clebrated by too much to Islam, I would feel teh same way about the Islamic perspectives we’re hearing now. And in fact, I think they would be labeled ideas, not demands.
“I don’t just tolerate American politicians who wear Chrstianity on their sleeves; I like them.”
I don’t. Because those I see wearing Chrisitianity on their sleeves don’t follow it.
You know, I would imagine that every Priest, Rabbi, Minister in this country feels that God is close, and provides meaning and guidance in their lives. That is what they preach. They instruct their flocks to believe that too. These teachings were the model for Christians to live by. Now they are looked at as radical ideas and should be avoided. It is actually nice to see someone other than the clergy practice their beliefs.
I would hazard that when evangelicals start espousing liberal ideas, as they are on environmental stuff, and point to the word of God as one reason they are doing so, we will very quickly hear less outrage on the how awful it is to be inspired by g(G)od.
I tend to agree. Not because, as some will allege, that liberals are given tolerance that conservatives are not, but because it illustrates that God is not the province of one party or one political stripe.
Whether one wears their faith - any faith - on their sleeve is an individual matter. However, the extent to which that should influence political decisions is open to fair debate. In a pluralistic society, if one justifies a political stance with a religious belief, then the belief and the understanding of the belief become a fair subject of debate. This is true regardless of the particular sectarian tradition involved.
A problem with much Christian political involvement is the same with much Muslim political involvement: the earnest fervor with which some assert that their particular intepretation of the faith is the only valid interpretation.
You are correct Bsimon.
MinnJRJ says
“A problem with much Christian political involvement is the same with much Muslim political involvement: the earnest fervor with which some assert that their particular intepretation of the faith is the only valid interpretation.”
That observation always reminds me of the legend of the final exam question “Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?”
(for kids playing at home: hell is exothermic)
When I say like the wackos and evangelicals, what I mostly mean is I like an America with them rather than an America without them, especially in the sense of looking at our history and evolution. It’s part of what makes the country “complicated, dangerous and alive,” to quote a writer who gets quoted too much so I won’t name him (Okay, it’s Greil Marcus).
I very strongly suspect I wouldn’t like an America that had come from a genuinely totally secular origin or was becoming that; and I also suspect that having a serious religious presence means having a serious but smaller wacko religious presence. It’s part of the deal.
Just, you know, try not have your wackos inspire a worldwide genocidal suicide cult. Please. Thank you.
Yes, let’s just confine our whackos to fruitless “nation building” ambitions. :rolleyes:
Paul S says
“When I say like the wackos and evangelicals, what I mostly mean is I like an America with them rather than an America without them.”
Its good to have a little diversity. And every family has a whacko. If you look at your family and think “we don’t have any,” consider the implications!
Is is whacko? As opposed to wacko? I suppose it is.
“Wacko” sounds like Elmer Fudd declaring victory in the old game “Rack-o!”.
Without religious whackos, if we’d just been a cold rational secular country from the beginning, I’m pretty sure we would have: well, no blues, no jazz, no rock, no country, no other kind of popular music as we currently understand it.
Yes, as far as I’m concerned, people are free to be whackos here, if that’s what they want. But “whackoness” crosses the line from being tolerable and amusing to dangerous when it becomes public policy.
I meant to continue (wish we could edit these things), I think in spite of Mr. Franken’s comedic past, his knowledge and position on real issues isn’t whacko. After all, we’ve elected actors, wrestlers, and silver spoon playboys to office; if they are bringing a serious position and a helpful skillset to the table then more power to them.
Paul S and others here made really good points about those on the left taking seriously concerns about issues like those raised by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the likelyhood that the visceral tone might retreat if we treat those who raise these issues with respect.
That said…
“Oh well, better the God we know than the one Congressman Ellis is representing… I refuse to get into any discussion about the whacked values of Islamic extremists, who cannot be serving the same God in which I believe.”
… is absolutely outrageous. It clearly implies that my congressman is to be feared as an Islamic extremist who might “blow us up”. This is not the way to get respect or an audience for your further comments.
Then, Brian G really relieved the forum of its civility with this one “Just how many “truths” about the violent muslim religion do yo need”
This clearly states, not implies, but states that the muslim religion is violent. This is acually justifiably prohibited speech on the same grounds that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
Perhaps if those who are afraid that we are headed towards the kinds of problems europe is experiencing wish to find a willing audience for perfectly rational arguments like some of the other comments here, they should, you know, maybe not try to be offensive just for offensiveness’s sake?
Do these kinds of things constitute abuses of the freedom of the press when blog posters do it?
Last thing. Otis great comments throughout, especially about the actual topic of the string.
Hide your head in the sand Justin, turn the other cheek, silence the truth, whatever cliché’ you want to use. The Koran is a violent book and many millions take it literally.
Brian G says:
The Koran is a violent book and many millions take it literally.
Change the word Koran with the word Bible and you’ve got a real cause for concern.
If you want to read a humorous and true (Wall Street Journal) story on Al Gore; check this out.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804
Justin -
From my lights, I’m actually baffled - just being honest here - why you see what Brian G. says as so far beyond the pale to refer to it as “justifiably prohibited.” (In what context?)
It is probably overstatement, to call the religion itself violent. Even though he didn’t say “inherently,” and I believe that’s what you’re reading, it’s the sort of thing you probably shouldn’t say in a forum like this.
But it is simply not inarguably false. And to go immediately toward saying it should be “banned” is just weird.
Because all it is, is a little beyond the acceptable way of saying what I’m saying absolutely has to be said, given the situation.
But it’s probably better just to portray that reality.
There is a very strong association these days between violence and the Muslim world. Not all Muslims. Not most Muslims. Not really any Muslims in this country, which is fantastic. But there is a hell of a lot of violence emanating from the Muslim world in terms of terrorism, and there is a hell of a lot of resorting to violence in Muslim nations, especially in the Middle East.
There has been sect versus sect violence in places we don’t even hear about for years.
There are violent demonstrations in response to frigging cartoons. Journalists in Europe had to go into hiding after that episode. Death was threatened.
The violence in Iraq is Muslim violence, sect versus sect. It doesn’t matter if you believe we lit the fuse; I’d invite you to contemplate the terrifying implication if it really is true that the place needed Hussein. If so, guess what it’s because of?
That poor woman Ali criticizes Islam the exact same way we criticize Christianity every day of the week in community theaters across this great land, and for that her artistic partner is assassinated and she has to go into hiding and the exile, to a land where the liberal tut-tut at her extremist view of things.
Etc.
Overstatement or impolitic, maybe. Counterproductive even. Maybe. Hard to say. A slap isn’t always a good idea. But banned? Not while I’m around.
Think about this. Think of the situation I described was all true about the Christian religion. Think how many people here would be all over calling Michelle Bachmann’s religion a violent religion.
Although “the Koran is a violent book” is a shakier statement, Brian. Because it really is true, so is the Bible in parts. And even if you can prove that it’s more violent in some ways, where does that leave us? Stop being Muslim? Ain’t gonna happen
And anyway, more imrptoant, it really is true that a whole lot of Muslims prove it’s possible to transcend whatever you might find in the Koran.
Although that does get us into why we have to be able to mock the thing. And we have to be able to say, reacting with violence to that mockery shows we have a ways to go.
Clarifying: my too-long one above is in reference to the second statement you quote, Justin, the one about “the violent Muslim religion.”
The first one, that’s more complicated. (Was that also BG? Whatever.) We can’t be saying a Muslim congressman is inherently not to be tolerated. It leads nowhere. I actually kind of doubt that’s what he mean to say, nor to call Ellison an Islamic extremist. But enough for now.
Justin: Thank you.
In general: unless somebody has info on Franken growing a beard, wearing a turban, and getting military training in the desert, I don’t know why that is the dominating topic here. Surely there is a thread on this elsewhere? See ya up on the Friday free-for-all???
counter-coulter says:
“Brian says, The Koran is a violent book and many millions take it literally.
Change the word Koran with the word Bible and you’ve got a real cause for concern. ”
Thank God we don’t have to worry about that, but on the other hand killing infidels seems to be well under way.
From Paul’s link:
“[L]isten carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an “odd man” - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.”
Quick! Name another world leader driven by a dangerous sense of divine mission…
b. come on.
bsimon says:
Quick! Name another world leader driven by a dangerous sense of divine mission…
“I believe that God wants me to be president.”
– George W Bush
“God called me to run for Congress”
– Michele Bachmann
It takes a real idiot, to take the village idiot seriously.
Al’s does satire and on SNL he wasn’t acting, he was being the village idiot. Now he’s our village idiot, there was no room for him in NY and Ms Clinton is to tough of an act for him to follow.
Get used to him, it’s only tempory, he will be back in NY after the election.
OK. So apparently Dora can’t read. I saw several websites which noted that Dean said exactly what Ed and Champ said. And I don’t know about your parochial school (which seems rather suspect given your level of reading comprehension), but mine sure didn’t state that God went by many names. Are you Unitarian? Do they have Unitarian parochial schools?!
Apparently RMB just ignores what he/she doesn’t agree with b/c I posted Dean’s response to those hyping his words out of context. So, I rather suspect you’re doing the same with the religious comment. But I see you’re following the tried and true method of attempting to belittle me in order to discredit my comment. A “loyal Bushie” are you?
I love this one!
Here’s a pretend conversation in the Republican back rooms:
“Wow! Can you believe it? FRANKEN for our opponent! A SURE win for us. We have to make sure he’s the candidate!
I know: Let’s make a big deal of attacking him! That will bring the Dem’s out to defend him so hard they will be ashamed not to nominate him!
Good idea! Who’ll write the attack?”
Please leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.
We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1225)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)