Al Franken for Senate!

[Thomas Veil]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Comedian Al Franken has reached out to Democratic lawmakers from Minnesota in recent days, seeking advice on a possible Senate run against Republican Sen. Norm Coleman next year.

Franken, a veteran of "Saturday Night Live" and radio show host, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he's called all of the Democrats in the delegation.

"I didn't call Coleman," he deadpanned. "I want to mainly touch base and get advice and counsel on certain issues."

Franken said he's also been reaching out to campaign veterans, pollsters and others to get their advice. While people have been encouraging, Franken said, they've also warned about possible pitfalls.

One in particular, Franken relayed: "It's unknown how people will respond to a comedian running for the Senate. I need to figure out a way to let people know I'm extremely serious about Minnesotans and their lives."

Franken said he hopes to make a decision in the next few weeks. Last year, he moved his radio show from New York City to Minneapolis.

Rep. Collin Peterson, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, said that when he picked up the phone, the first thing Franken said was, "I need you to explain countercyclical payments to me."CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/18/franken.senate.ap/index.html)

What the hell, he should go for it. If he can do to his opponent what he's done to Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter....

[balamw]

Hell they elected Jesse Ventura, so why not a comedian.

B

[zimv20]

i reckon his self-description as a comedian is having a go at people who are ready to dismiss him as one. he's been more of a political commentator for how many years now?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Has to be more qualified then any professional liar, I mean Politician. Go Al!

[Abstract]

Minnesotans have voted for a wrestler before. I'm sure having a comedian won't be a huge stretch.

He's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like him.

[balamw]

He's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like him.
I can see the bumper stickers now: Stuart Smalley for Senate.

B

[IJ Reilly]

Hell they elected Jesse Ventura, so why not a comedian.

You mean, somebody who's funny on purpose?

[clevin]

he is a thousand times better than Coleman

[obeygiant]

What the hell, he should go for it. If he can do to his opponent what he's done to Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter....

if you mean being an inaffectual blow-hard, sure he can do that to his opponent.

That guy couldnt get elected class clown.

[mactastic]

That guy couldnt get elected class clown.
:shrugs: I said the same thing about Shrub way back when...

[seabass069]

Al Franken is a pretty smart guy. He just needs to stop putting comedy in every sentence. If he were to be a little more serious and stop trying to make jokes about politics he could do a great job. He has great intentions and knows alot about what is going on in the world. He is better than Jesse, and yes I did vote for Jesse. I was pleased with Jesse. I went from paying $160 a year for my cars registration down to $99. Thanks Jesse!! But, that is about all that he did.

[Thomas Veil]

if you mean being an inaffectual blow-hard, sure he can do that to his opponent.I meant exposing them as phonies. But you knew that.

[obeygiant]

I meant exposing them as phonies. But you knew that.

well it takes a phoney to know a phoney. Franken is a twerp.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh-oh, bad playground language -- somebody is going to get themselves detention!

[mactastic]

Obama's rubber, your glue. Whatever you say bounces off him and sticks to you.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.

There. At least I've elevated the maturity level of the debate a little. :rolleyes:

[stillwater]

well it takes a phoney to know a phoney. Franken is a twerp.

Do you have any facts to back your assertion that Al's a phony ?

[obeygiant]

Oh-oh, bad playground language -- somebody is going to get themselves detention!

i dont think that applies to calling a public figure a name. Otherwise you'd all be banned for calling bush names every six seconds.

[obeygiant]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/18/franken.senate.ap/index.html)

What the hell, he should go for it. If he can do to his opponent what he's done to Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter....

Do you have any facts to back your assertion that Al's a phony ?

I'll put up facts when Mr. Veil does.

Y'know I dont ask for "facts to back your assertion" when you lay out some opinion i think is out-of-touch. But when I do it.. WHOA! state your facts obeygiant.. You might get banned!...blah blah. Al Franken is a comedian! He's only in this for himself. He's not a public servant, not by a long shot.

[IJ Reilly]

i dont think that applies to calling a public figure a name. Otherwise you'd all be banned for calling bush names every six seconds.

Show me where I've used playground names to describe Bush. Go ahead, find it.

[mactastic]

i dont think that applies to calling a public figure a name. Otherwise you'd all be banned for calling bush names every six seconds.
Ah yes, using someone else's bad behavior to excuse your own. And here I thought personal responsibility was in vogue these days...

[Thomas Veil]

I'll put up facts when Mr. Veil does.If you're talking about Franken's alleged "phoniness" vs. O'Reilly and Coulter, I commend you to look at Franken's "Lying Liars" book, where he devotes entire chapters to debunking those two.

In O'Reilly's case, it's everything from Bill's claiming to have won two Peabodys for Inside Edition (he didn't), to his assertion that he "started out with nothing" in the working class town of Levittown, Long Island (he actually grew up in affluent nearby Westbury), to his claim of being an independent (even though his voter registration lists him as Republican), to his quoting of various events and statistics on the air, which, when it is pointed out to him that they are wrong, he vigorously denies ever mentioning them, even though it's on tape!

(World's longest sentence. :D Anyway.)

Coulter he lambasts for all kinds of creative lying, including attributing inflammatory quotes to newspapers like the NYT when the paper was actually quoting someone else, and overloading Lexisnexis searches (try throwing together four or five disparate terms into one Google search and see if you get any results).

Now, there've been many claims from people who found "lies" in Franken's own book, but so far as I know, not one of them stands up to careful examination.

Not true of Coulter or O'Reilly, who back up their conservative beliefs with bogus "information" while purporting to be Bringers of Truth.

And that's what a phony is.

So what are your facts?

[Thomas Veil]

And look, may I resolve this childish "name-calling" debate?

Yeah, we've called Bush some terrible, even goofy things...but in the context of making a much bigger argument. If I write a logical, fact-based paragraph or two about Bush violating civil liberties, and conclude by calling him "slime", that's different than you or someone else responding to me with a simple, "Oh yeah? Well Pelosi is a bitch!" In the former case the name is an after-thought to the basic argument. In the latter it's the entire "argument".

[stillwater]

Al Franken is a comedian! He's only in this for himself. He's not a public servant, not by a long shot.

Have you ever listened to his radio show? He spends a lot of time debunking right wing lies and only does a little bit of comedy.

[pseudobrit]

Show me where I've used playground names to describe Bush. Go ahead, find it.

I guess he's still looking.

[Thomas Veil]

Mr. Veil is waiting too.

[obeygiant]

If you're talking about Franken's alleged "phoniness" vs. O'Reilly and Coulter, I commend you to look at Franken's "Lying Liars" book, where he devotes entire chapters to debunking those two.

In O'Reilly's case, it's everything from Bill's claiming to have won two Peabodys for Inside Edition (he didn't), to his assertion that he "started out with nothing" in the working class town of Levittown, Long Island (he actually grew up in affluent nearby Westbury), to his claim of being an independent (even though his voter registration lists him as Republican), to his quoting of various events and statistics on the air, which, when it is pointed out to him that they are wrong, he vigorously denies ever mentioning them, even though it's on tape!

(World's longest sentence. :D Anyway.)

Coulter he lambasts for all kinds of creative lying, including attributing inflammatory quotes to newspapers like the NYT when the paper was actually quoting someone else, and overloading Lexisnexis searches (try throwing together four or five disparate terms into one Google search and see if you get any results).

Now, there've been many claims from people who found "lies" in Franken's own book, but so far as I know, not one of them stands up to careful examination.

Not true of Coulter or O'Reilly, who back up their conservative beliefs with bogus "information" while purporting to be Bringers of Truth.

And that's what a phony is.

So what are your facts?


I dont think any of this is really concrete do you? Its entirely in the realm of second hand information and hearsay. Im sure just as much smear/bunk could be found about Franken which all of you would poo-poo as right wing bologna. You can still choose Al Franken as the champion of your cause, of course. Meanwhile most mainstream lefties are choosing Hillary Clinton to champion their cause which to me is a much better choice. But hey, its STILL a free country. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Still waiting.

[Thomas Veil]

I dont think any of this is really concrete do you? Its entirely in the realm of second hand information and hearsay.I'm not gonna look up the reference to everything for you; it's all in the book. But here's a few f'rinstances:

Franken quotes Coulter: "For decades, The New York Times had allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages. Statements like these were not uncommon: 'Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition?'...'the church is "co-responsible" for the holocaust...'"

Then he proves Coulter's lying nature by revealing that the two quotes Coulter used were in the NYT -- one from a 2000 book review by Paul Berman, the other a quote of a quote from a 1998 Times article wherein the author is quoting a critic of the church. The same article also quoted a Jewish historian saying "(Pope) Pius saved 750,000 Jews."

On the O'Reilly voter registration lie, the proof is below.

Now I look forward to your evidence that Franken is a phony.

[IJ Reilly]

Now I look forward to your evidence that Franken is a phony.

In fairness, I think the term he used was "twerp."

While we're waiting, what do you say we go out for a beer?

[Thomas Veil]

I though he was referring to Franken in the first half of this statement:
well it takes a phoney to know a phoneyBut he could have been referring to yours truly. :D

First round's on me. Just let me arrange for someone to pick us up later. I have a feeling we could be there a loooong time.

[obeygiant]

I'm not gonna look up the reference to everything for you; it's all in the book. But here's a few f'rinstances:

Franken quotes Coulter: "For decades, The New York Times had allowed loose associations between Nazis and Christians to be made in its pages. Statements like these were not uncommon: 'Did the Nazi crimes draw on Christian tradition?'...'the church is "co-responsible" for the holocaust...'"

Then he proves Coulter's lying nature by revealing that the two quotes Coulter used were in the NYT -- one from a 2000 book review by Paul Berman, the other a quote of a quote from a 1998 Times article wherein the author is quoting a critic of the church. The same article also quoted a Jewish historian saying "(Pope) Pius saved 750,000 Jews."

On the O'Reilly voter registration lie, the proof is below.

Now I look forward to your evidence that Franken is a phony.


I mean that thing about Bill O'reilly being a repulican isnt exactly news is it? He calls himself a traditionalist, so he certainly wouldnt fall under the classification of democrat would he? How is that a lie again?

Also the blurb about Coulter (who is basically as far right as Franken is left) doesnt say anything. Are you saying that she said "the catholic church is responsible for the holocaust."? Or wait, You are saying that her assertion that "the nyt made loose associations between christians and nazis." is false?

In any case, these are your instances where Al Franken exposed Coulter and O'reilly as phonies?

So, all I have to do is prove to you that Al Franken has lied in the past about someone or something and that will prove to you he's a phony?

[skunk]

Meanwhile most mainstream lefties are choosing Hillary Clinton to champion their cause which to me is a much better choice.You clearly have no idea what being "left-wing" actually means.

[IJ Reilly]

First round's on me. Just let me arrange for someone to pick us up later. I have a feeling we could be there a loooong time.

Wash amadder, ish you in a hurry?

[obeygiant]

While we're waiting, what do you say we go out for a beer?

You'd better slam your pint...

Here is a glass of stout...

Let's take one of the most egregious examples -- his assertion that Bill Clinton had an anti-al Qaeda war plan upon leaving office that was turned over to George Bush, but studiously ignored. As Franken puts it, "Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush." Franken elaborates on this theme at length in his War on Terror chapter called "Operation Ignore." I know from talking with Franken that this is one of the chapters of which he is proudest. But it is based on a mistake, or, as he might put it, "a dishonest, brazen, f---ing lying lie."

There was no Clinton plan to take out al Qaeda before he left office. How do I know? I'd like to credit my exhaustive reporting. But actually Sandy Berger said so in testimony before Congress on September 19, 2002. According to Berger, "there was no war plan that we turned over to the Bush administration during the transition. And the reports of that are just incorrect." Franken often recounts the self-deprecating and good-humored fact-checking conversations he has with the subjects of conservative attacks, supposedly proving how easy various allegations are to check -- if, that is, only conservatives were interested in checking them.
This is ONE instance where Franken Skewed the truth (to put it nicely).

Also here is a little review of his book;
This book is a collection of clever political commentary, vile insults, funny gags, gross misjudgments, factual mistakes, sloppy argument-and anecdotes and cartoons.

Al Franken's liberal populism is a noble political tradition, which is why it's such a shame that he can't put up a better representation of it, making it seem so angry and noxious. Franken's hero Paul Wellstone was, in contrast, a happy and honorable warrior. If you're on the left, my advice is: Read this book. Enjoy it. Just don't believe it or take it too seriously. Then wash your hands.

source:Rich Lowry on Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right

Again, If this is the man you want to front your cause, be my guest. :) You dont see me waving the flag of Ms. Crazy Ann Coulter.

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, I was not defending Al Franken. I could hardly care less about Al Franken. I was asking you to prove your accusation that I'd used playground language to describe George Bush.

Still waiting. The next round is on me.

[Swarmlord]

Have you ever listened to his radio show? <snip>

Yes, and he's a major reason that Air America is in the financial condition it is today.

Hey, I don't mind anyone that wants to run for Congress in the House. A lot of diversity there is a good thing. I can't stand it when people that have a little bit of name recognition try to start at the top though. He should run for the House and after a sucessful term or two run for the Senate.

[Thomas Veil]

Well, you finally put up something!

Rich Lowry, however, is full of it.

At least that's how Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html) tells it.

One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.

Berger attended only one of the briefings—the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject."

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive—just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000—an attack that left 17 Americans dead—he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. (My bold.) Which pretty much coincides with what Franken wrote in his book.

I'd love to know where Lowry got that Sandy Berger comment, though. Probably made it up.

[aquajet]

You guys must have been drinking o'doul's. I was't expecting you to post today.

[IJ Reilly]

I'd love to know where Lowry got that Sandy Berger comment, though. Probably made it up.

It's something of a straw-man argument anyway. Did the Clinton administration drop a plan, signed, sealed and delivered onto Bush's desk? Probably not as such, but in his book, Clarke recounts the efforts of the Clinton administration to develop measures to capture or kill bin Laden and to address the growing al Qaeda threat. Clarke makes a very strong point about how the incoming Bush administration viewed the Clinton administration's focus on al Qaeda and bin Laden. They thought it was all very much over-done, and he (Clarke) could not even get a meeting scheduled to talk about it, until right before 9-11. Lowry appears to be tilting at political windmills. Some appear to be anxious to play his Sancho.

[solvs]

Have you ever listened to his radio show?
I'm guessing no.

Meanwhile most mainstream lefties are choosing Hillary Clinton to champion their cause
No they aren't, and if you knew anything about her, you'd know she's no "lefty" herself.

He calls himself a traditionalist
He called himself an Independent. He is, in fact, a Republican. He lied (he does that a lot), Franken called him on.

Also the blurb about Coulter (who is basically as far right as Franken is left) doesnt say anything.
The fact that she's far right isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It's the lying. And the vitriol. I'm sure there are some liberals as left as Coulter is right, but none of them are as famous, and none of the ones I've read are anywhere near as bad as she is.

Not that you're defending Coulter, or that I'm as much a fan of Franken (at least not since he left SNL, but even then he wasn't that funny).

So, all I have to do is prove to you that Al Franken has lied in the past about someone or something and that will prove to you he's a phony?
No, you have to prove that he's as consistent a liar as the people he debunks on a regular basis and/or that he is mean spirited as Ann Coulter.

But I'm waiting for you to just call us all liberals or something for "defending" a liberal political commentator and leave in a huff after thread bombing again. Me, I don't really care. More of a Jon Stewart fan myself because I like how he's critical of everybody (on both sides). Franken is occasionally funny, and I read one of his books where he was basically just debunking what everyone else was lying about, but he is clearly partisan. Slanted, maybe. But liar? No. I wouldn't even say hypocrite, because I've heard him criticize Dems too.

Couldn't be worse than the other guy either. Apparently, he's not that great. I can back that all up with linked facts if you'd like too BTW.

Air America still sucks though.

[KingYaba]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/18/franken.senate.ap/index.html)


LOL! Thank you for the good laugh. I really enjoyed it.

[Thomas Veil]

He can't possibly be as funny as Sonny Bono and Gopher from The Love Boat.

[solvs]

He can't possibly be as funny as Sonny Bono and Gopher from The Love Boat.

Or that guy who used to lead the hair band in the 80s. I forget his name, maybe someone can help. He was on the Colbert Show. John something.

[mactastic]

...that guy who used to lead the hair band in the 80s.
Um... there was more than one hair band in the '80's -- if you recall.

Are you thinking of Jon Bon Jovi?

[solvs]

Are you thinking of Jon Bon Jovi?

No, it was John Hall. Lead singer of Orleans (Still The One (http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=160270&s=143441&i=160240)). Sorry, it was the 70s, not the 80s. So I guess it wasn't a hair band.

http://citadino.blogsome.com/images/orleans1.jpg