No question about it, Al Franken supported the war at the beginning and opposes it today. (Importantly, this is a fact that he has in common with a majority of the American public.) Franken’s early support for the war is a legitimate issue in this campaign, and no one is out of line for talking or writing about it. But if we’re going to look at Al’s record on the war, we have to do it honestly.
The Star Tribune published a story today discussing Al’s position on the war. Its got one big, glaring inaccuracy which can’t be ignored. From the article:
Like many others, Franken was shaken by Sept. 11, 2001. And for all his acid-tongued commentary about the Bush administration, he says he found himself unwilling to believe the president would “mislead this country into war.”I believed the president. I believed [former Secretary of State] Colin Powell,” he said.
In his 2003 book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” Franken wrote that “I had allowed fear to cloud my normally robust skepticism regarding the veracity of the Bush administration.”
Here is the problem: the passage from the 2003 book was clearly satirical. In the same passage, Al writes about his wife Franni fearing that a cement mixer across the street was actually one of Sadam’s mobile WMD factories.
I’m not trying to excuse Al’s support for the war, but Its just plain inaccurate to suggest that he acted out of fear. Far from a discussion of his support for the war, the passage that the fear quote comes from is an indictment of the politics of fear that the Bush Administration and other war-supporters employed in 2002 and 2003. As he has made abundantly clear, Franken supported the war because he believed that the President and his administration were telling the truth about Iraq, not because he was afraid.
Its an important distinction.
No one wants a United States Senator who votes out of fear — its not good decision making. We would all like to believe, however, that the President of the United States can be trusted to tell the American people the truth about an issue of national importance. This is, after all, America. We like to believe that Nixon was the exception and that Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt are the rule.
Clearly, Al Franken was wrong to believe George W. Bush. But we all decry the state of our national politics and the acrimony and mistrust that characterizes the relations between the two major parties. In fact, MDE and the Republican Party have sought to crucify Al Franken for his partisanship. And that’s why its so unacceptable for the Star Tribune to characterize Al’s support as based on “fear”. If anything, Al’s initial support for the war proves that he is not the knee-jerk partisan that many of his critics suggest he is.
Pat Lopez, who is normally an exceptional reporter (one of the best in the Twin Cities), got this one wrong and the Strib should issue a correction.
Loading ...
Ok, Al Franken didn’t support the war out of fear. He supported the war because he ignored obvious evidence, assumed chronic liars were telling the truth, and because he thought starting a pre-emptive war against Iraq was a good idea. Is stupidity and horrible judgment really much better than fear?
And I don’t think the Star Tribune or anyone else owes Franken an apology because they don’t get his satire. I think Franken owes everyone in Minnesota an apology for thinking he can actually get elected here.
Dan,
I would love to hear Al’s response to your post. I will support those who I can agree with on issues, rather than who is most smearable.
Let’s stick to that, and keep it current. There’s a pretty long list of those who believed, or at least went along with, the lies. We can’t be so “with us or against us” anymore as a nation. It is not all black and white.
Check out what we were being told at this link.
http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/
It is just that sort of thinking that got us where we are. Diversity in opinion should be cherished, not ridiculed, I think.
For the record, I was against the war from the very beginning. I don’t think it was justified. Also for the record, I was listening to Al on Air America here in Minneapolis from day one. Al was not a war propagandist, ever.
There were a lot of people out there protesting against going to war. Remember the “Say No to War With Iraq Signs”…I had one up in my yard. Your comment about Franken’s support for the war - “Importantly, this is a fact that he has in common with a majority of the American public.)” stinks…and is revealing. You’re right many people were for the war…and you’re right Franken tends to lick his finger and see where the wind is coming from and then develop his positions….he goes with the mob. Not exactly what I am looking for in a US Senator.
There is no way to reasonably read Franken’s explination for going to war as satire. Franken commonly mixes satire and straight talk in on sentence. It is part of what makes something funny, just look at Colbert and Stewart. The passage about his wife’s fear was satire, the passage about his own was not. If you have any doubts ask a few English professors and get a professional opinion before making such a big assumption.
The trouble is either way he made the wrong choice and the fact that a good percentage of the population made the same mistake doesn’t mean that Franken has the qualities needed to be a U.S. senator. I remember the significant crowds protesting the impending invasion and the names of the representatives and senators that knew enough not to abdicate their constitutional duties. Are Franken supporters just saying they can’t get anybody as smart as those people? I suppose though Democrats feel as though they have to excuse incompetence at this point since their presidential nominee will likely have the same problem. The vote to allow the invasion was inexcusable and if Franken would have voted for it he does not deserve the senate seat that many here consider Wellstone’s.
Maybe the real joke here is how Franken either has no memory of his previous statements on iraq, or he’s deliberately choosing to ignore them.
Is Franken willfully misunderstanding his own past positions on Iraq?
Also, I’m confused as to why MN Publius is calling on the Star Tribune need to issue a correction.
I’ve read the passage and I don’t believe this it is satire. I think Team Franken uses the satire excuse to explain away bad quotes from Franken.
I curious how this plays out now with DFL activists that Franken’s vote would have canceled out Wellstone’s vote against the war in Iraq.
Franken’s on the record having supported the war, then opposing it. This isn’t satire….this is fact.
8 months after announcing his campaign, Team Franken is still trying to get on message.
Micheal,
Maybe the REAL joke is how Coleman has supported Bush every step of the way in this war (except for a few phony votes, you know the ones). Try defending you boy Norm for once. you are one-trick pony, all you know how to do is smear and slime. You must fear the Franken for he seems to be the only target of your bile. What’s it like knowing your candidate is going down over a year away from the election? Do you see dollar bills circling the drain in your dreams,oops, I mean nightmares?
“Importantly, this is a fact that he has in common with a majority of the American public.”
I think you inadvertently nailed it, Zack, on how Franken is caught between two fires by a wholly understandable evolution of his views on Iraq. (And Dan’s response kind of highlights what I am about to say.)
The self-described ‘peace and justice’ community has the organization and the regular caucus-goers to significantly impact the DFL nomination progress. Go ask Martin Sabo. They can be players in any DFL nominating process that includes CD’s 4 and 5.
The self-identification of many of the people in the ‘peace and justice’ community is not tied up in what they have in common with the American people; its all about how uncommon, how above the herd they are. The American people watch gas-guzzling stock-cars race; the good and P&J drives a Prius, or rides a fixie bicycle. The American people watch television; the P&J read alternative papers, or streams the Canadian broadcasting company off of the internet.
And now Al Franken, who like most of the American people had his position on the war change, who was on a TV program much of American people watched, is considered a front-runner for Senate. The righteous clubiness of the P&J movement demands they zero in all the ways he was part of the common herd, and not one of their uncommon few.
For a moderate who might not spend all that much time following politics, Franken’s satire is easy to miss (it is very ambiguously worded), and Coleman simply paints him as craven. If I follow politics sparingly, I’ll hear that quote - not any of the context. And thats most of the electorate.
For what its worth Zack, I think you have a great analysis of a man with a position evolving as he finds new information, and finding what I think is the right and sane position. But if I’m Mike Ciresi, I’m using this to cut into Franken’s position among the simon-pure of the Metro area, and at the same time portraying him as weak-kneed to the more moderate and conservative DFLers of greater Minnesota. Or in the general election, we have a division of labor: Coleman talks to the moderates, and the P&Js prance off to a third party candidate who, like everything else, illustrates who far above the herd they are.
the reason MDE is concentrating on Franken is because he will be the nominee, why waste space on losers?
As a Franken supporter (though a somewhat tepid one), I have to say I think they’ve handled this issue badly. A John Edwards-style apology for a horrible mistake might have been better… especially because, as the article points out, it wasn’t just the initial mistake in supporting the AUMF, but several years of endorsing our continuing occupation. Coming clean and apologizing is better than equivocating and distorting, as far as I’m concerned. And the sooner he does that, the sooner he can go after Coleman’s inexcusable cheerleading for the war…
John S. I ain’t buying your interpretation. There were plenty of reasons not to invade. Franken got caught up in the fear…that’s not leadership. And you can try to paint those of us who had the common sense to speak out against going to war as pretentious - better than thou types - but deep down you know that both undemocratic and horse pucky. How do you sleep at night?
I wasn’t saying there was a huge number of reasons not to invade, because there were huge reasons not to. But a majority of the country thought it was right at the time, and have since changed their mind. Franken thought it was right at the time, and changed his mind.
I am just intrigued by how that what he might have in common with a lot of people - and not just dumb ones, has become his cross to bear. And on a more practical note, I am worried that he has a war position that leaves him openings for the Republicans to seize the middle, and a look-at-me candidate to take the vocal left.
People want a Senator they can believe does not have the same fears as they do. Franken’s words allow him to be portrayed as another person, and the man on horseback the mass of the people want when they elect a leader. In different ways, his explanation of his war stance have made him just another person, and people want to elect a Senator.
But you are totally cool with dissin those who spoke out and continue to want a leader who didn’t buy into all the “Let’s invade Iraq” crap. Again how do you sleep at night? It’s not just that you are letting others beat up on the war protesters - you are DOING it yourself.
What’s with your final paragraph? “People want a Senator they can believe does not have the same fears as they do.” What the???
“Franken’s words allow him to be portrayed as another person, and the man on horseback the mass of the people want when they elect a leader.” Weird… And then the kicker “In different ways, his explanation of his war stance have made him just another person, and people want to elect a Senator.” Are you drunk?
Did anyone here read the whole Star Tribune article? On June 16, 2006, Franken said:
“I’m not sure we should set a timetable myself. I may actually, oddly enough, agree with Bush here.”
In June 2006? WTF? A few posts back Rick was calling Coleman a joke for supporting Bush every step in the war. I think a bigger joke is that the DFL may nominate someone who did the same thing.
The criticism of Franken here isn’t just from the peace first crowd, which I don’t belong to (but do respect, and certainly won’t patronize like John S did). A lot of people, including myself opposed the Iraq war from the beginning for the very reasons the war has been such a failure. If you go back and look at the justifications for not occupying Iraq during the first gulf war (including one given by Cheney) its like a crystal ball of what happened in this war. Everything they predicted would happen came true. And its not like Colin Powell went unchallenged. Hans Blix certainly disputed what Powell had to say, and I figured Powell was full of it. Paul Wellstone was smart enough and brave enough to oppose the war. The man who claims to be his heir supported it because he got fooled like many other people. That is awesome.
I don’t think support for the Iraq war is necessarily fatal. I would have like to seen Franken do a mea culpa like John Edwards and just say “I was wrong.” Instead, Franken has been all over the place and has only recently (apparently) come out for an end to the war. People criticize Coleman for being slippery, but Franken has him beat on this issue.
Franken is quoted in the Star Tribune article as saying:
“I wrestled wiht it and I didn’t 100 percent say we gotta go to war. I would have voted for the resolution to get the weapons inspectors in … [T]he president said it was a vote for peace, not a vote for war.”
If Franken was wrestling with it, why did he speak at a Clear-Channel sponsored pro-war rally? I think Franken has changed his position so many times he can’t keep his story straight.
And the president said it was a vote for peace, not a vote for war? Are you shitting me? IS ANYBODY HERE HONESTLY CONSIDERING VOTING FOR THIS CLOWN?
I’m still questioning why MN Publius is calling on the Star Tribune need to issue a correction.
I could see a clarification to allow Franken’s side to say it was satire (weak excuse) but a correction? That seems a bit much.
Ok - so here is a prime example of why a Franken as our nominee campaign would be horrendous - having to spend so much time and energy explaining comments he made in the past and what he actually meant by them - instead of talking about what he wants to do as a US Senator now. In some ways he has already lost the battle.
Not that we shouldn’t look at what he said, but given that he will try to explain away everything as “I was just joking” or “it was satire” - isn’t going to cut it. And all of our time will be spent having to defend, defend, defend - not the place you want to be in to win a campaign.
Micheal B. Brodkorb,
I’d hate to be you at you performance review. Are you really worth what you are being paid?
Dan,
“IS ANYBODY HERE HONESTLY CONSIDERING VOTING FOR THIS CLOWN?”
I will not be voting for Coleman, Franken is a huge upgrade on that clown.
Franken is a fairly polarizing figure by his nature. Big personalities often are and it is one of the reasons he had some success as an entertainer. That alone is not a problem as other successful politicians were polarizing as well, think of Wellstone, Reagan, Teddy Kennedy, etc. The problem is whether the public is attracted to the positive or negative side for this particular candidate. The fact that Franken had a 27%/34% favorable to unfavorable rating does not bode well for what will happen as more people get to know who he is. I for one do not think that MDE is a big enough influence to have an influence on the polls. Those bad numbers for Franken are fairly natural as there has been no real negative media on him….yet.
In terms of a John Edwards style “I was wrong” statement I’m fairly certain that Franken made that while at the Progressive Forum - something to the effect of “Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer was right, I was wrong”. I’ll check the tape later.
I also think it’s important we get the context of that timetable quote that was pulled. Was it followed by “..and therefore we should stay in Iraq indefinitely” or “and therefore we should get out immediately” or something to the like. Why was he against timetables?
It’s interesting Ciresi is pushing this issue so hard - it’s quite the gamble since the same argument can be used against H. Clinton and Edwards - partisans of which Ciresi might need.
Still - the point here is that Franken war stance has done more damage to him with more groups of people than it might otherwise have. For most the country, the war is a big issue, but its not what they vote on. They’ll vote on health care, or which candidate will promise to cut all their taxes, or who promises to bring good-paying jobs back from over-seas.
But Franken, who seems to have had every stand on the war at one point, for every reason, has turned the war into a primary voting issue for a broader range of the electorate.
And Demure One - since it wasn’t one of my better posts on this forum, I’ll assume I was sober. I think Franken shifting stance, and somewhat candid explanations of what he was feeling hurt him in the
eyes of the electorate more than any other thing. People want to feel like the things that scare them do not spook their leaders.
Personally, I think it was the secret of Bush’s success for the first four years after 9-11: He may never have seemed like he had a clue, but he never seemed frightened (wouldn’t be surprised if those two were connected). Or Tim Pawlenty, serene and happy as the schools rot and the bridges collapse. That sort of confidence makes people feel better, especially if they only follow politics on a limited, few minutes a week level. And studies show that is most of the electorate.
So Franken talking about his fear hurts him with the electorate.
Plus, its already been mentioned - we had a Senator who might have been afraid of making the wrong decision at the time of the war. He had the courage to do the right thing. I don’t feel like lowering the bar just yet.
Franken’s issues are magnified for those more independent voters that might not agree with him on all of the domestic policy and spending issues where public opinion is more nuanced. For them a person who had the vision needed to see the problems with the war might give them reason to overlook some other differences. As it is those voters who tend to be wary of socialized medicine, light rail and other “big government” programs have little to no reason to vote for Franken. A vote for Coleman might give them the feeling of being a fiscally conservative balance to their vote for Hillary. We have seen before that Minnesotans do not have a problem voting a split ticket.
Coleman might give them the feeling of being a fiscally conservative balance to their vote for Hillary.
Republicans like Coleman have been the biggest government, biggest spenders since Raygun. How is it possible to still, even mention fiscal conservation and GOP in the same sentence? Voters are wary of socialized medicine because it’s being called socialized medicine. Call it universal health coverage and they stop being wary and start demanding it. Coleman needs to switch his position on the war soon or it will be the millstone on his re-election bid. The war will be the single biggest issue of the ‘08 election and past positions will be far less important then present positions.
[T]he president said it was a vote for peace, not a vote for war.”
I still can’t get past that statement.
All the things Richard says are accurate. The trouble being that it comes down to how people view the spin from both sides and a majority of voters don’t much trust either party. While most people understand at this point the war was a mistake there is no clear answer as to how we should proceed. Franken cannot distinguish himself on his ability to have had the right answer before the war and doing so on how to move forward will be difficult. Bush won’t be in office next round so each candidate will need to relate their ideas for next steps against those of their opponent’s.
Bush won’t be in office next round so each candidate will need to relate their ideas for next steps against those of their opponent’s.
There will be two different components at work here. The above statement is true but, toadyism is a charge Coleman is going to have to overcome. Coleman will be portrayed, not inaccurately, as Bush’s lapdog. Coleman’s name will not be mentioned without mentioning Bush’s name. The second component is the claim the next Senator will have to work with the next President. Who will work better, for Minnesota, with President Clinton or President Obama, or President Edwards?
The people that Franken will have to convince in order to win the election are those who have likely voted for Pawlenty, Hutchenson and maybe even Bush. Not those who believe complete Democratic control is an overall positive.
Remember this is Wellstone’s seat. All Franken has to do is to marshall the Wellstone vote. All Ciresi has to do is marshall the Wellstone vote. All the DFL has to do is to point to Coleman’s record and show a little of that Wellstone spirit. Coleman’s only tactic is to get his whores, like Brodkrob, out there and smear and slime the opposition. It won’t work except for the last braindead 25% still thinking Bush is the bee’s knees.
Paul Wellstone was a guy who was smart enough to figure out that the Iraq war was a bad idea and who had the courage to risk his political career to do what was right. I knew independents and conservatives who voted for Wellstone, despite his policies, because of the integrity Wellstone had.
Al Franken is like Bizzaro Paul Wellstone.
I agree that that is part of it. The state is different now than it was in 1990, the suburbs are bigger the Range smaller among a host of other differences. If it were so easy for Democrats to get the same votes that Wellstone got Hatch would be governor. The truth is which candidate that the DFL runs will make a difference, probably enough of one to mean a win or a loss.
Mark Green from the New York Daily News:
Not one but four separate seismic events together will - short of another terrorist attack or a new war against Iran - alter the electoral terrain of America.
Iraq. Consider the numbers: Opinion polls show that consistent majorities of 70% want the war to end soon and 60% believe Bush misled us into this conflict. When asked which party can best handle Iraq, it was Democrats by 49% to 34% in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll. This is undeniably the Republicans’ war.
What exactly can GOP candidates say next fall in the face of no WMD, no link between Saddam and 9/11, no flowers for “liberators,” nearly 5million Iraqis displaced, tens of thousands of American dead or wounded as well as some 100,000 Iraqis killed - not to mention an increase in terrorism worldwide? “Give us more time” for a war that’s lasted longer than World War II?
The economy. Most economic forecasters are predicting a one-in-two chance of a recession due to the foreclosure crisis leading to a credit crisis. Even if there’s no recession but merely a slowdown, incumbent parties historically lose seats and the White House when economic growth falls below 3% in the election year.
At the same time, the Bush administration’s record on spending and deficits - turning a projected $5.6 trillion surplus into huge deficits - is dividing the GOP’s own business base, according to the Wall Street Journal last week. When asked which party would better maintain prosperity, it’s now Democrats by 54%-34%, according to Gallup.
Intolerance. The GOP claiming to be the “party of Lincoln” is a pretense long beyond its expiration date. Bush’s small gain in the black vote from 8% in 2000 to 11% in 2004 helped achieve his narrow victory. But the recent refusal of leading Republican presidential candidates to attend key black, Latino and gay debates prodded former vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp to complain, “We sound like we don’t want immigration; we sound like we don’t want black people to vote for us.”
It won’t suffice any longer for 2008 convention organizers to put minority delegates on the stage, hoping pictures will substitute for policy.
Children. President Bush made good on his threat to veto the expansion of the S-CHIP program to extend health insurance to another 4 million children, notwithstanding the support of 43 governors and overwhelming public approval. He complains that such a move would socialize health care. But will he now end Medicare and Medicaid? It approaches political suicide to elevate the rhetoric of free market fundamentalism over the reality of millions of children lacking health insurance.
Pro-war, anti-growth, anti-minority, anti-child. Not a formula for success. Then several other realities combine to dig Republicans into an even deeper hole. Democrats are now more trusted on nearly every domestic and foreign policy issue. The number of Americans who self-identify as Republican is at a seven-year low. And then there’s the fact that Republicans are defending 22 Senate seats in 2008 compared to 12 for the Democrats.
Adding it all up: Look for Democrats to end up with a near filibuster-proof 58 Senate seats (up from 51) and 260 House seats (up from 213 in 2005).
For when there’s a tidal wave of sentiment, it doesn’t tip some close contests but nearly all close contests. What John Kenneth Galbraith said of Black Monday 1932 is true for the GOP today: “The end had come, but it was not yet in sight.”