I thought this was a pretty good diary by Matt Stoller of MyDD on “Open Left” about Al Franken’s fundraising strategy. As anyone with an internet connection can find out, Franken has had high burn rate so far and while that’s often something to worry about in a campaign, I sincerely think those worries about Franken are misplaced right now. I’ll let Stoller do the explaining:
Franken isn’t just fundraising, he’s building a political network of volunteers and donors to draw on in the future. This is the new model of campaigns that Jerome Armstrong has described, with an earlier burn rate to build up a volunteer network and slightly less bunched spending at the end for TV ads. I think it makes sense. Investing in relationships with supporters isn’t just about connecting with your base, it’s also about communicating with early adopters, or as Seth Godin calls them, ‘sneezers’.
Except people-powered candidates to have higher burn rates. There’s more overhead in sustaining relationships earlier, since Franken is producing campaign videos, a good website, and lots of content. That’ll pay off later, like accounts receivable, though it doesn’t show in his current cash on hand
It’s widely known that Franken chose to go the route of Wellstone style grass-roots fundraising and, like Wellstone’s campaign, that burns a lot of cash up front. I think this is a wise strategy for Franken. I mean, this is a guy that people are skeptical of at first but wins everyone over the first time he meets them. So, spending money to build up a network of the converted to spread the word (and money) seems like a pretty sound strategy.
But this strategy is predicated on the idea that the burn rate is high only for the first few quarters and then drops precipitously; so, my confidence in the strategy will wane if that precipitous drop doesn’t occur in the next two quarters or so. But for now, I’m saving my worries for Norm Coleman.
But here’s the thing about people-powered campaigns - while they are successful due to a lot ordinary people, they require an extraordinary person for the movement to harden around. Wellstone’s style had Wellstone. Tim Walz could use that style because he had a similar spark of exceptionalness. Does Franken? (I guess I am re-stating the point of the post, that we’ll have to see the next two quarters before we know if its taken.)
Also, it would seem that part of this strategy is that volunteers are the point of first introduction to a lot of people. The idea is that the number of volunteers, multiplied by the number of people they have talked to informally an the number they have reached through direct voter contact, is large enough that when the candidate breaks into the media, its the mainstream ‘seal of approval’ on a candidate you might have already heard about. Name recognition on the campaign’s terms.
Franken on the other hand has already been introduced by his entertainment career. Does the volunteer base have the ability to counter-act the already there image of ‘Al Franken, comedian’ in a lot of peoples minds.
I agree with your points of questioning John but I think I have a more optimistic view point. The question as to whether Franken can be that “extraordinary person” remains to be seen, but (and I say this as a firm Franken skeptic) all you need to do is go to one rally to realize that he has this potential.
Secondly, he clearly needs to be “reintroduced” to the public as a politician, not pundit. And there is a very legitimate concern that volunteers will have limited efficacy on this front (and I would guess that this is a truth). But I think the volunteer base can have a huge impact on getting friends to come to events and, as I pointed out above, that’s the turning point for most people. Moreover, the evidence is that this is working. As the volunteer base has grown, so too has the ability of the campaign to get people out to events. If that continues, I can imagine a lot of conversations where a former skeptical friend is telling you, “you know, I went to an event, saw him speak, and I can honestly say that I think Franken is ready to be our Senator.” And that’s the real goal: use this whole machine the campaign is building to create the buzz that Franken’s ready. If they can pull that off, and I think they have a good shot, then this game is close to won.
Matt-
Since I’d vote for the proverbial yellow dog to get Coleman out of the particular Senate seat he is in, I hope that either Franken comes through or if he doesn’t Ciresi does. But can this strategy re-introduce as well as it can introduce?
Part of the effectiveness of a people power strategy seems to come from the people it elects being able to portray themselves as the new guy in the Western who rides into town and drives the bandits out. It allows a candidate be both an under-dog, and the man on horseback, better and nobler than the people on the ground. My worry with Franken is that we’ve already seen him of his horse so much that he won’t be able to climb back on it convincingly. Never having a second chance to make a first impression.
Now that I’ve beaten the metaphors to death, my point. I know people who have gone to Franken. I’ve seen Franken speak at events. And I still can’t get the smarmy comedian out of my head. Part of that people powered-ness comes from the ability to make hardened, cynical pols remember the idealistic purity they had when they were 18. And Franken doesn’t do it for me, and doesn’t do it for people I know with similar background.
Its not that I think Franken can’t win. Its just I think if he wins it’ll be a victory of organization and party, hauling a candidate to 50% 1. And then we’ll have a comedian/pundit (look at the Daily Show - there ain’t much difference anymore) as a Senator. We get a scum-bag out of Paul’s seat, and another Democrat for the caucus. Worth it, in my book - but I look around at people in politics in this state, and can’t help feeling we could have do a whole lot better.
I still worry about donor fatigue. How may times can he go back to this large donor base before they stop giving? I appreciate the work that Franken is doing, and especially his recognition of the importance of the internet in modern campaigning. However, if the money dries up next year, he’s going to be in a real sorry state. Having to go dark for a month or having to lay off staffers would be a huge momentum killer. And if he has to continue to build the donor base as he has been doing just to pay the bills, that could be a major issue.
That being said, he has something to show for the money he’s spent — maybe not quite to the extent of his spending but some things nonetheless — and he has a positive cash flow — even if the margins are narrowing. Which is better than Ciresi’s not even breaking even with people still feeling like the campaign isn’t doing anything.
All metaphors aside, I would vote for an actual yellow dog before I would vote for Coleman. The key to the DFL and the Democratic party picking up Wellstones Senate seat will be the candidates that don’t get the nomination. Will Pallmeyer and Ciresi actively and aggressively campaign for Franken? Pick any combination you want and it all hinges on getting on board with the eventual nominee. Franken, Ciresi, Pallmeyer don’t have to be the “exceptional” person, Bush has already fullfilled that role for us. Coleman’s unrelenting and cowardly support of this immoral and criminal president needs to be a constant in this campaign. Tie Coleman to the 25% that still support this president and he will be cleaning out his desk in December.
Richard-
One thing that does give me hope is that I can sure as heck see Franken dog-fighting. I think he knows he has to drop irony and go straight for the throat when the time comes.
Unfortunately, it cuts both ways. Most of the country opposes the war, but also thinks there is a wacko left out there who just can’t be trusted on security. Coleman ties Franken to that slice, and we’re in trouble.
The big question? Think back to how many of Becky Lowry people in the primary voted for Hutchinson. Replace ‘Lowry’ with Pallmeyer, and ‘Hutchinson’ with whoever the third-party look-at-me! look-at-me! is, and we could have a problem.
I too appreciate the work the campaign is doing and Al is a smart guy, knows his issues ( I may not agree with his stances, but he is very knowledgeable), and he absolutely has the desire.
Here is the problem I see with the Franken campaign and the high burn rate.
As Dan already pointed out - there is the donor fatigue problem.
The other problem is that they are not getting a lot of return on the investment. Franken has been, essentially, out campaigning for over a year and his favorable/unfavorable numbers have not moved (I actually think the unfavorable went up).
We also know that most of his support is coming form the DFL faithful and he is on track to get the endorsement - but we know that the DFL has a horrendous track record on this front.
I also think that if you look at his contribution records - most of his money is not coming from Minnesota - so you don’t have them to convert to votes.
I would also argue that Franken isn’t “winning people over the first time they meet him” - quite the contrary. He is good when he is on the stump by himself and gets to do his “schtick” - but when he has to be on the stage with the other candidates - he absolutely flops. He is inconsistent on the stump, has a notorious history of not remembering people and a bit of a bristly manner.
I also agree with John S. that if Franken is the nominee, it will have to be the party who hauls him across the finish line and given the state of affairs at the DFL - they won’t have the resources to do so.
Given all that - he would still be tons better than our current Senator. I would just prefer to be able to vote for someone I truly think would be the best person instead of being stuck having to vote for someone just because they are the better alternative. That whole lesser of two evils things - kind of tired of it.
The ironic thing with Franken is that he may be the Democratic candidate least able to affectively attack Coleman on his ties to Bush. His initial support for the war in Iraq is doesn’t help but the biggest issue seems to be his personality. People don’t want a person that appears to often be the left wing version of Rush or Sean Hannity. Franken’s history and his tendency to have a hard time being critical without being a jerk will make it hard for him to improve his currently awful unfavorable to favorable ratio.
As much as DFLers don’t want to hear it Franken is going to have to convince a few people that probably voted for Bush or Pawlenty to vote for him in order to win. In order to do that he can’t be seen as insulting them. Unfortunately for Franken there are a lot of clips and quotes that are going to make that hard to do.
I can’t fault the campaign Franken is running - he is doing just about everything right. And I was impressed when I heard Franken speak - I think he does and will continue to win over people when he meets them. That being said, most people aren’t going to meet Franken. They are going to get to know him through the Republican negative TV campaign that will paint him as a comedian and an angry jerk. They will know him through the allegations that he is a carpetbagger and a Hollywood Liberal. And that’s going to be a problem.
The best hope for Franken is another Democratic landslide, and tying Coleman to the Iraq war. The problem is that Franken isn’t much better than Coleman on the war. He was an enthusiastic war supporter, and waffled for a long time afterwards. Read Eric Black’s article on Franken’s evolving positions on the war. http://www.ericblackink.com/2007/09/12/an-open-letter-to-al-franken-why-did-you-support-the-iraq-war/#more-85
The thing that kills me the most about Franken (other than the constant references to bean feeds) is the idea that Franken is really smart. The people who didn’t believe Colin Powell and relied on other available evidence on WMDs were the smart ones. The people who thought invading Iraq was a bad idea even if there were WMDs were the smart ones. Franken was really, really, really dumb.
Here is the deal: We had a great opportunity to knock off a very vulnerable Republican Senator. We should have nominated one of the many talented DFL house and senate members, hopefully after a competititve primary. Instead, Franken flew in from New York with his financial resources and chased those candidates out. The options are Ciresi, a retread millionarie candidate, and Pallmeyer who, with all due respect, is not a serious contender. And of that group, Franken is going to win, and then he is probably going to lose to Coleman in the general election. What a waste.
In 2006 we won the senate race by 20 points with Klobuchar. For 2008, we should have been looking for the next Klobuchar (albeit one with a little more spine). Al Franken is basically the exact opposite of Klobuchar.
The other thing to remember I think is how Franken’s early, heavy, entry with a lot of media coverage has skewed the perception of the race. Ciresi would look much healthier numbers-wise without that. Heck, JNPs numbers would seem semi-serious without Franken.
Point being, lets say Franken pulls a Dean and starts to implode. We still have two candidates who can still fully tap the big names for hard money, and still have not been fully introduced to the electorate. We are still over a year out, and a lot can happen in a year. Heck, at this time before ‘06, the mass view was that the Democrats couldn’t hack it in the next election.
The DFL hasn’t nominated anyone yet. Anyone can still get into this and if they get some traction, get the party nod. My main point is whomever the party nominee ends up being, Franken, Ciresi, Pallmeyer, or Boxcar Willie, the party and all it’s members will have to work extraordinarily hard. Coleman is vulnerable and I personally don’t see him winning, but it’s the DFL’s race to lose. Campaign and work for whomever you like but at the end of the day it’s going to be one man or woman that the DFL is backing, then that’s when the serious campaigning begins.
The nightmare scenario I have is similar to what John S mentions above: that Franken “pulls a Dean” and that the whole campaign implodes. Although I would probably phrase it as “pulls a Hatch.”
The problem is with Minnesota nice. Sure, Norm Coleman is an opportunist with no principles. He was a Democrat, now he’s a Republican. He was antiwar; now he supports a war that has cost over a million lives and will cost the U.S. around two trillion dollars. But Coleman has a nice smile and he never calls anyone names.
Franken is in a serious bind in dealing with such a “nice” guy. First, he can’t get down to brass tacks in criticizing Coleman without opening himself to heavy criticism as well. Second, Coleman actually is a lot more polished than Franken, so in a face-to-face the great likelihood is that Franken would lose the “nice guy” contest, which in Minnesota we call the election.
If Al Franken were a true patriot, he would pull out all the stops, criticize Norm Coleman for all the slimy things he’s done, use the strongest language he could and the most graphic images possible to discredit Coleman. Then, when Franken’s campaign crashes and burns, Al would step out of the way and let a nice guy win the endorsement, the nomination and the election. And, who knows, we might even get a “smart guy” who was smart enough to see through Cheney’s lies and oppose the war before it started.
At that point, I see Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer coming in on a white horse, not only “smart” but principled and the best informed Senator that Minnesota could possibly send to the Senate.
I can’t see Franken dropping out, no matter how bad things get. For a guy with his background and baggage to move here and run in the first place shows just how out of control his massive ego is.
I don’t see the whole “massive ego” thing. Nor do I see that out of control part of that. I think those are words that desparate, cowardly, morally bankrupt Coleman devotees have to use because they can’t talk about issues or programs. Norm is the personification of the empty suit politician. He’s in Wellstone’s seat and we want it back.
Richard, I’m not a Coleman devotee. In fact, I desperately want Coleman to lose. Unfortunately, that probably will not happen because of Al Franken. Franken’s candidacy was the greatest gift Norm Coleman could have asked for. It is Al Franken who is going to get Coleman re-elected. People with Franken’s kind of baggage shouldn’t be running for office. But for Al Franken, it wasn’t enough to remain in the background - he had to be the star. That is where the massive ego comes in.
Issues or programs? Go back and read Charleys very astute post on Minnesota elections as “nice guy” contests. It is Al Franken and his baggage that will ensure this is an issue-free election.
Dear Charley:
Next time I see you, remind me there is a great opportunity on a bridge in Brooklyn I can get you in on the bottom floor on.
Jack Nelson Pallmeyer is wholly unelectable, and I don’t think I am being unreasonable in usuing such a forceful declaration.
It ain’t gonna happen.
Norm Coleman would beat Jack Nelson Pallmeyer by double digits. The average Minnesotan would hear “He didn’t support the war in Afghanistan?” and Norm Coleman could portray himself as what he’s not, which is the sensible center. Sean
Sorry — and to finish, he would wipe the floor with JNP. Sean
When I mention Franken pulling a Dean, I’m talking about the nominating process. His momentum has been failing for awhile, and quite frankly he seems like the type who could get angry at what he would perceive as people’s foolishness at night making him DFL nominee by acclamation. I want to beat Coleman, and I don’t mind doing it with Franken if thats my only option. But that doesn’t mean I have to close my eyes to his very real failings.
Something else to remember: the internet. Barrack Obama announced and put together a crapload of money in less than a year, with star power and the internet. Though I can’t find any people with the star-power AND the previous media exposure, there are some with the 1st of those.
The biggest issue, the war, does not help Franken as much as it would another candidate for all the reasons already mentioned. The state and country are very evenly divided on the issues as stated by Democrats and Republicans (mainly because most understand 90% of what either side say is crap). The war is the issue that gives Democrats the edge and Franken is least able to take advantage of it.
His ego appears huge but anybody with a chance of getting elected is going to have a huge ego. Franken just does the worst job of hiding it. Many Democrats seem to like that fact because it is an outlet for their years of frustration with the Bushies and their own impotent leadership. The problem is what plays well with the base doesn’t often go over well with the people that make the difference on election night. The independents.
Excuse me - but what qualifications does anyone have to make these broad-reaching predictions?
I can say the same about Coleman, but largely its wishful thinking or liar O’Reilly-style OPINING! Where’s real analysis?
What the hell “baggage” are you who want Franken to falter talking about?
Look at The Daily Show - Look at Colbert Report!!!
The women who write lesbian frontier novels (Lynn Cheney) & the former apologists for the white house (Tony Snow) clamor to get onto this satire program.
We have a Mark Twain level humorist from this state in Garrison Keillor.
And you are spinning that being a smart Harvard-educated comedian & satarist is a DEFICIT? What are you smoking?
Those who think Al Franken is a flawed candidate because he initially supported going into Iraq seem to forget that most of the Minnesota electorate were snookered as well. The voters have evolved on this issue - and I believe Al Franken was in the forefront on his radio show in bringing on, and learning from, experts who showed us how badly Bush’s war was bungled.
I see in the Strib that even hardcore Republican Nixon administration member, Ben Stein has seen fit to cross party lines to endorse Al!
I have always been impressed with Al’s grasp of politics ever since he appeared on the topical comedy show “Politically Incorrect.
In fact Al had a better grasp of politics than Bill Maher.
(And he was funnier).
Having heard some of Franken’s radio shows & attended some things at which he appeared - I can say I am impressed. If the man is going to dedicate several years of his life to walk in the footsteps of his friend Paul Wellstone, more power to him & I thin we are lucky in this state as a result.
Not to mention its going to snap up those congressional speeches & hearing, etc that C-SPAN televises immeasurably to have someone interesting speaking for the state.
(Do old-style REpublicans EXIST anymore beyond maybe Hegel & Specter? The rest all seem to have defected & become Neocons).
“Al Franken was in the forefront on his radio show in bringing on, and learning from, experts who showed us how badly Bush’s war was bungled.”
Actually, Franken has always been way behind the curve on the war. Go look at my Eric Black link above - Franken is slipperier than Norm Coleman is on his shifting war positions. And that’s the real problem with Franken’s war support - that Franken won’t be able to differentiate himself from Coleman.
“I have always been impressed with Al’s grasp of politics ever since he appeared on the topical comedy show “Politically Incorrect.
In fact Al had a better grasp of politics than Bill Maher.”
How does that work, exactly? Maher opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. But Franken, in ignoring evidence and exercising horrible judgment, was an enthusiastic supporter of the war.
The key to the DFL and the Democratic party picking up Wellstones Senate seat will be the candidates that don’t get the nomination.
Why do some looneies still think this is Wellstones seat??
Wellstone was well on his way to lose that seat, then who’s would have it been?
Wellstone did nothing with that seat so I take it you hope for another senator who will accomplish nothing?
We’re having a good conversation, and I think we will have a more valuable discussion if we ignore the troll. We know what Big K. is going to say, why engage him? This individual thinks Paul crashed his own plane - no more need be said about his grip on politics, and those involved in it.
Sean,
It all depends on what happens between now and election day, doesn’t it? If all the troops are out and we are just bombing the crap out of the entire area (but with no Americans dying and the whole thing put on your unborn grandchild’s credit card), then all might be forgiven. We could spend the next 30 years trying to get over “Iraq war syndrome” or whatever. Of course, I’ll be dead (from old age, likely) and you will be sleeping under a half-collapsed bridge (Brooklyn or otherwise) with no job and no health insurance. That’s where we’ll be when we get done paying the war bills, in any case.
Or we may have decided to invade or at least bomb Iran by then, since Nancy Pelosi wants to take reining in the crazies “off the table.” At that point, all bets are off. A new US embassy gets blown up every week or two. The coastal cities have become terrorist tourist destinations. There are a few areas of the world that we can’t visit any more because of radioactivity and the rest we can’t visit because the entire world is pissed with us. At that point, we might decide that we as a nation have had enough war foolishness. More likely, our conduct will become even more irrational and dangerous.
The point is, why go down that road at all? If you listen to Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, you know that he would spend a heck of a lot less money on the arms industry and a bucketful more on renewable energy and addressing climate change. To me, this is a guy who would solve the problem of national security in a way that actually makes us more secure.
If you want to use Afghanistan as a brilliant example of how to wage a successful war on terror, go right ahead. Personally, I remember reading in the Strib back in late September 2001 that Afghanistan had actually volunteered to give up Bin Laden, but the Codpiece-in-Chief refused. So Osama is still out there. Afghanistan is going a bit better than Iraq, but not much, and it’s heading the same general direction. Plus we have such good friends in the blossoming democracies of Turkey and Pakistan (isn’t that Musharraf a card!). Unfortunately, like most of the dictators we have propped up over the years (like Saddam, for example), we’ll probably have to go in and change their pesky regimes later.
Listen, Sean, you think Franken is a logical winner because he has been more bellicose than the other guys. I think he’s a loser because he is simply too abrasive. And, even if he wins, I don’t give our civilization much of a chance if people like Franken continue to exercise such poor judgment as he has so far. It’s not working and it never can. So I am quite the fan of Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, as it turns out. I think he might make things better, whereas I’m pretty sure Franken wouldn’t.
What are some of the abrasive things Al has said?
I’d like some quotes. If he’s so abrasive, they should be pretty easy to find, and we can see for ourselves just how unhinged Al Franken actually is.
Thanks, Charley.
Is calling Norm Coleman “butt boy” abrasive? How about calling Republicans “shameless dicks”? Announcing in his Lying Liars book that his next book would be called “I F*cking Hate Those Right-Wing Motherf*ckers!”? Maybe just a tad abrasive.
I laughed pretty hard when I read “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” I just never thought the guy who wrote that would think he could get elected to statewide office.
Thanks for asking, Nitro.
Dan gives a start in talking about the abrasive and over-the-top stuff. I’ve read the same books Dan has, and a number of articles. Like Dan, I fell on the floor laughing. And it felt so good (for a while) to be saying those naughty things about Bush and Company.
Here’s the confession: I used to be a fairly regular reader of Minnesota Democrats Exposed and (sometimes) Powerline. I would even check out Anti-Strib and others. I know! I know! But it was a kind of missionary thing with me. I kept trying to find that tiny spark of humanity. Well, after a while, I figured out that Republicans might have a tiny spark of humanity, but they sure weren’t going to let it show in an internet posting or comment. So I quit (I still listen to Rush and other Hate Radio when I’m driving through Iowa or Kansas late at night). But before I quit, I got plenty of quotes from Franken skits celebrating the violent deaths of gay folks (using trademark irony, of course), of super-ripe and super-graphic descriptors, tales of drug use, etc etc etc.
If you are really interested in that sort of thing, it’s out there. And I am guessing that these folks are saving the best for last, particularly saving the harshest stuff for when Franken starts asking pointed questions about Coleman’s personal life and the like. Then it will start to hit the fan.
You and I are so smart that we will just laugh it off, figuring that it’s been a long 8 years and that lefties deserve a little naughty fun too. But lots of Minnesotan’s will figure that a public figure really shouldn’t be talking like that and doing those things. And they will vote for the guy with the smile: Norm Coleman. Particularly if Norm can get others to do the mud-throwing for him.
That’s why the Democrats need someone who really is squeaky-clean, somebody like Jack (even if Sean thinks he’s too clean to get elected).
It is Coleman’s seat now. He won the election of 2002. Nitro you cannot be serious…do you live under a rock?? these comments regarding Coleman and Bush are exactly why Franken will lose.. you all think like he does….Charley..what is “Hate radio”?
I’ve seen Franken a couple of times and while I was indifferant to his campaign initially, after seeing him speak, I was impressed. And while Franken might not have the “pure as the driven snow” progressive credentials that JNP has, Franken isn’t bad. My question is Charley, after working for JNP through the caucus’s and nomination process, and he doesn’t get the nod. Who are you going to work for then? More importantly, who is JNP going to work for then?
I yield myself two minutes. Madam speaker, I, first of all, I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out — the Republicans are worried that they can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war on children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement.”
The comments of Pete Stark. We need more of this frank, brutal language. It’s time to take the gloves off and smack these fascist bastards down. Finally, let’s get a candidate who’s got a set and is willing to use the appropriate language. That is to say, call these guys the treasonouns bastards that they are.
No Richard - we don’t need brutal language. We need the actual fact of slapping these people down, at the ballot box, on election day, because only if we widen our majorities and elect a President will we be able to take those priorities from words to action. We only need brutal language if it helps us in that goal. If it doesn’t, its the last thing we need.
Mistaking harsh talk for action is the old mistake of the Left. We didn’t lose in 04 because we didn’t talk tough, we lost them because we campaigned poorly (and because a plane crashed). Harsh talk if it means losing righteously is privledge talking, the privledge of people who whose children aren’t part of those 10 million.
History will condemn Bush and the new Republicans more harshly and effectively than we can. But will it say ‘until they were stopped by the Democrats’ or ‘in spite of their idiocy the Democrats could not muster the will to stop them’? If we use our heads as well as hour hearts, campaign, not just rant, it can be the former instead of the latter.
I agree with everything you say but, namby pampy playing nice ain’t going to get the job done. Unrelentingly pointing out how Bush administration policies have buggered the country in the ass and unrelentingly pointing out that Coleman has been one of primary aforementioned buggerers, will.
john,
If you think for a minute that Coleman will have an easy win, that’s great.
Run with that. Stay nice and comfortable until next November, please.
Thank you.
Richard-
I said not a word about playing nice. My point is, we can be critical while still remaining civil. And in a state were civility is highly valued, we would do well to remember that.
Something to remember - Paul Wellstone was on perfectly friendly speaking terms with Jesse Helms. He was against most everything Helms stood for, but he was civil. And it was one of the things that made him an effective champion of all the good things.
Stringing together as many f-bombs as possible does not make you an effective speaker - just one who is known for being obnouxious. And if people never listen to your words because they think your not worth listening to, your words will do nothing!
We’re not talking about Cheney style campaigning with old guys getting shot in the face and effenheimers flying about, but instead, hard nose, facts in your face campaigning. I don’t see JNP being able to rise or sink, however you look at it, to that level. Ciresi and Franken are, at this point in time, the only viable canidates. As far as Wellstone’s civility goes, that was a differant time and place. I sincerely doubt he would be as civil toward any Senator, Democrat or Repug that would vote for continued funding of an illegal war and against health insurance for low income children.
all Franken knows is effenheimers…nitro i think coleman will lose…does not matter… Pete strak is a raving ranting lunatic…go ahead..see how far he wil ltake the party…why does congress have an 11% approval according to Zogby??… it is people like stark, ellison, pelosi, the entire black congressional caucus,and other lying liars.
why is the war illegal?..Schips is not about money, never has, it is about Socialism encroaching on out lives…that MUST be stopped
LOLOLS!!
Good one john. What are YOU going to do if Liberals are not stopped?
Please share that with us. I’d love to know what you would do if the top 1% are forced to pay their fair share. I’d love to know if *gasp* people were held accountable for their actions. What if we were asked to sacrifice in a time of war?
Only socialists want to pay for a war, rather than look at it as an easy money making scheme.
And those son-of-a-bitching lazy poor people, what if we give too many of their kids health care?..Oh my……Lordy lordy you must be getting the VAPORS! That health care for children might be someting a small percentage of your tax money would pay for!
OMG what are you going to do, john?
Just pray, pray like you’ve never prayed before, and hope we Liberals just go away.
Schipp expansion will cover kids whose parents can afford health insurance..it is an election ploy, but, what wil lyou do when W signs an Schip bill?..and he will… 36% in taxes is a fair share, dont you think?? the war has killed 20000 of the bad guys, bad guys who cannot attack us here, Nitro, you are going to get the bends from your hatred of republicans…not very helpful to your pathetic cause
Nitro,
I will correct you on saying that only socialist want to pay for the war. The remains of the true conservatives that were against this war longer than your front runner Hillary were some of the few who knew what was going to happen. There may not be many of us left but there is a chance that after this election we will be more important than the current Republican party.
The thing about the true old style conservatives is that they abhor the use of force by the state. It doesn’t matter if it is in a foreign war or in taking taxes. They also look at corporate welfare as even worse than welfare for individuals. They also believe in local control of government. All radical ideas I understand if you are the modern authoritarian Republican or Democrat.
The remains of the true conservatives that were against this war longer than your front runner Hillary were some of the few who knew what was going to happen.
True conservatives, now that’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Libertarianism, the last vestige of a failed philosophy that maintains the market can police itself and if only government would get it’s dirty little hands out of business, we’ll all be awash with rainbows and unicorns.
As much as we all enjoy prognosticating how this is going to play out, I think it will ultimately come down to the national tide. This is Coleman’s seat, and I think he retains it if the Republicans can hit bottom in the next few months and begin their bounce.
Likewise, if the Democrats are able to at all capitalize on the door that is wide open in front of them, and keep the Republicans down for another year (which is a long time), this becomes Franken’s seat easily, much like Klobuchar won due to the tide.
The biggest question to be determine is when (not if) Bush becomes irrelevant. The sooner people begin seeing Bush as the guy who is already gone, they will see the Republicans in a different light, especially if someone like Guiliani has momentum in ‘08. However, if Bush is in the middle of everything until the very end policy-wise, it hurts the party.
john,
“the war has killed 20000 of the bad guys”
I’d can’t find a link to verify your number, however I am curious exactly how many Al Qaeda have been killed. With our current strategy, we’re going to have to kill or capture every single one. How many is that?
The war has also killed 3,872 US troops, wounded 27,000 troops, 80,000 iraqi citizens, destroyed Americas reputation and credibility around the world, distanced our Allies, bankrupted our country and divided our Nation.
All this for a pre-emptive war in Iraq based on false intelligence.
The way things have gone, we have been making more enemies than friends there. It doesn’t seem to be working out in our favor, really. Are we faced with the prospect of having to kill every Muslim in the middle east before we’re “comfortable” and “secure”? Iran’s next, who’s after that? Syria maybe? I’ve heard many bloggers propose nuking them “all” and letting god sort them out, whatever all means.
How many than? How many have to die before you are “secure”, john? Does it even matter to you? It must suck to be so insecure.
When are we going to rise above the killing and not live fearful for our children’s future, but instead offer some sense of realistic hope?
Sorry that I’ve been gone for a while. A visit from the in-laws. But I will happily answer two questions that were specifically addressed to me.
John asked what I meant by “hate radio.” Hate radio, John, is that collection of stations that distracts us from our problems by directing our anger toward a group that we should hate.
For example, let’s say that your marriage broke up several years ago and you haven’t seen the kids much recently and you are having problems keeping up with the child support payments. Why, it must be those damned degenerate gays that are destroying our family values. Or let’s say your kid brother just got back from Iraq and he hasn’t seen the outside of a bottle since and he seems really jumpy and you are starting to get worried. Well, it must be the fault of those “surrender” Democrats. Or let’s say your job just got outsourced to Indonesia and you aren’t entirely sure where the next mortgage payment is coming from. It’s probably because of those illegal immigrants.
It’s an old trick of the aristocracy. Distract the poor slob that you are sucking dry by making him think that all his problems come from some designated group even lower than he is. Like black people, or gays, or hippies, or illegal immigrants. That way, the more stuff you do to make the fellow angry, the more he hates the wrong person. And besides, since you are both white and English-speaking and Christian and hetero, it always seems possible that the slob might win the lottery, get a rich as a Bush (or Prince Bandar, for that matter) and end up in bed with someone who looks like Fred Thompson’s wife.
Good luck with that, by the way. But if you are stuck in a huge traffic jam on the interstate, you can always blame it on those crazy Critical Mass bike riders, even though they are back on Hennepin Avenue. But that’s what Hate Radio says is tying up traffic, so it must be true.
The next question, I believe, comes from Richard, who asked what I would do if Jack didn’t get the endorsement. Would I work for another Democrat?
Jack himself answered that question last night on Almanac. Basically, he said exactly what all four candidates have said: that he would drop out of the race if somebody else got the endorsement. The clip is at http://www.tpt.org/almanac/ then click on “Vote for Me” on the right side.
For myself, I wouldn’t oppose anyone running against Norm Coleman, although that isn’t exactly what you asked. You asked if I would work for another DFL opponent of Coleman. My own and very personal answer is that life is short and I don’t like to throw away my time, so I only work for candidates that I am truly passionate about. So Jack gets that, and the other candidates don’t. In practice, fortunately, there are nearly always Democratic candidates that I would give every available dollar and every available waking hour to. So you can definitely expect to see me out there door-knocking or doing the phone calls. If Jack is in the race, it will be for him. If Jack is not in the race, then it might be on a presidential campaign or a MN House campaign on the other side of town or whatever. But I believe in the process and I will clearly be doing what I can as a citizen to support outstanding candidates. I imagine that I will be seeing most of you at the SD conventions and out in the streets, no matter what.
That may not be the answer you would like, Richard, but it is a truthful one. Sorry, but I’m picky and I just don’t have time for mediocre candidates, even when they are in my party.
Franken is spending so much money because he needs to try to change people’s mind about him. Minnesotan’s think he is a funny, but angry fellow from the liberal left. That is because that is who he is. We already know him.
If he wins, that’s what his fellow senators will think also. He will not be taken seriously.
The media will love to interview him and cover him in the same way they covered Ventura.
Is that really what we want? More importantly, is that what we really need? Serious times require serious people. Our leaders need to lead and our critics need to criticize. That is what Franken should do. Satire is an important element that can hold politicians feet to the fire. But when the jester becomes the King, the kindom is short lived.
Richard,
As usual you manage to take the failures of your party and blame them on the ideas of those who actually had it right. You just can’t seem to hid your bigoted and fascist tendencies for more than a post or two can you. If you could think in more than simple good/evil black/white the world you might not have to support people like Hillary and Franken and then get stuck trying to make up excuses and justify their awful behavior.
Charley, you are being ignorant with out thinking, i do not believe anyone would blame gays being married for the breakup of his or her won marriage, that would make no sense, I think what is being said is that homosexual marriage would damage the institution of marriage, which is true, and very different….your second example is simply infantile, and not worthy of a response… outsourcing is a result of NAFTA and GATT both signed by BILL CLINTON (D)..illegal immigrants bring other problems…who would actually think the Critical Mass Pricks would tie up the Interstate?? they do create huge problems downtown… for no good reason, and they do damage private property, they are lawless punks.. the only hate radio is hear is AM 950…Mark Heaney really does hate people…nice try
3800 is far less than the pentagon had planned for before the war started, the American people were more than willing to accept those casulties, the country is not bankrupt..the deficit is down to 165 Billion the lowest in 6 years, what the rest of the world thinks does not matter, I do not feel insecure, but neither did New Yorkers on 9-10-01.. We are winning the war and you and your ilk hate that fact
Hi, John,
Let’s try to avoid the name-calling (like “ignorant” and “infantile” and “not worthy of response,” shall we? I actually think it is possible for us to disagree without going down that road, and I certainly don’t believe that calling people names does much to further the conversation here.
Which is why I don’t listen to AM 950 either. Truly, I don’t like hate radio, even though it is sometimes useful to explore baser impulses of both Republicans and Democrats. It helps us figure out and predict the next self-destructive decision.
If I have misunderstood why neocons hate gays so much, please explain. I don’t understand how gay and lesbian marriage could possibly damage the institution of marriage for heteros. My hypothesis is that hating gays is simply a convenient distraction from real issues. You say that it is ridiculous for me to claim that gays are being blamed for the breakup of hetero relationships, but you maintain that gays and lesbians are somehow “destroying the institution of marriage.” What is the difference, please? Say it one way or say it another, it still seems like a total red herring to me.
As for Bill Clinton, I won’t be defending him any time soon, even though I have been a Democrat since the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater. It doesn’t matter to me too much that Bill Clinton is in my tribe and not in your tribe. During the presidency, he acted a lot like the worst members of the Republican tribe. So you can have him if you want, as far as I am concerned.
All of this goes to the theme of most of the discussion that we have been having about Al Franken. His strength (for some) is an appeal to tribal loyalty among Democrats. He does this by appealing to anger and rage against the Republican neocon “other.” All fine and good. Dick Cheney is certainly a subverter of the constitution. The Iraq was is certainly a collection of war crimes that have resulted in 1.2 million Iraqi dead, 2 million Iraqi refugees to other countries and 2 million internally displaced Iraqis. As well as the 3800 American dead. As for the deficit numbers you mention, the economists are now predicting that this tragic war will cost us around TWO TRILLION dollars, by the time we account for all the physical therapy, lost work, disability payments and other indirect costs. So good luck fixing those bridges or paying those teachers in a generation or so.
So there is plenty to be angry about, but calling Bush and Cheney clever names is not enough for me. You have to see the big picture, figure out what we have been doing wrong and propose a new course. For me, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer does that and Al Franken doesn’t.
The best way for Franken to totally crush Coleman would be to oppose Internet regulation.
For instance, as much as some lefties want to believe something like the IMBRA law (socalled marriage broker law that prevents foreign women from exercising their right to broadcast their own contact information) is a good feminist “protect foreign women” law, it was upheld temporarily by a Republican judge who said “the Supreme Court has never held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner”.
It was also upheld temporarily by a liberal judge who said “meeting someone online is like buying a gun. The federal government can require background checks for both”.
Right now, Franken and Coleman would both seem to agree with such “gateway laws” (that will soon be used to regulate Match.com and Adultfriendfinder).
But either candidate could totally destroy the other by putting their foot down on Internet regulation. The entire youth vote would go to the candidate who speciically condemns background checks for online dating.
Nobody knows about this law and Congress does not remember voting for it. I called Jordan Talge at Senator Coleman’s office about this last week and he said he didn’t know anything about this nor had anyone ever called Coleman’s office to say they were concerned about Internet regulation.
john,
The plan for Iraq written up in 2003 called for only 5,000 troops to remain in 2006.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
The US national debt is 9,057,626,825,588.
The estimated population of the United States is 303,317,474
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $29,861.87.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.42 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt.
Didn’t we have a surplus at one time?
“What the rest of the world thinks does not matter”.
Neither does, apparently, any American who disagrees with you, john. There’s a reason your party is polling so low, mostly to do with just that fact.
I find your comment that ” We are winning the war and you and your ilk hate that fact” quite offensive. It is a theory that is frequently, casually used as a talking point by YOUR “ilk”, and if statistics of world terrorism actually showed less terrorists now than when we invaded Iraq I would tip the hat.
Again you use 9/11 as if your political party owns that event, and I find your politicalization of an event that effected every American quite troubling. Maybe that was an important enough issue to consider the input of those in Washington who had a different perspective on that matter, and showed a little respect. Republicans threw respect off the bus in 2002, because they were more worried about winning elections and ideology than respect for their fellow Americans.
You think me and my family weren’t traumatized by 9/11? People who died included Liberals,they were on the planes,in the buildings, they were firefighters and were all Americans. Liberals were at ground zero digging for fragments of bone in a poisonous environment. We were united after 9/11. Theose who died are not forgotten, not ever. It is why a lot of Liberals fight, what has been done in the name of 9/11 victims by your party has been a tragic embarassment to their memory.
So what was it that caused so many Liberals to drop their support of and Republicans and their policies after 9/11 when we were united?
The actions of Republicans, their pundits, bloggers, and politicians, and their overall arrogance, hubris, mistakes, misleads, and an organized campaign to demonize everone who disagreed, even those 9/11 families who disagreed with Bush. It’s all dispicable, and frankly, not very Christian.
6 years of hate, directed at Liberals or anyone who disagreed, using 9/11 as a political tool. THAT’s your partys legacy, john. Defend that. Why are so many Republicans retiring nationwide?
So now, after 6 years of this crap, you get all whiney when some Liberals have success using the same tactics of your party? Give me a break, there’s not going to be a lot of sympathy from Americans for the likes of you people.
Keep doing more of the same-old same-old. Go ahead, paint electing Democrats as returning to the 90’s, who cares? Smear all you want. Call us names, the more the merrier. Try to win every argument no matter what it takes, and, most importantly, treat people who disagree with you like shit.
Unlike you, I don’t like going to blogs of the opposition and calling people names. I’ve been to MDE and it’s complete and utter insanity.
It’s all quite old, john. And you have gotten old. I don’t enjoy wasting my time explaining the obvious and taking part in ridiculous arguments for someone who gets off on insulting Liberals. I had my say and I’m done with you, too.
“Didn’t we have a surplus at one time?”
If you’re talking about national debt, as you were when you posed that question, Yes, we had no debt for a period in the 1830’s. Ever since then, there has been some level of national debt.
If you’re talking about a yearly budget surplus, the last one we had was during Clinton’s final two years in office. Until the FDR years, we generally kept any deficit to a nominal amount. That changed during the New Deal, then there was a period of staying within budget until Vietnam, and from the LBJ years until the end of Clinton’s 2nd term, deficit spending was the norm.
Having a national debt isn’t bad in itself — just like having a mortgage isn’t bad for an individual. But it is hard to argue that not having those interest payments could free up money for important things.
There are conservatives and independents who come here to engage in respectful and civil debate. And then there are guys like John who think that stringing ad hominem attacks with bits of of Republican talking points constitutes debate. Look at the grammar - you can almost see the spittle hitting the screen while this guy is typing.
Nitro, don’t feed the trolls.
And please, could we remember to alway reference the ‘john’ here with the lower-case? I’m harsh sometimes, but I’m not him.
Just going to comment a little bit on Franken.
I for one am 100% behind JNP. The rhetoric of he has no shot, his campaign won’t go anywhere, Franken and Ciresi are too far ahead I think is self-defeating. His candidacy certainly won’t go anywhere if people think that.
Furthermore, after stating that, I will absolutely not be working for Al Franken if he wins the nomination. I cannot in good concious support someone who is nothing more than a carpet bagger who is taking this seat from a Minnesotan. I absolutely hate the Independent party because they are essentially Democrats who are above party identifiction. If anything, Peter Hutchinson turned me off to them. But if Al Franken is the nominee, I would consider voting for them or any third party. There is just absolutely no way I can be excited for such a polarizing figure who isn’t from our state.
I really liked the point about him coming and essentially stealing the nomination from any of our excellent State Reps and State Senators. I remember one state house guy considering running but opted not to, probably because of Franken. Imagine how much more energetic this Senate election would be if Franken hadn’t just flown over to our state, bought a house and set up shop. It be exciting, it would be thrilling, it would be passionate, now all it is inevitable and filled with great Republican attack ads that for once, aren’t full of lies and misconceptions, but filled with actual things this man has said.
Lets also think about Franken’s re-election in 2014. It wont happen. The only way he is going to win is on national climate. Klobuchar could’ve won in 2006 regardless of it being pro-Dem. It would’ve been closer, probably in the single digits or lower doubel digits, but it would’ve been a solid win. Franken’s wont be. And his re-election campaign will probably be a failure. If Tpaw doesn’t make it anywhere after Gov, this could be his seat.
I just dont understand how anyone who is really looking at Franken can see him as a viable candidate who is knowledgable about the issues. I feel lucky at being completely ignorant to who he was until I saw him last year fall in Wabasha MN where he was doing a chili cooking fundraiser for Tim Walz. His celebrity does nothing for me and unfortunately, I think most of his supporters are only supporting him because of said celebrity. They have been blinded by his NYC Celebrity status and are completely missing the fact that he is as much of an opportunist as Coleman when it comes to war, public opinion is for the war, im for the war, political opinion is against the war, Im against the war, at least Franken will actually vote against the war when he talks negatively about it unlike Coleman.
I am still very troubled about his fundraising. Seeing invitations to fundraisers out in DC where it is $2300 to get in, them discussing a fundraiser in the Hamptons that was cancelled due to 35-W, they aren’t making that stuff up. To say he is running a true grassroots campaigning and comparing him to Wellstone is doing Wellstone such a disservice to his legacy. Franken is only winning the fundraising game because of his rich Hollywood ties and his national celebrity. It absolutely kills me that he may very well be our next US Senator when his campaign is paid for not by Minnesota, but by the entire country. Where will his loyalties lie? The fact that a majority at least in number even don’t come from MN is troubling, the fact that probably not even a third come from MN is ridiculous. His call sheet binders in his office are divided into NYC, MN, and San Fran/LA. The MN one is so small compared to the other two, is he honestly running for Minnesota’s US Senate seat? MDE broke the story that to get a Franken button, you had to pay $2 and then write down all of this info, name, address, phone number etc. They questioned him using that to bolster his fundraising numbers from MN and lower the average donation. It was never proven but why else would you require all that info? The way he gets his money is so ethically troubling to me.
I dont want him to be my Senator and I’ll throw my vote away if need be. I’m starting to realize I should’t have patronized my roommate so much for voting for Hutchinson, sometimes you just cant vote for the Democrat because sometimes they are just too troubling.
I’m sorry I wrote so much, I really dont like Franken.
Yes, please don’t confuse John S with john. Since John S uses complete sentences it shouldn’t be too hard.
“It absolutely kills me that he may very well be our next US Senator” I wouldn’t lose too much sleep about it Andrew. If Franken is the nominee, Coleman will destroy him.
John S,
Yes, I was quite careful to make that john vs. John S distinction.
LOLS
And I’m not quite convinced Coleman will be able to destroy anyone, Dan. That’s one of those statements that can’t be proven anyway. I have a hunch things are going to be quite different next summer, so we’ll see.
Nitro, Dan-
Thank you kindly.
I’m not saying Coleman would destroy just anyone - I’m saying he would destroy Franken. And while any statement about the future can’t be proven, I think that one can be fairly certain that Franken’s flaws are going to be a real problem.
I guess I have a problem with the standard DFL approach - which is to ignore our candidates’ problems and just hope it all works out.
First of all, I would have preferred Tim Walz, RT Rybak, or Susan Gaertner, but they are not running so we have to examine the race at is. I’ll take on a few things:
Myth 1: This race is going to be all about Al Franken.
Reality: This is a referendum on the incumbent who has been stuck below 50% for almost a year without any of Ciresi or Franken’s millions firing at him. Both have challenges but it is not unwinnable by any means.
Myth 2: A state rep or state senator should be our candidate.
Reality: I’ve searched the last 70 years, and no state legislator has ever won a US Senate seat and - given the lack of fundraising network and name ID, I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Myth 2: Carpetbaggers can’t win and don’t deserve to.
Reality: Just silly. History has shown that MN has no trouble electing folks from other states, especially if they have MN roots. Brodkarb will try to say that there is a certain number of years that someone has had to live here - something like the exact number that Normie has - but it’s fictional like most of what Brodkarb says.
Myth 3: A showbiz background is the wrong one. No one will elect a tv star, political commentator.
Reality: Ventura, Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono…I can probably go on, but I won’t.
Myth 4: Al Franken says mean things like calling Rush Limbaugh a fat idiot (this is an undeniable fact:) or Coleman a “butt-boy” (are Republicans going to run that in an ad?), therefore people will vote for a guy they don’t approve of because they are so offended.
Reality: Don’t know the answer, although Schwarzenegger and Ventura had both said and done controversial things in show biz and voters didn’t seem to struggle too much with it when they ran for office.
Myth 5: It’s wrong for Al Franken to be so ambitious as to come back to MN, raise a ton of money, build a top notch organization, and try to win Norm Coleman’s senate seat. He should have stood back and waited for some underfunded no-name to get around to carrying the DFL banner.
Reality: Why? In the past, we have had too many candidates - Marty, Wynia, Janezich, Skip Humphrey, Joan Growe - who were nice people and MN born and bred but not ready to raise the money or bust the balls necessary to win a US Senate race.
I’m not decided on Franken but I appreciate that he is going all out for this. If Ciresi wants it - go get it Mike!
As for most folks commenting here, I think we might be better off lowering the temperature and the vitriol. It won’t get us a better candidate either by making Franken better or making Ciresi or Nelson-Pallmeyer stronger.
Alot can happen in a year. Remember how invincible Bush the 1st was in 1991? Some guy from Arkansas had to run against him for President as the Dem’s sacrificial lamb.
St. Paul Sage, you shameless dick.*
Some fair points in there, Sage, especially about the lack of state reps and state senators moving to up to U.S. senator, and the DFL’s piss poor history in choosing homegrown Minnesotans as its nominees.
I think the race will be about Al Franken instead of a referrendum on the incumbent. And I think it will be largely because myth #4 isn’t a myth - see Charley’s comments about Minnesota elections being “nice-guy” contests.
* This is satire, as you obviously know, because Minnesotans are smart enough to figure that out.
I disagree with the whole “nice guy” thing. I think that most states want to elect people who are likeable, and I don’t think Minnesota is any different. But if you look at people who have been endorsed for open seats recently — Bachmann, Kennedy, Klobuchar, Ellison, they all had alot of “fight” in their message. If it was all about being nice guys, each new candidate would be a younger image of Sabo or Ramstad.
Heck, the most successful Governor we’ve had in the past two decades, Arne Carlson, made no effort to hide the fact that he had the style of an A-hole, but that is how he got things done. I liked that about him.
Dan the Man, you f*cking motherf*cker*
You are confusing being a “figher” and being a jerk. They are two very different things. Carlson was an a-hole, but he was also civil about it.
* More satire, obvious to Minnesotans.
Hmm. So I guess if you say my choices are between a fighter and a jerk, I will indeed go with the fighter. And I don’t think that means I’ve fallen victim to Minnesota nice, I just think it means I want to send someone productive to Washington, not a partisan hack.
My point is that we don’t simply elect the nicest guy as other posts have suggested. If we did, Erlandson would have creamed Ellison, and Roger Moe would be in his 2nd term as Governor.
DantheMan, you are missing the point. There is no fighter/jerk dichotomy, and the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Erlandson and Ellison were very different candidates, but they were both nice guys and not jerks. Roger Moe and Tim Pawlenty were also both nice guys. Whether or not you are a jerk has little to do with your ideology or approach to politics.
Based on the issues (and the results of other elections) Minnesota voters should have elected Mike Hatch. They didn’t, because Hatch was a jerk. And they won’t elect Franken either, because Franken is a jerk.
dan you ignorant slut:)
the hope by republicans that they can make this about how al franken isn’t a nice guy is pretty weak. hell, i do a lot of politics and i don’t even know if he’s a nice guy. most people will see some debates, ads on tv - read an article or 2 and decide based on that. al franken wrote for SNL. minnesotans may not understand all satire but they get that franken was a comedy writer and a commentator. gw bush got out of talking about his past by saying “when i was young and irresponsible, i was young and irresponsible.” al has the very plausible explanation that when he was a provocative comedian and commentator, he said provocative things.
and i can’t find a minnesota election with an uncumbent in it that was anything but a referendum on the incumbent. please share the case of that.
Point taken, Dan.
But I disagree that based on the issues, voters should have elected Mike Hatch. I guess you could say that based on the issues, Minnesotans should elect some guy in Brainerd that we’ve never heard of. He might have a perfect view on the issues, even though he is completely unknown to us.
Hatch wasn’t elected because Minnesotans couldn’t imagine being led by him. Because he was a jerk? Yes, largely. But it is broader than how his persona came across during the campaign. Voters wanted to be sure the candidate could be a good leaders, and to be a leader people have to want to follow you. And too many people decided they didn’t want to follow Hatch.
Here is the deal: Coleman and the Republicans don’t dare talk about issues next year - they will lose for sure. Instead, they will make it about Franken. Take a look at this link - its the Republican playbook for this election:
http://blogsfornorm.com/?p=87
Sage, I am still laughing about your first