Today Norm Coleman did what any guy afraid of his own record on an issue does: attack the other guy for his record. Coleman is trying his darndest to turn people’s attention away from his abysmal record on this war (he’s gone so far as to convert the whole frontpage of his campaign site to an ad for the webclip) that he’s, apparently, taken to editing together disparate clips from Franken’s past.
I was curious if team Franken would respond to these allegations but they’re refusing to take the bait here and let Norm shift the focus away from his own record:
Norm Coleman’s record is clear: blind support of the President’s disastrous Iraq policy and absolutely no interest in defending his repeated votes against bringing our troops home. If I were him, I wouldn’t want to talk about a record like that, either.
But fundamental dishonesty like we are seeing from Coleman’s campaign today was a bad way to get us into this war, and it’s certainly not going to get us out. It won’t stop Al from speaking out against this war and holding Norm Coleman accountable, and it won’t stop Minnesotans from voting for a new direction.
While I understand why Franken is taking the high road here, I nonetheless think this ad merits some honest analysis. In all honesty, I don’t really have time to do this right now (law school exams are a blast) but I’m going to be irresponsible and distract myself for a bit longer by delving into this.
So, if you will, join me after the break for a rundown of Coleman’s latest attempt at taking people’s attention away from his own position on the war in Iraq.
Alright, so, the first claim is that Franken has both supported and opposed a timeline for withdrawal but if you take a look at the record you’ll find out (and I might point out that Franken hasn’t attempted to hide this) that his position in favor of a timeline wasn’t formed until late 2006. He has said repeatedly that he became convinced of the need for a timetable during the tumultuous year of 2006, with its waves of sectarian violence and the lack of political progress. He has since made a timeline part of his campaign platform on Iraq.
The second claim here is that Franken has held multiple positions on cutting off funding for the war. This one’s pretty easy to debunk because the guy’s always held the exact same position: that Congress should force the President to establish an exit strategy as a condition of further funding. If the President refused to do so, he would be “cutting off the funding for the troops.” Since that’s not a move the President would make, it would force him to accept the terms of the funding — namely, withdrawal. Moreover, I think this is a plan that most Americans can and would support.
Then we have these clips that imply that Franken was dishonest when he claimed that he never spoke out in favor of the war.
In reality there doesn’t seem to be any record of Franken speaking out in favor of the war, what he did say on a couple situations is that he didn’t believe at the time that an administration would be so dishonest; that he would have voted for the use of force based on Colin Powerll’s testimony before the United Nations. So, Franken likely would have voted for authorization because he refused to believe the administration could be so crooked. What he also did, however, is immediately begin to speak out against the administrations mismanagement of the war and as the lies began to be revealed he was an important voice calling for answers. While I can’t claim to get inside Franken’s head, this sentiment seems to have crescendoed until 2005 when he outright called the war a mistake. The reality remains that Franken was truthful when he said he never spoke out in favor of the war and he was a consistent voice against the administrations bumbling of the whole operation.
What’s really telling is that Franken has acknowledged that he never spoke out against the war before it began, and he has acknowledged becoming a vocal critic of the war since. He’s not afraid of his record but stands by it. Which is maybe why he doesn’t feel the need to counterpoint the Coleman spin machine and is maybe why Coleman feels the need to throw these distractions out into the web. I mean, if you had Coleman’s record would you do anything else?
Loading ...
Nice try with the headline but the true meaning of that video is how Franken flip-flops and then lies about his flip-flops. Angry Al will not be elected EVER!
Matt, you are so completely wrong on this.
“In reality there doesn’t seem to be any record of Franken speaking out in favor of the war.”
WTF? Franken admits in his book that he attended a Clear-Channel sponsored pro-war rally. This wasn’t support for the war resolution - this was support to start the f-ing war.
Do you want some honest analysis? Franken is completely busted. Coleman doesn’t have to spin anything - all he has to do is play Franken quotes. I almost wonder if Franken’s lying problem is pathological - you can’t say things that completely contradict your prior statements if you are going to survive in politics.
Coleman is trying to take the focus away from his own record? Of course he is. And if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Al Franken, Coleman will get away with it.
YEs, yes,
Of course Al and Kerry, and a host of other Democrats, are the only flip floppers in American politics, and of course, Al has no reason to be angry whatsoever. I don’t know what his problem is…..other than anger for no reason. He must be crazy.
Nitro, there is a difference between changing your position and claiming that you never held the position in the first place. The first qualifies as “flip-flopping,” while the second is lying. While Kerry and a lot of other Democrats may be flip-floppers, Al Franken is also a liar.
Al Franken may well be crazy if he really thinks he is a viable candidate for Senate.
Wow thank you for splitting hairs, Dan.
Bye bye for now, loser.
Splitting hairs? Drinking that Franken kool-aid is starting to affect you, Nitro.
You’re being quoted, thanks, Dan. Good one.
I am also looking forward to Franken’s response to the “allegations.” The “allegations” seem pretty strong, since they are actual quotes by Franken.
Dan? What? Clear channel sponsored pro-war rally? Are you serious? Sorry to be the first one to let you down, but that never happened. Never. Was not a real event. Google it.
Matt, don’t worry, some of us out here understand a “joke”.
read the news lately?// we are winning the war, it is NOT a disaster, and certainly will NOT be an issue in 08
Hey, I keep clicking on the ad, but it wont play. Is there a reason it doesnt work, or was that intentional?
Roxy, I can’t tell if you are just ignorant or if you are a being dishonest like Franken. Franken talks about it in his book. Here’s a link (found by using Google, no less)
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/03.03.04/franken-0410.html
“In the beginning, Franken was pro-war, even giving a speech for Clear Channel Communications in which he said in part, “Today we are all Americans, except for NPR listeners, who always seem a little French to me. If I could be serious for a minute. I know your prayers are with our men and women fighting in Iraq, who are there protecting us from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.”
Today, Franken seems to regret that speech, which he writes in his book that he made because of the pervading sense of fear in the United States, but tells me he made because Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N. convinced him the war was necessary. At this point, he doesn’t favor pulling out of Iraq.”
Sorry, but the Clear-channel pro-war rallies were real events and Franken was at one, expressing his support for the war. The joke is that Franken supporters are completely delusional about the many failings of their candidate.
Oh, snap!
Pretty much the defenses I’ve heard for Franken are:
1) “Coleman sucks” (he does, but that isn’t the point)
2) “Franken didn’t say those things!” (See, there’s this video the Coleman campaign just put up …)
3) Dan is a “loser”
4) John Kerry is actually Al Franken
5) “Al couldn’t possibly have supported the war because, like, he’s my candidate!!!”
What is wrong with you people? It’s fine to support Al if you want - he’s got his good spots. But, really, don’t act so damned delusional about it, you’re sounding like the W Drones. It’s all there! There shouldn’t be a debate about his war views, yet even when THE CLIPS SAY IT ALL you say that the clips lie.
Accept it and move on. Or don’t accept it and support someone else. But don’t ir-rationalize it until you’re just like the Bush lackies, circa 2003. It’s gotten to the point where, in this post at least, you make that ass-clown Kahuna sound more in-touch than you.
“Dan is a loser”
He is a loser. I stand by my comment. It has nothing to do with this post, it has to do with the fact that he is an MDE troll.
I could make that same comment anywhere on this blog, and it definitely applies every time.
Nitro is back with more intelligent commentary.
Talk about trolls, Nitro you are one yourself! A pathetic attempt, but one none the less.
It is going to bother Franken supporters during his run because there are just too many recorded moments of Angry Al spouting off about something and then changing positions and claiming he never held his original position. He cannot claim it was a “joke” every time. People are going to see this stuff and it will end Angry Al’s run early.
Matt: Franken said “cut off funding for the troops.” While I know you would like to claim that Franken said cut off funding for the war, but he didn’t. He said the troops.
I’m also curious why Franken’s campaign won’t detail what is dishonest about the ad. Only in the liberal blogosphere and in Franken’s campaign is creating an ad with video clips dishonest.
I agree with Eric Black, your rebuttal isn’t very persuasive.
Dan,
Ok, look. If you DID read the book, you might remember that the part of the book you’re talking about is when Franken is supposetly on a show called “Morning Asylum with Dave and the Donut Lover.” If you really think that this is a truthful passage, and not a joke, than there is nothing I can do to help you. Godspeed.
Why of course, anything Franken says negative will be claimed as a joke.
The real joke is Franken himself. :)
I saw Ceresi at the Building Trades Holiday Party last night, not a big crowd around him, but nobody was talking about Franken being the big ticket answer. I didn’t even see Franken there, though he might have been there early and left shortly thereafter. Why do I get the feeling that Ceresi’s entire strategy is “wait until Franken steps on his own tool, then I will come in and save the day”.
Franken’s “response” is a non-response. It happens to be true, but it isn’t a response to the Coleman thing. On the other hand, what could he say? It’s not as if he can deny saying what’s on film.
See Roxy, the problem with Franken’s books is that they are half true and half satire, and its not always clear which is which. Franken thinks he can explain anything damaging away as satire, which just isn’t going to work.
In any case, the Clear Channel rally was real. Do you even acknowledge that Franken was a supporter of the war?
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4206
Nitro, for what its worth (and given your reasoning skills, its probably not worth much) I have never posted anything on MDE or any other right wing blog. Again, I want to beat Norm Coleman and that isn’t going to happen if we nominate Franken. The MDE crowd is just mocking us here because they believe Franken is a sure thing, and with people like Roxy who would belive the sky is green if Al Franken says it is, they are probably right.
Dan, I really don’t want to fight with you about your inability to figure out what is and isn’t a joke.
Since you have been so kind to provide links for myself and these readers, I would like to refer you to a post on mnpublius.com: “Coleman’s Attempt to Deflect attention from his Record on Iraq and the Truth behind the Allegations”. It has some great insights about Franken’s stance on the war, and why he may or may not have said the things that he did.
Oh, right, and once again: “Morning Asylum with Dave and the Donut Lover”. Because it’s just too damn funny.
Roxy, do you still not believe that Franken spoke at the pro-war Clear Channel rally? Why don’t you ask Franken then - he won’t deny it because its true. For some interesting reading on Franken’s war positions, hit this link:
http://www.ericblackink.com/2007/09/12/an-open-letter-to-al-franken-why-did-you-support-the-iraq-war/#more-85
I agree that Franken’s books are funny. What is not funny is that Al Franken supported a pre-emptive war on a country that posed no threat to us. What is not funny is that the DFL may be stupid enough to nominate Franken for senate. Keep drinking your Kool-aid, and enjoy six more years of Norm Coleman.
If they put Franken up, Coleman is a for sure thing.
Angry Al has the same issue Angry Mike Hatch had and he will not be electable.
Oh, c’mon Big Kahuna - what do you REALLY think?
“Angry Al” makes you sound like you are trying to be funny.
You are not succeeding - Its a lame gag, BK.
Who do you think you can sway with that here?
You aren’t going to make it as a Rove wannabee with THAT kind of material! LOL.
Its just so silly that you have to come HERE - to try & persuade people with talking points.
Mocking bird, you new medication must be working as they let you use the computer again.
I think you already KNOW that Angry AL is going to lose and you come here to try and persuade folks to think otherwise. You and his supporters seems to be the only folks who believe he can win.
One does not need to look hard to find videos of Angry Al spouting off and getting in peoples faces. he is a very angry hateful man and that will come out and just as with Hatch, MN voters will not take to it at all.
So Mocking bird, care to bet who will win?
(Liberal Kool Aid and depression pills do not mix well, glad you survived)
Glad to see your back and posting, we were worried they might not let you out again.