Spoke with JNP last night, had a good 15 minute discussion with him. Told him I liked his stances on Universal Single Payer and gay marriage that I disagreed with his stance on Iraq and many of his foreign policy positions as well as a few others.
It was a good conversation as I was pacing back and forth doing dishes and laundry. And it dawned on me while speaking to the professor. I don’t have a problem with Jack — I don’t agree with him and hey! I don’t agree with lots of folks. But, I can’t stand his supporters.
It came to me while trying to reconcile the candidate with this gibberish.
I understand that in the hurlyburly world of political campaigns you want your guy/gal to win. You think that your candidate is right, and preferably, you believe that the other candidates are less right. You don’t just make s#!% up though!
Why? Because 2008 is going to be about change. Not “experience.” Not “staying the course. Not “full-steam ahead slow” as polling from Iowa, where Barak Obama is pulling ahead of Hillary Clinton makes clear. When the country is experiencing strangulation, triangulation is not what’s called for.
In Minnesota, meanwhile, Al Franken is a Hillary Democrat: a “centrist” whose positions on Iraq and Iran reflect a political center-of-gravity that appears to exist nowhere but in the think tank ether inside the D.C. Beltway and on Sunday morning talking head shows. The electorate already has buyers’ remorse over Amy Klobuchar. It’s not in the mood to send her clone to the Senate next year.
No. When it comes to the general election, the Democrat with the best shot of knocking off Norm Coleman is Nelson-Pallmeyer…
(emphasis mine)
The author of this post is grasping so desperately at straws that he has to impugn the other candidates, make stuff up, and ignore the majority of folks in Minnesota and in the country who don’t agree with you (or Jack Nelson Pallmeyer).
The made up stuff? “The electorate already has buyers’ remorse over Amy Klobuchar.” Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? You mean, the most popular Minnesota Senator this decade? 61% approval overall, 77% among self reported Democrats, a stellar 72% among those who consider themselves moderates? Okay, so maybe there is buyers remorse among the urban peace activists who feel like she hasn’t been liberal enough, but the electorate is pretty fricking high on Senator Klobuchar.
The political center of gravity that exists no where except Washington? Yet more toro-poopoo. I’ve seen this time and time again, and I don’t think it’s JNP’s supporters — it’s the anti-war and ‘peace’ communities who looking down from gilded liberal towers don’t appreciate that not all Democrats think alike. That moderate political center of gravity exists in lots of places. Just not among the activist base in South Minneapolis. You know the people who unlike JNP thought (and many still do think) that the war in Afghanistan was just and right.
And finally, while Barack Obama streaks in Iowa, Hillary Clinton still holds a lead of about 22% nationwide (insert insipid comment by BigKahuna featuring smiley faces “koolaid… blah blah blah murse yadda yadda yadda bought and sold etc… here) — but why pay attention to that, it doesn’t fit into your narrative!
I liked my talk with Jack Nelson Pallmeyer, you can visit his website here, where he discusses at some length his positions. Like I told him, I don’t think I’ll vote for him because I disagree pretty profoundly with his positions on America’s foreign affairs, but he’s still got my ear for now. Some of his supporters on the other hand…
Yeah, Afghanistan is a problem. But its still pretty rich for someone who thinks a toolbox like Franken is a viable candidate to be ripping JNP’s supporters.
St. Paul and Minneapolis based Peace activists have a notion that everyone in the DFL thinks like they do. Sorry to burst the bubble but the DFL statewide is full of people of all stripes, Including (gasp) moderates. JNP is a nice man, and an interesting candidate who is passionate on issues that I feel are important but, Sean is right, some of his supporters are as wacky as the righty wingnuts who attacked Jim Ramstad and other GOP moderates (so called RINOs). What’s next Dinos? (and I don’t mean Fred Flintstone’s pet dinosaur)
Dan,
Coming from someone who has felt it acceptable to share your opinions for various candidates, to so obviously rip on another simply for holding a differing view - well, you personify that which you lament.
So, your reasoning is - if one believes Franken is a viable candidate, they are then not able to share their views on any specific group of voters - or, is it that their comments become “rich” when they share their views on this group?
Marc
No my reasoning is if one believes that Franken is a viable candidate, don’t tell me that JNP’s supporters are crazy. My initial comment concedes that JNP has a problem on Afghanistan. I’ll tell you right off that Ciresi has run a very disappointing and lackluster campaign. But no one who supports Franken will address his horrible record on the war, his continuing dishonesty about it, and the fact that Coleman will tear him apart with his own quotes. Nope, let’s just pretend its all ok and ridicule those crazy Peace First people. Nearly five into the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, shouldn’t we be riduculing “war first” candidates like Al Franken?
Dan,
I will definitely concede that Franken’s radio and TV career leaves much for the Coleman and RNC crowd to run with — that it, if needed, and I believe I know the substance on what you are stating concerning Franken and frustration that the DFL has failed to support certain candidates to their own detriment.
What I don’t understand is your insistence that Franken is not a viable candidate only because — and correct me if I am wrong — of his failure to oppose the war from the beginning. I have not heard you — or read — any comments - about how you spoke with Franken about any policy issues and came away dissatisfied with a response or a position, or that you have for X amount of time witnessed the development of his policy positions and therefore have come away with a certain position. I don’t hear you take issue with anything regarding Franken’s policy stances except the issue with the war. The fact is MANY people supported and were taken up by the ramp/build up before the war. And, many people regret — while others don’t — the failure for them to look more skeptically at the administrations claims. All you seem to do is take statements of Franken’s, call him a liar repeatedly, while failing to show even an once of serious analysis on where his support came from and what he had done since. While you might have done so much, I fail to see you share these things here.
I agree that Franken has many liabilities because of his satire over the years, but I also think that he is a viable candidate due to both his grasp of the issues and his ability to reach out to a substantial segment of the population unrepresented at the ballot box.
What is most frustrating — in my opinion — is how repeatedly make personal attacks on someone without even knowing the person you are attacking. Be frustrated — sure. Be freaken pissed — that’s fine. But attack someone without 1) even engaging in a bit of discourse about substanitive policy issues, and 2) not even knowing the guy. I guess I will admit that I am assuming you don’t know him — I stand corrected if that is not the case.
Get off the damn war thing and dissect him based on a broad spectrum of policy concerns — in any place, single issue voters — or complainers — simply do little to further the discourse.
Marc
-Oh yeah, I agree- Ciresi’s campaign has been unbelievably non-existent.
Okay, how about where JNP stands on veterans issues? Not the wars, but veterans issues. His website has zilch. How about on women’s rights? Again, nothing on his website. I’ve heard him speak several times - never a word of substance on either. I’ve heard Al speak on both - comprehensively and in detail. I’ve never heard Ciresi on these issues either. I’m not talking about the basic…”I support….” but details, issues, with specifics.
Amy Klobuchar’s lack of constituent service, and lack of town meetings in the Metro area is going to come back to haunt her. I’ve never gotten any emails back from her. Norm Coleman is excellent in this regard.
Klobuchar had the same problem during her campaign.
Marc L.
” The fact is MANY people supported and were taken up by the ramp/build up before the war. And, many people regret — while others don’t — the failure for them to look more skeptically at the administrations claims. All you seem to do is take statements of Franken’s, call him a liar repeatedly, while failing to show even an once of serious analysis on where his support came from and what he had done since. While you might have done so much, I fail to see you share these things here.”
That sums it up for me. There are those who are way way too obvious about their lack of critical analysis and value deceptive consequentialism rather than looking at the actual honest value of what they say here.
I think a lot of Minnesotans have figured this out, and don’t like that very much. But hey, I’m just trying to “distract from Mark Ritchie”, right? LOLOLS
Not only is MDE becoming more worthless every day, but those trolls who have been trained to say and act a certain way are completely oblivious as to why the Republican party is as unpopular as it is, and they unconsciencely continue to drive their approval rating down.
What does this have to do with Franken?
Everything. He definately shares this belief. He’s counting on it. He predicted it, wrote about it, and has a strategy to deal with it. He’ll do just fine.
You said, Marc:
“attack someone without 1) even engaging in a bit of discourse about substanitive policy issues, and 2) not even knowing the guy.”
Exactly.
The things that really matter will rise above the swift boaters and their bullshit. I can’t wait to see Franken, Ciresi, or whoever the Democratic candidate is debate Norm Coleman on the issues. That will be an entertaining day.
The people are going to vote on what is the right ideology for Minnesota. What direction are we going to take as a State?
THAT, my friend, will beat character attacks this time.
This is the first post that I have ever seen on this site that addresses the obnoxiousness of JNP’s supporters. Thank you! Also, that the JNP’s supporters fail to recognize that it is okay to moderate democrats because working together is better than tearing apart.
And Eva, maybe you should recognize that it is just you. Your reputation for annoyance preceeds you.
Nitro,
“The things that really matter will rise above the swift boaters and their bullshit. I can’t wait to see Franken, Ciresi, or whoever the Democratic candidate is debate Norm Coleman on the issues. That will be an entertaining day.”
Ditto - I am going to love watching Coleman attempt to justify his time as chair of the permanent subcommittee on investigations in light of the issues coming out on Blackwater. I, as well as many other Minnesotans, deserve an explanation as to how so many things were going on regarding war-profiteering (sp?) and general misappropriation during his tenure as chair - without any investigation! This subcommittees predecessor (sort of) -the Truman Committee - had 100s of investigations into war spending - what did we get? The damn oil-for-food investigation.
Marc
Sean,
“I don’t have a problem with Jack — I don’t agree with him and hey! I don’t agree with lots of folks. But, I can’t stand his supporters.”
Interesting - Have you met all his supporters? While I am guessing you are generalizing, I think taking the time to speak more specifically about what you are saying would go along way towards helping people understand your perspective.
Are you stating all JNP supporters hold the views stated by this writer? If so, back it up - if not, clarify your meaning.
Because polling data shows Amy K’s approval rating at 61% does not mean one is not entitled to write from their own perspective. I would say the majority of the people I know are pleased with Amy’s representation overall but very disappointed at her votes regarding war funding. An opinion on the former doesnt defeat one on the later - and both deserve our attention.
All that being said - I’m glad you spoke with JNP - really great guy but not very viable, in my opinion, for a statewide office.
Marc
Marc,
You really, really, really missed the point.
Its not just that Franken supported the war initially. Although it should be noted that unlike a lot of Democrats who voted for the war resolution out as a political calculation, and maybe didn’t really want war, Franken just flat out wanted to start a war. That is why instead of marching at anti-war rallies like a lot of Democrats, or even just calling for more time or seeking U.N. approval, Franken was speaking at a right-wing Clear Channel pro-war rally. JNP may be peace first, but Al Franken was most certainly war first.
Now if Franken had come out and just said that he was wrong, maybe I could forgive him. But Franken instead says that he, like everyone else, was fooled into going to war. But if you look at stories and polls from shortly before the war, many and in some cases, most people were skeptical about Bush’s claims and thought we should get U.N. approval and give more time for inspections. Franken is lying by misrepresenting what was going on at the time. There was a real choice, and Franken was wrong. Watching that Coleman clip, I think there may be a pathological component to Franken’s lying, because his lies are so bad and obvious.
The other problem with Franken is that he says he relied on Colin Powell’s speech. Even at the time there was evidence that Powell was lying and there was other evidence that conflicted with what Powell was saying. If you go look at the Franken stories on Ericblackink.com, you can see what the serious gaps in Franken’s reasoning. I see that you repeat the bullshit line about Franken’s grasp of the issues. If you look at the war, Franken exhibited horrible horrible judgment, and a complete inability to analyze the situation. He was also very slow to come around on the war and on withdrawal. When Democrats were calling for withdrawal last year, Franken “agreed with Bush” and opposed the Democrats. Franken is a quick talker, but his grasp of the issues is shit. Of the candidates running for this race, he is far and away the dumbest.
So Marc, its not just how Franken was brutally wrong on one really big issue. Its about how he got to that wrong answer - his horrible judgment and reasoning skills. Its that he continued to be wrong about it for years - he’s a slow learner. Its about how he has lied to cover up his mistakes. Frankly, Franken isn’t much more honest than Coleman is. Except that Coleman is a better liar than Franken is, and that is why Coleman will use Franken’s words against him to crucify him next November.
Dan,
“Franken just flat out wanted to start a war.”
I really don’t know how to respond to that - could you provide substantive proof showing specifically how, where, and when Franken displayed this?
Yes, Franken spoke at a Clear Channel event — Air America is currently — and was then, as well — carried on many Clear Channel owned local radio stations. Yes, Franken believed something had to be done — as did many.
“But Franken instead says that he, like everyone else, was fooled into going to war.”
So, in your opinion, Franken is unable to admit that he was misguided or wrong . . .interesting.
“The other problem with Franken is that he says he relied on Colin Powell’s speech.”
As did millions of others —
“… you can see what the serious gaps in Franken’s reasoning.”
and because there are gaps in one’s reasoning does not mean a damn thing — I would like to know one person that displays reasoning that consistently cannot be taken a part by sound analysis.
“I see that you repeat the bullshit line about Franken’s grasp of the issues.”
Have you spoke with Franken about the issues? I stated my opinion based on my conversations with Franken on several occasions. He simply does have a grasp on the issues no matter how much you keep recycling the same issue without pointing out any substance behind the broad assertion that he doesn’t have a grasp on policy, that his reasoning is bad, or that he has terrible judgment. Please, Dan, you almost sound reasoned and then you make statements like that that display an obvious lack of any thoughtful analysis.
What are Franken’s positions on health care?
Social Security?
Presidential Authority and inherent powers?
Minimum Wage? Living Wage?
Environmental Protection?
Federalism — state’s rights — military service . . .?
Dan, please, let us know specifically how you’ve come to base the sweeping assertion on Franken that his reasoning is bad based on the above and I am quite certain, if able to articulate a reason that supports your assertion, you’d have a lot more converts to your position.
Marc
Simple question. Why did Franken support a war, especially when he had nothing to gain politically like many other Democrats, that the man he calls a hero was brave enough to stand up against it?
If Franken had a verifiable track record of making the right choices on important issues before they were popular I could maybe understand it. Unfortunately he has a mixed record of making good choices and being consistent. Also he slips between “satire” and serious issues so much that which is which becomes a matter of a persons perspective. All in all not a winning combination, even if he is elected. Especially when there are equal or better choices to be had in either JNP or Ciresi.
Finally, why do some seem to think that a candidate that breeds so much animosity within his own party is their best chance to win a general election?
Because polling data shows Amy K’s approval rating at 61% does not mean one is not entitled to write from their own perspective.
That’s just the point, though. The commenter Sean mentioned was claiming to speak for the entire electorate, which s/he said was experiencing “buyer’s remorse.”
By the way, Klobuchar held true to her word to stand up for fair trade a few days ago when she was one of 18 senators to vote against the expansion of NAFTA to Peru. This has received virtually no attention that I can find in the local progressive blogosphere.
As for Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, I have a great amount of respect for him that I didn’t have for someone like Ford Bell, for one huge reason: JNP has actually lived his values with action. He’s written numerous books, he’s been extremely vocal in standing up for his beliefs when it took a lot of courage to do so, and he’s been active on the grassroots level for years. There are a lot of other activists who do this work too, in various fields, and I respect them for that. Lots of these people have heard of JNP, and had heard of Paul Wellstone in 1990, because both of them had been involved in this type of ground-level work for decades. Nobody had heard of Ford Bell before he decided to run for the Senate. His qualifications were having spent his adult life at his veterinary practice and his art museums quietly thinking grand thoughts, and he had this attitude like he was going to “enlighten” everybody.
That said, there are some differences in emphasis between Wellstone and JNP. Wellstone had been involved in a lot of causes over the years. There was some foreign policy stuff in there: anti-Vietnam War, pro-nuclear freeze, anti-Central American intervention. But there was a lot of bread-and-butter economic stuff in there too: organizing low-income residents of Rice County, blocking construction of a rural powerline, blocking farm foreclosures, supporting striking workers, and so forth. When Wellstone ran the first time, it was the economic issues that he chose to build his campaign around. JNP’s activism has been overwhelmingly related to building support for an anti-imperialist foreign policy, and he seems to be building a lot of his campaign around that as well. And in terms of style, listening to Wellstone speak felt like being at a populist tent revival, while listening to JNP feels more like sitting in an Episcopalian church.
Marc,
The Clear Channel pro-war rally had nothing to do with Air America. Do you know how I know? Because the pro-war rally was held in March 2003, and Air America did not begin broadcasting until 2004. No, Al Franken went and spoke at a pro-war rally for a right-wing, Bush-supporting media company because Al Franken wanted the U.S. to start a war. Not to authorize force, mind you, but to start the invasion.
While Franken eventually came around to oppose the war, in 2006 when the Democrats began offering withdrawal plans, Franken stabbed them in the back and said (on Air America) that he opposed withdrawal timelines and “agreed with Bush.” Shit, listen to Franken at the debates, and he’s still waffling on withdrawal. His position is barely distinguishable from Norm Coleman’s. You may think that Franken’s enthusiastic war support and break from the Democrats to side with Bush to continue the war years afterwards is just one issue. I would say that it is the substance behind my arguments. Over and over and over again Franken has utterly and completely failed to “grasp the issues.” Yeah, lots of people were fooled by Colin Powell - lots of Fox News viewers. But anyone with any “grasp of the issues” sure wasn’t. Franken likes to lie and say that support for Powell and the war was overwhelming, but if you go back and look at stories and polls at the time, that simply isn’t true.
Your determination that Franken has a “grasp of the issues” is completely superficial. See, when you talk to Franken, he talks fast and can spit out a lot of informaton, and you interpret that as Franken being smart. When you break down what he has said over the years, the guy can barely tell his ass from third base. You are getting sucked in by style over substance.
Franken’s positions on those other issues are all pretty standard democratic fare (and pretty vague), although I can’t say I’m too excited about his support for Nuclear Power, nothing really offends me. But the one issue - Iraq - Franken has been so incredibly wrong for so long, that it really outweighs everything else. And again, if Franken had owned up to it, maybe he could be forgiven. But instead he just lies and tries to justify his actions.
If Franken is the nominee, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. But a lot of other people won’t. Why anyone supports him is a mystery.
He’s a shitty DLC Democrat (Franken actually says that he is a DLC democrat in one of his books) with a ton of baggage. He’s like the worst candidate the DFL could have ever found. The Republicans would never nominate Ann Coulter. This really isn’t much different.
Dan,
Again, I repeat what I stated before - single issue voters and/or candidates do little to further the discussion.
Back up your comments/assertion that Franken wanted to start a war. Seriously, back them up with substance.
I agree that his fear of angering the peace-activists had led him to waffle on explaining his previous support.
KH stated:
“Also he slips between “satire” and serious issues so much that which is which becomes a matter of a persons perspective.”
This is what I see as his biggest issue - whether or not he has the ability/self-awareness to know when this is appropriate and when it is not. I fail to see that his previous support for the war or his stance against pulling the troops out will be his biggest hurdles.
KH stated:
“Why did Franken support a war, especially when he had nothing to gain politically like many other Democrats, that the man he calls a hero was brave enough to stand up against it?”
Are you stating that you have to agree with someone 100% to gain the right to consider him/her a hero?
Dan stated:
“The Clear Channel pro-war rally had nothing to do with Air America. Do you know how I know? Because the pro-war rally was held in March 2003, and Air America did not begin broadcasting until 2004.”
Actually, Air America - as a concept - was initiated in 2002. Investors were being lined up from the beginning and by 2003 the push was on big time to find viable markets to air the programming. Again, I’ll repeat the question, how do you know that the Clear Channel event had nothing to do with Air America?
Marc
Kerosene Hat,
You stated:
“Finally, why do some seem to think that a candidate that breeds so much animosity within his own party is their best chance to win a general election?”
I don’t think I ever made that assertion in any of the above posts. What I take issue with is people who will not back up their assertions with any substance and instead move forward with sweeping generalizations that do nothing but get dumb-a** people like me to sound off multiple times . . .
Seriously, I have not solidified my support of any candidate and likely will not for some time. I hope to further the dialog - both for self-serving motives (to better inform myself) and to hopefully, possibly bring other people into the conversation or cause other people to think about issues from a different perspective. I simply don’t believe single-issue based reasoning can really stand up - but, thats just my opinion.
Marc
Marc,
I didn’t mean to imply that you personally had solidified your support and apologize if it read that way. I do think that many have though and feel the point is valid in a general sense.
I don’t think you have to agree with somebody 100% of the time in order to consider them a hero but the use of force resolution was the one of if not the single bravest vote Wellstone made. It also was on the biggest single vote congress has made in decades. The ones who voted against it are the ones that even if they believed Iraq had WMD read what they were voting on and knew that supporting it would be abdicating their responsibilities as congress-people. Many of them made a political calculation and voted for it anyway, Hillary and Edwards among them. Franken can have no other reason to have supported the war than falling to the fear pumped up by the Bush administration despite his hero Wellstone voting against it.
It is easy for a candidate to stake out popular positions on issues when running for the endorsement. It is in our best interest to support a candidate that has a track record of making the right decisions AT THE RIGHT TIME. Especially on issues as devastating as the vote on Iraq. It also seems that JNP and Ciresi have positions that are every bit or more favorable to Democrats than Franken. So why in the end would anybody choose to support the candidate that would have made such a fundamentally bad choice while better, smarter options with more definable track records are available.
I am not a single issue voter, and have views closer to Franken than JNP on most issues, but I do give different issues different weight. Iraq was the biggest mistake this country has made since Viet Nam, tens or hundreds of thousands dead over paranoia about non-existing WMDs and pseudo-democracy, and there is no reason to support a person who would have made that mistake while there are other options still available.
Sean, you mention that you disagree with JNP on Iraq and on a number of other foreign policy issues. Kerosene Hat, you say that you have views closer to Franken than JNP.
I wonder if either of you would be willing to talk about those disagreements a bit.
My motivation here, of course, is to steer the conversation to policy questions. I believe that this is a very important race at a very dangerous time in history. It seems to me that our job as citizens is to pick a U.S. Senator who might be best capable of meeting these challenges (the war/wars, healthcare, climate change, economic disparity, and so on). If we could have an open and honest discussion about the actual issues and then look at the candidates through that filter, I think it would be more productive.
What say? Either of you willing to address areas of policy disagreement?
“I believe that this is a very important race at a very dangerous time in history”
Charley, are you saying you think this may be “the most important decade”?
What do you think of the candidates?
Sean,
Getting back to the original point of your post, as I believe it to be, i agree with you whole heartedly. I remember the fifth district rallies when JNP was running for CD5. His supporters scarred the crap out of me! They weren’t just aggressive but downright hostile to anyone who disagreed with them.
He’s a nice person, I’ve interacted a bit with him at various conventions and spoken with him a few times on the phone, He has some of the right ideas, some of the wrong ones, and I’ve told him I disagree with him in many areas. When i did so, he was polite, engaging, and down right brilliant in a lot of areas trying to explain, but not push, his viewpoints on me. His supporters on the other hand… if you say you disagree, they jump on you as if you were Lucifer himself! The thought of his hard core supporters trying to bring in the moderates, even of our own party, is one that i shudder at. They can’t do it, they would be polarizing and push people to look for a third, less intense/aggressive option, which may happen if Dean Barkley gets into the race.
Bluntly, what is so different about Pallmeyer on the issues? So if we take a look at his website, we see a few things>
Domestic policy: He likes single-payer health-care. Fine and dandy - I think its more than likely he may, in a decade or two, end up being right. But if you look down the links for his economic plans and you find… a lot of platitudes, and single-payer. Okay. So in other words, he is standing up for something that will likely be the eventual solution, and has the guts to do it first. But for the rest of his position he’s… spouting the same boiler-plate as his opponents for the DFL nod. All of them talk about how things have to be made better, and all of them use high-sounding language to say it.
On foreign policy, he is saying something different. Yep, the government spends a lot on defense. Yep, the Pentagon procurement processes ensures that there will be some pretty egregious incidents where you can’t not wonder ‘how many kids could have gotten health-care with this money we seem to have wasted’. But let’s face it: what Pallmeyer and the rest of the peace movement advocate is isolationism, pure and simple. Isolationism with a nice warm and fuzzy gloss on it, but isolationism. And however bad thinsg are right now, a total US disengagement from the world would be far, far worse.
And I guess this is where Sean’s post really resonates with me. Pallmeyer maybe be a nice and intelligent man. But his domestic policy stands have few stated differences in substances from his opponents, and his foreign policy, while it sounds beautiful, runs into difficulties when applied to a world full of human beings. You will forgive me if I am not swept away with an enthusiasm to elect this man to the Senate.
But his followers, after all of this, act like he is a messiah. Its more than a little insulting, actually.
John S:
If you think single-payer is the solution we need for our healthcare mess, why would you start with a blanket acceptance of the status quo? Truly, if you see that there is a problem and if you think that single-payer is the best solution, it doesn’t hurt a thing to ask for it. You can always compromise later. You can always accept incremental victories along the way. But if you start the entire discussion with a position of accepting more huge subsidies to the big pharma and the insurance companies, how are we moving closer to a true universal healthcare?
Where you really floor me is by trying to describe Jack as an isolationist. That is one of the most bizarre accusations I have heard for months. Have you heard him speak at all? Have you heard his India stories? Have you heard anything about the living and working in Central America, about the tours he led there?
Jack’s view is amazingly internationalist; he just doesn’t think that military imperialism is making us any safer. Most people would agree with him at this point; they indicate feeling that our past 6 years of wars and interventions have made the world a more dangerous place, including for Americans.
As for the messiah thing, I’m not really sure how to respond. There are quite a few of us who are quite disappointed with the job that Democrats have done since reaching a majority in Congress. Quite a few folks have been voting for Democrats, expecting an end to this tragic war and our general culture of cronyism and corruption. Some of us look at Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and see a level of integrity that seems missing, a deeper vision, a willingness to stand up for principle. Would you want us to be more lukewarm in our support of him?
I don’t know what your party preference is, John S. But if you are a Democrat, I would think that you would want to somehow tap into that degree of support. You just can’t buy it. Why not accept it, use it to make phone calls and ring doorbells and make political contributions? Unless your are really OK with how things are going. But then you are stuck with robo-calls and more of the status quo.
JNP is a great guy and a rare candidate with integrity. There is no one candidate that can do much damage in a body of 100 but, one can do nothing. More than Ciresi and Franken, JNP can work with others.
The manager Larry Weiss (married to Mpls School Board member Pam Costain). Larry tends to surround himself with like minds (ie Wellstone Action training graduates or Peace First volunteers). Great group of people but, a real perspective of Minnesota voters is not there beyond the Fifth District. Its a very insular way to design a campaign, especially for someone who supposedly can’t stand the status quo and has world view. A real sign of how one will govern is the make up of their campaign and their interaction with voters (not just supporters).
As a matter of fact when it comes to staff, none are impressive. If I had to pick one, Franken has the most likely talent by a long shot.
While I understand that Charley wold like to stick to policy issues, the staff issue is huge. Its the single factor that keeps Ciresi from breaking through, even most will acknowledge that he’s our best chance to beat Norm. If you have a bunch of jerks around you, how does that play when people try to contact or work with your guy?
Sean has a point.
I maintain it doesn’t matter all that much which DFL’er gets the nomination. little normy has an atrocious record to defend and whomever the DFL’er is, norm’s record is going to be center stage. norm’s relationship with the criminal Bush will also have to hammered on constantly. norm’s name does not appear without Bush’s name in the same sentence. What is going to be essential is the two candidates who don’t get the nomination to actively campaign for the nominee. Will Pallmeyer and Franken support Ciresi if Ciresi gets the party nod?
Richard,
I expect JNP to support the endorsed candidate. You really think that after Franken has spent two years and four million dollars he would really walk away if he lost the endorsement? No frickin way.
Franken still is the front runner but with JNP offering another choice for left leaning progressives without the baggage and Ciresi still waiting to pounce, he can’t be taking it for granted. I’m sure the back-up plan is to go the DFL primary voters and let them decide. His name ID and millions on hand will keep him viable.
With the current health of the DFL, Ciresi and Franken have to be asking themselves what do they gain by sticking to the endorsement. It’s not like the party can launch any kind of assault. Both of them have more money on hand than the party raised all year.
Count on a DFL primary next year. It’s a bad idea but, there is no incentive not to have one for the leading two candidates.
All 4 candidates (Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Franken, Cirsei and Cohen) have publicly and repeatedly said that they would abide by the endorsement. It is interesting that DJZ believes that Jack will keep his pledge, while he apparently believes that Franken will not. Another proof of Jack’s integrity?
The endorsement question is pretty major, this time around.
Mike Ciresi and Mark Dayton both ran against the DFL Senate endorsement in 2000 (which went to Jerry Janezich). Ciresi lost to Dayton, of course. I doubt that Ciresi would want to go through that whole mess again, especially if there is an endorsement and especially having said so often that he would abide. It immediately puts him in the untenable position of being a flip-flopper and opportunist. Not a good place for a wealthy lawyer to be.
Franken has his own problems if he doesn’t abide, after having said so often that he would. He is already dealing with high negatives. One of them is the carpetbagger charge, which is reinforced by his poor in-state versus out-of-state contribution ratios ($550,000 versus $1,800,000 in the last quarter, according to Open Secrets).
All this is about electability, not policy (which I would have preferred to discuss). But what I see is that Norm Coleman gets to smile his way to victory under either of these scenarios. It also seems likely that Coleman will have a rather easy time of it if the Rochester state DFL convention doesn’t produce any endorsement at all. Democrats fight each other; Coleman wins. Uggg!
So I really hope that the convention produces an endorsement and I really hope that all the candidates abide, because I really don’t want another 6 years of Norm Coleman. And personally, I really hope that the endorsee and nominee and eventually the Senator is Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. He has no negatives (except for maybe having Larry Weiss and some other over-enthusiastic followers like me supporting him). Jack is exciting and inspiring and gives me hope. And, gosh darn it, people really like him!
Not only that, I really actually think he would make a good Senator. (But we can talk about policy later.)
Charley-
‘Blanket acceptance of the status quo’? I said I didn’t like a single-payer system and I didn’t like a candidate, and now I’m suddenly a tool of the status quo. You know, this is exactly what I was talking about (and I think Sean was, too) - anyone who try’s to debate with any of Pallmeyer’s supporters gets pigeon-holed as a sheep comfortable with how things are.
I’m not, and I doubt many of Pallmeyer’s other critics are either. The difference is, we want to see results, and to be blunt, we know that this is not a game. Pallmeyer’s website is fuzziest on his policy positions, and has no details of what he thinks single-payer will cost, and how he would pay for it. Franken’s site says how he thinks Universal Coverage should be the end goal as well - and he has a few ideas of where to start on the way to get there.
So again, based on the issue pages of their websites, there’s no difference between either candidate. Except of course, Franken has a staff that tries to enlist people, and not castigate them, and Franken has some idea of how he’d go about getting things done. That’s because he’s at the head of a campaign for US Senate, not at the head of a strange sort of day-camp for the self-righteous.
Pallmeyer’s view is principled, not internationalist, and its an important distinction. And ‘isolationist’ doesn’t mean ‘never left the country. Quite simply, the way peace is maintained in the ugly real world is through diplomacy backed up with the promises of trading right, hard currency, and armed force. Bush has been a horrible foreign policy president because he is a f*ckwit, not because the tools of the system are broken.
To be blunt, again, I don’t care how many tours he’s been on. I simply know that Pallmeyer holds to an ideology which would have us forswear all the tools of real diplomacy in favor of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping for the best. That he, and many like him, have the gall to say that makes them the only real champions of peace is rage I will keep for another day.
But the point is this: Pallmeyer is in favor of a foreign that would only create more chaos than there already is. He has a domestic policy sheet that stripped of the cuddly rhetoric, is identical to his opponents - except his opponent say how he’d do something. And he has a foreign policy that is at best naive and at worse catastrophic. So why on Earth would any sane Democrat want to endorse this man?
I’m no advocate of Pallmeyer but I have to take issue with JS.
Quite simply, the way peace is maintained in the ugly real world is through diplomacy backed up with the promises of trading right, hard currency, and armed force. Bush has been a horrible foreign policy president because he is a f*ckwit, not because the tools of the system are broken.
A couple of things wrong here, first, maintaining peace in the real world cannot be done with armed force. As the old saying goes, “That’s like fucking for virginity.” The world economy has to be demiliterized and world poverty has be addressed. Until that happens, wars will continue to sap the economies of the rich nations and keep the poorest nations from rising to anything like a modern state. Bush is not a fuckwit, he is a criminal but not an idiot. He has executed a plan for the enrichment of a few individuals that has gone off without a hitch.
Richard-
And I would say that to build a better world, you have to address the world that exists, not the world you would like to exist. I wish I could say that bad things only happened when bad people conspired to make them happen. But unfortunately, thats not the case.
Short-sightedness, pride, and desire to avenge past wrongs are things that will lead even well-meaning people over the brink into force, if there is no deterrent. And there will always be people who are on the look out for the main-chance, for the easy buck. I think JNP and lot of people in the peace movement seem to think that if they close their eyes tight enough, those problems will cease to exist.
But wishing doesn’t make it so.
All of the comments about JNP supporters operate on two assumptions: first, that other candidates don’t have some annoying backers (don’t all candidates?)
Second, there’s this assumption that it’s only those who supported him for CD5 that are supporting him in this race. Dangerous and false assumption. There are lots of folks who either didn’t support him then or who supported him very quietly who are supporting him openly in this race. And he’s also winning support far outside the metro and CD5.
In terms of the staffing issues raised earlier, isn’t it a little silly to suggest that someone who worked closely with Wellstone to win three elections doesn’t have a broad enough set of relationships to help JNP win this time?
Folks are underestimating this candidate, this campaign, and its supporters.
Quite a few folks are unhappy with our current healthcare system. Over 50 million people have no health insurance at all. Most of us have seen double-digit increases in our premiums and co-pays for the past few years. The complicated and bureaucratic systems of private billing currently soak up about 25 cents of each health dollar, compared to around 5 or 6 percent of single-payer systems. Among industrialized countries, the United States pays more per capita and gets worse results than nearly any other nation (in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, days sick, and so on).
Paying for healthcare through our employers puts U.S. businesses at a worldwide competitive disadvantage and stifles entrepreneurship by forcing individuals to remain in unproductive jobs that provide them with health benefits.
So single-payer is cheaper, covers more people and produces better health results. Of course, there is always some pain with transition, but unless you really feel that folks like William McGuire really need our charitable assistance, single-payer just makes more sense.
Of the 4 DFL candidates for U.S. Senate, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer and Jim Cohen support single-payer. Mike Ciresi and Al Franken don’t.
The war in Iraq is a hot issue as well, of course. It seems to me that there are 2 fundamental reasons to be unhappy with it. Oversimplified, we could say that some might say that it was a bad idea, while others might say that it was a good idea but poorly executed.
Of the 4 candidates, Jack N-P, Ciresi and apparently Cohen initially opposed the war. Franken supported the war in Iraq for its first few years, though he has changed his position. Only Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer was public and vocal in that opposition, advising Paul Wellstone to vote against authorizing it and debating various Republicans about its wisdom.
Earlier this year, Al Franken (in personal conversations I had with him) still seemed to find the Iraq war merely badly done. When I asked him about solutions in Iraq, he spoke about “re-Baathification” and partition between the 3 main Iraqi ethnicities. On his website right now, he still doesn’t advocate a complete withdrawal from Iraq or renounce permanent U.S. military bases.
Jack, on the other hand is deeply concerned about the long-term de-stabilizing effect of ongoing U.S. colonization of Iraq. He says very clearly that our over-reliance on military solutions to diplomatic problems has left us less secure and financially less able to deal with expensive real problems like global warming or infrastructure needs.
A person might agree with Jack (as I do) or with Al Franken, but I think it is completely disingenuous to describe Jack’s position as naïve or as wishful thinking. In reality, of course, Jack has been right on this war and Al Franken was wrong in his initial support. Jack’s position has been incredibly realistic, while the supporters of the war have proven to have their eyes tightly closed and their heads completely in the sand. Witness the “mission accomplished” and other victory celebrations.
Some on this list find all this self-righteous. I know that Eugene McCarthy had a film made about him called “I’m Sorry I Was Right.” I am sorry also. I am sorry that nearly 4,000 Americans have died in this tragic war. I am sorry that around 1.2 million Iraqis have died because of it. I am sorry that we have destroyed their country and given their children a lifetime of nightmares. I am sorry for the pain of returning Americans, deeply wounded in body or mind. I am sorry that my own country will not have the 2 trillion dollars we have spent on this war for fixing bridges and providing healthcare and solving the problems of global warming and energy use. I am deeply sorry, and I take no joy in being right about this.
I am also sorry if I seem self-righteous. I mean no harm. I was only trying to warn you. Perhaps you will just have to see it for yourself. I am sorry about that as well.
Marc, how do I know that the Clear Channel pro-war rally that Franken spoke at had nothing to do with Air America (aside from the fact that Air America is a liberal radio network and it was a pro-war rally)?
- The pro-war rally occurred in March 2003.
- Al Franken joined Air America in January 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=105861517
- Clear Channel first started airing Air America in March 2004.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/33767.html
Of course, maybe Franken has such a good “grasp of the issues” that he predicted that he would be working for Air America 10 months later and that Clear Channel would pick up Air America stations a year later. Its a shame that he also couldn’t predict that the war he so enthusiastically supported would be the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history.
Hi everyone
I hope this is not a stupid question, but this is my first time here. Can enyone please tell me how to become a member of this website. I can’t see where to click to join. I would like to know when new stuff is added.
Thank you for your patience with a newby.