I just finished watching all the responses from Coleman and Franken at You Choose ‘08. I think Franken really excelled with his clear, complete answers while Coleman just kept spouting out empty talking points. Don’t take my word for it — after the jump are all the questions and the responses.
P.S. Someone should tell Coleman’s cameraman something about framing a shot.
Q: How are you going to transform our energy policy?
Q: How are you going to keep jobs in the industrial Midwest?
Q: What would you do to help increase U.S. voter participation?
Q: What is your position on the Employee Free Choice Act?
Q: What personality trait would make you most effective as a Senator?
Loading ...
Based on Franken’s first response I find this hard to believe. He spent close to half his time talking about Norm. He rambled on about what would be a short-term solution - releasing oil from the reserves - then at the very end he kind of makes fun of the low-haning fruit - the ways individuals can save energy - and yes putting on a sweater and turning down the thermostat makes sense. I think the Dems don’t understand that this is indeed a different era than the Carter administration and that to really solve our energy crisis we are going to have to make changes in the way we live. Al came across and tired and uninspired - did he only have one chance to film this response?
Franken will lose. Kind of a sad, I was looking forward to a spirited nation leading Senate contest. Now, it looks like it won’t even crack the top 10.
Coleman looks like an angry toddler seated in a high chair being fed strained peas. Can’t listen at work. Glad we could get dumb and dumber riled up, though.
I honestly don’t know how you watch these and can say that Franken excelled.
Al Franken is so obsessed with Norm. Almost every sentence in his answers he talks about Norm. Aaron, you might think Franken won, but I think Minnesotans probably favor Coleman’s answers.
lojasmo seems to be the poster child for supporter for a Franken supporters. When faced with a person with whom there are differences, insult them. As a method to winning a popularity contest…er, I mean election, that ranks about a 9 out of 10 on the idiot scale.
I just watched the last one. I know he’s the nominee and its too late to do anything about it, but Al Franken is just a horrible candidate.
Kerosene hat, I agree 100%,
“lojasmo seems to be the poster child for supporter for a Franken supporters. When faced with a person with whom there are differences, insult them.”
Everyone knows your harsh, scathing insults of lojasmo and others you disagree with are not insults.
Great Job!!
But Nitro, I am not asking for votes or compliance to any group. The irony is when those asking for others to join their gang insult people as a method of achieving compliance. Another irony is that somebody like yourself that seems only able to communicate through failed irony misses the irony in just about everything.
Also, I referred to lojasmo’s action and not them as a person for a reason. Everybody does stupid things every now and again. Lojasmo attacked the other posters as stupid people.
Kerosene Hat, I agree 100%,
I use the title, “typical frightened right wing guy”, after all, don’t I.
Great Job!
I think Al knocked it out of the park on these questions. Well done!
Demure One and Dan: I would suggest watching the entire debate before counting Franken out. And in response to Franken talking about Coleman, isn’t that a valid point to bring up? Coleman has asked to be judged by his record, as an incumbent should, and Franken takes the challenge by address the things in Coleman’s record that are lacking. Aside from that, Franken actually offers several different initiatives and plans, including a bill he would introduce on lobbyists, using the SPR to lower gas prices immediately (as PROVEN effective in past releases), and talks about his support of Universal Healthcare and how that could help businesses keep jobs in the US. Therefore, I thought Franken’s comments showed his positions in a clear and concise manner, and the kind of action he would take as a candidate.
On the other hand, it seemed to me that Coleman was very vague, and didn’t really address the questions directly. Instead, he said things like “I think that’s important” or “I’m willing to look at that,” but doesn’t give the viewer any plan for getting these things done, or when they will come to the table.
The lobbyist stuff is compeltely worthless. Its too remote to appeal to voters, and from a practical standpoint its worthless as the lobbyists will find a way around it. Franken is wasting time on a loser issue.
The real problem is how bad Franken comes accross. He would be a good senator because of his work as a satirist? I thought he was done with the satirist crap. And couldn’t they have at least done a couple of takes?
Kerosene Hat-
Demure one is a purity troll who has done nothing but spread mistruths about Franken.
Dumb is a dyed in the wool republican tool. I have absolutely no qualms about insulting trolls and other miscleania for repeated idiotic blather. Neither of them are going to do squat but maybe vote, and it certainly won’t be for Franken…no matter what.
KH — What are you doing here? I’m assuming you’re 18, so go and vote for whomever you want to. Really. It’s abundantly clear that nothing you’re learning here is going to sway you…so why do you keep hanging around?
If you want to try to sway undecided democrats to vote for republicans since everything will stay the same…you’d probably do better trolling another web site. All you’re doing here is boring those already committed to Al Franken or encouraging the Coleman faithful sent here to keep tabs on the opposition.
If you’re just bored waiting for the Happy Magic Unicorn Party to materialize and instantly fix the inequities of the two party system…you might want to check out Facebook. I hear Scramble is bunches of fun.
Coleman used his god-awful New York accent to his advantage on the Free Choice question. He muddled his “ees” and “ers” so that he could say “Employers right to secret ballot” which is what the bill actually takes away, and make it sound like “Employees right…” which is what big business and corporate evil want you to believe.
Chet,
Why do you. Just invert the question with the realization that you will vote for anybody with a D by their name regardless of their stances or qualifications. Since I don’t affiliate with any party at least I have the potential to change my mind. I like Madia and would vote for him if I lived in his district. I don’t dislike Obama and might just vote for him, there is no chance of me voting for McCain, Coleman or Franken.
Terms like purity troll and claims that I am waiting for a magical new party are meaningless defense mechanisms for hyper-partisans. For those who don’t know how to react to people that have some level of principle they are not willing to abandon in their pursuit of power. I spend more time actually working for candidates, some of which have actually won office, and on specific issues than the vast majority of the population. In other words I am not waiting for anything.
It seems that you think your unflinching, unquestioning loyalty to a party and candidate is more worthy than other people’s honest criticism. A attitude that is the antithesis of the type of government I would prefer. An attitude that shows how many Democrats and Republicans are more the same then they are different. They value party loyalty above all else. Especially above the opinions of individuals they are so fervent about governing. I mean really, why won’t those damn people just roll over and accept what you know is good for them. Right Chet.
Golly, I’d be scared you were in the polling booth with me when I pulled the lever…if you had a clue what you were talking about in terms of how I vote.
I don’t, as a matter of routine, vote a straight party-line ticket.
I didn’t vote for Skip Humphrey. I also think Sandy Pappas is poor state senator. Minnesota would have been a better place had Jim Lindau had gotten farther in his race for governor. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat. Nationwide? There are numerous republicans I admire and respect. Olympia Snowe leaps right to mind. Chuck Hagel. Chuck Grassley. Back in Minnesota, Ramsted doesn’t have horns and I never, ever doubted that Vin Weber wasn’t doing he thought was best, even when I personally disagreed with him.
Al Franken could be a Whig and I’d vote for him. I’ve met him before he was a declared candidate. I like him and I respect him. I think he’ll be a great US Senator who will do his best to represent the sincere interests of the citizenry of Minnesota regardless of party affiliation.
I wonder if Franken is going to brush off the value of inflating tires properly. If asking people to conserve energy by putting on a sweater doesn’t pass muster with Franken he might have issues with other common-sense conservation actions that experts support. He may end up messaging in a manner that is in complete opposition to Obama….
I didn’t walk away from that clip thinking Al was dismissing the idea of wearing a sweater and turning down the thermostat as much as he was suggesting that there’s much than those actions that can be done at a household level to increase energy efficiency and reduce fossil fuel consumption. Possibly even ideas that can create local jobs that pay a living wage.
But don’t let me stand in the way of you stirring the pot. You’ve got to earn what you’re being paid to do. Carry on with your insinuations.
His suggestion - retrofitting - is spendy. We should be pushing energy audits, and following the advise of the auditor. For a fraction of the cost of retrofitting one could but a heck of a lot of caulk and insulation.
First off I agree with you on your general assessment on many of the political figures you mentioned. That sentiment however is not reflected in your rhetoric. I also apologize if my disdain for lojasmo’s tactics bled over into my comment to you.
I have a completely different take on Franken than you do. And simply claiming that because in this race in particular I can’t stomach either of the two major parties candidates means that I live in a fantasy world is misguided at best.
I’d be happy to discus the details of why I don’t find myself voting for Franken. It just that none of them are because I like Coleman. For me, this is one race where neither candidate is worthy of support.
The lighting was very good. Good to hide the strings that are telling Norm what to say in his defense. Norm is an example of someone who has been paid off by the big oil, big phamacy and big business and then comes home to tell us he is getting it done. He is getting it done for the lobbyists that own him, hope not for another four years!
I’t a shame that Coleman can’t debate at a better lavel, he’s to busy back pedeling on his record over the last four years. It’s clear that Al Franken is the candidate that cares about the working men and women in MN.
You can be a partisan or not. You can like either candidate or not. However, one thing you can’t do is allege that Franken gave more ambiguous answers than Coleman did. Al Franken made concise statements and offered specific initiatives he’d put forward to address the issues raised by the questioners. He mentioned what Coleman does or does not do as a way of contrasting his program with Colemen’s. It is a fair — even expected — campaign tactic to point out areas of an incumbent’s record where contrast exists. On the other hand, Coleman offered only generalities and vague indications of “what we could work on” or “what we can look at”. Yes, Norm, there a lot of things we “could” do or look at on a given issue — what I’d like to know is what__you__plan on doing. And, while you’re at it, please stop lying about the Employee Free Choice Act. It does not deprive workers of the option of having a secret ballot when deciding whether to organize; it takes that option out of the hands of management and puts it into the hands of the workers, where it belongs. Finally, one thing I surely agree with Franken on: the Senate could use a little humor once in a while.
I think the images presented juxtaposed to the answers given by each of these candidates is worthy of comment.
For example, Norm Coleman used this opportunity to position himself in front of blue wallpaper that had his name written repeatedly across it in white, along with other contact information, in addition to having his name and website data also listed electronically on the lower left of the screen. That almost seemed to me like he was more interested in advertising himself and soliciting donations for his campaign than he was in answering questions.
For Sen. Coleman’s clothing and furniture selection, he is shown wearing a light blue buttoned shirt and is seated in an office chair that is too big for him and too far away, so he looks small. With all this blue, he looks like he is trying to hint that he identifies with blue states and Democrats, like he’s trying his best to not show any Republican red state coloring to his audience. I’m not sure why he would do this, but it does seem like he’s almost hiding something, and it also seems like he wants to seem cool and aloof on purpose without any other colors to add some zip to his presentation. The place this takes place at sort of appears that it was somewhere that he didn’t want us to know about, like maybe it was done in his Senate office, and that his staff put that wallpaper behind him to disguise the location. All this does is remind me of those Osama bin Laden tapes that show him in a plain-looking cave all the time so he can continue to hide without giving anything away about his location in the background.
Coleman’s answers also seemed vague overall to me, and so I have to agree with one of the earlier comments that said the same.
Al Franken, on the other hand, seemed to be talking to me as if I were in his living room. He had a friendly, regular guy tone, and he still said his responses in a clear and understandable way. I didn’t feel like he was hiding from anything, especially when he was at a good distance to the camera…not too close, and not too far away like Norm Coleman was. The lamp lighting the room, the use of many colors, and the lack of all that promotion stuff like Sen. Coleman had was very nice, and it just seemed like Al Franken was very sincere in his conversation with me. I liked that.
In judging each candidates’ efforts, I can quite comfortably say that Al Franken did a great job, imo. I’m looking forward to hearing more about his ideas and plans in the coming weeks. Thanks to YouTube for this presentation!
All you can sy is Al didnt come across well??? this isnt a contest to see who is the best smiling talking head! Listen to the answers people! that is what is important. Al is talking about changing things and Norm is giving you spoon fed blubbering fit for foxtv!
I thought the answers to the “How are you going to keep jobs in the industrial Midwest?” to be the most telling about the candidates. Al responses seemed to get to the real (IMHO) root of the problems that are affecting the manufacturing sector of the economy. Norm went on and on about the standard Republican line about lowering taxes, reducing regulations and shielding companies from lawsuits as a solution. So the answer (according to Norm) would be to allow any corporation to do anything they want; tax free and not be held accountable when what they do causes harm to others?
KH, if IRV was a reality, perhaps there’d be a viable 3rd party candidate, and perhaps the GOP and the DFL would have different candidates.
What I find disappointing is the number of so-called “independents” that are so outspoken against the GOP and DFL, but do so little to push IRV. It seems the DFL is doing more to get IRV enacted, than the minor parties that would benefit most.
Snowy woods gets it. Al is an honest broker. It is obvious in everything he does. Norm is the proverbial used car/snake oil salesman.
Kerosene Hat: I’m not sure “I don’t like Al Franken” counts as a principle. That’s the only sentiment you’re expressing in your comments.
Al Franken, in all of his answers in the debate, gave us detailed information and specific recommendations.
On the energy policy question, for example, Al spent 3 1/2 minutes making four recommendations. Coleman, by contrast, spent one minute on the energy question repeating a lame and standard list of energy options.
Al’s answer to the debate questions show that he is knowledgeable and articulate on the issues we face in this campaign and that he is committed to workable and sane solutions.
Two additional points that Al made on the energy question were that Coleman has taken more money from oil companies than any other Minnesota politician and that Coleman voted against the Senate bill banning oil market speculation. Coleman supporters will call these points “digs.” I would say they are facts that we, the voters, need to know when comparing these two candidates.
Another Chris,
I have stated my reasons before and didn’t want to repeat myself. I am more than willing to though them in detail upon request. The short hand is I think he is insincere and ego driven, his decision making abilities are poor. To top it off his policy positions are superficial and are at best focused on symptoms rather than the core causes of problems. His only selling point is that he isn’t Norm Coleman which while a plus is not nearly enough make him somebody I want as a senator.
Root cause analysis is now your forte, KH? Did you get your training at the Libertarian Party headquarters? Franken offers an approach different then the one we’ve been following for eight years. How does his health care plan fall short of helping thousands of people that Norm is willing to let die in the street? The symptom is 48 million people without health care and many million more under insured. Where’s the root cause for that? I’m curious.
Richard,
The core issue is that we are in debt to a point that nobody is willing to admit. Combining people’s personal debt, national debt, promised outlays (for things such as Medicare, Social Security, many underfunded state pensions, etc.) we have a debt problem that if we had to run honest books in the public sector would put us well past what would normally be the point of bankruptcy.
Big debtors, the federal government being by far the biggest, like inflation. It means that the money they will pay back is worth less than the money they borrowed. Of course the same inflation that helps big debtors is the inflation that reduces the real earnings of those working for a living rather than borrowing. It also reduces the incentive to save and encourages risky investments as a way to stay in front of high inflation rates.
That situation will only get worse as long as interest rates are lower than inflation. Interest rates lower than inflation mean it makes sense to borrow money when the dollars you pay back will be worth less. The lowering value of the dollar creates another huge set of issues by increasing the costs we have to pay for anything that is available on the world market, which is just about everything. Further reducing the earning power of those who work rather than borrow for a living.
Until these fundamentals are taken care of no policy of who pays for medical care or oil will make much difference. Franken is proposing nothing different than what has been going on for 75 years. Both parties have more or less the same philosophies. They want to present solutions that hide the costs and continue to encourage over consumption and increased debt. Promises that will be paid for by “others”. Social Security shifts the costs to the next generation and subsidized transit shifts costs on to the environment, and future generations.
Nothing Franken has proposed would change any of those fundamentals. It won’t matter that Franken wants to pay for health care when the Feds can’t raise enough money to fund the program. His energy or credit proposals are laughable in light of the size of those issues as well. All Franken is doing is trying to make sure his chosen constituents are the last ones to be burdened with the trouble we are collectively in. That is what Democrats and Republicans do. Rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Specifically about health care. We are as a whole a lazy, unhealthy and over privileged bunch of whiners as a nation. We think we should be able to sit on the couch, eat crap, smoke and drink and still have unlimited access to health care. While I believe that everybody should have basic, fundamental health care regardless of preexisting conditions we have to make a few decisions. We have to provide real strong and inescapable incentives for healthy living and preventative care while making a decision on how much we can afford to subsidize the last few years of a persons life. The years where it is easy to spend more in medical costs than a person has made in the entire lifetime.
KH - I have to comment on your last paragraph. Both my husband and I work full-time jobs. We have two kids. They eat healthy food, exercise, and are at healthy weights. They do however get sick. This week we had programs lined up for the kids, but we had a sick kid. We had took turns being home with her on Monday and Tuesday - I managed to get her in to our GP on Tuesday - had to be incredibly proactive to get test results - kid was able to go to camp on Wednesday. The clinic wanted to do a follow-up this week - but guess what? The last appointment for the day is at 4:15 - the first is 8:00 - clinic hours are working hours…so more work missed. Could go to urgent care - it’s open until 6:00. No service on the weekends. Our system is totally messed up. I could go to the emergency room - which I have done. That usually takes 6-8 hours. One could argue families trying to make ends meet with two full-time incomes significantly diminish their ability to get medical care. Probably one of the reasons why people don’t go for preventative care as much as they should. I would argue that we as a nation are working our butts off and don’t have the healthcare infrastructure to get the care we need.
DO,
I agree that the infrastructure is malformed. One reason though is that we are spending huge amounts fixing things rather than preventing them from becoming broken. Your family is forced to deal with a system that is not set up for preventative care or those who take care of themselves.
Totally - what is shocking to me is personally experiencing the decline in healthcare service and availability that has taken place from the early 90s to today. We need single-payer.
DO,
Unfortunately a single payer will not encourage people to make healthy choices. We started to go bad when insurance became attached to employment. Something that happened primarily because of regulation during WW2 that limited salary increases as a way to check inflation. Instead of cash employers started to offer benefits, like health insurance. Of course once you separate the person using the service from the person paying for it everything else gets out of whack.
It worked alright for a while because people tended to stay at their jobs for long periods of time. As such care provided early would mean lower costs for the insurance company down the line. Therefore good, timely and preventative care was financially prudent. Once people started to switch jobs more often insurance companies realized that preventative care was not financially a good investment. A person who received preventative care from company “A” was likely to be covered by insurance company “B” later in life meaning company “A” would not receive any benefits from their investment. Meanwhile company “A” would likely be liable for some people with poor preventative care from company “B”.
We need to get individuals to be carrying their own policies. Hopefully with a mandated basic policy every insurer has to provide at a limited price. One that can provide discounts for healthy choices and regular check-ups. One where the people paying the costs benefit from strong preventative care and healthy life-styles.
We started to go bad when insurance became attached to employment.
No, we started to go bad when insurance became involved. Libertarians want the market to take care of itself and it will. The market will always take care of the market. Those in positions of power will become the feudal lords and the rest of us will be consigned to the status of peasant.
Can I assume you don’t carry insurance of any sort Richard? Or that you appose the laws that force everybody who drives to buy insurance?
You are right about anybody with enough power eventually, most likely, abuse that power. What you don’t seem to acknowledge is that that level of power is achievable just as easily, probably more so, through a strong central government. Just look at the damage that one incompetent, Bush, was able to do when given the power. Nobody can believe that he will be the last person to try to use his office for personal gain.
Fascism, communism or any other form of government that blends business and governmental issues will end up the same in the end. As long as government has the ability to pick favorites and reward one group over the other powerful people will influence how those decisions are made. My view is that government is best when it is impartial. When it only has the power to treat individuals the same as one another.
In fact we have been living in the system you advocate for decades. Elected officials have the ability to regulate every commercial, or pseudo commercial, transaction in the country. The courts dismantling of the Commerce Clause means that individuals have no economic rights that are not granted solely by the legislatures. Your complaints are all about the results of the policies for which you advocate. What we have is what happens when elected officials can make up whatever rule they want to favor whatever group is important to them. That is how we get to the point of lords and peasants.
By the way I don’t know if Libertarians would support my idea that we need to provide a basic level of health-care and education to everybody. Or that the costs on the environment needs to be actualized in the price of goods.