Al Franken the Day After

[shereads]

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

MESSAGE FROM AL

Anytime you lose like this, there’s a certain amount of Wednesday-morning quarterbacking and woulda-coulda-shoulda. I have no regrets myself, but as I look back at Kerry’s campaign, there are a couple of points where, if he had it all to do over again, I think he should have done it differently.

For example, in the first debate, Kerry announced that he would put our national security decisions in the hands of France. He said very explicitly that we would have to pass a global test before using force. I think a lot of us watching at the time thought that that was a mistake.

Also, of course, the flip-flops, especially those about Iraq. Voting, as you know, for the war, then against it, for it, then against it-having, as Sean Hannity said, literally 80 different positions. I wish he could have chosen one position and stuck with it.

Kerry’s decision to ban the Bible. That was a huge mistake, especially in very Christian areas. That might have gone over fine in atheist communities, but it cost him big everywhere else.

And then proposing a health care system that would impose an enormous federal bureaucracy and give medical decisions to paper-pushers in Washington, and in France.

And going back to Vietnam, the way he lied about what happened, inflicted those wounds on himself to get those medals, and then threw them out-I think that was a mistake. Of course, that was a mistake that he made back then, decades ago. But he could have been more honest about it now.

A lot of people talk about Bush’s record, and what he might do in the next term, but what this really comes down to is character. And ceding your doctor’s authority to France, and the flip-flops, and shooting himself in the leg to win a medal-I guess those things just overcame the awful, failed presidency of George W. Bush.

***

You know I wouldn’t mind losing an election if it were an honest disagreement, based on facts, over values and policy. But that’s not what happened. A large majority of Bush supporters went to the polls believing things that were false. For example, any of the above. They believed lies about Kerry, and they believed lies about Iraq, and they believed lies about Bush.

We’re not going to heal this country as long as we have a president who won’t be accountable, who won’t tell the truth, who is willing to campaign with a vicious dishonesty that is unprecedented.

After Barry Goldwater was crushed by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, the right decided to take a long view. They poured literally billions of dollars into creating the right-wing infrastructure that dominates our politics today. They built up the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Media Research Center, and now Fox News Channel-and many other organizations, above and below the radar. Though they won the White House in 1968, it took them thirty years to reach their ascendancy in 1994.

Our side just started. Air America went on the air seven months ago. Normally, incumbent presidents either win by a landslide or lose by a landslide, and a year or two ago, people thought it would be an overwhelming Bush victory. It wasn’t. For an incumbent wartime president, this was a close race. And we’ve created a movement to take this country back. Even though we didn’t do it this time, I believe that we will still do it.

The other side wants us to get demoralized, but we are going to fight. We are going to fight every step of the way.

Round two starts now.

Al Franken

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Ugh, the "global test". I remember seeing that.

 

[shereads]

Ugh, the "global test". I remember seeing that.

I remember understanding its intent, and being surprised when it was interpreted as "getting permission." In the context of the question and the rest of his answer, I understood him to be a proponent of war as a last resort - he was saying he'd return us to the standard (or "test") that the civilized world has come to accept as a moral imperitive before invading a sovereign state.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
I remember understanding its intent, and being surprised when it was interpreted as "getting permission." In the context of the question and the rest of his answer, I understood him to be a proponent of war as a last resort - he was saying he'd return us to the standard (or "test") that the civilized world has come to accept as a moral imperitive before invading a sovereign state.

I wasn't suprised. He phrased it poorly for a national audience and debate. He didn't need to use the words he did to get his point across, when I heard him say "test" I expected him to be misunderstood. Not that suprising.

I'd have had more respect for his point had he even mentioned appealing to the UN or the UDHR or anything that represented the global community he was associating us with.

(but that may be a bit of a bias, because I entirely believe in the UN)

 

[shereads]

Yes, it was phrased poorly. If only voters applied the same standard to GWB. I remember him saying during the 2000 campaign - twice; once in a televised debate - "My opponent talks about social security like it's some kind of federal program."

It barely registered in the so-called liberal media. They were all over Al Gore's sighing.

Honest to God. We elected a president who didn't know that social security was a federal program. That still stuns me.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Yes, it was phrased poorly. If only voters applied the same standard to GWB. I remember him saying during the 2000 campaign - twice; once in a televised debate - "My opponent talks about social security like it's some kind of federal program."

It barely registered in the so-called liberal media. They were all over Al Gore's sighing.

Honest to God. We elected a president who didn't know that social security was a federal program. That still stuns me.

I think the voters likely did apply the same standard to GWB. I think you're meaning to say that you wish those who voted for him were more moved by his slip-ups to lack faith in his other abilities as President--or not, your words and your meaning, just calling 'em like I'm seeing 'em.

I don't think he didn't know social security was a federal program, I think it more likely he just mis-spoke--which, while funny and dumb, happens.

 

[shereads]

I don't think he didn't know social security was a federal program, I think it more likely he just mis-spoke--which, while funny and dumb, happens.

He said it again in a subsequent speech. How do you explain it?

 

[shereads]

Edited

This is for you, Joe. I dare you to find out who this man really is, through the eyes of a conservative Republican who found out first-hand. It's very likely that he didn't know social security was a federal program. Read it and weep. You'll be the first non-Democrat in this forum who dared to have read any of the books by Republicans who worked in the Bush White House.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743255453/103-7499616-1010225?v=glance

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
He said it again in a subsequent speech. How do you explain it?

How do I explain it? I don't.

How can it be explained? His press secretary back in the day made comment about the slip up, saying that he misspoke because the issue before the Bush team was the privatization of social security and the context was just mistaken. The explanation well fits the handful of facts. I find it less likely that he didn't actually know it was a federal program when he'd been doing work to privatize it then him fumbling over his words... which he does often.

 

[shereads]

Why were Bush voters afraid to read this book?

The George W. Bush White House, as described by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill {The Price of Loyalty} is a world out of kilter. Policy decisions are determined not by careful weighing of an issue's complexities; rather, they're dictated by a cabal of ideologues and political advisors operating outside the view of top cabinet officials. The President is not a fully engaged administrator but an enigma who is, at best, guarded and poker-faced but at worst, uncurious, unintelligent, and a puppet of larger forces. O'Neill provided extensive documentation to journalist and author Suskind, including schedules with 7,630 entries and a set of 19,000 documents that featured memoranda to the President, thank-you notes, meeting minutes, and voluminous reports. The result, The Price of Loyalty, is a gripping look inside the meeting rooms, the in-boxes, and the minds of a famously guarded administration. Much of the book, as one might expect from the story of a Treasury Secretary, revolves around economics, but even those not normally enthused by tax code intricacies will be fascinated by the rapid-fire intellects of O'Neill and Fed chairman Alan Greenspan as they gather for regular power breakfasts. A good deal of the book is about the things that O'Neill never figures out. He knows there's something creepy going on with the administration's power structure, but he's never inside enough to know quite what it is. But while those sections are intriguing, other passages are simply revelatory: O'Neill asserts that Saddam Hussein was targeted for removal not in the 9/11 aftermath but soon after Bush took office. Paul O'Neill makes for an interesting protagonist. A vaunted economist from the days of Nixon and Ford, he returns to a Washington that's immeasurably more cutthroat. And while he appears almost naïvely academic initially, he emerges as someone determined to speak his mind even when it becomes apparent that such an approach spells his political doom. --John Moe

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Edited

This is for you, Joe. I dare you to find out who this man really is, through the eyes of a conservative Republican who found out first-hand. It's very likely that he didn't know social security was a federal program. Read it and weep. You'll be the first non-Democrat in this forum who dared to have read any of the books by Republicans who worked in the Bush White House.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743255453/103-7499616-1010225?v=glance

First of all, I am aware of the book... having read the plugs for it many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times and while I think it is likely very informative, I have to take any account by anyone with some grain of salt (that's just being intellectually responsible).

Second, I'm a Democrat.

 

[shereads]

First of all, I am aware of the book... having read the plugs for it many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times and while I think it is likely very informative, I have to take any account by anyone with some grain of salt (that's just being intellectually responsible).

Not reading is being intellectually responsible?

How fucking sad.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by shereads
Not reading is being intellectually responsible?

How fucking sad.

How did I say that not reading was being intellectually responsible?

I said (point 1) "I've heard of the book" and (point 2) "intellectual responsibility would dictate that I take the account in the book with a grain of salt".

Point 1 does not necessitate nor preface nor premise Point 2. If you'd like to explain to me how NOT taking someone's personal account of a situation with a grain of salt is actually intellectuall responsible (or at least moreso than the direct alternative), I'd be delighted to hear it.

That I need to make this clear is kinda "fucking sad", actually--if you want to start talking about what is "fucking sad". that is.

 

[Pure]

Joe said,

I have to take any account by anyone with some grain of salt (that's just being intellectually responsible).

Sher, Joe is trying to say that even eyewitness reports, and information from former friends and close associates is not 100% guaranteed to be true. Indeed when his mom calls out "I put your breakfast on the table, dearie." one MIGHT doubt it.

Not that this has anything to do with O'Neill's book, or why it should be read, the topic of discussion.

That's what makes it, to use your term, 'fucking sad.'

 

[bg23]

Again, I'm jumping into this having read only about half the thread. I can't say I've ever been too intellectually responsible. However, I do perceive a certain unfairness with the way in which many posters are interpreting Joe's comments.

Orginally posted by Joe Wordsworth
I have to take any account by anyone with some grain of salt (that's just being intellectually responsible)

This is, I believe, the comment that sparked today's Joe-Bashathon. What he was saying was not that "not reading" was intellectually responsible - but that taking anything anyone else said about it with a certain amount of skepticism, was being intellectually responsible.

Sher, Joe is trying to say that even eyewitness reports, and information from former friends and close associates is not 100% guaranteed to be true. Indeed when his mom calls out "I put your breakfast on the table, dearie." one MIGHT doubt it.

When I first read this Pure, I was, in fact, inclined to be persuaded to what you perpetuate as your point of view. On a second reading however, an important differentiation must be made between your analogy and the actual situation. One situation - whether or not a book has particular merits - is a matter of opinion. Opinion is, by nature, subjective.

The other situation - whether or not there is breakfast on the table - is objective. There is conclusive proof of it. Therefore, while Joe may question "eyewitness" accounts relating to opinion, he clearly would not question "eyewitness" accounts relating to a matter that can be a) proven and b) objective.

Not that this has anything to do with O'Neill's book, or why it should be read, the topic of discussion.

This last comment is not at all relevant either. Thread topics are, by nature, diverse and many faceted. Issues raised spawn other issues, and while they may not directly relate back to the initial topic, are all deserving of discussion.

That's what makes it, to use your term, 'fucking sad.'

I have a great respect for you Pure. But in this case, I think you know, as well as I do, that persuasive though your rhetoric surely is, it is an example of most unseemly twisting of words in an attempt to belittle and mock somebody you do not seem to like. Most unsporting.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by bad_girl23
Again, I'm jumping into this having read only about half the thread. I can't say I've ever been too intellectually responsible. However, I do perceive a certain unfairness with the way in which many posters are interpreting Joe's comments.



This is, I believe, the comment that sparked today's Joe-Bashathon. What he was saying was not that "not reading" was intellectually responsible - but that taking anything anyone else said about it with a certain amount of skepticism, was being intellectually responsible.



When I first read this Pure, I was, in fact, inclined to be persuaded to what you perpetuate as your point of view. On a second reading however, an important differentiation must be made between your analogy and the actual situation. One situation - whether or not a book has particular merits - is a matter of opinion. Opinion is, by nature, subjective.

The other situation - whether or not there is breakfast on the table - is objective. There is conclusive proof of it. Therefore, while Joe may question "eyewitness" accounts relating to opinion, he clearly would not question "eyewitness" accounts relating to a matter that can be a) proven and b) objective.



This last comment is not at all relevant either. Thread topics are, by nature, diverse and many faceted. Issues raised spawn other issues, and while they may not directly relate back to the initial topic, are all deserving of discussion.



I have a great respect for you Pure. But in this case, I think you know, as well as I do, that persuasive though your rhetoric surely is, it is an example of most unseemly twisting of words in an attempt to belittle and mock somebody you do not seem to like. Most unsporting.

Thank you, chica.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Actually, not reading what an emotional and biased source assigns me as reading probably *is* intellectually responsible. At least, it is if I hadn't planned to balance it with something from the other side / opposite number. I don't read Rush Limbaugh's assigned reading either. I suppose I could read both, but frankly, there's a limit to the hours in the day and I still have to finish "Marius the Epicurean." It's definitely got my vote.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

Actually, Black, her point was, that book is by someone from the same side, not the other. Now Molly Ivins' book is from the other side, Al Franken's is just strident and silly. But Price of was written by a conservative Republican.

That certainly means I took it with a grain of salt, by the way. The dude is not on the same page with me by a country mile. Still, there are many better things to do with one's time than to read books.

 

[Huckleman2000]

A few days before the election, I saw a PBS program that traced the history of Bush and Kerry, contemporaneously.

There was a clip of Kerry giving a speech on the floor of the Senate (where Cheney told a Senator to fuck himself, btw) explaining his vote for the Iraq War Resolution. He spelled out exactly why he voted for the resolution, the conditions and expectations he had of the administration, and his hopes for the result. His position was exactly the same then as it was throughout his campaign; but he never quite conveyed that, and the media never bothered to make the point.

Kerry was not served well by the media.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... Kerry was not served well by the media.

Neither was their audience

 

[Songcatcher]

Not reading is being intellectually responsible?

How fucking sad.

To ask the banal question would be to commit the mortal sin of conformity.