Good Tuesday noon Fellow Seekers of amusing salutations,
The latest fund-raising appeal from Al Franken has a Halloween theme. It’s titled “Help me unmask Norm Coleman. Lots of references to candy and costumes. The key paragraph says:
“You see, there’s another seasonal tradition getting underway - the one in which Republicans who’ve spent their time in Washington voting in lockstep with George W. Bush try to disguise themselves as moderates in the hopes that you’ll give them another term in office.”
But the part I like is the salutation, which reads:
“Dear Person I’m Asking For Money,…”
The thing I like about Franken’s fundraising letters is that he obviously writes them himself. I mean, he’s a smart guy. He’s growing on me. (Not, you know, actually. That would be weird.)
You can say that Franken is a funny guy, but you have to stop saying that Franken is a smart guy. Smart guys don’t ignore evidence and support pre-emptive wars.
But smart guys don’t always give black and white answers, particularly when faced with conflicted sets of evidence.
Saying “I support a war if it is proven necessary” is not the same as saying “I support this war now”.
Most of the people who were against the war in 2003 were against war as a general principle, not simply against this specific war. On the other hand, most of the Democrats (I’ll leave it to readers whether or not to include Joe Lieberman) who supported the war did so in a conditional manner — they were authorizing action by the President on the basis of information provided by him.
Remember, Congress never voted a declaration of war against Iraq. THAT would be a vote in support of the war!
“Most of the people who were against the war in 2003 were against war as a general principle, not simply against this specific war”
Got a citation for that? I for one, supported invading Afghanistan (and would support other wars proven necessary), but absolutely opposed the Iraq war. I doubt that I’m the only one.
Franken didn’t “support the war if proven necessary” like the Democrats who voted for the war resolution did. Franken just supported the war and attended a pro-war rally to express his support. The excuse the Democrats have cannot be used by Franken. Franken was just plain stupid.
No citation — point conceded.
OTOH — “I for one” doesn’t prove much either.
I for one attended a lot of prowar and antiwar rallies in the early ’60’s, and disagreed with a lot that both sides were saying.
I’d need a quote of what Franken said at the rally to judge whether he was giving the war unconditional support.
More to the point, he appears to have become disillusioned more quickly than many Democrats, acknowledges the hole we’re in, and (again) appears committed to getting us out as quickly as possible.
Have you read some of the descriptions of what an immediate and complete withdrawal would involve? Who’s going to guard the planes the troops are leaving on — the Iraqi’s? Not in this decade!
And how long would it take to get all of the heavy equipment out, or do we leave it for the Sunni and Shia to use against each other?
Again, NOW, Franken seems to have a grasp of the reality that the unreal Bush has left us with, which is more than I can say for some of the “get out of Iraq now” types.
Could those who have a problem with Franken’s initial support for the war in Iraq tell me what Mike Ciresi and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer were doing at the time we went to war? I’m not happy with anyone–including Franken–who claims they believed there was sufficient evidence to invade Iraq. But like others here, I also can appreciate that Franken bailed early on this catastrof&*k, as John Stewart calls it. But I have yet to hear what either of the other two candidates had to say at the time, and whether they backed it up with actions of any kind.
We all know what Norm Coleman was doing then.
Oh, and the fund-raising letter? Clever, and more honest than most…
Yeah, I have a hard time respecting the intelligence of anyone who thought this war was a good idea. I don’t know what I have a worse problem with–the Dems in Congress who probably knew it was a terrible idea trying to protect their butts or people like Franken who thought it was somehow the right thing to do. Probably the latter. But if we’re looking to support people who came out against the war–well, I know one guy and he died in a plane crash five years ago.
It is the terrible condition of the modern Dem–we have to take what we can get. There’s a slogan that can fit on a bumper sticker! Huzzah!
And if you want innocence by association, Franken and Wellstone were good friends
(see http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/02/al_franken_decides_hes_good_en_1.html).
Just remember, six years of a guy who never made a mistake got us here;
it’s time for people who can learn from their mistakes.
The issue isn’t only whether Franken was “pro-war”; it’s why he was supporting it. Out of “fear”, according to his own words–this from someone who viewed Rush Limbaugh with far more disblief (to be kind) than apparently he did George W. Bush. And yes, I’ve read his book and don’t believe that he used that word in a sardonic, sarcastic or ironic manner. If he did intend that, it’s a distinction that will be lost on most Minnesota voters.
But am I one of the few who believe that Franken’s having already spent $2.5 million on an endorsement process (not the primary or general election) is close to obscene? He spent $900,000 on telemarketers in the last quarter,(Coleman spent only $200,000 to raise the same amount); and $600,000 the quarter before that. He has raised 90% of his money from non-Minnesotans, individuals familiar with his celebrity and who falsely believe that he is already the selected Democratic candidate to run against Norm Coleman. I for one think that there is no legitimate reason for spending this much money in just seven or eight months, and the question for Minnesota voters to ask is whether Franken is the type of person you want as the steward of taxpayers’ money.
Pkbrandon, I looked up some polling from right before the Iraq war, and people were opposed to the Iraq war for lots of reasons. Such as the Bush administration had not made its case, the inspectors needed more time, we should have U.N. approval, etc. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/06/opinion/polls/main543034.shtml In any event, the idea that Iraq war opponents were people who would oppose any war is simply false. In fact, that really sounds like a Republican smear, so I hope that is not an idea that eminated from the Franken campaign.
“Have you read some of the descriptions of what an immediate and complete withdrawal would involve? Who’s going to guard the planes the troops are leaving on — the Iraqi’s? Not in this decade!”
No one (or no one credible) is calling for an immediate withdrawal. That’s just a strawman. And usually a right wing strawman at that. Again, I don’t know if that message is coming from Franken, but if it is, its very discouraging to see him using such dishonest tactics.
And Franken didn’t become disillusioned more quickly that other Democrats. He was actually slower than most. In 2006, he stated that he agreed with Bush and opposed a timetable for withdrawal. That’s not an immediate withdrawal (the strawman argument) but a withdrawal plan that gets all our troops and equipment home safely. It doesn’t do much good to be against the war if you aren’t going to end it. And Franken was also slow to oppose the war itself (he certainly didn’t bail early). Well, actually, that depends on when you asked him. As was pointed out in one of Eric’s earlier articles, Franken has been very inconsistent in his war positions. So its not just that Franken was dead wrong initially, he has been dead wrong for a long time. Franken has shown that he is very slow to learn from his mistakes, if he learns at all.
“No one (or no one credible) is calling for an immediate withdrawal. That’s just a strawman. And usually a right wing strawman at that. Again, I don’t know if that message is coming from Franken, but if it is, its very discouraging to see him using such dishonest tactics.”
It’s not, and that’s the point.
Franken is being accused of not having a specific withdrawal plan (he has called for timetables).
I’m not sure what your source is for him agreeing with Bush in 2006.
When he was campaigning for Tim Walz in the first district in 2006 he was definitely against the war (I don’t recall his specifics at that time, since he was supporting Tim’s position for timed withdrawal).
I think that you’ll have trouble quoting him saying that he agrees with Bush that the war should go on indefinately.
“I think that you’ll have trouble quoting him saying that he agrees with Bush that the war should go on indefinately.”
Actually, it took me about 30 seconds. http://www.startribune.com/10217/story/1498859.html Maybe he did say that he was for timetables while campaigning for Walz last year. It wouldn’t surprise me because, as pointed out in Eric’s earlier stories and the Star Tribune article, Franken’s positions on the war have been all over the place.
While Franken now supports timetables for withdrawal, he came around very late in the game. Which was my original point - Franken is not a smart guy: he was wrong on the war, he was slow to realize the war was a mistake, and he was very slow in coming to the conclusion that we need to get out.
Franken did not propose a specific timetable while campaigning for Walz (neither did Walz, despite — or in fact because of — his concern for the troops over there).
What he did say was that we must find a way to get out.
The actual quote from the STrib is:
“I’m not for pulling out of Iraq RIGHT NOW (my emphasis).”
This is not the same as agreeing with Bush that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely (at least another ten years).
And I think that Franken’s position can better be characterized as a progression than “all over the place”.
I’ll take him at his word that he’s been wrestling with a complex situation — I’m much more comfortable with that than with someone like Cirisi who according to the same article:
“Ciresi has his own vulnerability on Iraq. While he says he has opposed the war from the beginning, he has no record of publicly doing so until he became a candidate this year.”
Franken has made it clear that while he was a friend and admirer of Paul Wellstone, he is not as far to the left (Russ Feingold is the only one in the Senate who is).
I’ll live with that.
You are looking at the wrong quote. The Franken quote I am referring to is this one:
“I’m not sure we should set a timetable myself. I may actually, oddly enough, agree with Bush here.”
So Franken said we need to get out of Iraq. Ok, but then he opposes a timetable for getting out? What is he waiting for, some kind of magic solution? What Franken has going is not “wrestling with a complex situation.” Franken is just very slow to recognize the obvious.
There were actually 23 senators who voted against the Iraq war resolution, and a lot of others who only voted for it reluctantly. Franken, on the other hand, ignored obvious evidence and supported going to war. Franken may have been a friend and admirer of Paul Wellstone, but he is no Paul Wellstone. Not even close.
So, you’re supporting Cirisi?
Or who? and why?
Paul Wellstone isn’t running.
I am supporting Ciresi but would also consider Pallmeyer if he can show he is a serious contender. I won’t support Franken. My primary reason for opposing Franken is because Coleman and the Republicans will tear him apart with Franken’s past statements and bad behavior. I also have a real problem with Franken’s initial war support, his reluctance (until very recently) to support withdrawal from Iraq, and his lame and conflicting explanations for his positions. Franken’s record on the war is one of dishonesty and horrible judgment. Even if it were possible for Franken to beat Coleman, that is not what we need in the Senate.
Have you looked at Cirisi’s position on health care,
or is Iraq your only issue?
And the repubs continue to chuckle as Franken continues to look like the dem candidate.