Al Franken, Joe Lieberman Senate Smackdown: The Real Reason Franken Cut Lieberman Off
Senator Al Franken, Progressive’s “Glorious Bastard”
We think we’ve discovered another, not so hidden reason why Al Franken, mediocre comedian, and now, Democrat Senator Progressive Potentate from Minnesota, wouldn’t allow Senator Joe Lieberman an additional one minute past the allotted “10 minutes” to finish his remarks on proposed health care reform legislation. Here’s a hint: It has less to do with Lieberman and the Dem’s precious public option, and more to do with Franken, Bill O’ Reilly, and 35 minutes.
First up, it was Franken’s turn to preside over the Senate when Franken interrupted Lieberman-Leiberman was speaking on an amendment to implement a board which would work to contain costs in Medicare and to “look more broadly at health care spending outside of these publicly supported programs”. Franken informed Lieberman that his “ten minutes were up”:
Progressives are hailing Franken’s ruling, as well as the way he handled his “demeanor”, as a “glorious moment”. We have an example of “how well” Franken handled his own “allotted” time. The occasion, a book tour “debate” between Franken and Bill O’ Reilly”, and Franken’s “15 minutes”.
By LBG
Hat tip: Rides a Pale Horse
[...] the whole story here: LBG1 aggregated by [...]
Al Franken is, I believe, the very type of person the Founding Fathers had in mind as the ideal public servant when they initiated this bold experiment in democratic self-government two-hundred and thirty-three years ago this Saturday: a concerned citizen who would put aside his plowshares (or in Al’s case, his Stuart Smalley costume) and head off to the nation’s capital to legislate for the people. The thing that has always struck me when reading his books (and I’ve read them all) is his almost schoolboy-like attachment to – and belief in – all that is good in this country and its potential to do better.
At the conclusion of his 2005 book, The Truth (with jokes), Al wrote a letter dated October 2, 2015 to his three, yet-to-be-born grandchildren:
“Both my parents worked hard and had to overcome adversity in their lives. Like almost everyone does. My Mom developed rheumatoid arthritis at an early age and was in constant pain most of her life. She was married on crutches. Still, she told us, “It’s a great life if you don’t weaken.” And she didn’t. After my brother and I were old enough, she became a real estate agent. At dinner, she made sure we had meat and always – ALWAYS – a fresh vegetable. At the table she would tell us about business and things like “redlining.” Banks wouldn’t lend money to black people who wanted to buy houses in certain neighborhoods. She told us this was wrong. And that’s why your Granddad works so hard [in the Senate] to make sure that banks continue lending money to the poor, to minorities and to women, not just to buy homes, but to start businesses.”
Now that’s what I call real moral values. That’s the kind of person I wouldn’t mind representing me in the Senate (Nothing personal, Chuck). By the way, in that same letter he predicted, not only his own career in politics, but also the two-term presidency of Barack Obama. This was a year-and-a-half before Obama even announced his candidacy. How’s that for prescience? Not bad, Al! Not bad!
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Reply
klesb Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 17:10
A prescient two-term Soetoro/Obama?
When Hell freezes over!
Reply
are you insane? the founding fathers were mostly christian or at least religious with views that you would consider extremely conservatives. at the core of their principles was the belief in limited government. they did everything they could to limit the intrusion of government into the lives and freedoms of the people. this is why the governments powers are expressly enumerated in the constitution and why there is the line that blatantly states that any power not specifically enumerated goes to the states and the people. Franken believes in EXACTLY the opposite of this. He wants government to control and take care of everyone. this was NEVER the intention of the founding fathers. if you have any questions, go read the constitution line by line. read washingtons memoirs.
you obviously have no idea what you are talking about regarding this.
The founding fathers wanted people who were average citizens to serve, yes, i’ll give you that. but they wanted the average citizen to serve so as not to concentrate power into an elite group… like we have now! career politicians who keep trying to make their elite group even more powerful.
the closest thing we have to the constitutional founding fathers is somewhere between libertarianism and republicanism. DEFINITELY not liberal left.
even on social issues, the founding fathers were what you would call conservative and religious folks.
Ask yourself. Do you think Washington would have supported abortion? what about gay marriage? what about owning guns? the answer to all these questions is not what you would want to hear. they are conservative answers.
Reply
Al Franken is a smutz, a really good argument for euthanasia
Reply
STEVE BONZAI Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 23:02
FUCK YOU[ candsam]
Reply
the_tipper said:
“Franken believes in EXACTLY the opposite of this. He wants government to control and take care of everyone.”
I say –
I find it interesting sir, that you quote very closely for one side of your point, but quote nothing for the other side that makes your point.
Given – yes, the Constitution was written with limitation of government in mind. You supported this well enough by siting a well known document, even though you didn’t quote it as a debater should in order to make sure the context of the information supports your claim.
Not given – that limitation of fed powers was done because that way was considered ‘right’. It was a compromise. The states had to agree to the Constitution, or it would never stick. Limitations were done so that the states to sign it would, instead of giving up the powers they felt were their own. States powers versus Federalism, was a pretty big deal. I don’t know what history class you had that said ‘all of these good christian minded white men sat down and wrote the way federal government would work harmoniously for now and forever, because they knew through their belief in God what was right.’ Not any factual history class. It was argued back and forth like crazy with strong arguements on both sides – the compromise arrived at is our Constitution. It’s pretty good, and has stood up excellently, but it wasn’t some sort of writing on stone tablets from the Christians.
I’m not saying that limitation of federal power is bad, just that your reasoning for what it is that way is flawed. I didn’t have anything to do with religion, and everything to do with middle aged white men arguing about which government should have power over what – the state or the fed. Todays landscape of what states can and can’t do is completely different from what it was 200+ years ago, so what the fed can and can’t do will/has/should change to reflect that.
Not given – all the founding fathers being Christian or religious, I’m pretty sure not all of them were. I’m also positive given what is in the constitution that there was not someone at the door asking for people’s religious affiliation on the way in so they would be in on God knowing what was ‘right’. No test based on religion to establish if someone can or cannot fill a post, or something to that effect, right?
Not given – your quote above “Franken believes in EXACTLY the opposite of this. He wants government to control and take care of everyone.” Give some supporting evidence of that. Also, you might want to be specific – he wants Federal or State government to control our souls? Kind of a big difference, given your siting of the Constitution limiting federal powers – and giving all the rest to the states and the people. It doesn’t actually limit State powers, right? It doesn’t say the States can’t control everything else that isn’t identified as a freedom or right – it just says the Fed can’t. Interesting how one part of what you say negates the other part.
If you like, ignore my poking holes in your constitutional beliefs, my real point is, really, seriously, can you site anything Franken has said or done since he announced running for Senate that maps to “wants government to control and take care of everyone.” ? Before that, he was a fricking comedian, and not a good one in my opinion. An entertainer, no more qualified to have a filled in opinion than L Rushbaugh or Jon Stewart. No one should take that crap too seriously.
Since that point of announcing however, has he actually written, said, or done anything that supports your pretty obnoxious claim of him wanting to the government to be emperor of the American Soul? ‘control and take care of everyone’ ? I don’t think so.
He may have said things you can twist around to mean that, but anyone can do that to anything anyone says. I could probably bend around Reagan’s words to make him sound like a modern liberal without too much effort. Spin/twisting, it’s the evil of today’s commentators and ‘infotainers’ on the one hand, they mention facts, on the other hand they throw bombs and smear people, and all in the same breath. It’s rude and misleading.
This is why I can’t stand listening to the right commentators these days ‘fact A supports B, and B means that they’re going to bankrupt Medicare!! Commies!’ – where’s the supporting facts for the theory that they’re going to bankrupt Medicare, or the intervening steps where the conservative democrats don’t rebel, or that they’re commies? You have to support every part of your argument with facts, not just the part that it’s easy to. Doesn’t anyone know how to debate anymore?
No, I didn’t site many or any supporting facts myself in this post. You didn’t, so I didn’t.
Reply