Published on January 14, 2009 By Artysim In Politics

I would like to take a moment to congratulate Al Franken for getting elected to the senate, and beating his republican incumbent opponent Norm Coleman. Considering that Franken started his campaign WAAAAY behind the incumbent and was pretty much written off as a goofball no-chance candidate I think he's done pretty durn' gud if ya ask me.

But anywho. Let's take a step back and take a look at the fellow. Noted books he wrote:

"Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and other Observations" 

"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right"

The front cover has a photo of O'reilly and an entire chapter is dedicated to all of the lies he's been caught in the act with (seriously, buy this book and give it a go.... you may be interested to find out just how truly "fair and balanced" fox isn't) FOX, being thoroughly embarrassed by the book took to the offensive and sued Franken for infringement of it's copyright phrase "Fair and Balanced"- it was the only thing they could come up with, they couldn't even sue for libel since he used direct quotes from O'reilly and FOX and then provided facts which contradicted them.

Anywho, the judge found FOX's lawsuit to be "wholly without merit" and threw it out. But the publicity that FOX provided Franken through the media coverage of the lawsuit caused sales of his book to skyrocket!

In essence, Al Franken's enemies provided him with free publicity.

It is this formula that catapulted Franken from goofball no chance candidate into the senate- his opponents helped him there by flinging mud at him that actually backfired.

How did this happen?

Let me tell you good reader....

Franken is a satirist... a comedian... a jester. Does he launch attacks against political opponents? Yes, absolutely. But he has always done it with wit and humor, not malice. 

His opponents knew only smear and fear. You stand the two toe to toe, and his republican opponent didn't have  a chance. Not. A. Chance.  Once Franken started closing up the gap with Coleman, the republicans redoubled their efforts at trying to demonize Franken, which only had the effect of giving him more free microphone time in which he had more opportunity to use their mudslinginging for further satire, a subject in which he was well versed.

In short, in this particular instance, the republicans shot themselves in the foot by trying to make Franken look like Fagin. If they would have toned down the rhetoric and not gone so out of their way to try and demonize someone who clearly isn't one, Coleman probably could have won.

So in closing, I would also like to thank the Republican Party, the true force behind the election of Senator Al Franken. He couldn't have done it without ya!

So next time, maybe it would be a good idea to lighten up a bit. Why so serious?

-To laugh is human; to mock, divine- (Monty Python.... I think...)

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 14, 2009

Yep, congratulations for another joker being elected to public office.

on Jan 14, 2009

Yep, they kept "finding" votes until he was declared the winner.  I'm sure lots of lawyers will be happily employed with the matter for some time to come.

on Jan 14, 2009

JillUser
Yep, they kept "finding" votes until he was declared the winner.  I'm sure lots of lawyers will be happily employed with the matter for some time to come.

 

thats exactly what I was saying.... these votes started to "apear" and then before you know it....

on Jan 14, 2009

Yep, they kept "finding" votes until he was declared the winner. I'm sure lots of lawyers will be happily employed with the matter for some time to come.

I actually heard that when all was said and done there were more votes counted than registered voters in the state.  I'm not sure where I heard that so take it with a grain of salt but if it were true shouldn't that trigger an automatic re-election or something like that?

on Jan 14, 2009

And yes of course, there you have it. Instead of admitting defeat, the cherry on the top of the cake is that now the republicans are claiming a rigged election (making a mr. grumpy pants persona look like mr sore looser pants too) Again, they are trying to paint a comedian as a demon, which in this case has backfired on them so many times and they just can't learn from it.

There has been an official recount, and Franken was the winner.

Next comes the recount of the recount?

Again, the more brow-beating and fearmongering his opponents spew, the more publicity Franken will get which he will turn to his advantage. Until the republicans are capable of witty satire (which thus far has been abject failure with the closest attempt being the likes of Glenn Beck) they need to adopt some new approaches.

 

on Jan 14, 2009

And yes of course, there you have it. Instead of admitting defeat, the cherry on the top of the cake is that now the republicans are claiming a rigged election (making a mr. grumpy pants persona look like mr sore looser pants too) Again, they are trying to paint a comedian as a demon, which in this case has backfired on them so many times and they just can't learn from it.

Who here is trying to make Fraken out to be a demon?  The comments I have read, plus the one I posted certainly weren't doing that.

I know I'm not saying that the election was rigged, I was merely saying that I had heard somewhere that the votes didn't add up, I have no confirmation on whether that was the case or not.  If it was the case then I would hope that both parties would call foul and ask for a re-do.

It would be one thing if Franken had won by thousands of votes, but if I recall correctly it was more like less than 500 which means that you really do have to scrutinize every single vote.  I can't speak for others but I would be saying the same thing had Coleman or anyone else beaten Franken.

It's elections like the Franken-Coleman one that really show just how much each vote can really make a difference.

on Jan 14, 2009

And yes of course, there you have it. Instead of admitting defeat

Best election Money and fraud can buy.

BTW: did you ever read those books of his?  Do you know (factual) that he states more lies in there than he actually attempts to unveil?

Did not think so.

on Jan 14, 2009

Hi El-duderino

Who here is trying to make Fraken out to be a demon?

No one -here- is trying to demonize Franken. The republican campaign, and the arguments they're putting forward that clearly the election was stolen, is further evidence of their atempt to do so!

on Jan 14, 2009

BTW: did you ever read those books of his? Do you know (factual) that he states more lies in there than he actually attempts to unveil?

Well, yes I have. And, if there were lies in them, then why didn't FOX sue him for libel? If they could have, they sure would have and that's a sure thing. But why didn't they? Because he was telling the truth!

on Jan 14, 2009

Well, yes I have. And, if there were lies in them, then why didn't FOX sue him for libel? If they could have, they sure would have and that's a sure thing. But why didn't they? Because he was telling the truth!

Because Libel can be a difficult case to prove.  You can take direct quotes from someone and completely misconstrue the original meaning.  Some may call that lieing, others may just call it editorializing or satire.  The Daily Show does it all the time when they take quotes out of context to make a joke.

I have no idea if that's what Franken did or not since I didn't read the book but that would be my guess as to why Fox couldn't sue for libel.

on Jan 14, 2009

The republican campaign, and the arguments they're putting forward that clearly the election was stolen

I'm not saying that this isn't happening as I haven't been following that election very closely but just because the republicans are claiming discrepencies doesn't mean they are fear mongering or demonizing Franken.  If they have real evidence that there has been some fraud then they have every right, if not a duty, to report that to ensure that the people have the correct representative. 

on Jan 14, 2009

Minnesota deserves him - congratulations   Sorry (real sorry)you can't have him up in Canada Arty, your make for each other.

on Jan 14, 2009

I congratulate Senator Franken.

on Jan 14, 2009

Well, yes I have. And, if there were lies in them, then why didn't FOX sue him for libel? If they could have, they sure would have and that's a sure thing. But why didn't they? Because he was telling the truth!

I don't know the case but as El-Dude said libel is a hard case.  FOX would have to show (objectively) how the libel was actually damaging (usually financially). I suspect that this case was similar to what my brother experienced.

My brother tried to go after his ex wife for libel but because he wasn't fired from his job, his case was thrown out.  Just because this case was thrown out of the court doesn't make the ex-wife's statement more true.  All the court said was that they say no objectifiable damage.  BTW, the charge was that he sexually assaulted their 2 year old daughter.  Truth: she had a rash on her bum.

on Jan 14, 2009

Holy Cow! Did Jimmy Carter confirm this. The election cannot be legit until we hear from him.

2 Pages1 2