Franken leads Coleman in Minn Sen race

GO AL !!!

I can't wait to watch the exploding head of Bill-O the Clown at Fixed News channel when this becomes official...

Obviously whoever wins can't claim much of a mandate.

And Hillary's friends make fun of Caroline Kennedy for having a weak resume to be a Senator...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | December 19, 2008 3:30 PM

matt,
Coleman is lucky the election happened as early as it did or he would never have come close to retaining his seat in the first place. His campaign consisited of nothing but the usual Repub Rovian fear and smear tactics.

Coleman to use campaign funds for defense:

"Donors to Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman's re-election campaign may be surprised to learn that the St. Paul Republican is planning to use their contributions to pay blue-chip criminal defense lawyers to defend him against a reported FBI probe into his dealings with a wealthy businessman."

"As the Strib and our Josh Kraushaar report, Coleman and his wife Laurie have retained lawyers Earl Gray and Doug Kelley to deal with allegations that his friend and political patron Nasser Kazeminy funneled $80,000 to the senator's wife through a Kazeminy-controlled Texas oil services company. The Colemans have denied the charges -- and accused rival Al Franken of stoking the controversy."

“We intend to have any legal fees related to what we believe to be a politically inspired legal action to be covered by the Senator’s campaign," said Coleman spokesman Luke Friedrich.
.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Coleman_to_use_campaign_funds_for_defense.html?showall
.

I smell a rat! And its taking the image of a comic,Remember it if walks like a rat and talks like a rat and it looks like a rat, its a rat.

* * * * *
Posted by: agent orange | December 19, 2008 2:44 PM
.
If Franken wins, you lose. In fact, we all lose. He is ignorant of too many things to be of any good to this country in the role of Senator. But, then again, why do I bother to state the obvious? This whole country has gone nuts; just plain, freakin’ nuts. I’ll be here to tell you I told you so when the whole place comes crashing down.

It's too bad you didn't have that mindset when you voted for the Moronic Presidency !! Not qualified, didn't stop you then, from voting for the most incompetent President in our country's history !! Al Frankin has more on the ball, when he's asleep, than President Bush has, when he's awake and yet, that didn't stop him from being elected twice. So much for qualified !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

I’ll be here to tell you I told you so when the whole place comes crashing down.

Posted by: John W. | December 19, 2008 8:59 PM

"W",
You voted for Bush so the only thing you should be telling anyone is "I'm sorry".

* * * * *
Posted by: HopeNChange | December 20, 2008 3:37 PM
.
JohnEEE-Boy,
.
I will NEVER apologize for the fact that I voted for George W. Bush once in 2000. NEVER. Give up now trying to make any further point of this. At the time I voted, Bush was absolutely the best choice between the Democrat and Republican candidates based on all the information readily available at the time. There was no way in Heck that I would ever have voted for Vice President Rain Man. Got it?
.
Furthermore, I keep asking you to come up with some information that was well known, readily available, and indicated (back then) that Bush would have done half of the rotten stuff he eventually did. You have had MONTHS now to come up with this information since I began to ask for it. I have yet to see any. Having had all this time, your inability to come up with the stuff tells me that it didn’t exist - and that you were less that truthful in suggesting that I should have known he would be a monster.
.
You lost again, you LOSER.

Franken is a Harvard grad with a Mensa level I.Q.

Coleman is a war mongering party line crony that doesn't believe in man-made climate change.

Pretty easy decision.

More Bush failed ideology or somebody really smart who also happens to be funny.

The whole country is nuts. sarah palin is seen as someone who is competent to be governor because she talks folksy. She isn't even that good looking. Well maybe she is to a fat three time loser oxycontin addict. You people are stupid and dishonest. That is why our country is in a hole.

Furthermore, I keep asking you to come up with some information that was well known, readily available
Posted by: John W. | December 20, 2008 6:39 PM

I'm not going to do your homework for you, Gramps.

Happy Holidays....
.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/111708Parry.shtml
.

...
Posted by: John W. | December 20, 2008 6:39 PM
....

Happy Festivus, Gramps:

"Beginning with his (Bush) admission to the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War (where he bypassed a waiting list of about 100,000), the authors go on to deconstruct his losing congressional bid, his failed career as an oil executive, and his failing role as managing partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, revealing how he was helped every step of the way by wealthy and influential friends of the family. Ever popular, Dubya has always been good at rounding up powerful players to bankroll a variety of ventures, including political campaigns. For this reason, explain the authors, along with his lineage and social status, Bush's primary allegiance is to the business community. While his speeches may deal with the "entertainment issues" of "God, guns, and gays," Bush is a "wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America," they write. They further point out that Texas ranks near the bottom of the nation in terms of a number of social categories, such as poverty, health insurance for children, and pollution, spearing the governor for his less-than-compassionate conservatism."
.
http://www.amazon.com/Shrub-Short-Happy-Political-George/dp/0375757147
.

This case is closed

You lose...again...but I think you already knew that.

..
Posted by: John W. | December 20, 2008 6:39 PM
....

Happy Hanukkah , Gramps:

"American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, George W. Bush's businesses fail but he makes millions":
.
http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html
.

....
Posted by: John W. | December 20, 2008 6:39 PM
....

Happy Kwanzaa, Gramps,

"George W. Bush, Jr. is touted as the savior of the Republican Party by the national press, because he pulls votes from minority voters and has his dad's name and fundraising connections to run on. But before we anoint him as the next president, let's look at what he's done with his life. In a nutshell, Junior
1) grew up as a very rich child of powerful parents,
2) partied from high school until he was 40,
3) made millions off of sweet insider business deals from political allies of his dad, who happened to be the President,
and 4) got elected governor of Texas mostly because of his name.
Bush Junior has done some good work as governor of Texas. He has crossed the partisan divide, reached out to minorities, and tackled at least one tough, thankless issue (school financing; his plan was voted down in the legislature.)

But 4 years -- even 4 good ones -- is a pretty short resume for the leader of the free world. No one doubts Bill Clinton's ability to handle punishment and come back for more. But Bush Junior's stamina and attention span are very real concerns. Furthermore, Bush's term as governor has also been markedly corrupt, although possibly in legal ways. What we mean is, he has taken millions in campaign contributions from certain big businessmen -- many of whom were in on the insider business deals that made him rich -- and those same businessman have received billions in sweet deals from the Texas state government during Bush's term.

Specifics: Like Al Gore, Bush Jr. attended Eastern elitist schools, in this case Andover Prep, and Yale. According to a Newsweek profile, he "went to Yale but seems to have majored in drinking at the Deke House." He joined the secretive "Skull and Bones" club in 1968, as any good conspiracy buff can tell you.

His business career was marked by mediocrity or failure which nonetheless resulted in him getting lots of money from his father's political allies. And his political career has been handed to him on a platter by his famous name, and by his dad's cronies."
.
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm
.

Obviously whoever wins can't claim much of a mandate.

Posted by: MJ | December 19, 2008 3:26 PM

Didn't stop Bush in 2004 ---

No, little JohnEEE-Boy, you are wrong.
.
What you finally forked up - after all this time - does not demonstrate that I lose on this issue. I have challenged you this whole time to confront me with (1) information widely known in 2000 that was (2) readily available and (3) would have demonstrated Bush was a bad choice for President. These have always been my criteria. After all this time, the stuff you have posted not only fails to meet the foregoing criteria, some of it proves just the opposite.
.
Where you fail most miserably is in the first two criteria. None of the articles you posted existed in 2000. There was only one book mentioned (e.g. “Shrub”) that was published in October of 2000, less than a month before the election. That book was not well publicized. Since I have never lived in Texas, I wouldn’t have had the faintest idea with regard to the author’s identity or reputation, and I wouldn’t have otherwise been acquainted with the facts or issues of which she wrote. Thus, I would have an impossible time recognizing the significance of the book, finding it, reading it, or taking its message to heart before I went to vote - even assuming that it said enough to make a vote for George W. Bush an unreasonable option (which, apparently, it did not).
.
Moreover, Robert Parry’s article (see http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/111708Parry.shtml ) explains that the press had little interest in making known anything about Bush’s past deeds or failures. I quote, “Though most of Bush’s sordid business history was known during Campaign 2000, it attracted little attention in the mainstream press, especially compared to the news media’s obsession with dissecting every comment by Al Gore for signs of exaggeration.” I’ll do one better: It attracted no attention. In addition, neither the Gore campaign nor any other independent source did anything to make these facts known. If it was that relevant to Bush’s fitness for office, someone on the other side should have raised the issue.
.
Robert Parry also explains that, to find this stuff, one would have had to “search out the facts on the Internet or in a few small-circulation liberal magazines.” If true, that put the average voter in a precarious situation at best. Depending on the site, the internet can be a very unreliable source of information. I mean, should I trust web sites like the DailyKos or MoveOn.org to deliver anything other than slanted views or half-truths? If what Parry wrote is true, does it mean that I have to believe every untested rumor I find on the net? If so, shouldn’t we have credited all of those weird rumors that people were spreading about Barack Obama? (I didn’t.) Expecting someone like me to credit information from just any old internet source or “a few small-circulation liberal magazines” is like asking you to believe something because it is published in a book by Ann Coulter. Even I wouldn’t go that far.
.
In summary, even if there was stuff out there to support the notion that George W. Bush wasn’t a good fit for the job of President, that information was neither widely known nor readily available. That, by itself, means you loose.
.
I might add, however, that much of the information really didn’t provide much against Bush - despite attempts by people like Parry to slice it and dice it in a leftward slanted screed against him. So what if Bush was a business failure? People fail in business for reasons other than bad judgment or a lousy character. Business failures never stopped Truman or Grant from being effective Presidents. Nor did it make either of them want to conduct warrantless wiretaps, enable torture, pile up the spending, or thrust the United States into foreign wars entirely of their own making - and so on. The same is true with regard to his stock sales. No allegations of wrongdoing were ever made or proven. In addition, he sold his stock in private, thereby avoiding any financial backlash to the company that might have occurred had he done so in public. Ditto for his time as governor of Texas - an office for which he was re-elected. Bill Clinton had just as many skeletons in his closet both before and during his presidency, including all the sexual harassment suits and Whitewater. Those unresolved allegations didn’t seem to bother any of you folks or keep you from re-electing him. So none of the stuff you have come up with really portended the actions that really characterized Bush’s terms in office. Had I known much of the information (which I didn’t), I would not have been able to foresee the bad stuff. Your contrary claim to have been able to is just nonsense. And that is all I can ever expect from you anyway.

* * * * *
Posted by: Haywood Jablome | December 20, 2008 9:20 PM
.
Have you ever read any of Franken’s books? For all his supposed brains, his books express few original or independent thoughts. They read like chapters of the DNC answer book. Being intelligent is no guarantee that one will always use that intelligence consistently. Franken hasn’t been using his at all.

Every one of them is collecting dust on a shelf in my house. They aren't meant to be the play books for the DNC. They are well-written, well-researched dissections of Bush failures and the ideologies that he espouses. Plus, with jokes.

However, I do agree he did have to dumb down to play on Coleman's field.

Your contrary claim to have been able to is just nonsense. And that is all I can ever expect from you anyway.

Posted by: John W. | December 21, 2008 5:33 PM

The only one's who were not aware that Bush was a doofus idiot in 2000 were self appointed smart guys like yourself who are to afraid to look outside of their ideological bubble world for fear that they might find out that they're wrong on everything.
Keep telling yourself that conservatism never fails and you will be a member of the minority party for a long time to come. I've also noticed that alot of you wingnuts (Terry) have a real bad inferiority complex by your need to always have the last word. That's a character flaw that you need to work on, Gramps.

GAME

SET

MATCH

This case is closed...you lose..again.

...
Have you ever read any of Franken’s books? For all his supposed brains, his books express few original or independent thoughts. They read like chapters of the DNC answer book
Posted by: John W. | December 21, 2008 8:09 PM
....

Yeah, that would be because he's a DEMOCRAT! You know, the party that just won back to back landslide elections....What's wrong, you don't like his books because he's not kissing the ring of trickledown voodoo economics?

I'm not surprised that you don't have a problem supporting a crook like Coleman, from your above comments it's clear to me that you were also dumb enough to vote for Dubya Bush.

JohnEEE-Boy,
.
You don’t win by shouting. You win, if at all, by coming up with the goods. You didn’t. You were a few months and too many facts short this time. You lost the debate because you couldn’t prove voters, or even conservatives, should have known Bush was a bad choice in 2000. Your inability to respond to the points I raised proves it even more. I'm confident enough in this position to let you have the last word - if you want it.