Franken Falls For Smoking Gun Memo

[corplinx]

I'm in Portland this week and used my free in-room HBO to watch the crapulence that is Real Time with Bill Mayer. Last night he had Al Franken, Gore Vidal, and some other commie on having a big Bush bash-fest.

I do not live in an area where Air America plays, the one time I caught Franken's show on Sundance I had to turn it off out of boredom.

I have been critical of Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter's line of mass market "conservatism" which I've called comfort material. They provide validation and comfort material for right wingers. They do it in a bellicose manner which I am not a fan of.

So what did I hear on Real Time? Al Franken with a straight face and a Harvard degree was repeating talking points about the supposed "smoking gun" memo which was debunked as anything but a smoking gun on another thread on this forum.

Gore Vidal? He was deep into woo land going into stolen election conspiracy theories over 2000 and 2004.

These guys were providing comfort material and validation for american left wingers. And like Hannity/Coulter they were full of crap.

I though Franken and his gang were supposed to be the intellectuals arbitrating the real truth. Instead they are just as bad as their right wing counterparts except that they have the whole "sly, sardonic, laid back, deliberate" tone instead of the sledgehammer-over-the-head tone the right wingers have.

What I want to know from you lefties on the board is, do you mark out for this stuff?

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't recall any 'debunking' of the memo, perhaps you are referring to a different thread?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by corplinx
These guys were providing comfort material and validation for american left wingers. And like Hannity/Coulter they were full of crap.

The wife and I tried to get into Franken's show. We wanted to support political programming for the left so we made a special effort to watch it and gave it multiple chances. In the end we gave up, it was just too boring. That was before the election, too.

 

[crimresearch]

It doesn't matter which side of the political fence one falls on, you should be able to recognize con artists like those at work.
They get rich from the same old manipulation of the gullible and the true believers...snake oil by any other name.

 

[corplinx]

I don't recall any 'debunking' of the memo, perhaps you are referring to a different thread?

Perhaps you were reading a different thread than this one. I didn't say the memo was debunked, i said that it is some sort of "smoking gun" is.

 

[SezMe]

Perhaps you were reading a different thread than this one. I didn't say the memo was debunked, i said that it is some sort of "smoking gun" is.

Confirmation bias.

I read that thread and saw a good discussion with valid points on both sides. I came away undecided. That you saw it as an unqualified debunk says more, I think, about you than about the thread.

 

[corplinx]

Confirmation bias.

I read that thread and saw a good discussion with valid points on both sides. I came away undecided. That you saw it as an unqualified debunk says more, I think, about you than about the thread.

That's just it. A smoking gun is the irrefutable proof in the vernacular. If you came away undecided then it proves my point. It simply isn't the smoking gun these people are claiming it is.

 

[President Bush]

Instead they are just as bad as their right wing counterparts except that they have the whole "sly, sardonic, laid back, deliberate" tone instead of the sledgehammer-over-the-head tone the right wingers have.

Yeah, like some itty fake toy poodle, instead of that really evil Hasbro Shockblast DECEPTICON warrior that Jenna and Barbara used to have.

 

[Cain]

Here I am making a rare and welcome appearance. No comment on Franken's show. I haven't heard/watched it, and I'm probably not going to any time soon (I try not to wake up before noon). I didn't see Bil Maher either (and I don't want to).

What bothers me is the constant, never-ending, unimaginative comparison between Al Franken and Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is supposed to be far to the right, popular and funny (two out of three ain't bad). Al Franken is supposed to be far to the left, popular and funny (again, two out of three).* But by no means are they opposite sides of the same coin.

This is a tired canard perpetuated by conservative blowhards (e.g. Corplinx) in a vain attempt to portray themselves as somehow moderate.

Someone once posted a transcript of an episode from Hannity and Colmes featuring Ann Coulter and the editor of _Harpers_ as guests. See that thread here: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28962&highlight=Hannity


Who regards Franken as an intellectual? And speaking of intellectuals, does Gore Vidal get anywhere near the same level of exposure as professional right-wing pundits?

*If you were wondering Ann Coulter isn't funny and Al Franken isn't a leftist. Though an unapologetic liberal, he's nevertheless a shill for the Republican Lite party.

 

[corplinx]

What bothers me is the constant, never-ending, unimaginative comparison between Al Franken and Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is supposed to be far to the right, popular and funny (two out of three ain't bad). Al Franken is supposed to be far to the left, popular and funny (again, two out of three).* But by no means are they opposite sides of the same coin.

I stated that they both provide comfort and validation material to their customer base. I pretty much stated that Coulter is a bomb thrower and Franken is more of a humorist/satirist. Not sure what else you want from me.

 

[crimresearch]

"...Not sure what else you want from me."

To derail a discussion about being skeptical of political charlatans into a partisan true-believer fest?

 

[epepke]

The wife and I tried to get into Franken's show. We wanted to support political programming for the left so we made a special effort to watch it and gave it multiple chances. In the end we gave up, it was just too boring. That was before the election, too.

I don't know if I've heard it or not. Sometimes on the local NPR talk station, I hear someone who sounds like Al Franken. He typically reads some newspaper paragraph, waits several seconds, and then makes some snarky comment in a low voice. Does that sound like his show?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know if I've heard it or not. Sometimes on the local NPR talk station, I hear someone who sounds like Al Franken. He typically reads some newspaper paragraph, waits several seconds, and then makes some snarky comment in a low voice. Does that sound like his show?

Sounds like it.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm in Portland this week and used my free in-room HBO to watch the crapulence that is Real Time with Bill Mayer. Last night he had Al Franken, Gore Vidal, and some other commie on having a big Bush bash-fest.

That episode was not representative of Maher's program. He ususally has a conservative on to balance the panel. And Maher, himself, is a strong supporter of the war in Iraq.

I though Franken and his gang were supposed to be the intellectuals arbitrating the real truth. Instead they are just as bad as their right wing counterparts except that they have the whole "sly, sardonic, laid back, deliberate" tone instead of the sledgehammer-over-the-head tone the right wingers have.

Many on the left have decided that the whole arbitrating-the-truth thing doesn't work and the way to get the message out is to be as sledgehammer-over-the-head as the right wingers. They believe that one should use what works - especially if the other side has been using it effectively for five plus years.

What I want to know from you lefties on the board is, do you mark out for this stuff?

I am unsure what "mark out" means, but I occasionally listen to Al Franken's program because I cannot rely on more mainstream media to call the Republicans on the crap that they peddle when they appear on television. For instance, when the Republicans describe the judicial fillibuster as unprecedented, I rely on Air America broadcasters to look up the dates that the Republicans particpated in judicial fillbusters. When the Republicans stand up in their "Justice Sunday" broadcast and say that the Democrats invented the name "nuclear option" to describe changing the rules, I rely on people like Al Franken to do the research and show that Lott and others were using the term well before any Democrats.

 

[punchdrunk]

Re: Re: Franken Falls For Smoking Gun Memo

For instance, when the Republicans describe the judicial fillibuster as unprecedented, I rely on Air America broadcasters to look up the dates that the Republicans particpated in judicial fillbusters.

What dates did they find? My judgement on this issue is based upon precedence.

 

[RandFan]

I often find Franken boring but when he is in his game (SNL) he can be damn funny. Moore is just plain funny. I think the guy has a great sense of timing, humor and wit. I've not seen anything of his that I have not liked. Hannity has become far too predictable and far to ridiculous for me to watch or listen to anymore. I used to really enjoy him on TV and Radio now I only occasionally watch and when I do I'm typically more interested in Alan Colmes who is far more reasonable. I love Coulter. She is attractive and damn adept at throwing bombs. Her ability to reason leaves a lot to be desired however.

I don't think that there are truly many comparisons that can be made with these folks. I think you pulled it off though. To the true believers this is comfort food.

 

[epepke]

I often find Franken boring but when he is in his game (SNL) he can be damn funny.

If what I heard was Franken, he really needs to work on his radio delivery. He's good in interviews, but the radio show is just a drone. Maybe it's like some sympathetic magic or something. Limbaugh took the oxycontin, but Franken sounds like it.

 

[Bob Klase]

Originally posted by Ladewig

For instance, when the Republicans describe the judicial fillibuster as unprecedented, I rely on Air America broadcasters to look up the dates that the Republicans particpated in judicial fillbusters.

What dates did they find? My judgement on this issue is based upon precedence.

I'd like to know too. I did a quick search on the web a week or so ago trying to find out if the "unprecedented" claim was true and found nothing.

 

[Ladewig]

I'd like to know too. I did a quick search on the web a week or so ago trying to find out if the "unprecedented" claim was true and found nothing.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7518425/

But history shows that Republicans did something similar to the Democrats' filibusters five years ago.

In 1999 and 2000, before he became majority leader, Frist was one of the Republican senators blocking President Clinton’s nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Richard Paez.

Frist and others repeatedly prevented a vote on the Paez nomination. In 1999, Frist and 52 other Republicans voted against a motion to proceed to a vote on Paez.

Six months later, Frist voted against cutting off extended debate — a filibuster — on the nomination.

 

[crimresearch]

"I am unsure what "mark out" means, but I occasionally listen to Al Franken's program because I cannot rely on more mainstream media to call the Republicans on the crap that they peddle when they appear on television. For instance, when the Republicans describe the judicial fillibuster as unprecedented, I rely on Air America broadcasters to look up the dates that the Republicans particpated in judicial fillbusters. When the Republicans stand up in their "Justice Sunday" broadcast and say that the Democrats invented the name "nuclear option" to describe changing the rules, I rely on people like Al Franken to do the research and show that Lott and others were using the term well before any Democrats."

This is one of the things that I find surprising, and I thank Ladewig for bringing it up.

On a board supposedly full of skeptics, why would any politician's BS not be immediately suspected, detected, and exposed, without *having* to wait for the opposition to dig up refutations?

Seriously, why aren't there more skeptics just flat out calling all politicans on obvious chicanery, instead of waiting to cut and paste the counter agit-prop from the other side?

Because using people like Franken, or Limbaugh as a source, will always lets you down...by the time you have posted their 'facts' someone on the other side has already poked holes in it, because it was 'spun'.

How can people see so clearly when it comes to homeopathy or religion, or peach pit cancer cures, or creationism...and then rely so faithfullyon the words of media 'pundits' in this arena.

Is there a switch in the brain that gets turned off, sort of like suspending disbelief at the movies?

Because I haven't been able to do that. When a politician's lips move, no matter what party they are from, my BS detector starts warming up.

I was stunned recently to find members here, still spouting the Vietnam era verbage about the Communist North, and the freedom loving South. Some of those putting that forth, I know have critical thinking skills, at least as evidenced by their post in other areas.

But here we are in Politics. with skeptics acting like true believers, swallowing the various party lines like Koolaid at Jonestown.

WTF is up with that?????