> voters will make their choice, and it will not be Norm
> in most cases. Tax problems, good jokes, bad jokes, and whatever you
> throw out there this year the Republicans are fighting a losing
> battle in denigrating a proud American who stepped up to counter the
> madness that has reigned in Washington, D.C. under the Bush
> Administration and their cronies; sending back Norm is not something
> Minnesotans will do IMHO. Al Franken's my choice and I can live with
> Pornorama and a tax oversight as easily as Mitch can live with
> Bedtime for Bonzo and Iran-Contra; Franken will do a great job.
Norm Coleman won't be getting my vote but that has nothing to do with
why Al Franken should or should not get it.
If I were a Democrat, this is a year I'd be most concerned about
getting the best possible candidates I had elected to congress. Based
on recent history and public perception the Democrats have a very high
chance of controlling the White House and both houses of congress this
time around. The question is, then what?
They're going to have Iraq on their hands, a national deficit and a
national debt of record proportions, an underpar infrastructure, an
education system that isn't doing so well in international standings,
a health care system that isn't doing so well in international
standings, increasing energy demands as cheap oil becomes rarer and
scarcer and more and more people begin to understand that you can't
consume a limited resource forever, and what sometimes feels like an
accelerating pace of natural disasters.
"This is because of the mess that the Republicans left us" will only
work so well for so long, especially in light of the fact that the
Democrats have already controlled congress for a while. They'll
probably have a year or two of relative faith and trust before public
concern and then disillusionment threaten to set in.
Now, the problem is, most of these problems are going to take more
than a year or two to heal and in some cases, the medicine is likely
to be unpleasant. In two to four years, they've absolutely got to be
able to make the case that their plans are working and need to be
stuck with or its going to slap right back over. If things are bad
enough, we'll see things swinging back in two years or less. The only
way that those in DC will be able to weather it is if they have
developed a reputation of being honest and straightforward enough that
when they say "yes, these seas are rough, but we're going to make it
through" and "we know this sucks and you're suffering but we truly
believe that this will be the best in the long run", people believe
them.
If Al Franken is not the right man for the job, if a fair number of
Minnesotans don't feel like they made a good choice of who to send to
DC, in six years when the seat is open again, there's a reasonable
chance it'll be a Republican again. And, if he does enough to annoy
or anger the electorate, he'll enable the election of someone who
could make Democrats reflect fondly on Coleman's legacy. Given that
Coleman does tend towards the moderate and doesn't seem to be the type
to stand in the way of a reasoned and respectful opposition that
happens to have the upper hand, he very well may be a better choice
than someone who claims to be a progressive but mainly spews hot air
and insults and undermines public faith in his political allies.
However, as I said, Coleman won't be getting my vote. The thing I
want to know is, why should Franken get my vote or why shouldn't he?
Of significant importance to me is this question:
If Obama gets elected and his campaign promises have been honest in
his intent of moving towards a Washington that functions with premise
of respect for one's opponents and reasoned debate, will Al Franken
contribute to that wave of change or will he be an obstacle to be
overcome?
Additionally, I'd like to know:
Does the impression that has been made portraying Franken as the sort
of person who will attack, belittle and insult rather than listen,
reason and debate have any merit or is it pure propaganda? Can you
offer support for either point of view?
The tax problems are a valid note regarding fiscal responsibility
however, not the sort of thing that is going to swing me on this.
After all, I've got my own little tax problems stemming from my
reluctance to give money to an administration I considered to be
committing war crimes. (As a note, the only way tax resistance will
work out for you is to stop making money. Otherwise, they just end up
getting more in the long run). After reading the "Porn-Gate" thing,
the primary impact it has on me is to reduce my opinion of those
flogging it. But, neither of these things make me support him in any
way.
At this point, I really want to get a sense of the man's character.
Not the one he plays but the one he has. When he goes into a
political conflict with the upper hand, how will he conduct himself?
When he goes into it with facing a greater number of opposition, how
will he conduct himself?
Will he be a Paul Wellstone, will he contribute to the change in the
nature of national politics that Barack Obama seems to be promising,
or will he serve to undermine it and doom us to more decades of
flipping back and forth between two parties who seem to spend more
time badmouthing each other than solving problems? If McCain wins,
will he be a member of "the loyal opposition", or will he just be a
loud mouthed gadfly? Will he be a Senator we can respect and be proud
of or will he be an embarrassment?
I don't know if I'm the typical swing voter or not. As someone who
rides a bicycle, owns a motorcycle but no car, thinks vices should be
legalized and regulated, thinks people should marry whoever they want
and the state should recognize every marriage equally but realize that
the churches have a right to their discrimination when it comes to
their priests/ministers/rabbis/imams/shamans/druids/whatever
performing their rituals, opposed the smoking ban, supported
conceal/carry, eats organic, goes deer hunting, and thinks that the
question of whether or not Bush and Cheney should be impeached and/or
charged with war crimes or crimes against peace should be answered
rather than ignored, I somehow doubt it.
In general, I think my political and ethical spectrums run somewhat
orthogonally to the ones that the Democrats and Republicans tend to
think in terms of.
- phaedrus (jason.goray), minneapolis