You gotta love Al Franken

When’s the last time one of your Senators showed this much spunk?

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

24 Comments

  1. tommy
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    Between Grayson and Franken, perhaps a trend of balls beginning to sprout within the Democratic party is afoot. Perhaps. It’s about time someone starts to fight back a little.

  2. Burt Reynolds
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    As the kids say. Pwn3d!

  3. Jules
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    A beautiful sight. I’m so glad Al hung in there during the whole recount fiasco. His service is shaping up to be an excellent tribute to the memory of Paul Wellstone.

  4. watching laughing
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Perfect Video to show when someone tries to argue; there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

    Watching Laughing.

  5. Oliva
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    re. sprouting balls. We could remind Harry Reid and others that when a male dog has undescended testicles, the solution–to avoid the threat of cancer later–is to have him neutered. (Dang, I’m glad I’m a woman.)

    Watching Laughing: how so?

  6. Larry Seven Larry
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    I think, regardless of who you are, having a smart, sexy woman behind you helps.

    I also think it’s worth noting that Franken is pushing forward two good pieces of legislation. One would make it more difficult for defense contractors to avoid responsibility for the rape of their employees (if you can believe it, some in the Senate are opposed to it), and one involves giving people bigger tax breaks for college tuition. He’s a good man.

  7. Kelvin
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    If I’m not mistaken, Franken has a math degree from Harvard. He’s not a buffoon.

  8. Posted October 23, 2009 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I saw this the other day, and I’ve seen it twice since then when showing it to other people. This clip, along with a clip of Franken discussing the Jamie Leigh Jones bill and question one of KBR’s attorneys are a huge, huge inspiration to see. He is very much the same man I used to listen to on Air America.

  9. Robert
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Franken is condescending when confronting bullshitters, and it’s one of the reasons why he is a hero of mine.

    And Oliva, “Watching Laughing” doesn’t explain himself. He just watches and laughs. Otherwise his name would be “Watching, Laughing, and Explaining.”

  10. watching laughing
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    It’s that hard to figure out from the Video?

    hmmmm?

    Watching Laughing.

  11. Oliva
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Alas, I’m just not figuring it out. It’s been a while, since Obama last year re. Iraq funding and Feingold when I get a chance to hear him on the floor of the Senate, since I’ve seen a senator do what I thought a senator was supposed to do, like Franken’s doing here. (That pleasing young woman behind him did giggle, but she was very quick to change her expression to serious and sober.) It sure is nice to have Franken’s doggedness (he’s a dog lover, no wonder) and bright mind there in Congress.

  12. Sarah
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    The woman being questioned is from the Hudson Institute.

    The following is from Source Watch:

    While describing itself as “non-partisan” and preferring to portray itself as independently “contrarian” rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being “Free Market Right” and 1 “Radical Left.”

    The Institute was founded in 1961 by the late Herman Kahn and his colleagues Max Singer and Oscar Ruebhausen from the RAND Corporation. Initially its policy focus, while right-wing, was dictated by Kahn’s own interests (such as domestic and military uses of nuclear power, the future of the US workplace, and the science of “futurology”). Following his death in 1983, the Institute expanded its staff and took on a more overtly conservative stance.

    Hudson states in its 2002 annual report that its guiding principles continue “Kahn’s optimism about the future, his commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, his belief in the connection between the advance of technology and economic progress, a respect for the importance of religion and culture in human affairs, and his understanding that the prosperity and security of the United States are vital to the prosperity and security of the world.”

    Hudson insists that its policy positions are not influenced by either its funding sources or ideology. “Whether in domestic policy, national security, or international events, the institute guards its intellectual integrity. Neither dollars nor ideology will sway our opinions. At Hudson Institute, we always strive for the betterment of our world,” Walter P. Stern and Herb London wrote in an introductory message in the think tanks 2002 annual report.

  13. Meta
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

    Franken on the floor of the Senate, introducing the anti-rape legislation:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5kVbiWnAQ&feature=PlayList&p=80E917879B1FDC60&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=11

  14. Chelsea
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Boo yeah!

    Sharing that on FB. Thanks.

  15. Oliva
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    A little after the fact but never too late–thanks for mentioning Paul Wellstone, Jules. Every Friday should be a Thank You Paul Wellstone Day. He would be proud of Al Franken. I have a feeling Al Franken has him in mind/heart almost all the time, along with dogs, whom he loves (I say again). Just judging from how often he spoke about him with love, respect, and reverence while on his radio show. Seems very pure and good, the sentiment–not so hard to be driven to work hard toward making this country better in fact, not just ideal, if your guide is Paul Wellstone.

    The dog thing because my sister and her daughter in NYC–her daughter then five or six, a thorough dog lover who pretty much had to stop for every dog no matter if it was freezing, raining, too hot–were petting the same dog as Al Franken one evening a few years back, and my sister stood back and watched him and her daughter; they each stayed there petting the dog like five minutes. And my sister said he didn’t know the dog, was fully engaging with it and oblivious to all else, then finished, went on his way, a completely ordinary person, not really wishing to be recognized. She said he was dressed and seemed like he’d just left work (fyi!).

  16. Mark H.
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Herman Kahn, founder of the Hudson Institute, argued that thermonuclear war was winnable and that the US should prepare to win such a war, even at the cost of billions of lives. Such values are at the core of the nutcase ideology espoused by the institute today. Bravo for Al Franken’s taking them down a peg.

  17. Cyberforce Seven
    Posted October 23, 2009 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    If we’re going to have a thermonuclear war involving billions of lives, I sure as hell hope my side wins. I’d hate to go through all that trouble just to lose. Feel the same way about games like Monopoly or Risk. Damn waste of time if you don’t win, I say.

  18. Me
    Posted October 24, 2009 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    “I think, regardless of who you are, having a smart, sexy woman behind you helps.”
    Yes, Larry. And the more prominent the nose, the better. And the porn star glasses help give one that dirty, slutty, after school tutoring session look.

  19. Me
    Posted October 24, 2009 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Wait, Larry, I forgot.
    Would it hurt to have a dumb, sexy woman behind you?
    Or a smart, unsexy woman?

  20. Peter Larson
    Posted October 24, 2009 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    This is classic. I just read the paper that the lady from the Hudson Institute is referring to and have found that it is much referred to in arguments against universal health care. However, I really don’t think she read it very deeply since it very rightly points out the great differences between worldwide cancer classifications and the nature of cancer registries. Where European countries and Canada, to my knowledge, tally every cancer case, the American data relies on a number of cancer registries which are maintained by the big cancer hospitals and likely leave out people who do not possess adequate insurance to go to them. Nor does it fairly address the great inequalities in cancer incidence and survival among regions within the United States. I’m sure that we have great cancer care, but the paper does not convince me that ours is so superbly better than Europe’s. It’s apples and oranges when you are talking about 68% survival for breast cancer and 65%, especially when that 68% is just an estimate.

    Plus the paper plainly puts Cuba ahead of us by a notch in terms of breast cancer survival rates. I don’t believe it, but it’s good for comedic bite backs.

  21. Me
    Posted October 24, 2009 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    “Plus the paper plainly puts Cuba ahead of us by a notch in terms of breast cancer survival rates. I don’t believe it, but it’s good for comedic bite backs.”

    Peter, I think Al Franken should have just said what you wrote.
    But it is heartening to think that Americans are surviving “survivable” cancers.
    You know, watching the video I could not help thinking of that self help guru that Franken played on SNL. I kept expecting him to produce a mirror, look into it, and say “Because I am good enough, and smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.”

  22. Oliva
    Posted October 25, 2009 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    “Plus the paper plainly puts Cuba ahead of us by a notch in terms of breast cancer survival rates. I don’t believe it, but it’s good for comedic bite backs.”

    Well, I’m in a hurry today and can’t look for evidence for this comment at the moment, but I’ve long heard about Cuba’s medical system being quite stellar, took it to be credible information–not to mention the country’s impressive mandatory evacuation system used during hurricanes and other storms. Remember Cuba offering to help the US during Katrina? But US said no. Could have been such an instructive and, more important, healing opportunity, literally and symbolically.

  23. Peter Larson
    Posted October 25, 2009 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    That would have been awesome.

    In addition, the paper makes no causal claims as to the success or failure of certain health systems or care. It is merely an accounting of survival rates for certain types of cancers from a variety of geo-political regions. This lady from Hudson should have attained a level of education which allows her to understand that what she is suggesting is entirely circumstantial, irregardless of the fact that any talk of cancer survival rates is dependent not only on quality of care, but of type of cancer, stage discovered and definition as to what constitutes that particular cancer in addition to other possible health factors which may influence survival. Age is one. If you live long enough, you’ll get cancer and the later in life that cancer appears, the less likely you are to survive. Thus, it is possible if you live healthy for a longer time, you are more likely to get cancer and die.

    While it is entirely right to suggest that universal health care may have positive or negative economic impacts, I fail to understand how providing affordable insurance to all Americans could have any negative impact on health for the general population. People who have money will always have the best care and people who have little money will always have the worst. The point here is to raise the bar for the people on the middle to bottom end, which can only have nothing but benefits for the public health.

    Regardless, I am sick and tired of these supposedly educated, “non-partisan” mouthpieces haphazardly throwing around cherry-picked pieces of otherwise responsible public health studies to justify not providing health insurance to people who need it.

  24. Robert
    Posted November 12, 2009 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Look at that hot stuck up slut in the porn star glasses. And who is that woman behind him?

One Trackback

  1. By uberVU - social comments on October 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by MarkMaynard: Comment on You gotta love Al Franken by tommy: Between Grayson and Franken, perhaps a trend of balls beginning .. http://bit.ly/1aHuLi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative American Under Maynardism