Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Coulter does not equal Franken, pt. 1
Only their tactics differ, but their strategy, to attempt to invalidate their political opponents, more through emotion and prejudice than logic, are one and the same.
The prime case of this, I witnessed during the 2000 election. During an appearance on Conan o’Brian’s late night show, Al Franken compared Bush’s light military service to John McCain’s service. McCain, he informed us, hung by his toenails, while Bush was avoiding service in Vietnam.
If Franken had painted The Oath of the Horatii, he would depict one soldier with gray hair and a puckered face failing to lift a sword in the air, while the two others do so with capable ease. How is this fairer than the conservative ad hominem partisan’s heavy handed approach?
So, let me get this straight. You admit earlier that you have heard Ann Coulter say some nasty things, which is a light way of putting it, in my view. And there are documented records of her saying those nasty things, including "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn't go the New York Times building." among many verbal atrocities. I need to know if Franken actually talked about that painting on Conan of it that's your own interpretation of his remarks through a difficult to understand analogy. Seems a little obscure for Conan viewers. I looked up the painting you referenced and would appreciate some background into the symbolism of that painting so I can understand what you are trying to say. If your first evidence of Franken=Coulter is your own symbolic interpretation of how he would depict a historic artwork, there's some real weakness in your statement.
And McCain was a Vietnam POW and Bush served sporadically in the Texas National Guard, taking occasional time off when he felt like it to work on political campaigns. The Powerline interpretation of the one piece of shoddy evidence against Bush doesn't take the fact away that he was here, and McCain and Kerry were over there. Or does Bush get a free ride on his history because of Dan Rather? Clinton sure as heck didn't get any slack for not serving.
And if you are going to use an appearance on Conan O'Brien as the basis for your views on Franken, that's a big problem. Conan is a wacky comedy show, not a poltical discussion forum. I actually remember a Franken appearance where he gave clumsy and shallow potshots at Republicans, because I don't think context is what Conan viewers are looking for. But I did notice that when he was trying to explain the very serious and real issue of whether Bush operatives in the South Carolina primary push-polled primary voters about McCain having an illigetimate black child (McCains adopted a Bangledeshi and their daughter appeared in campaign coverage) and other rumors about his wife being crazy, etc. But that portion of the interview was slipped in at the very end, and some clumsy editing of the show actually ended the interview abrubtly after that remark. Who knows what a evil partisan he would have not seemed if he was allowed the opportunity to provide context and create, yes a logical progression for his remarks. Which brings me to Al Franken's books and radio show. And this is where you come in Erin, because you can get Air America in NYC, the radio network that has the Al Franken show. I'm not going to be a huge Al Franken defender, but he does write good satire, well-researched books, and he runs a radio show 3 hours every weekday where he can explain his reasoning. Now will the political talk show format allow him to use inflamed rhetoric to make a point? Of course, allthough these days there is a lot of absolute outrage for anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman to discuss. Outrages layered upon outrage, as my Schiavo post indicated, its hard for liberals to calm down these days. But the show features a variety of guests, liberal and conservative, including a segment with a long-time Dittohead friend of Franken, which I think is most indicative of Franken's willingness to discuss opinions with opponents, and overall, just being relatively nice about it. Ann Coulter doesn't give herself a lot of forums like this to show off how reasonable she is. She is a very nasty, cruel public conservative spokeswoman, and from what I've read it is almost entirely an act to appeal to a niche that likes sex appeal along with inflammatory murderous political talking points. And I've been following the Time cover story controversy, and putting her in that kind of spotlight legitimizes her to a level that she doesn't deserve. When Michael Moore was on the cover of Time the main caption read "Is he good for America?". Ann Coulter's main caption was "Is she serious or is she just having fun?". Coulter isn't your average idealogue, and Al Franken is not the liberal Ann Coulter. I don't think its fair to refer to them as scum in the same breath (as well as John Edwards, where did that come from? A Democratic candidate for President can't use partisan rhetoric?) without a demonstration of Al Franken going to far to the level of Coulter, because I actually think Franken is a far more light-hearted, funny, and legitimate liberal spokesmen than other figures like Micheal Moore, Ward Churchill etc.
I think I'll break up your letter to comment on over time, just so I don't get overloaded. I'm sure Lyon you can understand how hard it is to get around to responding to arguments, especially when they're ones that you started. ha ha, all in good fun.
More to come!
The prime case of this, I witnessed during the 2000 election. During an appearance on Conan o’Brian’s late night show, Al Franken compared Bush’s light military service to John McCain’s service. McCain, he informed us, hung by his toenails, while Bush was avoiding service in Vietnam.
If Franken had painted The Oath of the Horatii, he would depict one soldier with gray hair and a puckered face failing to lift a sword in the air, while the two others do so with capable ease. How is this fairer than the conservative ad hominem partisan’s heavy handed approach?
So, let me get this straight. You admit earlier that you have heard Ann Coulter say some nasty things, which is a light way of putting it, in my view. And there are documented records of her saying those nasty things, including "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn't go the New York Times building." among many verbal atrocities. I need to know if Franken actually talked about that painting on Conan of it that's your own interpretation of his remarks through a difficult to understand analogy. Seems a little obscure for Conan viewers. I looked up the painting you referenced and would appreciate some background into the symbolism of that painting so I can understand what you are trying to say. If your first evidence of Franken=Coulter is your own symbolic interpretation of how he would depict a historic artwork, there's some real weakness in your statement.
And McCain was a Vietnam POW and Bush served sporadically in the Texas National Guard, taking occasional time off when he felt like it to work on political campaigns. The Powerline interpretation of the one piece of shoddy evidence against Bush doesn't take the fact away that he was here, and McCain and Kerry were over there. Or does Bush get a free ride on his history because of Dan Rather? Clinton sure as heck didn't get any slack for not serving.
And if you are going to use an appearance on Conan O'Brien as the basis for your views on Franken, that's a big problem. Conan is a wacky comedy show, not a poltical discussion forum. I actually remember a Franken appearance where he gave clumsy and shallow potshots at Republicans, because I don't think context is what Conan viewers are looking for. But I did notice that when he was trying to explain the very serious and real issue of whether Bush operatives in the South Carolina primary push-polled primary voters about McCain having an illigetimate black child (McCains adopted a Bangledeshi and their daughter appeared in campaign coverage) and other rumors about his wife being crazy, etc. But that portion of the interview was slipped in at the very end, and some clumsy editing of the show actually ended the interview abrubtly after that remark. Who knows what a evil partisan he would have not seemed if he was allowed the opportunity to provide context and create, yes a logical progression for his remarks. Which brings me to Al Franken's books and radio show. And this is where you come in Erin, because you can get Air America in NYC, the radio network that has the Al Franken show. I'm not going to be a huge Al Franken defender, but he does write good satire, well-researched books, and he runs a radio show 3 hours every weekday where he can explain his reasoning. Now will the political talk show format allow him to use inflamed rhetoric to make a point? Of course, allthough these days there is a lot of absolute outrage for anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman to discuss. Outrages layered upon outrage, as my Schiavo post indicated, its hard for liberals to calm down these days. But the show features a variety of guests, liberal and conservative, including a segment with a long-time Dittohead friend of Franken, which I think is most indicative of Franken's willingness to discuss opinions with opponents, and overall, just being relatively nice about it. Ann Coulter doesn't give herself a lot of forums like this to show off how reasonable she is. She is a very nasty, cruel public conservative spokeswoman, and from what I've read it is almost entirely an act to appeal to a niche that likes sex appeal along with inflammatory murderous political talking points. And I've been following the Time cover story controversy, and putting her in that kind of spotlight legitimizes her to a level that she doesn't deserve. When Michael Moore was on the cover of Time the main caption read "Is he good for America?". Ann Coulter's main caption was "Is she serious or is she just having fun?". Coulter isn't your average idealogue, and Al Franken is not the liberal Ann Coulter. I don't think its fair to refer to them as scum in the same breath (as well as John Edwards, where did that come from? A Democratic candidate for President can't use partisan rhetoric?) without a demonstration of Al Franken going to far to the level of Coulter, because I actually think Franken is a far more light-hearted, funny, and legitimate liberal spokesmen than other figures like Micheal Moore, Ward Churchill etc.
I think I'll break up your letter to comment on over time, just so I don't get overloaded. I'm sure Lyon you can understand how hard it is to get around to responding to arguments, especially when they're ones that you started. ha ha, all in good fun.
More to come!
