Despite former Air America talk host Al Franken's nomination on the first ballot as the DFL (Democratic) Party's candidate for U.S. Senate. Minnesota voters favor the incumbent Norm Coleman by double digits.
And they favor Barack Obama by even wider margins over Olde John. Coleman led Franken 51% to 41% in the Senate race. Obama was up 54 percent to McCain's 37%.
Moreover, Democrats are worried that if independent, erstwhile pro wrestler, ex-governor, and fractious blowhard Jesse Ventura decides to get in, as he's threatening, Franken would suffer even more vote erosion. A recent poll gave Ventura 24% despite he's not even running.
The satirist and comedian has been battered by weeks of bad press stemming from his failure to pay some back taxes and the exposure by a blogger of a controversial piece of satire about sex-robots he wrote in Playboy magazine for which he was stingingly criticized by fellow Democrat Rep. Betty McCollum.
Quinnipiac University conducted the poll June 17-24 for the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. The margin of error is just plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. It coincides with similar polls for Michigan Colorado, and Wisconsin -- all considered electoral battlegrounds. Obama leads all four, but none as heavily than Minnesota.
Republicans were more loyal to Coleman than DFLers were to Franken. The Senator held 92% of his GOP base but also some 17% of DFLers.
"It's early yet, sure... but Franken must still make the sale to his base," said our Man On the Ground in St.Paul.
Norm Coleman is known as a bland Bush tool with a nondescript record and pretty wife who's invented a tool called the "Blo & Go, for the busy young Washington intern."
What is Mr. Frankens current position on our illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Surely a "journalist" might find the time to ask...sometime...And why aren't his kids there?
Al Franken is a Big Fat Phony:
"...At its heart the war on Iraq is the most carefully and ingeniously orchestrated propaganda effort on record. In this Franken and his ilk play a key role, going just far enough to maintain credibility among the "liberals" they must reach, while diverting attention from the criminal nature of the war and the option of ending it."
"...Franken who is little more than a shill for the Democratic Party establishment. Franken faithfully parrots its pro-war line. Fundamentally. he is just like Rush who is a Republican partisan, not a principled conservative..."
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh05042005.html
But who cares about Iraq anymore anyway...
It's just a big gang war where the R's hate the D's and the D's hate the R's and Washingtons Elite does whatever it wanted in the first place
Don't look now but the Citizens have been played like suckers by the likes of Franken et al.
See ya at the gas lines!
Posted by: Independent Voter | June 28, 2008 at 01:02 AM
Well, the Blo & Go must be selling well. It's already gone up from $19.99 to $29.99 in six months. Must be made of petroleum.
I know, I know...plastic is made of petroleum.
I love Al. I can't understand the people of Minnesota being such prigs that they would actually prefer the sycophant Coleman over an authentic and honest Franken.
And, Independent Voter, I agree with you about Iraq and our current political situation, but you gotta keep trying. If you don't, things will never change.
The Washington elite. So true.
I'm really offended by the notion that Hillary thinks Obama supporters should pay her debts. She earned them by staying in so long. She's a lot richer than I am. There's just something so fundamentally out of kilter in America these days.
Posted by: joanie | June 28, 2008 at 01:45 AM
How about a little substance on the topic of FISA.
I have always been for FISA.
But does anyone care to explain why it was bad when Bush was for it and now that Obama is for it the crowd over at MSNBC is largely falling in line... My favorite is the 'truth teller' of the Left, Keith Olberman.
"On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals," and said that telecom immnity [sic] is "an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."
Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." [...]
But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.
What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush -- supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it's proof that Obama won't "cower." Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.
Those who spent the last five years mauling Bush for "shredding the Constitution" and approving of lawbreaking -- only to then praise Obama for supporting a bill that endorses and protects all of that -- are displaying exactly the type of blind reverence that is more dangerous than any one political leader could ever be."
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 28, 2008 at 08:55 AM
PugetSound, what is your opinion on registering firearms?
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 28, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Why should we have to register our firearms? The idea is that if some Adolph Hitler or Aramadamdingdong like piece of crap takes control of our country, we can band together to take it back. Seems kind of foolish to me to register our defensive tools with the enemy.
Purely a bonus that we have the right to aggressively defend our homes from invasion by crooks.
Posted by: chucks | June 28, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Franken's situation in Minn. may bode poorly for Burner here. A lot of her support two years ago was based on the belief that we all needed to out the Repricans. BUT. if that is no longer the issue, if BHO is gonna be Prexy, then Eastsiders may decide they are comfortable enough with the sheriff.
My bottom line is that for Burner to win she needs to differentiate herself from Reichert in more ways than just opposition to Bush's war.
Posted by: seattlejew | June 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM
I don't pay much attention to the polls except to note a snapshot in time right now. After Labor Day is when I'll look more carefully.
You have to register to receive a conceal and carry permit. Sen. Obama is good at packaging stuff and speaking onto a teleprompter and soliciting campaign contributions and his caricature is being all things to all people and wanting it both ways.
Meanwhile, the real issues are being hidden by the mainstream media as much as they can to avoid details, because after all the devil is in the details and that silver-tongued devil named Barack is trying to work his hypnotic trance for lemming- types with words sprinkled with flatulence - oops did I say that ?
Posted by: KS | June 28, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I'd be glad to cite specific details to which I spoke in my last thread - to certain others who take issue, but not until after I pursue my life outside of cyberspace (ie. another day).
Posted by: KS | June 28, 2008 at 11:31 AM
"I'm really offended by the notion that Hillary thinks Obama supporters should pay her debts. She earned them by staying in so long."
Nothing to be offended about unless you just want to tell the friggin world you are offended - that's nice. The BHO campaign offered to pay the debt, one of those backroom deals. So maybe his campaign wonks and he are chumps. Maybe its a payoff and blackmail of sorts to have the Clinton's jump off the bus at the next stop and not be thrown under - otherwise the Clinton's may decide to blow up the bus. That's who they are.
Posted by: KS | June 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM
RD
Chucks and I differ on this. While in the military I shot Expert on everything from my .45 cal to the M60 machine gun so I can appreciate what it can do. With that said, I don't own a weapon, don't really enjoy shooting them, and don't foresee getting one. Some weapons I would not allow to be legally owned.
But, I would not want to tell a single woman who lives alone in a dangerous part of town that she can't legally own a firearm for protection from the Bad Guys. It is a great equalizer and probably saves many more people from harm than we will ever know.
Be that as it may, I would make it so you had to do a background check -they have insta check systems available- and have proof of completion of a recognized Gun Safety Class. I would also make it mandatory that you have a gun lock or gun safe with which to store your weapon. Get caught trying to circumvent the above and you would face harsh penalties. You would probably need to have a registration system that would keep track of all this. I don't fear the Red Dawn scenario -great movie- that Chucks lays out.
Despite all the above, I recognize that it would only apply to those who choose to follow the law. For bad people, you will never eliminate guns just like DWI laws can't stop someone from drunk driving if they really want to do it.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 28, 2008 at 11:38 AM
KS
Kind of interesting that as B Obama becomes more to the center -see the FISA above- or old style politico such as paying off the debt of a rival in turn for support that the Barrack supporters can't see it for what it is. That he is not the Messiah. He is not 'new politics' and instead is just a regular old Pol running for office following the strategy laid out by Nixon all those years ago. Run to the base during the primary and move to the center in the General.
See, I think that as he now has to become more accountable he can no longer afford to indulge himself in the Daily Kos or other nutroot positions and instead is starting to face up to reality. He may very well be responsible for our Nation and its safety. He has already moved on FISA, Iran preconditions, and NAFTA.
I find that heartening. Although the judges he may choose will no doubt not make me so heartened.
Lets see what the Left who post here think of that.
What say you, Lefties?
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM
The idea is that if some Adolph Hitler or Aramadamdingdong like piece of crap takes control of our country, we can band together to take it back.
That day arrived eight years ago. Just goes to show that the elitist liberals prefer to use the Constitutionally-granted method for change: voting.
Posted by: joanie | June 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Off to play croquet with my sixty-four grandkids. Have a great day everyone!
Posted by: joanie | June 28, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Lets see, 64 'grandkids' is an interesting reference.
So no doubt that would make about 10 sixpacks and a couple loose ones for the drive.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 28, 2008 at 11:57 AM
"The idea is that if some Adolph Hitler or Aramadamdingdong like piece of crap takes control of our country, we can band together to take it back.
That day arrived eight years ago. Just goes to show that the elitist liberals prefer to use the Constitutionally-granted method for change: voting.
Posted by: joanie | June 28, 2008 at 11:46 AM"
Ah, the Bush = Hitler derangement syndrome.
Nothing like a nuanced debate...
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 28, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Thank you for your response. I asked because I am hearing some conservatives ( not here) say that they see nothing wrong with the government listening in to the phone calls of its citizens, especially if they have nothing to hide. Then, they turn around and say it doesnt matter if they have nothing to hide, the government has no right to know who has a gun. It appears it is ok as long as it doesn't mean them.
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I have a huge problem with gumment listening in on citizens. No problem with listening to non-citizens (and that would include those here and abroad). Where that gets dicey to me is if a known enemy/ terrorist calls an American citizen from abroad. The little men in my head are still debating that.
Feel pretty much about the same about the sand crabs in Cuba. If they are American citizens, they get all of the rights afforded them in our Constitution. If they are the enemy, captured in acts of war against us and/or our allies, they get the rights of a rabid dog at the dog pound.
Posted by: chucks | June 28, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Ok, thanks. I am glad to hear that.
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 28, 2008 at 01:03 PM
If Jesse get in Coleman will get more votes then Franken, and he can enjoy that fact as he stands in the unemployment line.
Posted by: Mike | June 28, 2008 at 04:40 PM
Thank you for your response. I asked because I am hearing some conservatives ( not here) say that they see nothing wrong with the government listening in to the phone calls of its citizens, especially if they have nothing to hide.
That's what I'm voting for BBarr!
Posted by: Gay Gary | June 28, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Be that as it may, I would make it so you had to do a background check -they have insta check systems available-
Uggggh
and have proof of completion of a recognized Gun Safety Class.
Double-Uggghhh
I would also make it mandatory that you have a gun lock or gun safe with which to store your weapon.
Triple-Uggggggggggh
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly." - Plato
we should have guns everyplace and everywhere - no background checks, no restrictions for so-called "mental illness", no waiting periods, no licenses, no permits, no restrictions on carry in public places and no prohibitions on emancipated convicts
Posted by: Gay Gary | June 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM
I'm in complete and absolute agreement, Gigi. Who needs government?
Anarchy rules!
Posted by: joanie | June 29, 2008 at 12:48 AM
I'm in complete and absolute agreement, Gigi. Who needs government?
Anarchy rules!
Posted by: joanie | June 29, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Yep, no John Law Square is gonna tell you where to drink that's for damn sure....
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 29, 2008 at 05:47 AM
Franken is beyond ridiculous.
Posted by: Ben | June 29, 2008 at 07:39 AM
Whoever the people in this country elects is who they deserve and then they also deserve the wrath and pain in their lives brought on by the expanded government - if they vote for the candidate who wins. CHANGE is not what this country needs, what it really needs is REFORM.
Posted by: KS | June 29, 2008 at 09:07 AM
How do you mean? Isn't reform just a synonym for change?
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM
There are subtle differences between reform and change. Change can mean anything from throwing out the existing and replacing it with a new system to changing one aspect. Reform is more specific and typically means "tweeking" the existing system to make it function better. Obama would be for change and McCain would be for reform.
Posted by: KS | June 29, 2008 at 10:48 AM
And one person's "change" might be another person's "reform?"
Who is to decide what is better?
Posted by: joanie | June 29, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Usually it's the clueless voter.. End of story.
Posted by: KS | June 29, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Now that wasn't much of an answer to Miss Joan, KS. She has a point, one person's change is another's reform.
I'm not sure why you think McCain will be for changing (reforming) anything. Nothing that I have read speaks to anything but maintaining what Bush has already ruined. By the way, since everyone was so quick to point fingers at Franken for having screwed up taxes ( later shown to be an accountant's error) I thought you might be interested to know that the McCains have not paid taxes on their house for 4 years, and it might be sold out from under them. Well, the house, as do all seven of the other mansions belong to Cindy.
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 29, 2008 at 02:07 PM
What is the source of your allegation re: the McCain's, Redmond Dem ? Was it credible or did it leave out some relevant facts - as a lot of these stories do ?
Quite frankly, Joanie's question did not require a long-winded answer. So you say McCain would not like to Reform anything - there are differences between he and Bush, such as energy policy to start with, which has been the leading issue now. McCain will work to make things happen as he has on numerous occasions in the Senate by reaching across the aisle, whereas Bush sat on his ars and didn't do diddly squat and his energy policy was a joke.
Your guy Obama has seldom reached across the aisle for any kind of legislative action in his short tenure in the Senate. More recently, trying to nail him down for a position on a number of issues is like trying to nail Jello to a tree. Acknowledged that McCain flip-flops and all candidates for President have done it. Nothing new there.
Posted by: KS | June 29, 2008 at 06:53 PM
Check Newsweek Online..the story came online today, with an update that the McCains paid all but 1700 or so YESTERDAY after the news came out, and they will settle up the rest tomorrow. Just like Franken made sure his was all paid up.
Obama has co-sponsored legislation, even co-written legislation with members from across the aisle:
There are numerous examples of legislative initiatives in which Obama has worked directly with his GOP counterparts. They include:
* An initiative jointly sponsored with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar (IN) that "enhances U.S. efforts to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles and to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction throughout the world."
* The American Fuels Act of 2007, legislation jointly introduced with Lugar that "will use alternative fuel technologies to greatly decrease America's dependence on foreign oil."
* The Alternative Diesel Standard Act of 2006, legislation authored with Republican Sen. Thad Cochran (MS) and jointly introduced with Cochran and Lugar "to require 2 billion gallons of alternative diesels -- including agriculture feedstocks such as biodiesel -- as part of the 40 billion gallon national diesel pool."
* The Fuel Economy Reform Act, legislation jointly introduced with Republican Sens. Lugar, Gordon Smith (OR), Norm Coleman (MN), and Arlen Specter (PA) that "would reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by nearly half a trillion gallons by 2028 and greatly decrease our dependence on foreign oil."
* The Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, legislation Obama introduced, and whose co-sponsors included Republican Sens. Christopher "Kit" Bond (MO), and Olympia Snowe (ME), to "cut red tape, improve facilities, and increase oversight at our nation's military hospitals."
* The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, legislation from Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) that Obama joined in introducing and passing to "create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans."
Posted by: RedmondDem | June 29, 2008 at 07:52 PM
Benny Lava
Posted by: sparky | June 29, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Now now KS.
Don't be so harsh on Obama. He really hasn't had enough time in the Senate to really accomplish anything substantive or even reach across the aisle in an act of statesmanship. Especially when you factor in the last half of his Senate career has been pretty much running around on the Presidential campaign.
Funny how the strong Barrack supporters here are not really following his shift to the center.
It's amazing what happens when you can no longer indulge yourself with Bush Derangement quips to get the base fired up and are faced with having to govern. So expect that like Nafta, FISA, and troops out of Iraq that Barrack will continue to moderate.
Has to suck for the 'true believers' who are gonna be left in a road runner cloud dustball. Except of course when it becomes time to hit you all up for monetary donations for both he and for Hillary.
Posted by: PugetSound | June 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM
McCain has reached across the aisle considerably more and in addition has cosponsored legislation with Democrats, which I was not excited about.
What is boils down is that I do not want a second term of James Earl Carter in the person of Barack Hussein Obama and that's what it would be !
Benny Lava - nice music video. Now, I'll have check out more East Indian music on You Tube.
Posted by: KS | June 29, 2008 at 10:03 PM
PutS - The shift to the center by Obama is largely phony - when he refuses to take a position or contradicts what he said before, that gives justified cause for suspicion. Hillary C. did it also when she was in the race, and can't say she was that much more convincing.
I know that Sen. Obama has only been in Congress for three-1/2 years and McCain for 21-1/2 years, but I would suggest that you or anyone else check his voting record to see where he stood, then check John McCain's over the last three -1/2 years to see where he stood, to get an direct comparison.
Posted by: KS | June 29, 2008 at 10:11 PM
KS
I was actually agreeing with you in a tongue and cheek manner.
Hey have you been following the brouhaha over Google shutting down anti-Obama websites?
This story needs more meat to it before I'll buy into it but it has some potential scary stuff. For some reason it has seemed to hit the pro-Hillary sites right now.
here
Posted by: PugetSound | June 29, 2008 at 10:22 PM
KS
I was actually agreeing with you in a tongue and cheek manner.
Hey have you been following the brouhaha over Google shutting down anti-Obama websites?
This story needs more meat to it before I'll buy into it but it has some potential scary stuff. For some reason it has seemed to hit the pro-Hillary sites right now.
here
Posted by: PugetSound | June 29, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Looks like it isn't 'shutting' down as much as freezing them in that you can't post new messages/etc under the pretense of being a spam site.
Surely the people at Google can't be that dumb. It's like they are asking the Gov't to come in and regulate 'em. When the Justice Dept finished with Microsoft a few years ago the stock never recovered.
Say it ain't so, Google.
Posted by: Puget Sound | June 29, 2008 at 10:30 PM
You jumped the gun again Puts. Keith just delivered a "special comment" on Obama re: FISA. Did you tune in?
Posted by: Coiler | June 30, 2008 at 06:02 PM
I'd love to see or hear Keith Olberman debate say Dennis Miller, Michael Savage or someone he has called the worst person in the world. Until he does that, he is loony and feckless with no street cred to mainstream America in my book because he, like Limbaugh doesn't debate anyone notable.
Granted, he appeals to many feminized guys, progressives and the femanazis (to resurrect an old term used by Limbaugh - (who I haven't listened to at length for at least 5 years).
Posted by: KS | June 30, 2008 at 07:28 PM
If you havent listened to Limbaugh in 5 years, why bring up old terms, ya know, labels, to compare? Miller always talks "liking cut of someones jib" We probably are aware of what he means, those codewords.
Posted by: coiler | June 30, 2008 at 08:37 PM
I prefer the cut of Miller's jib over Limbaugh, but always used to laugh at the Fema-nazi word (not sure if he even originated it), because it seemed to fit. That would still apply today as the feminists are still in abundance. Hey, whatever...
Posted by: KS | June 30, 2008 at 09:08 PM
Bill Clinton could teach Obama some lessons about campaigning for the General Election, but don't see that happening. First off, Bill said that Obama would need to kiss his a** if he wanted his help and don't believe that Obama will do so.
He has too much pride and face it - Bill Clinton is a political animal and Obama is green and does not resonate well with certain demographics, where Bill Clinton does. I do not condone their political machinery though and maybe that is what turned people away from Hillary this time - not sure if that was the best strategy, as she finished stronger than Barack Obama.
If Clinton had been able to run for President in 2000 or 2004, he would have won going away against Bush. For that matter, Hillary would be a stronger candidate today, but the Democrats have made up their minds for better or worse.
Posted by: KS | July 02, 2008 at 09:55 PM
C'mon KS, where did you hear that Clinton said Obama could kiss his a?
And if you've been watching Obama, he's been conducting a very, very savvy and prepared campaign.
Who did you listen to that told you otherwise?
Posted by: joanie | July 02, 2008 at 10:00 PM
"where did you hear that Clinton said Obama could kiss his a?" (first - if he wanted campaign help from him)
That info was from a Clinton aide and I got that information out of an article last Friday on Yahoo.com. If you want to google that, you should be able to find it.
Obama may be conducting a good sales campaign aided greatly by the mainstream media, but being a non-conformist of what they try and spoon feed the masses, I don't buy what he is selling. Besides only being asked the softball questions, the news media shows their leftwing bias by the fact that there have been approx. 4 X as many articles about Obama alone as about McCain alone.
Posted by: KS | July 03, 2008 at 07:06 PM