« “NONPARTISAN” SECRETARY OF STATE RITCHIE SPEAKS AT EVENT HOSTED BY LEFTIST ORGANIZATION | Home | MDE EXCLUSIVE: MINNEAPOLIS CITY COUNCIL MEMBER CONSIDERING CAMPAIGN FOR U.S. SENATE IN ‘08 »
MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN CALLS CONGRESSMAN DICK ARMEY A “BIG FAT DICK”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 21, 2007
"What were some of the book's rejected titles? There was Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Lying Hypocrite. But that was too confrontational. Then there was Newt Gingrich Is a Big Fat Jerk. And Richard Armey Is a Big Fat Dick." Source: Entertainment Weekly, March 22, 1996
###
Wow…Al Franken has issues with anger.
Topics: Uncategorized | 18 Comments »
18 Responses to “MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN CALLS CONGRESSMAN DICK ARMEY A “BIG FAT DICK””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Perhaps AlF intended to use the word “has” instead of “is”.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Nice work Thought Police. My sources tell me that Norm Coleman once recounted a racist joke in his head. I expect him to be expelled from the party for this….
February 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Fred you are so damn pathetic I am starting to think you may be mentally handicapped and are writing on your government paid laptop while receiving brain shock therapy.
Seriously Fred do you have a valid argument or do you just try to turn everything written here to try and cover the mis-steps of your party??
Al is going to be fun to watch sidestep much of what he had to say over the years. The man can hardly remember when he lied or what he lied about which would be why he gets so upset when questioned about things he has said or stood for because he often struggles to recall what his stance was and knows he does not want to be seen as a flip-flopper knowing how well that worked for John F’ing Kerry.
Keep up the excuses for Al Fred and then go on to tell us how you are so open minded and Al may not be your guy. Christ you are not even honest with yourself Fred you are indeed a classic liberal.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Kahuna,
I think Al would be more than willing to play “Who’s the Biggest Flip-Flopper” with Norm “I was against the surge before I was for the surge” Coleman.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I am so offended by the word “Dick”.
Each time it is uttered or written I must pray to the rosary.
Al Franken scares me with is naughty words. Norm Coleman would never utter an obsenity, even one so vile as “Dick” …
February 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I bet Al doesn’t know Dick.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Tim, when has Coleman ever been against the surge? Truth: Never.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Dick Armey called openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, ‘Barney Fag.’
Dick Armey IS a big fat dick
February 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Kyle, Norm on CNN with Wolf mentioned he was against the President’s planned surge, but then Norm’s spokesman issued a statement:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2368411.shtml
The quote is in the middle:
**
Coleman spokesman Tom Steward said the senator is open to an increase in the Anbar province, for example.
**
Then Norm clarified this himself here:
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/985229.html
**
However, in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I saw and heard little to suggest that the Iraqis have the resolve to take the difficult steps necessary for national reconciliation. For this reason, I oppose the president’s proposal to increase our troop level in Baghdad.
Placing more U.S. troops in the cross hairs of ethnic violence will not further national reconciliation, nor will it steer Iraqi political leadership to defuse the sectarian hatred fueling the ethnic violence. We can and should continue the military battle against terrorists in places such as Anbar Province, but sending American troops into the middle of an Iraqi ethnic conflict that has engulfed Baghdad is not something I can support.
**
Is Norm against any surge, or just a surge into Baghdad? I have never seen anyone ask him if he would support the surge if it were into Anbar Province.
February 21st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Are you sure it wasn’t “Barney THE Fag”?
I ask ’cause that was Congressman Frank’s street name back in his pimpin’ days..
February 21st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
http://www.noagenda.org/2005/05/frank_and_the_prostitute.php
Somehow having to post the link takes the fun out of it….
February 21st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Washington Post, January 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123100948.html
“Two Senate Republicans with potentially tough reelection contests in 2008, Minnesota’s Norm Coleman and Maine’s Susan Collins, returned from recent trips to Iraq saying they did not think sending more troops was a good idea.”
and
CNN, January 2007
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/01/gop-sen-coleman-on-troop-surge-i-just.html
GOP Sen. Coleman on troop surge: ‘I just don’t believe this makes sense’
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman Wednesday said he opposes President Bush’s plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq.
“My consultations with both military and Iraqi political leaders confirm that an increase of troops in areas plagued by sectarian violence will not solve the problem of sectarian hatred.” Coleman said during a speech on the Senate floor. “A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It would put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence and create more targets — I just don’t believe this makes sense.”
President Bush is set to call for between 21,000 to 24,000 additional troops in a prime-time address to the nation Wednesday night.
February 21st, 2007 at 6:02 pm
BTW, that post is for Kyle who apparently isn’t familiar with the truth.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Christine,
Here’s another paragraph from the same article by Norm Coleman on Feb. 7. I guess you must have a real short attention span.
During the past few weeks there has been much Senate debate over a resolution to send the president a message on his new strategy. Members on both sides of the aisle have joined in support of the resolution put forward by Sen. John Warner, R-Va. From the beginning, this resolution has been aimed at expressing concern over the president’s proposed surge in Baghdad, while still recognizing the severe consequences of failure in Iraq. Additionally, the resolution expresses unequivocal support for our troops and does not rule out reinforcements for military battles against terrorists in places like Anbar. Furthermore, it does this in a bipartisan spirit aimed at seeking success in Iraq, rather than simply expressing hostility.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
For someone who hates gays, Franken seems to have an unhealthy fascination with the word.
Self-loathing perhaps?
So many issues (i.e. homophobia, rage), so little time.
February 21st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Bruiser, how does the paragraph you cited change anything? Kyle questioned if Coleman ever objected to the surge. See Barney’s link above where (I call this objecting) Coleman states: “I just don’t believe this makes sense”
But forget this for a minute and I think Norm is still having to have the surge both ways.
He (Coleman, not Kyle) says the surge doesn’t make sense yet seems open to sending more troops(surging) to different parts of Iraq than President Bush wants to.
In short, this isn’t one clear positions:
**
“A troop surge in Baghdad would put more American troops at risk to address a problem that is not a military problem. It would put more American soldiers in the cross hairs of sectarian violence and create more targets — I just don’t believe this makes sense.”
**
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/01/gop-sen-coleman-on-troop-surge-i-just.html
Versus:
The paragraph you cited notes Coleman supports the Warner resolution which states:
**
(2) the Senate believes the United States should continue vigorous operations in Anbar province, specifically for the purpose of combating an insurgency, including elements associated with the Al Qaeda movement, and denying terrorists a safe haven;
**
http://www.senate.gov/~warner/pressoffice/pressreleases/20070131.htm
Wouldn’t putting more troops in Anbar province be putting more soldiers in the crosshairs and creating more potential targets? Methinks yes.
And is Coleman saying that since he wants to deny terrorists a safe haven that he knows they all live in Anbar Province? So, none of them live in Baghdad? Please.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 am
Christine, the violence in Baghdad is mostly sectarian and not terrorist based.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Thanks for the newsflash