« SENATE VOTES TO ALLOW SAME-SEX PARTNER BENEFITS | Home | PEACE PROTESTORS IN NEED OF DAYCARE »
MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN JOKES THAT NEXT TITLE OF BOOK WILL BE CALLED “I F[-ING] HATE THOSE RIGHT-WING MOTHERF[ERS]!”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | March 26, 2007
This is real funny Franken:
"But you know, I don't want to get into a whole partisan politics thing here. Not in this book, anyway. We'll leave that for my next book, I Fucking Hate Those Right-Wing Motherfuckers!, due out in October 2004. I'm hoping it will 'fire up the troops' for the final weeks of the campaign sesason." Source: Al Franken, Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them, pp. 115
This type of statement from Franken is becoming more of an issue for his campaign:
"So the issue of Franken’s potty mouth and name calling is out there, and Franken, among others, has to deal with it. Much about the race may depend on whether Franken can strike a winning new tone going forward, one that is at once more senatorial but still authentic. And part of that will depend on how convincingly he can explain his past remarks." Source: Star Tribune, March 20, 2007
I understand it's a joke – but it's not funny.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 21 Comments »
21 Responses to “MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN JOKES THAT NEXT TITLE OF BOOK WILL BE CALLED “I F[-ING] HATE THOSE RIGHT-WING MOTHERF[ERS]!””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Franken says some really dumb stuff. So does Sen. Norm Coleman who was recently quoted in Salon as stating, “Our commitment to Israel defines us as a nation.”
Does Norm Coleman really represent Minnesota interests in the US Senate or Israeli interests? As much as Coleman wants to pretend they are the same, they aren’t.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Actually it is pretty funny. Apparently, sarcasm is lost on you Michael.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Chuck, chuck chuck, only the rabid left-wingers would try to deflect Al Franken’s hate by showing their own anti-semitic views on Israel and then thinking that Coleman is somehow screwed up by supporting our allies.
Nice going Chuck!
March 26th, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Kill Al Franken.
C’mon, that’s a joke. I would bet that if I removed the name Al Franken and substituted some Republican, Liberals will come in droves to defend the comments.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:24 PM
and God…he’s so fricken ugly!
March 26th, 2007 at 3:31 PM
Is anyone REALLY going to vote for Al Franken?
Chuck? What’s Al’s position on Israel? Al is still Jewish, right?
Libs. Pwwfff.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Hey Mark,
Go get f*cked. Now how do you like the sarcasm now?
March 26th, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Hey Chuck,
You’re probably the guy who thinks 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy. It’s no wonder Jews are abandoning the Democrat party. By the way, watch out for the black helicopters, I hear they’re headed to your house.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:55 PM
I deem anything in an Al Franken book as a lame attempt by Michael Brodkorb to flame Franken. If its in one of his books, it is meant to be satirical, funny, and to humor liberals. It was his job back then, he was damn good at it, can we discuss his flubs at a senatorial candidate, not as a comedy book writer.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:40 PM
**
The right-wing media followed suit. The Washington Times blamed Clinton. The New York Post blamed Clinton. The National Review’s White House Correspondent Byron York wrote that Clinton’s “record is a richly detailed manual of how not to conduct a war on terrorism.” Within two days, Newt Gingrich was blaming Clinton for the attacks because of his “pathetically weak, ineffective ability to focus and stay focused.” You really got to give Gingrich credit for how hard he tried to disrupt Clinton’s focus: His Republican-run House conducted dozens of hostile investigations against the President.
But it had been a waste of Gingrich’s time. Clinton, as I will demonstrate below, focused more on terrorism than any previous president. A month before Clinton left office, his administration was praised by two former Reagan counterterrorism officials. “Overall, I give them very high marks,” Robert Oakley, who served as ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department, told the Washington Post. “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which we think made him stronger.” Oakley’s successor in the Reagan administration, Paul Bremer, disagreed slightly. Bremer, who is currently the civilian administrator in Iraq told the Post he believed the Clinton administration had “correctly focused on Bin Laden.” Notice the word “focused” next to the words “on Bin Laden.” I’m talking to you, Newt. And all of you “Blame-Clinton-Firsters.”
Right-wingers like to call us the “Blame-America-First Crowd.” But they’ve blamed Clinton, who’s not just an American, but was the President, virtually nonstop. And Clinton was not just the President. He was the last elected president, who received more votes than any other candidate running against him. In two straight elections! So who’s blaming America? The left, which is blaming the terrorists? Or the right, which is blaming a twice-elected President of the United States?
**
Pages 106-107 of the hardcover edition of “Lies, and the Lying Liars” which precedes the paragraph quoted here.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Hey Christine,
Al Frankenfraud admits that his books are satire and full of lies. I don’t think any of those people actually said what he attributed to them. Even if they did, the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission disagrees. Clinton did nothing about terrorism even though we had some six terrorist attacks during his administration.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Norm Coleman really said that?
It’s hard to believe that Coleman can get away with making such an unAmerican statement.
March 27th, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Mary,
Keep up the great work. I hope you offend every Jewish person in Minnesota. Maybe we can make you the new Palestinian, er, DFL spokesman.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:37 AM
You know what else isn’t funny?
The quagmire in Iraq.
All things considered, I would rather read another putrid Al Franken book than give Norm six more years to lick the president’s boots.
March 27th, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Ted,
Quagmire in Iraq? That’s funny. The guys on the ground are talking about how well the surge is going right now. Only a Democrat can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As for bootlickers, what about Tim Walz and his 100% voting record with San Fran Nan Pelosi and Amy Klobuchar with her 100% voting record with Dingy Harry Reid.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Here comes Amy Klobuchar and her 100% voting record with Harry Reid:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00105
Reid – Nay
Klobuchar – Yea
March 28th, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Christine,
Harry Reid sets the caucus position. It’s clear that Klobuchar has not voted against her caucus.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:35 PM
[...] Tice continues: "But the mother of all Franken quotes, so to speak, is too much even for The Big Question. I refer you to the estimable Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed for the full treatment. [...]
March 30th, 2007 at 4:28 PM
estimable. What daws thet meen?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Al Franken is a stuck-up preppie.
Al Franken really isn’t that funny as a comedian. As a senator, he’d be a laughingstock.
Al Franken’s campaign position on Islamo-facism, and our response to it, should be defined by the certain knowledge that the Israelis got Paul. Now, what should Franken do?
March 31st, 2007 at 2:08 AM
“Al Frankenfraud admits that his books are satire and full of lies.”
Look at the title of his latest book: The Truth, with Jokes. Meaning: anything that isn’t obviously a joke is true. The jokes normally come in the form of satire. No where does he claim to be telling lies.