« FRANKEN’S FORGOTTEN INTERVIEW | Home | FREEDOMWORKS NEW MAJORITY PROJECT AIRS RADIO ADS IN MINNESOTA »
WHAT THE HECK IS FRANKEN TALKING ABOUT?
By Michael B. Brodkorb | April 23, 2007
"When Paul Welstone voted against this war Coleman said 'he didn't question Paul's patriotism, he questioned his judgement,' said Franken. 'Well, whose judgement was right Norm? That's like saying 'I don't question your hetorsexuality, I question that suit you're wearing.' We need to hold Norm Coleman accountable.'" Source: Granite Falls Advocate Tribune, April 22, 2007
Um….what the heck is Franken talking about?
###
This post also appears on Blogs for Norm!, an online community and blog covering the 2008 U.S. Senate campaign in Minnesota. The primary goal of Blogs for Norm! is to organize bloggers who support U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 26 Comments »
26 Responses to “WHAT THE HECK IS FRANKEN TALKING ABOUT?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Answer: Norm’s judgment was right. It was then, it is now.
I think Al Franken has mad cow disease.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 AM
He’s either back on the sauce or the coke again.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Injecting anything that has the word “sex” is a (not so) veiled shot at Norm’s non-Senatorial activities. Norm’s in DC, his wife isn’t; he was in St Paul, she lived in LA….
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I really don’t get it? Is he mixing up Gulf War I with todays conflict? Is he just goofy?
Since he’s of Jewish decent, I wonder how Al felt about Saddamn paying $15,000 to the family of any one who would murder a Jew.
If Bush wouldn’t have acted and a nuclear device is set off in Tel Aviv, what would Al have said then?
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 AM
I hope Coleman remands professional and doesn’t make vieled references to concaine use.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I think Angry Al just called Coleman a fag! Norm had better get that concealed carry permit after all…we know what Al thinks should be done about homosexuals.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Speaking of the U.S. Senate race, I heard that the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that City Pages can get access to Mike Ciresi’s billing records in the mid-1990s tobacco case. Ciresi has been successful so far in having the Attorney General’s Office keep his billing records under wraps.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I’m no fan of City Pages, but if this is true, then City Pages has proven itself to be a useful idiot.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Yes, Dave, because if we’ve learned anything from our action in Iraq, it’s that a nuke was about to be dropped on Israel. Like Norm said, George W Bush is part of God’s answer to our prayers.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Otter, what you don’t know about what you don’t know could fill volumes.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Yet another quality comment by Otter.
Otter you should lay off the bong once in a while.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Liberals and conservatives alike should want Ciresi’s pmt disclosed. Other states have. Are the rumors true the Ciresi earned several hundred thousand dollars and hour for working on the case? Not his law firm, but him personally.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Oops, make the several thousand dollars an hour. NOT several hundred thousand…
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 PM
You guys shouldnt chastize otter for pointing out the conservatives assertion that Israel could be bombed at any moment if we dont invade a country in the Middle East. You have no facts to back that up (just like you didnt have any to back up the Iraq war) so quit fear mongering.
swiftee, you’re dumb
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Fine Republicans, don’t take my word for it. Tell me the name of one elected Republican official who thinks this war kept Israel from being nuked by Iraq.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 PM
I think you miss my point. Several groups/nations in the mideast have pledged to exterminate the Jew, particularly Israel. Intellegence leading up to the Iraq war showed saddamn having capabilities to produce WMD. If Bush & Blair would have ignored the eveidence and he would have used these against Israel, then you same people bitching that Bush did too much, would then be saying he didn’t do enough.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:03 PM
“otter scrubber” = “Andrew Engen”? … probably.
As long as we’re on the subject though, tell me the name of any politician that asserted what you say they asserted. In fact, show me one Democrat who says that the War stopped China from bombing Budapest… Oh, nobody ever said that either…
You guys aren’t just ignorant, you’re confused and stupid. The probability of Iraq bombing Israel was never at issue in 2002-2003. Iraq’s support of terrorists was at issue. And there are facts from here to eternity that Iraq provided material support to terrorists.
Andrew/Otter/whoever…. Republicans weren’t threatening that Iran or Iraq would bomb Israel if we didn’t bomb them first. Iraq was already paying people to bomb Israel. And Iran’s president is threatening to… The evidence:
“We will wipe Israel off the map!”
— Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I don’t think he means with Magic Markers.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Thank you Chestnut. That was what I wsa trying to say. Saddamn was a supporter of the facist elements who pledged to destroy Israel. How do we know he would not have provided them with support in future years? The point I was trying to make was that blood would have been on Bush’s hands if he would have pulled a Chamberland/Ghandi/Wellstone and just hoped the bad guys would go away. Leaders make tough choices. Sometimes they act or don’t act. Sometimes those acts or non-acts work out okay, sometimes they don’t.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:15 PM
… and either way, that’s not why we went to war… though, even if it was, someone quite influential and famous once said: “There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for a friend.”
I’d bet money that you guys think it was John Lennon who said that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Thanks Dave… I think we can guarantee that Saddam would continue to support the terrorists he was supporting long in to the future.
What’s so disturbing to me is that the Anti-War left speaks the exact same language as our terrorist enemies. They both want America to lose. And they both have the same strong pulse of anti-Semitism running through their “cause.”
It was the American left that sided with the British during the Revolution.
It was the left that sided with the Confederate slave owners in the Civil War.
It was the left that delayed our entry in to WWI.
It was the left that appeased the Nazis and the Brutal Nipponese tyrants.
It was the left that defeated America in Vietnam.
It was the left that that kept the U.S. out of WWII while the German’s were exterminating Jews.
It was the left that demoralized and defeated us in Vietnam.
It was the left that nearly capitulated to the Soviet Union.
It was the left that still champions thugs, murderer’s, dictators and thieves like Castro, Guevera, Chavez, Idi Amin, Mugabe, Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.
And it is the left that is undermining America now.
Seems working against America’s interests is truly a tradition of the left.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Hey Andrew,
Sieg Heil!
April 24th, 2007 at 11:01 AM
“Sieg Heil” says Chris and the ZioNazis who don’t want the truth to get out about Norm Coleman’s true loyalities.
They refuse to answer the big question, why does Norm Coleman sneak around with AIPAC and say things like “Our commitment to Israel defines us as a nation”?
Most Minnesotans don’t believe that Israeli interests should take precedence over American interests. Chris doesn’t understand this as Chris isn’t a Minnesotan.
April 24th, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Chuck, most Americans realize that Israel’s interests are aligned with America’s interests. It’s not about precedence, you anti-Semitic dink.
Norm doesn’t “sneak” around with anybody. Or is that word used on purpose to advance your bigotry that Jews are “sneaky”.
You’re pathetic.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Chestnut–
Who was the President during World War 1, and what was his Party affiliation?
Who was the President during World War 2, and what was his Party affiliation?
Which candidate for President during World War 2 said this…
“No man has the right to use the great powers of the Presidency to lead the people, indirectly, into war”
A. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Democrat)
B. Wendell Willkie (Republican)
And finally, who said this:
“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government … too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.”
A. Robert Taft (Republican, Senator-OH, Defacto head of the Republican party from 1940-1952)
B. Harry Truman (Democrat, Greatest Threat to Communism this world has ever seen)
IF you could answer those I’d appreciate it.
Sean
April 25th, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Here Sean:
Who was the President during World War 1, and what was his Party affiliation?
A: Woodrow Wilson: Democrat… who had to be dragged kicking in to that war, after issuing a silly Declaration of Neutrality. Also the brain child that gave us the League of Nations.
Who was the President during World War 2, and what was his Party affiliation?
FDR: Democrat… who watched the Nazi’s build up power, appeased them… and listened to the likes of JFK’s idiot father and the New York Times in thinking that Hitler was a pretty good guy.
Which candidate for President during World War 2 said this… “No man has the right to use the great powers of the Presidency to lead the people, indirectly, into warâ€
A: Wendell Willike: A former Democrat, and a liberal. Not sure what he was talking about, but it most certainly had to do with is isolationist stance, which is the same as today’s Democrats.
And finally, who said this:
“As a matter of general principle, I believe there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government … too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.â€
A. Robert Taft (Republican, Senator-OH, Defacto head of the Republican party from 1940-1952)
All of this is cute, but doesn’t change the fact that Democrats today are not immune from criticism for their traitorous and cowardice positions.
Just because someone calls you a coward, doesn’t mean you aren’t one.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:58 AM
“All of this is cute, but doesn’t change the fact that Democrats today are not immune from criticism for their traitorous and cowardice positions.
Just because someone calls you a coward, doesn’t mean you aren’t one.”
Tough words from an anonymous internet poster.
Sean | I’ve got bigger internet muscles than you do.