« FRANKEN STANDS BY CRITCISM OF U.S. SENATE VOTE TO CONDEMN MOVEON.ORG ATTACK AD ON GENERAL PETRAEUS; REFUSES TO DENOUNCE AD | Home | BREAKING NEWS: SENATOR MICHEL DECIDES AGAINST RUN FOR CONGRESS IN 3RD CD »
MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “AL FRANKEN (D- MOVEON.ORG); SLASH & BURN ‘SATIRIST’ EMBRACES MOVEON’S UGLY ATTACK AD, BLASTS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN MAJORITY OF U.S. SENATE FOR ‘RIDICULOUS’ VOTE CONDEMNING AD”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | September 26, 2007
"By failing to denounce MoveOn.org's attack ad and by lashing out at the seventy-two U.S. senators who condemned the ad, Al Franken cements his position as the most far-left, polarizing and out of the mainstream candidate to run for the U.S. Senate in our state. No matter how many millions he raises from his rich liberal friends in Hollywood and New York, Franken won’t be able to convince Minnesotans he has the temperament, judgment and experience necessary for the U.S. Senate." – Ron Carey, Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman
Franken Won’t Denounce MoveOn’s Smear Of General Petraeus:
"Franken stood by his criticism of the Senate vote to condemn the MoveOn.org ad, calling it 'a distraction.' He also said it was ridiculous for Coleman to take out a full-page ad on the issue. After the event, Franken refused to denounce the 'General Betray Us' ad. 'No, I don't want to do that. I don't want to play that game,' Franken said." (Tom Scheck, “Coleman, Franken In Dispute Over Moveon.Org Ad," Minnesota Public Radio, September 25, 2007)
72 U.S. Senators Attacked By Franken For "Ridiculous" Resolution Condemning MoveOn’s Attack:
Franken: "It is, of course, ridiculous that the United States Senate spent a day debating and voting on a resolution condemning an advertisement while our troops remained in Iraq, fighting a war with no end." (Al Franken, "Al Franken: Hyper (And Hypo)Critical," Star Tribune, September 26, 2007)
### 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 | 30 Comments »
30 Responses to “MN GOP PRESS RELEASE: “AL FRANKEN (D- MOVEON.ORG); SLASH & BURN ‘SATIRIST’ EMBRACES MOVEON’S UGLY ATTACK AD, BLASTS OVERWHELMING BIPARTISAN MAJORITY OF U.S. SENATE FOR ‘RIDICULOUS’ VOTE CONDEMNING AD””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Top Ten Liberal Lies:
1. Count Every Vote- This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.
2. There is a vast right wing conspiracy- There is a far right wing in the Republican Party, but it is a small fringe element. However, there is a far left wing in this country and it is a large part of the main stream of the Democratic party. Remember when Hillary Clinton went on the Today Show and responded to the allegation of an affair between her husband (President Clinton) and an intern (Monica Lewinsky) as untrue and blamed it on a Right Wing Conspiracy? Over the past ten years Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt and Jesse Jackson have been the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic party. Are any of these people Moderates? Also please note, there is a liberal bias in the media. You might make the argument that there is a vast left wing conspiracy.
3. This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it’s finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.
4. There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. Tim Russert, the President of NBC News, at one time worked for Mario Cuomo. The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives. All you have to say about CNN is that it was created by Ted Turner. In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.
5. Republicans want to cut school lunch programs- This was the attack leveled by Democrats against the Republicans during a budget battle in 1995. Democrats proposed a double digit increase in funding for school lunch programs, while Republican proposed a more modest increase. To put this in perspective, you must ask this question. How many people get a double digit increase in their pay each year? Democrats called the Republican proposal a cut and charged they wanted to starve children, because the proposal was less than what Democrats proposed. Please note, the Republican proposal called for an increase in funding. The media printed the story, never challenging it, even though it was not true. This became famous for when does an increase become a cut- only in Washington DC.
6. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.
7. Republicans are mean spirited and want to throw the poor out on the street- This was a charge leveled by Democrats against Republicans when they proposed time limits for receiving welfare. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe in time restrictions for welfare recipients. Republicans know that to escape poverty it takes education, hard work and discipline. The greatness of this country rests in its freedom and that within one generation a person can rise from poverty to obtain great wealth. Allowing endless dependency on an entitlement program has trapped many in poverty. Why would Democrats want to keep anyone dependent on an entitlement program like welfare? How many people on welfare vote Republican?
8. I support the military- It has been well documented that when it comes to voting for military funding- liberals would much rather spend money on social programs. First you must understand their rational. Approximately 10% of the population in the United States is poor, which is about 30 million Americans. There are approximately one million Americans serving in the military. If only 1 in 5 of the poor vote, that equals about six million votes as compared to one million votes from the military. There are two relevant questions here. What percent of the poor vote Republican? How close was the 2000 Presidential Election? This leads directly to the answer of why would liberals rather appropriate money to social programs than to the defense of our country. Please note, the defense of our country is a primary, if not the primary responsibility of our government. If we don’t protect the country, we may not have a country or our freedom.
9. Privatizing social security is risky. Contribute $300 a month to Social Security and you may get $1,800 a month when you retire. Sound like a good deal? There was a story about Dick Gephardt’s mother living on Social Security and having numerous checks she had written returned for insufficient funds. Gephardt politicized the event by stating that this was an example of why Social Security should not be privatized, because if it were not for Social Security his mother would have been much worse off. Please note that the S & P 500 has returned more than 10% over it’s lifetime. Therefore- if you invested $300 a month in an S & P 500 mutual fund for 40 years at the end of that time (enter these numbers into any compound interest calculator) you would have approximately 2 million dollars (Please note that these are conservative numbers). This means you could withdraw almost $200,000 or 10 percent a year and never exhaust your money. Break that down and it is $20, 000 a month. Social Security does not sound so good any longer. Please be advised that the key to obtaining wealth is systematically investing for the long term. There is no quick sure fire scheme to getting rich. If Gephardt’s mother had been investing in mutual funds her entire life instead of Social Security- she would have been much better off at the present. Also, please be advised that privatizing Social Security helps the poor the more than anyone. The rich invest money in 401K plans. The poor, the clerk at a convenience store or a customer service representative doesn’t have excess funds to invest and so their only investment vehicle is Security Security, which in reality is just a bond fund.
10. Trickle down economics does not work- Money in the hands of people stimulates the economy, whether they are rich or poor. The problem- how to you put money in the hands of the poor? Transfer of more wealth from the rich to the poor each year? This would only create greater dependency on entitlements and give lessen the incentive to achieve. Give the poor greater tax cuts? You can only cut the taxes for the poor by so much, because they don’t pay much in taxes. When Tom Daschle said that the result of a proposed Bush tax cut would mean that a rich person would be able to buy a new car, without realizing it, he proved the theory of Trickle Down Economics. The person selling that car would generate income that he would otherwise not have had. Please note that if that person sells enough cars, he will gain wealth. If tax rates in this county were at 75% what would happen to the economy? The answer is that no one would have money to spend on anything except housing and food. The result would be that businesses everywhere would fail, because no one would have money to buy clothes, electronics, entertainment, repairs for their homes or cars, go on vacation….. If they did buy such things, they would have to go in to debt to do so. How would this help the working class or the poor? Please note the average taxpayer, pays roughly 50% of their income in taxes. After the attack on September 11th, Hillary Clinton said, “come to New York and spend money.” She knew if people stopped coming to New York and spending money, businesses would fail and the economy in New York would suffer a great downturn, which would hurt the average working family. This is interesting considering that liberals are for tax hikes and against tax cuts. The only thing that helps the working class is a strong economy. It gives the average worker more freedom and more bargaining power. When the financial sector was booming from 1987 through 1989, workers were getting bonuses, overtime and stock options. When the financial sector suffered a downturn in 1990, it trickled down. There were no more bonuses, overtime, stock options and their were layoffs.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Seems the Satirist should shut the fuck up. I personally hope he keeps talking. The more money the anti-American Democrats send to MoveOn, the less money they’ll send to candidates.
The more energized the anti-American Democrats are for Al, the more likely he’ll get the endorsement, and the more invisible Cerisi and others become.
Al is the best opponent for Norm. He’s stupid, bitter and divisive. He’s got no record of accomplishment… not for Minnesota, not for anyone. The more Minnesotans view him as a whacko owned by MoveOn, the more repulsed they will be.
DFL: Nothing but hate in 2008.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Chestnut, if you don’t like the direction America is movingOn to, maybe you should just move.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Seems to me that the folks who volunteer/work for the Franken campaign are in the same league as those who jumped on the Dean bandwagon back in ’04.
As we all remember, Dean spent $51 million in Iowa only to garner around 18% of the vote.
Iowans were disgusted to see those little, dim-witted clowns in orange beanies running around their neighborhoods telling them how to vote.
Judging by the defensive nature of the Franken responses, and the horrible spin they put on their positions—I think there is a distinct correlation between the far-left “Dean Machine” and those who honestly believe that Al Franken is somehow qualified to be serving as a US Senator.
I would just like to ask Franken supporters what Franken’s real policy ideas are??
What is he going to do for MN other than continue to “satarize” Republicans?
If the DFL just wants to rally around someone who is brain-dead, a deadbeat and who delivers nothing for MN—why don’t they just hang out around the Wellstone Memorial?
Al Franken cares about as much for MN as I care about what goes on in Mexifornia.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Mark,
Conservatives don’t believe in putting our tail between our legs and running away, as you libs claimed you were going to after the 2004 election and now want our military to do in Iraq, when things become difficult.
September 26th, 2007 at 11:54 AM
wtm, if you believe in this war so much why aren’t you in the service? Aren’t you un-American by refusing to sign up?
September 26th, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Taki, what the fuck makes you think he and a few of us haven’t served. You anti-American dink.
September 26th, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Taki,
If you believe in law enforcement so much why aren’t you out walking a beat?
If you believe in finding a cure for cancer so much, why aren’t you in the lab?
If you believe in the value of hemp products so much, why aren’t you smoking some?
Oh.
Whoops.
September 26th, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Because he won’t answer the question Chestnut.
By the way can you write a response that doesn’t have the word “fuck” or “anti-American” in it?
September 26th, 2007 at 1:35 PM
No Taki, I can’t. Fuck you, and your anti-American puke friends. You liberals were wrong about Hitler. You were wrong about Stalin. You were wrong about Mao. You were wrong about the Khmer Rouge. And you’re wrong about the Islamic threat we face now.
If you’re against war, then help speed the victory. Quit undermining every effort. Quit defending the indefensible. Quit emboldening and paving the way for terrorists.
You quitters want to quit. There’s a list of shit you can quit.
Democrats: Defeatist, anti-American pieces of dog shit.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Taki,
Chestnut sure pegged you!
By the way does your mom know your skipping out of school?
September 26th, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Taki,
I’ll answer your question as soon as you can demonstrate to me that you drive over to the Department of Revenue every week (or whenever you are paid) and hand over your paycheck (assuming you work, of course, which might not be a good assumption because you’re a liberal) because you support more government spending and ergo higher taxes.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:40 PM
[...] Michael Brodkorb posted over at MDE that Franken chose the latter. [...]
September 26th, 2007 at 4:12 PM
Just as I guessed wtm, you (and it seems Chestnut as well) are too chicken to walk the talk. If you think the future of the modern world hinges on this war, why aren’t you over there? Isn’t it that important! It’s easy to put your little ribbon decal on your SUV and to say you support the troops, but let’s see you go down to the recruitment office and sign up. Take Chestnut with you a little discipline would do that guy some good.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Taki, blow it out your ear. I for one am a veteran. Your anti-military stance comes shining through too I might add.
September 26th, 2007 at 4:49 PM
Taki, again, fuck you. I served for 9 years. What the fuck have you done… ever.
It’s easy for a lazy leach like you to sit on your ass and slander those protecting your right to do so. I was a soldier. And you damn right I support the soldiers now, and their mission. I don’t hate this country like you and your ilk do.
Now, bitch. Answer the question that’s been posed to you, you chicken shit, anti-American whore. Why are you rooting for an Al Queda victory?
September 26th, 2007 at 6:14 PM
CHESTNUT: GET HELP…NOW!!! GET YOUR ASS TO THE VA AND GET SOME PSYCHE HELP…PTSD IS WRITTEN ALL OVER YOU. MICHAEL B.-TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILTY AND GET THIS GUY SOME HELP AND DIRECTIVE…
September 26th, 2007 at 6:17 PM
Naa… I’m fine.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:57 PM
MNBlueGirl, he’s not displaying the symptoms of PTSD. Perhaps you should learn something about it before you accuse people of having it.
September 27th, 2007 at 12:16 AM
Nah..calling someone a chicken shit, anti-american whore because she has a different viewpoint isn’t a symptom of PTSD. It’s a symptom of being a fucking asshole.
September 27th, 2007 at 3:24 AM
Kind of like what you just did huh buck.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Buck, that “different view point” is chicken shit and anti-American. The the bitch who has that “different view point” is a pro-Al Queda whore.
In your parlance: Speaking truth.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:27 AM
I agree Chestnut, you need some help, before your neighbors have to call the SWAT team in.
… and your the same guy that keeps writing “DFL nothing but hate in 2008″?
As for wtm, I am still waiting… or are you on your way to the recruiting office this morning?
Chestnut, I would urge you to re-up again if you believe in this cause so much, but then again I doubt they would take you, which in this environment is saying quite a bit.
As for loyalty, I love this country I just hate the assholes who are running it. Bush and Cheney and their neo-con crew have done more damage then I could have even imagined possible in 7 years.
I for one could care less if you or anyone else thinks I am anti-American, that’s your style of piss poor debate and one the American people are getting damn sick of. Anyone that disagrees with your viewpoint, you must attempt to destroy and conquer (which I must admit you do a very poor job of).
Al Queda is evil and to argue just because someone doesn’t support your dumbass and ill-planned adventure in Iraq is their supporter, is absurd.
Iraq is one of the main reasons, Al Queda is stronger now then before. Instead of focusing our effort on Afghanistan, we went to Iraq (where Al Queda was virtually non-existent before the war). We today can see the consequences, because of our lack of investment and troops in Afghanistan we are now losing the support of many of the Afghan people by failing to offer the protection and infrastructure investment we had promised. We also have to rely on regional warlords for security in some areas , instead of our own troops, which undermines the authority of their elected government.
Iraq diverted troops, money and international support from the war in Afghanistan and gave Al Queda a second more enticing front to attack our troops.
So if you want to argue along your own nutty lines of reasoning, you Chestnut must in fact be pro-Al Queda.
September 27th, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Answer the question Taki:
If you force a U.S. surrender in Iraq, does Al Queda win?
Why do you want Al Queda to win?
September 27th, 2007 at 11:49 AM
It’s hard to surrender when we don’t even have a clearly defined mission.
Al Queda will never “win” anything, since their goal is the destruction of the US. However, we will not destroy them or significantly weaken them, unless we can reduce their attractiveness to future recruits and funding.
We also need global cooperation, something that is very hard to achieve when you go around starting pre-emptive and pointless wars.
So tell me why do you want Al Queda to win? Why do you support policies that encourage their growth?
September 27th, 2007 at 12:47 PM
You’re an idiot. We have a clearly defined enemy. Liberals want to surrender to that enemy. One cannot surrender to a mission you dumb ass.
BTW — The clearly defined mission is to secure Iraq, to foster an environment for democracy to succeed, and eliminate safe-havens for terrorists.
Liberals are cheering for the U.S. to fail, and for Al Queda to win.
Al Queda was doing a pretty fine job growing in size and strength under Bill Clinton’s watch. They did a pretty fine job of blowing up U.S. targets before we invaded Iraq.
You really are dumber than a bag of hammers Taki. Fucking stupid beyond repair.
September 27th, 2007 at 1:29 PM
BTW — Al Queda has stated it’s clearly defined objective is to force the U.S. out of Iraq. It is counting on the Democrat party to carry its water, to demoralize our soldiers in the field, and to destroy public will at home.
Why is the Democrat party aiding Al Queda and cheering for U.S. defeat?
September 27th, 2007 at 3:21 PM
“We have a clearly defined enemy”
Well if it was just Al Queda, that might be the case, but it’s not. We have both Sunni and Shia blowing our troops up. We have militas that were once killing US soliders now our allies?!!?! Hell, I imagine they probably have Iranian secret forces actively there trying to kill our troops. Do these people look any different then any other Iraqi, no… so unfortunately it’s not very clear, in fact it’s a mess.
That’s interesting our mission is to secure Iraq, I thought it was to get rid of WMDs and Saddam? Oh yeah, I guess we did not find any of those… Our mission changes on a daily basis according to Bush, so it’s hard to put any faith in that at all.
If our goal was to elminate terrorist safe havens, we have failed since we have created a new one in Iraq. Now we have terrorists from every part of the globe traveling there, get to get a chance to kill US troops. Hardly a good way to promote democracy.
By our actions we have also thrown the middle east into even greater political chaos then before and promoted worldwide economic instability due to changes in oil supply and production. By being bogged down in Iraq we also have emboldened Iran, which could have devasting consequences.
So I ask you again Chestnut, why do you keep encouraging policies that support Al Queda?
September 27th, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Bullshit Taki. Bullshit.
You really illustrate how stupid, misinformed and deranged the Left is in this country.
Iraq was a safe-haven for terrorists before we attacked. Saddam consorted with and supported terrorists, financially and materially. This war didn’t start that.
While you’re right the initial justifications turned out false, the mission has been the same for over 4 years.
Again, I ask the fucking question Taki: If you force a U.S. surrender, does Al Queda win?
Why are you supporting the defeat of the U.S.? Why are you aiding Al Queda.
You dumb sonofabitch.
September 27th, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Gee, I wonder why Taki doesn’t bother responding to me?
Taki, I hate the extreme liberal viewpoint.
“However, we will not destroy them or significantly weaken them, unless we can reduce their attractiveness to future recruits and funding.”
Guess what, Al Queda and the Islamofacists hate the US because of the liberals, the sex all the time BS, the skimy dressing, the abortions, the…..(insert liberal policy here) attitude so prevelant in the US. (And yes, they have publicly stated this.) So we can reduce their attacks by coming more conservative.