Al Franken for U.S. Senate - the funny man with a serious campaign

Al Franken, the former comedian and radio talk-show host turned politician, is running himself a great campaign for U.S. Senate so far against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN). Right now, he's about 10 points behind, up from about 30 down about eight months ago, and he's equaling Coleman in fund raising. Pretty impressive for a political neophyte.

If Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger can be elected governors of Minnesota and California, then surely Franken can win against Norm Coleman. (The fact that Franken is running in the same state that elected Ventura should say a great deal about his chances of winning - Minnesotans embrace candidates for office who are not run-of-the-mill politicians.)

Anyway, take a look at the video above - it's Franken's introduction to voters. As a Philadelphian, I'm writing about Franken because I'm concerned where our country is going, and I'm following a number of races in '08. Each and every race in the U.S. Senate will be critical, and Progressives need all the help they can get. I really like Al because I feel that I came to know him, at least a little bit, by listening to The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio during its nearly three-year run. Franken's show was one of wit, information an humor, in that order. Many people who have never listened to the show have criticized it, but if they had actually given the show a chance, I believe they would have come around. His show was not, I repeat, not in the vein of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage or Sean Hannity shows - it didn't tear people down, it made political points with humor and informative guests.

In short, Norm Coleman had best not underestimate Franken, or he'll be former Senator Norm Coleman. (I believe he will be, anyway.) Al's smart as a whip, he knows politics and policy and he really is a true Progressive.

If you have the means, regardless of where you live, I urge you to support Al Franken, even if it's just five bucks. Every dollar counts, and every supporter will make the difference in his race against Coleman.

Ex-Bush aide: Kerry was right

This was pretty big news this past weekend - ex-presidential aide Matthew Dowd has spoken out against President Bush, and in a very unequivocal, public way.

Dowd, a former Democrat who was not happy with many things during the Clinton Presidency, was taken in by Bush's messages of "restoring honor and integrity to the Oval Office" and bringing bipartisanship and cooperation to Washington. Dowd switched parties and remained with Bush for the next six years, serving as Bush's chief campaign strategist during the 2004 election.

However, many events began to change his mind - Abu Gharib, Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the decision to keep Donald Rumsfeld on after a number of missteps, and the renomination of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

"I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things," he said during an interview with The New York Times. He added, "I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in."

During his NYT interview, Dowd stated his faith in Bush's ability was misplaced, and he called for a withdraw from Iraq. In retrospect, Dowd says his faith in Bush was misplaced. You've got plenty of company, Mr. Dowd.

He asserted in the interview that Bush "still approached governing with a 'my way or the highway' mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides." What a surprise.

Dowd said he decided to go public with his disagreement with the administration because his disappointment was so great. He also reasoned he felt an obligation to speak out now because he played a part in Bush's electoral victories.

The most powerful passage from the Times article comes here:

Mr. Dowd, a crucial part of a team that cast Senator John Kerry as a flip-flopper who could not be trusted with national security during wartime, said he had even written but never submitted an op-ed article titled "Kerry Was Right," arguing that Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and 2004 presidential candidate, was correct in calling last year for a withdrawal from Iraq.

"I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have," Mr. Dowd said. "Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election."

Even more outrageous, and in retrospect, sad, it what Dowd had to say in the interview about Kerry's qualifications to lead a strong national defense:

In television interviews in 2004, Mr. Dowd said that Mr. Kerry’s campaign was proposing "a weak defense," and that the voters "trust this president more than they trust Senator Kerry on Iraq."

But he was starting to have his own doubts by then, he said.

He said he thought Mr. Bush handled the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks well but "missed a real opportunity to call the country to a shared sense of sacrifice."

The two events that hardened Dowd's resolve to speak out against Bush happened during the summer of 2005, said Dowd: the president's poor decisions regarding Hurricane Katrina, and Bush's refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan around the same time that he was entertaining Tour de France Champion Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, said Dowd during the interview.

His thought process was further influenced by working with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his 2006 campaign, which had a theme of broad, bi-partisan appeal. (I can relate to Dowd's thinking here - Arnold is most definitely a Republican I would consider voting for were he eligible to run for president, which he is not.)

"I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people," said Dowd, "but bring the country together as a whole.

"If the American public says [it's] done with something, our leaders have to understand what they want," Dowd said. "They’re saying, 'Get out of Iraq.'"

Pretty powerful statements from one of Bush's inner circle. This is by no means a crippling blow, but it comes at a time when Bush needs as few of these stories as possible in the media.

While it's about three years too late, I applaud Dowd for his courage - it's not a stretch that Bush's Rasputin, Karl Rove, will avenge Dowd's change of heart in whatever way he can.

Photos from AP via The Huffington Post

Ken may be Layed to rest, but some propaganda won't die

I learned a long time ago to simply ignore (or try my best to) most of the idiotic Internet rumors that show up in my Inbox from time to time, because a vast majority of them contains lies, half truths and outright bullshit. However, I got one a few weeks back from someone I respect and admire - a Republican in my family - about Enron. With the passing of former CEO Ken Lay, I figured it was apropos enough to write about.

The e-mail forward was a ham-handed attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that Lay was a Bush chum and HUGE political benefactor before the fall of Enron, after which Bush all of a sudden bumped his head, developed amnesia, and couldn't remember if he even knew Lay.

To be clear, Enron (along with Lay and other Enron execs) contributed millions to both political parties, but it's pretty clear where most of the cash went. Let me spell it out for you: G-O-P.

A simple half hour of research revealed some pretty interesting findings about Enron's giving before the company collapsed.

In 2001, right up until the company collapsed in December of that year, Enron contributed nearly $173,000 to candidates and parties, almost 90 percent to Republicans. From the 1989-90 election cycle to November 2001, Enron made nearly $5.8 million in campaign contributions, 73 percent of which went to Republicans. Oops.

Then-candidate Bush raised nearly $114,000 in Political Action Committee and individual contributions from Enron in 1999-2000, making the company one of his biggest donors. Enron also donated $100,000 to the Bush/Cheney inaugural gala in January 2001, a contribution that was matched by then-Enron CEO Kenneth Lay and his wife. The Lays contributed a total of almost $883,000 to candidates and parties between 1989 and November 2001, of which 90 percent went to Republicans.

Lay was a longtime friend of the Bushes and was one of the president's top contributors during the 2000 presidential election and Bush's two gubernatorial campaigns. Lay was listed by the Bush/Cheney campaign as a Pioneer who raised at least $100,000 for the 2000 election, reportedly was one of the president's closest advisors between Jan '01 and Enron's fall late that year.

Anyone other than me remember Lay meeting with VP Dick Cheney in the White House to discuss energy policy? When the press wanted to know what topics were discussed, it was private. In so many words, the public and press were told, "None of your business."

I also clearly remember in November 2001, the economic stimulus package that was rammed through Congress, which included a whole buffet of tax breaks for big business, including oil and gas interests.

Yes, the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time, but the GOP had a better PR effort, and the Dems didn't want to be portrayed as pussies, so they simply passed whatever was proposed. After all, in December of that year, VP Dick Cheney accused dissenters leading up to the vote on the Patriot Act of "siding with the terrorists," if they didn't vote for the bill. So, remember the political and social climate of the time. In so many words, it was pass something, do something, show people we are busy doing something to secure American and to keep people safe.

Anyway, big business, realizing the political climate and the public's eagerness to see Congress do something, unleashed an army of lobbyists on Washington to have some favors paid back. Take a look at these figures:

$1.4 billion for IBM; $833 million for General Motors; $2 billion for Ford Motor Co.; $671 million for General Electric; $572 million for Chevron/Texaco; $254 million for energy giant Enron. Oops again.

And I don't feel like it, but do the research on which party gets the lion's share of campaign contributions from the above corporations, and tell me how ya make out. I don't even need to look - you'd find Republicans awash in campaign cash. And those are favors that need to be repaid when these candidates (and president) reach office. ...


Bush and Lay at an economic conference in January 2001, shortly before Bush took office.

I've blogged about it before, but during the phony energy crisis in California, Enron completely and totally manipulated the energy market, creating a shortfall when there was none. Bush did not lift one fingernail to intervene, not wanting to help out Democratic Governor Gray Davis. If it weren't for Enron, and to a much lesser extent, Bush not helping out Californians by capping energy costs during the crisis, there would be no Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. But, who gave a shit about Californians getting screwed? It was Bush's chance to help his buddies (Enron), and fuck a Democratic governor. Bush succeeded on both counts.

To be clear, Enron did contribute to Democrats, too. That would be called covering your bases, which any smart corporation will do with the campaign finance laws as they exist now. That way, whoever gets elected, the company will be owed favors. But, Enron (along with Lay and other Enron executives) clearly wished for Republicans to win every damn race, since the GOP is so much friendlier to oil and gas interests.

Rest in hell, Mr. Lay. Even better, to the recycle bin those bullshit anti-Democrat e-mails go. It's easy to try to rewrite history when no one paid attention at the time during things like the Enron collapse, etc. But, I did and do pay attention.

Oh, and I didn't just invent the figures in this story. Many were pulled from these sources: The Orlando Weekly, Mother Jones Blog, opensecrets.org and the Federal Election Commission. And the research didn't take long.