Given that Kinsley acknowledged his friendship with Franken, I thought it a very weak article that pretty much just said -- over and over again -- Al's OK, Norm isn't.

And I agree with your assessment of Al's blue material, although I think you're wrong about the purging. There was a nasty video on YouTube that got scrubbed, and I'm sure it was but one of many Al's campaign found and had removed.

LAMBERT: It may not have been a classic, but the fundamental question is worth asking ... are even "we"
demanding real people stop being themselves and be implausible caricatures in order to win office? And I did like that "surfing the zeitgeist" line.

Is Franken the best the Democrats had to offer? Were there no other members of the DFL who actually have contributed to Minnesota the past couple of decades qualified to run for the Senate?
The right is being pointed as the group who is slamming Franken for his lengthy satire career (the one which Franken touts as his credentials for being a US Senator), which they have and should still investigate, but it was our Democrat heroes McCollum and Obestar who were the loudest a few weeks back.
What I find hypocritical is that those who slam other forms of media for tasteless jokes, now find themselves having to defend Al Franken's "humor". In addition Kinsley's simplistic portrayal of Norm Coleman (1960s hippie turned war hawk), could have been used on Kerry, Reid, or the former Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton.

LAMBERT: Franken is not a bad candidate, certainly in terms of positions on vital issues ... and (considering Minnesota's Rod Grams-Mark Dayton interlude) the ability to function in the company of others. I think Kinsley pretty well nails Norm, who I've always given credit for knowing how to play the game. I'm not sure how "hippie turned war hawk" applies to Kerry, Reid or Hillary, but there's been plenty of simplism (sp) applied to them.

So, when are 'they' going to start to think for 'themselves' and start voting 'their' own interests instead of for the interests of the professional campaigners and think tanks are telling 'them' what 'they' should think?

Isn't that the reason voting is done on the secret ballot, so that no matter how small the town, you can politely ignore all their advice and quietly vote for yourself without worrying about anyone else looking over your shoulder?

Politics is not supposed to be decided by American Idol-like popularity polls, who cares what the polls say, or the pundits and professional spinners...what do Al and Norm have to say?

Rural, suburban, or urban--all Minnesotans need to stop voting non-issues and start paying attention to the bigger issues--where are Al and Norm on Iraq and health care and renewable energy?

These two are supposed to be running for senator, right? They both should denounce any 527 non-issue ads and LEAD the discussion back to issues. They should hold their own campaigns to higher ethical ground and denounce any slip-ups by their own workers. Wouldn't that finally show some of the leadership the position they are running for demands? I'm not voting for the perfect human who has lived the perfect life, because this person does not exist; all I am looking for is the best representative for my biggest issues here.

Does that seem like I am being too naive and innocent, too idealistic...guess what, when it comes to true leadership, I do think that is part of the job, to get people to rise up from their lowest common denominator tendencies. Rise up people, and stand up for yourselves against all this pollster and punditry special interest politics. Get informed and vote for who will give you the best represenation--period.

LAMBERT: This race hasn't really even started. Franken has plenty of time to demonstrate to "them" that he knows what he's talking about and that he'll vote to rearrange tax and economic policies that are stifling middle income voters. His debates with Norm should be -- had better be -- very interesting.

FWIW, in his classic book, Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Freud theorized jokes have only two purposes—aggression and exposure. The first, aggression, includes satire and comprises the hostile joke. The second, exposure, is the dirty joke but, this too, can demean and treat women and others in a hostile way.

Hostile humor is funnier when directed towards someone we dislike. Hostile humor can reduce tension and provide an outlet for more direct social commentary; however, in telling the joke the humorist provides insight into his psychology as well. The funniest jokes are those directed towards someone we dislike.

I think most people intuitively understand the purpose of humor. But that is not Franken's problem.

His real problem, is he is really not a likable person. People might see him as smart, witty and so forth, but they probably would not see him as a person they would choose to spend much time with. Sort of an ineffable conclusion, but it seems to be his underlying problem.

LAMBERT: Your omission of Coleman's appeal vis a vis Franken's is striking.

Reid was never much of a hippie, but Clinton and Kerry were very involved in the anti war movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Which makes it surprising that they would both not only vote, but make public speeches on their strong support for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003. (Al Franken also has supported this, and waffled his position over the years, like many say Coleman is doing right now)
http://ericblackink.minnpost.com/2007/09/12/an-open-letter-to-al-franken-why-did-you-support-the-iraq-war/
Kinsley didnt nail Norm. He just spouted out the same words that Al Franken or any of his opponents have already done. What is interesting is these words apply for some of the top Democrat heroes mentioned above.

LAMBERT: It's kind of a stretch, isn't it, to conflate Norm Coleman's "surfing the zeitgeist" with John Kerry's post-Vietnam activities and Hillary Clinton's campus "radicalism"? True, both voted for the Iraq resolution, (and paid a political price), but neither has switched ideological ships as Norm has and taken a 180 degree reverse voyage. Moreover, even as a Republican, Norm has slipped on and off Bush dogma ONLY when it was clear he had political cover back here. Can YOU tell me what he is absolutely committed to?

I've noted several times before that Franken has any number of warts, whether it's his writing of satire, his somewhat unctuous personality or his ponderous debating style. And this from a friend of 45 years. What Al needs to do during the campaign is show some balls. B-A-L-L-S. Stop playing defense and take it to Coleman every day.

LAMBERT: I think this speaks to the implicit defensiveness of the "serious" persona he's been working on. It's as though he worries -- or his handlers worry -- he'll be typed as "a typical angry, Bush-bashing ultra liberal" if he goes at Norm for everything Norm is so vulnerable on. But then, maybe this changes after Labor Day.

Personally, I enjoyed the part where Kinsley called Coleman a hack. Maybe it takes an outsider. When I hear Hamline's David Schultz -- on NPR this morning saying something inane like "Franken hasn't told us why he should be Senator" in a piece on the Ventura possibility -- I wonder why the fact that our senator is widely regarded as a suit is not enough for the local pols. (And he is one of the more reasonable ones.) Without a narrative, the analysts would have nothing to do.

LAMBERT: No kidding. Has Norm even been put in a position -- by Franken or the press -- to explain why HE should remain in office? What assets exactly is he bringing to the table? Coleman is the one who should be on the defensive. But the storyline about Franken's validity has put down roots.

I would direct you to Coleman's website for a detailed list of his accomplishments.

He also was quite effective for the city of St. Paul.

Franken? He's The Porn Chuckler (tm).

Only in Minnesota do we run cartoon characters like him for public office.

As an aside, can Obama possibly be any more of a clueless elitist buffoon, re: his "comments" in Georgia?

LAMBERT: I'll leave it to you to take it from the candidate how effective he is.

As an outstate person who both clings to his guns & religion AND has a sense of humour, I think you are confusing "funny" with "crude".
"Wit" with "tasteless". "Satire" for "depricating."
No problem with a politician who has a sense of humour. For that reason,I could vote for Tom Davis* ; but not Al Franken.

*Early SNL comedy partner.

LAMBERT: I say we give Hank Kingsley a shot.

Brian: You may well be on to something here. You may have to recalibrate your gauge for "raunchy humor" though.

Let's remind ourselves that the man crouched in the rushes who may throw this whole race off its axis, former Gov. and pro wrassler (Wellstone was a real one), Jesse Ventura is known and quite beloved by the yay-hoo voting block for once musing that he'd like to “be reincarnated as a size 38 DD bra." Oh, how delightfully raunchy and hilarious. Get it? He'd get to live his whole reincarnated life flush up against a major pair. It's like sitting at a stool at the Algonquin lunch counter.

And, heck fire, son, the alleged humor don't come much raunchier than that multi-millionaire raison d'etre for pork rinds, Larry: The Cable Guy. I can just imagine Nahm on stage with "Larry", "Git'r dun by working across party lines."

So I reckon we've all got to dig a little deeper for the reason Franken trails the inert Sen. Coleman in the polls than "raunchy humor."

I think Kinsley had it about right in his lede. We like politicians who follow the cliche conventions we've been taught are the ear marks of responsible leadership, despite what we tell pollsters about wanting something new, fresh, and well apart from professional pols.

Just like we tell pollsters how much we loath Congress but then keep reelecting its members.

LAMBERT: Who needs who more, Ventura or the local media?

There's not much Jesse Ventura can do for the attenuated local media but provide, I suppose, the palliative care of his delightful antics and quotability.

I dont think its a stretch at all to compare Coleman to Kerry/Clinton. The difference between Coleman and the two Democrats mentioned is that he did not vote to move into Iraq. The difference is that the anti Coleman pundits are trying to portray Coleman as the co-writer of the 2002 bill, which not he but two of he Democratic Party's biggest heroes loudly supported. Loudly as in made speeches defending the position and went on several media rounds discussing the strong stance they are taking to national security.
For a good example of Kerry's passion for war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXwCrpMHkYc
When has Coleman slipped on and off the Bush dogma? He has taken a different approach to the war as most of the Democrats who voted for it in 2002. He has stayed consistent on tax issues, (Americans keeping the money they earn), even on issues that are strongly unpopular with hard edged conservatives like SCHIP, and the huge pork filled farm bill.

LAMBERT: I think we've noted before that Norm wasn't in Congress when the resolution vote took place.

The issue of finding the best candidate never really got addressed. In six years the Democrats have had an opportunity to groom a home grown DFL Minnesotan who is going to re-claim the throne again from the number one target Norm Coleman. And Al Franken is who gets endorsed? Amy Klobochar and I disagree about 75% of the time, but she is qualified to be a US Senator.
In fact to stay contemporary with today's media buzz Jesse Ventura is more qualified to be a United States Senator than Al Franken. And trust me it takes a lot for my stomach to get that out.

LAMBERT: Well who else was on the radar? Bob Olson? Mike Ciresi? The latter had the usual "professional" credentials, but pretty clearly no emotional appeal to front-line Democrats. I think there is a lot of wishful thinking about how "unqualified" Franken is among Republicans. For all his flaws, his opponent has in no way distinguished himself and can be easily caricatured as a rubber stamp for the most unpopular administration maybe in U.S. history.

The "rubber stamp" argument is a good sound bite but I dont think it is going to win the election. Between the huge farm bill (which I dont agree with), efforts to keep the Ford plant open, and his stance on tax issues broaden his appeal more than the alleged "Bush rubber stamp".
Al Franken emotional appeal? Did anyone actually believe his over acted body language at the DFL convention this year? Is Franken's Harvard degree and failed radio station, sitcoms and movies made him qualified? Who would you rather have drafting legislation? Mike Cirisi and accomplished attorney and lifelong Minnesotan (or adult life Minnesotan for this line of argument), or Al Franken who wrote Stewart Saves his Family?

LAMBERT: If you prefer "ideological and legislative coziness with the most unpopular president in U.S. history" instead of "rubber stamp", I can live with that. But, as I say, your other criticisms of Franken -- "failed radio show" (really? I thought he quit it voluntarily?) "sitcoms and movies" are more wishful thinking, as in hoping he is defined as nothing more than a comic. Good luck with that. I think the uber-liberals who listened to his "failed radio show" were impressed with his grasp of the issues and have no doubt at all that he'd represent their thinking far, far better than Norm Coleman. But Kinsley's point was to ask if the public really ever means what it says when it claims to be bored with "professional politicians". I think there is a lot to be said for populating Congress with people other than career lawyers.

So, if Democrats (aka loony liberals) DO surmise that Franken is, er, "unqualified" to be a Mn Jr Senator, how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of (tragically clueless) Obamasites?

I mean, do these same folks really think that 143 days as a Jr. Senator, with no legislation to his name, ZERO foreign policy experience, etc, etc, ad nauseum, makes Obama qualified for PRESIDENT?

Do you see the problem here?

As a leading liberal thought maker for addled Twin Citians, I expect your trenchant analysis.

LAMBERT: Lord, I hope I'm immune to your flattery.

He may have quit the radio show voluntarily, but it was a business failure. (Bankruptcy, stealing money from Boys and Girls clubs). I only use his movies and sitcoms because, Franken himself has used his career as a comic, or satirist (depending on the day you ask him) as the basis of his qualifications for the Senate. Does Franken who lived in New York up until three years ago have the strongest grasp of issues that effect Minnesotans than any other DFLer? Ciriesi had a pretty consistent position on the Iraq war, something Franken has not been able to boast having.

LAMBERT: I have no awareness at all that Franken "has used his career as a comic ... as a basis of his qualifications for the Senate." It seems to me his "qualifications" are based far more in being a pretty bright, well-read and well-connected guy, who has, by the way interacted with the political establishment of D.C. a lot more than Ciresi. If Ciresi is your idea of a better candidate, I'd suggest it would have been up to people such as yourself to support him with more avidity than anyone did.

Also, Air America's "failure" as you suggest, or "lack of comparative success" as I might say, is rooted in a variety of issues. Liberal disinterest in demagogic rhetoric might be one. Another though is the utter inability to buy into radio stations of any significant power and range in most major cities ... thanks to the (Bill Clinton era) TeleCommunications Act of 1996 and resulting consolidation.

I would like to see Congress "populated with people" who can make the right calls on national defense (we are at war against a dedicated enemy in Islamic terror), the economy (we're, um, in deep shit), and health care(tort reform is a good start - thanks John Edwards!).

"San Fran Gran" Nan and Reid are a joke.

LAMBERT: I believe your crowd has had near total control over all three branches of govt. for most of the last few years.

One is left to wonder where Rip Van Bertram's been slumbering, festooned in cobwebs and coated in a patina of lichen, lo' these eight enervating years of mis, non, and malfeasance at the hands of experienced, but wisdom-free, Washington D.C. courtesans. Somewhere well up that river in Egypt, Bertram?

LAMBERT: I urge Bertram's ilk to continue playing the "experience card".

Profit is not a Republican or Democrat issue when it comes to businesses. If the Air America product was marketable and drawing large audiences, it would be Franken signing multi million dollar contracts to continue. Does anyone really think that if Franken was making money with Air America he would have quit?
Also, the majority of Franken's biography (on his own website) centers around his career as a satirist on SNL and in print. (He leaves out his failed sitcoms and movies though) If this is something he wants to use to promote himself, he should not be insulted or shocked that this material surfaces (and not just by the "wing-nuts").
Being bright and well read on the issues could be anyone in Minnesota, and at least 40% of them are straight line DFL voters. I am just surprised that this was the best the DFL could do.

LAMBERT: OK, duly noted. But if you're asking if he would have given up his radio gig, even if Air America had a 400-station reach, my guess is, "yes". If he loses he can always go back.

I dont have a substantial disagreement with Kinsley piece, but 'surfing the zeigeist' gives Coleman's experience a bit of short shrift. The Democrats were unhappy with him, they were on the verge of nominating other candidates for offices he had won and still held. I dont think he's really moved right ever. He could be a fine Democrat in a number of places. I don't think he's any more conservative than Colin Peterson.

Speaking of whom - I would think a guy like Colin Peterson could win a Senate seat if urban Democrats would aquiesce, and if he could be persuaded to give up a powerful and comfortbale congressional seat.

I think RT is actually well positioned to run, despite his liberalness. He's got a sunny temperament. People like that.

Housekeeping: I made this claim without an attribution some weeks ago. Heres a fresh attribution

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121555916730437401.html?mod=opinion_journal_political_diary.

Top 1% pays 40% of income taxes.
Top 50% pays 97%
Bottom 50% pays 3%.

The tax code has gotten more progressive under the Bush tax code. Undoing the Bush tax cuts to gain fairness or equality in the tax code is not a legitmate argument.

LAMBERT: Call a meeting of everyone who believes Norm Coleman has maintained anything like ideological rigor -- as a Democrat or Republica ...and give me a head count.

As to your "progressive" effect of the Bush tax cuts. Try this ...

Myth 6: The tax cuts have made the tax system more progressive.

“The President’s tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive, which also narrows the difference in take-home earnings.” — Council of Economic Advisers Chair Edward Lazear and Katherine Baicker, then a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, May 8, 2006

Reality: The tax cuts have made the distribution of take-home pay more unequal — at a time when inequality in before-tax income has also increased.

A progressive tax change, like a progressive tax system, is one that reduces inequality. In Lazear and Baicker’s terms, it is a tax cut that “narrows the difference in take-home earnings.” Take-home earnings consist of a person’s income after taxes have been paid. So a progressive tax cut would be one that raised after-tax incomes for those at the bottom of the income spectrum by a larger percentage than for those at the top, increasing their share of total take-home pay.

The President’s tax policies, however, have widened the differences in take-home pay between high- and low- and middle-income households, according to Tax Policy Center estimates. When the tax cuts are fully in effect, households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts equivalent to an increase of 7.5 percent in their after-tax income. Households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive tax cuts equal to only 2.3 percent of their income. And households in the bottom quintile will gain by less than one percent.

Put another way, households with incomes over $1 million will hold a larger fraction of total U.S. after-tax income than they would have received without the tax cuts, while households in the middle and bottom quintiles will hold a smaller share. The tax cuts thus have widened, rather than narrowed, income gaps, making them regressive. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-11-08tax.htm)

While comparisons of percent changes in after-tax earnings measure the tax cuts’ effect on the distribution of income, the dollar values of the tax cuts received by different income groups are also relevant to evaluating these tax cuts’ overall fairness. For example, over the next ten years (assuming the tax cuts are extended), more than $800 billion will be spent on tax cuts for the 0.3 percent of households with incomes above $1 million, with these tax cuts averaging over $150,000 per-household annually. At issue is whether this represents an appropriate use of scarce public resources. (http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-08tax.htm)

The skewed distribution of the tax cuts is of particular concern given that, since 2001, gaps in before-tax income have widened. As of 2006, the highest-income 1 percent of households held a larger share of total pre-tax income that in any year since 1928. (http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax2.htm).

Brian -

Nice to meet you last night at Billy's.

So, it's the one year anniversary of the arrival of Mike Crusham to run the local Clear Channel Empire. After all of the sturm und drang over his arrival and Mick Anselmo's departure, there's just not a lot of change in Clear Channel land, at least in the core properties. KFAN is pretty much identical, KTLK as shrill and unlistenable as ever (OK, at least since you and whatsherface left), Cities has subtracted and then added Jason Nagel, K102 continues to bill like a sunofabitch, KOOL is as dysfunctional as ever.

Care to speculate what Crusham Year II will bring?

LAMBERT: Good to meet you, a few other enlightened thinkers along with so many of my favorite right-wing crackpots last night. And many thanks to Michael Brodkorb of Minnesota Democrats Exposed for organizing the event. I hope the Republicans tipped before they left.

I'm working up a Clear Channel check-up, watch this space in the next few days.

The "courtesans" in Washington should do even better if the Obamasites get in.

Can we check off Jesse Jackson as a VP now?

Ahahahahhahahahahahahah!

You can not make it up!

The "Porn Chuckler" (tm) was ripped to pieces in yesterday's Strib opinion page commentary.

Forgot who the columnist was, but he nailed him.

Anyone foolish enough to vote for this fellow, an obvious non-useful idiot, deserves their fate.

Liberalism, as witnessed by the vetting of "The Porn Chuckler" (tm) as a candidate for anything, is truly a mental disease.

LAMBERT: As our resident expert on mental disease, I'll take your word for it.

If Lib-felder truly believes that Obama posseses any sort of "wisdom", as it relates to governing and world affairs, compared to the Cheney's, Petraeus', and Rumsfeld's of the world, I fear for his cerebral acuity, to put it gently.

LAMBERT: So you're arguing for the "wisdom" of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? What next? The "wisdom" of New Coke? O-rings on the Challenger? John Travolta's "Battleship Earth"? Olestra?

"I believe your crowd has had near total control over all three branches of govt. for most of the last few years."

When did Pelosi and Reid become Republicans?

LAMBERT: And the key word is ... "most". As unhappy as i and many are with Congress's inability/unwillingness to stick a rusty shiv in Bush policies and programs, that 2/3 majority rule -- abetted by "Democrats" like Joe Lieberman -- is a bitch, as the kids say.

Brian,

If you’re a progressive Democrat the great thing about using the take home pay metric is that disparity will be there forever - or at least until we get to Carter-esque rates. Its not a useful metric. There’s also a clumsy sleight of hand in using the income tax rates to ameliorate a disparity that’s caused by the ceiling on social security withholding.

I’m sure the rich do earn and keep more money than they did before (and in comparison to the poor). Minor rate adjustments, like moving the top rate to the old 39.6%, won’t solve that. So again, it’s the rhetorical gift that keeps on giving.

So you’re ambivalent about the fact the income tax burden is shifting to the top earners? This is an example of fairness being a target that moves conveniently depending on who’s party has the presidency.

I admire Obama’s intellectual honesty in addressing the social security withholding ceiling, but I don’t think its good policy – takes too much money out of the private economy – a growth stifler.

LAMBERT: I've developed a deep aversion to anyone deploying the word "metric". That's sales jargon covering over the dismal levels of increase in standard of living, real wages, etc. of just about everyone under the top 10%. You can find a statistic from someone to prove anything. But the real world experience of the majority of Americans is that they are not gaining much if anything on where they were even before Clinton.

Re: Clear Channel: several long time reps have parted recently, including 27 year (!) KEEY vet Steve Carney.

Also the two longtimer GSMs under Crusham were "crushed" in the last few weeks, Haldaman and Berell.

You should do a up close and personal with Morris at KD and Swedberg at KEEY.

Just sayin'.

You DO know where Mick is working, right?

LAMBERT: "Mick", as in Anselmo, local Clear Channel boss for lo those many years, is working for Denny Hecker's Advantage Rental Cars.

Call him and ask for an upgrade.