|
Post by slb2 on Feb 4, 2008 14:37:35 GMT -5
Lenfestey
oops.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Scheuzger on Feb 4, 2008 14:55:17 GMT -5
So, if I were to endorse him, he'd give me a call, too? The question is, "If he called, would you give him your endorsement?" Correct. The purpose of BO's call was to solicit GK's endorsement. GK told him he would think about it; though apparently he did not for long. We had a feeling he was leaning that way after the script on Sat's show.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 4, 2008 15:32:56 GMT -5
slb, I really like Susan L. She contributes opinion pieces fairly regularly and LTE. She's solid, moral, sometimes a bit edgy-funny. See the article I posted on the Informed Decisions thread for more about McCain. You won't have to read a lot to see the risks in voting for him. I think Romney is smarmy, but if we get a Republican I'd prefer him. If it weren't for his antediluvian notions about evolution, I'd prefer Huckabee.
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Feb 4, 2008 15:53:49 GMT -5
So, if I were to endorse him, he'd give me a call, too? The question is, "If he called, would you give him your endorsement?" Well, the only calls I'm likely to get are those pre-recorded "Vote For Me On Tuesday" ones.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 4, 2008 16:05:15 GMT -5
The question is, "If he called, would you give him your endorsement?" Well, the only calls I'm likely to get are those pre-recorded "Vote For Me On Tuesday" ones. That's all I've got so far, too. Very interesting, though. The one from Mitt Romney himself to my answering machine began with him addressing me by my first name. It must be a pretty fancy computer system that tacks on a different greeting depending on the callee's name.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 4, 2008 17:27:52 GMT -5
Fancy and scary. I hate thinking about how little privacy we have.
Do the rest of you resent those recorded calls as much as I do? The worst I can remember was from our infamous ex-gov Jesse Ventura. When his voice boomed in my ear I thought he must be declaring a state of emergency. My heart started pounding immediately, and when I realized it was a stupid endorsement call, it kept pounding in sheer rage. There oughta be a law....
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Feb 4, 2008 17:53:58 GMT -5
Aww, pauvre gailsie. I said to my daughter last week, "Guess who called me? Al Franken!" Initially, she believed me because I have been known to get "those kind of calls," but then she found out it was a pre-recorded call and she was good-humoredly cranky with me.
|
|
|
Post by liriodendron on Feb 4, 2008 18:21:45 GMT -5
Do the rest of you resent those recorded calls as much as I do? I put them in the same category as telemarketers.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Scheuzger on Feb 4, 2008 18:30:50 GMT -5
Aww, pauvre gailsie. I said to my daughter last week, "Guess who called me? Al Franken!" Initially, she believed me because I have been known to get "those kind of calls," but then she found out it was a pre-recorded call and she was good-humoredly cranky with me. Garrison took a few of us out to dinner the night Al Franken was on the show (NYC), and I sat next to him at the dinner table. He's really a bright man, if not outspoken. That was the night he told his dreaded penis joke on the air and it caused quite a lot of mail to our office and sacrificed some long time listeners. Man, did he regret doing that one, in retrospect. I remember in rehearsal he asked Garrison if he wanted to hear his joke beforehand, because it was "a little off color", and Garrison said, "no, no, I'm sure it'll be fine." I keep wondering if someone is going to find that sound bite and use it against him in this campaign.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 4, 2008 18:42:12 GMT -5
If he's lucky, there weren't a lot of us Republicans taping the show.
BTW, I don't remember actually hearing the joke. What did he say, and when did he say it?
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Scheuzger on Feb 4, 2008 19:06:24 GMT -5
Hmmmmm. I think it was in 2004 or 2005, at Town Hall. I'm sure you could find it in the show archives.
It's actually not that funny a joke, and it's one that Buddy Hackett told him. I remember there was quite a bit of talk at first about Franken's radio show (Air America), then he talked about growing up in MN and his Dad dying of cancer. He ends the story telling about his Dad watching Buddy Hackett on Johnny Carson, and proceeds to tell this joke about a man who goes into a doctor's office because he has a dot on the middle of his forehead. The doctor tells him something about it growing into a penis, and the man complains that he'll have to go through life looking at it, to which the doctor says not to worry, because the balls will be in his eyes.
Probably not quoting it directly, but that was the gist. It was a really sweet story up until that point. My apologies if I've offended anyone!
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 4, 2008 19:19:03 GMT -5
Al Franken’s voice on the phone: Hi, I’m running for the Senate, please press 1 to make a contribution to my campaign, press two to volunteer for grunt work like working the mail room and cleaning the toilets at head quarters, press 3 to host a house party to solicit contributions from your friends and neighbors, press 4 if you speak espanol, laos, vietnamese, chiness, norwegian, sweedish and/or Queens English and you’d like to work the phones at campaign head quarters, press 4 if you heard the penis joke on APHC and you thought it was funny…
Mike
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 4, 2008 19:54:59 GMT -5
Probably not quoting it directly, but that was the gist. It was a really sweet story up until that point. My apologies if I've offended anyone! No apologies needed by me -- heck, I've got a few penis jokes of my own. Mike
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 4, 2008 20:16:19 GMT -5
Forgive me for diverting the topic from such a diverting topic , but it occured to me a little while ago that I actually have a chance to cast a meaningful vote tomorrow in Massachusetts. I've lived here since October of 1981 and I don't know if that's ever happened before. We are so overwhelmingly Democrat that if one votes Democratic it's lost in the surge, and if one votes Republican it doesn't matter. I am an "unenrolled" voter so I get to pick if I want a Democratic or Republican ballot tomorrow. If the races are close enough on either side, I could make a difference!! Now, will someone please tell me if ozski's quiz gives reliable answers.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 4, 2008 20:25:39 GMT -5
will be in his eyes. Probably not quoting it directly, but that was the gist. It was a really sweet story up until that point. My apologies if I've offended anyone! Oh yeah, now I remember. But maybe I only heard the end of it, because I don't seem to recall the beginning. Anyway, it's pretty gross, but I'm not offended. After all, I've posted the Mongolian VD joke here, I think. Thanks Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 4, 2008 20:33:20 GMT -5
Personally I thought your "hello ladies" joke was your real low point, Joe. I never could stand Al Franken, EVER. A penis growing out of his forehead would be too good for him.
|
|
|
Post by SeattleDan on Feb 4, 2008 20:40:00 GMT -5
Books, I think ozski's poll probably is close enough to reality as these things go. I wasn't nuts about how some of the questions were framed (too many either/or's), but no poll will be perfect.
I like Al. As a comedian, he never had belly-laugh material, but I liked his satirical stuff, like Stuart Smalley, and some of his bits on SNL were good. Apparently he is quite the policy wonk, and would probably make a good senator.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 4, 2008 20:43:11 GMT -5
Well, yours is a recommendation I would pause over and take seriously, Dan. Seems we've got a couple of liberal senators here in this state already, though. Care to relocate?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 4, 2008 21:34:48 GMT -5
…Now, will someone please tell me if ozski's quiz gives reliable answers. I agree with Dan. I'd add, based on my experience taking it twice, that it is important to keep clear the distinction between how strongly you feel one way or another about a question and how important you consider it. For example, I decided that I definitely agree (but not quite to the level of "strongly") that marijuana should be legalized, but I don't think it is an important question. Same with whether Bush was right at the time in going to war in Iraq — it was important then, but it's done now and not important to deciding where we go from here. OTOH what we do about Social Security is important, but I'm pretty undecided about what that should be, especially the way the question is phrased. Another caution is that I think they are talking about just the federal government, so if you think the state should spend more on education, but not the federal government I think that comes out as a "disagree" on their question. So you have to try to guess at just what some of the terms really mean and be as precise as you can about how important you think it is. But if you do that, I think it can definitely help you see whose position is closest to yours. And there are several tools to explain the results, including what each candidate actually said or did that leads to their characterization of his position. So if you find that it's not quite what you thought, you can take that into account. I wouldn't just take for granted that I ought to vote for the closest match. But I am reconsidering whether I should support Romney after all, now that it has told me he's a much closer match than McCaain.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Feb 4, 2008 21:36:27 GMT -5
Thanks, Joe.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 4, 2008 22:09:18 GMT -5
I'd opine that not only are "issues" important, but also whether the candidate can work with Congress to actually get anything done. If the President cannot work with both the House and the Senate, his or her stated policy beliefs mean little.
I think the ability to appoint Supreme Court judges is a critical consideration too. Preservation of our constitutional rights does not appear to be a current high priority amongst the Supremes, or Justice either for that matter.
Personally, I am very concerned about corruption, and the tendency of those in power to funnel no-bid contracts and favorable regulations to "friends" in critical industries - banking and financial services, defense, energy, pharmaceuticals and agriculture - whose boards and senior executive suites are packed with former politicos. This is harmful to the nation. So I'm making that the main criterion in my choice.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Feb 4, 2008 23:36:10 GMT -5
Thanks for reminding me that "It's all about the Supreme Court." We've got to get more originalists on the Court, not people who will twist the law and the Constitution to get the result they want. So I went and checked McCain's website. While his position was not as boldly stated as I would have liked, he came down on the right side. And there was an article from the WSJ pointing out that the polls still show McCain as running strongly against either of the Democrats, while Romney trails badly. That could change, but I can't count on it. Romney may be somewhat better than McCain on a number of issues, but an okay candidate who can win is better than a great candidate who will lose.
Besides, McCain is also best on torture, which I don't think was asked about in the quiz. And embryonic stem cell research, where McCain has been wrong, may not be such a big issue, after the recent breakthrough.
So thanks again, doctork, for setting me on the path which clarified my choice for me.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 5, 2008 17:46:35 GMT -5
sheesh, K, can't you button up when Joe's around? Re. Franken. I'm voting for him with some reservations. He really is a decent guy. He's been to Iraq/Afghanistan to do shows 8 times - has some strong veterans' support. And I'll bet they wouldn't mind the penis joke. The guy opposing Franken for the nomination is a decent Dem, but he's locked in with the party old guard. He's very rich, mostly because he helped win the case against the tobacco companies 10 years ago. Re. McCain - the report is his delegates went for Huck in order to deny the win to Romney in W. Virginia. So Huck gets 18 delegates, which won't help him much but helps McCain. This is very back-room icky, but it's the way caucuses work. We'll see whether the story ends up being clarified.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 5, 2008 22:29:30 GMT -5
Sorry, gk, but sheesh - it really is all about the Constitution. A president is for 4 or 8 years, the Constitution is permanent.
My Libertarian streak will show here, but the Constitution says Congress declares wars, not the President, even though he is the Commander in Chief. And the Constitution says nothing about many things - like gay marriage or stem cells (or prohibition or abortion) and many other things that belong in the states' domains, not Constitutional amendments. Our privacy and free speech are being eroded by an administration that has lost sight of our basic rights.
Strict Constitutionalism cuts both ways, but if there is uncertainty in a matter, best to return to the opinions of our founding fathers as recorded/accorded in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Feb 5, 2008 22:32:36 GMT -5
Re. McCain - the report is his delegates went for Huck in order to deny the win to Romney in W. Virginia. So Huck gets 18 delegates, which won't help him much but helps McCain. This is very back-room icky, but it's the way caucuses work. We'll see whether the story ends up being clarified. I'm not sure about political hanky panky, but having lived in West Virginia for almost 10 years, it doesn't surprise me a bit that they would go for a conservative baptist minister, and vote against a Mormon.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Feb 5, 2008 22:43:26 GMT -5
If Al Franken had a penis growing out of his forehead, well, he’d get my vote.
Takes a lot of guts to get up in front of people and ask for their vote when the good lord has adorned you with such an accouterment.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 6, 2008 1:42:25 GMT -5
DrK, I agree. I was just teasing because you reminded Joe to hope for more feudal lords on the Supreme Ct. I'm persuaded that none of the founders would recognize the Feudal 4 as model justices. Even though I agree that our rights are being eroded, I don't think leaving them to the states is the answer. I believe a number of issues should be decided upon and guaranteed by the federal government. The Constitution could not possibly enumerate them all 220 years ago. Rights pertaining to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be the same for any American citizen in any state. If this weren't the case, then Jim Crow laws could still reign in the south. Though it's tempting to leave tough issues like abortion and stem cell research to the states, I think that's a cop-out. No woman in S. Dakota should be denied an abortion because she doesn't have the money to get to Minnesota. That's clearly not equal protection under the law. Children in Mississippi shouldn't be relegated to ignorance and poverty because they live in the poorest and most backward state in the Union. Whew. I just realized how wound up I am - watching election results till I'm dizzy. Never mind.....
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Feb 6, 2008 2:05:16 GMT -5
Tonight at the St. Louis Park caucus, Al Franken was standing on the landing between me and the stairs. I shook his hand, at least it felt like his hand. By now, you'd think I'd know the difference. Later, directly after I'd been voted Associate Precinct Chair, Al stopped in and stumped a bit. He's not tall. He's got swollen hands. I like his hair. He's personable. I think he has the chuzpah to do the job. Thing is, I've heard great things about a third person vying for the spot: Jack Nelson-Pallmyer.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Feb 6, 2008 10:42:08 GMT -5
So what happens now, slb? I realize this is a very parochial discussion for everyone else, but I can't find any info on the caucus results for the senate candidates. Will it all come down to the convention, and are they all committed to going with the party endorsement or will it get decided in the September primary? And congrats on your precinct role!! You who are always saying you're not interested in politics Will you be going to the convention?
|
|
|
Post by slb2 on Feb 6, 2008 13:12:21 GMT -5
We didn't cast any vote for Senate last night. That will happen (I believe) at the next convention, to which I'll be a delegate--March 15th.
And I am very interested in politics, I just can't keep up with them. Seriously. I have too many family issues (re: mental health) to handle, plus newspaper work, plus this danged fantasy that keeps pawing at my brain (well, pawing at one thing or another). The political info I get comes from here and over at my feminist-mothers-at-home yahoo List, which is hotly political, btw. On occassion, I'll read up on a candidate with Salon.
I'm not gung-ho DFLer; I lean more toward the Independent Party, but they (IP) need more clout. I honestly thought that I could get my feet wet with this precinct chair dealie and transfer my politically savvy moves over to the other party.
Well, I'm past getting my feet wet, I guess. I've spent a lot of time on various campaigns door knocking, lit dropping, writing press releases, phone calling, etc. But now I'm getting into the machinations of the DFL party and hope to learn which way is up.
|
|