Those Nasty, Lying Right-Wingers!

[Sam_Stone]

My take:

1. Franken is a funny guy. Sometimes a very funny guy. His humor is hard for some people to get, and I suppose it’s an aquired taste. I think Stuart Smalley has had inspired moments. The “Al Franken Decade” was brilliant in an under-stated way.

2. The use of the Harvard stationary without permission was wrong, and possibly illegal. It depends whether it could be shown that he was attempted to defraud people with it for commercial gain. Which appears to be exactly what he was doing.

3. Telling the others that certain people they knew HAD responded to him, when in fact they hadn’t, is unethical, and there’s an outside chance it could be considered illegal as a ‘confidence game’ - gaining financial benefit from others by misleading them, in part by gaining their confidence by claiming that their associates were taking part when in fact, they were not.

4. When it comes to politics, Franken is an idiot. He’s the worst kind of demagogue - one who doesn’t argue facts, but engages in ‘gotcha’ debate. A sophist. Just like Michael Moore. And he radiates a sneering vibe that is pretty offensive to those of us who don’t agree with him. He’s the left’s version of Ann Coulter. Well, him and Maureen Dowd. Okay, him and Maureen Dowd. Okay, him and Maureen Dowd and Michael Moore. Okay, him and Maureen Dowd and Michael Moore and Janine Garofalo.

Franken just stepped over the line. If he had just sent a personal letter saying that he was writing a book and asking for information, I’d have no problem with it at all. If Ashcroft falls for it, tough noogies. “Letters From A Nut” is one of the funniest books I’ve read, and it’s exactly the same thing. But Franken crossed the line from misleading to fraudulent.

If this actually went to court, I imagine the prosecution would say that he didn’t just send personal letters, because he knew they would not be answered. So he used Harvard stationary as a way of personally benefitting from their reputation without their permission. I do believe that may be illegal, but I’m not a lawyer.

In any event, when you’re about to publish a book called, “Lies, and the lying liars who tell them”, it’s pretty damned stupid to get caught in a lie like this.

I guess I’ll no longer ask myself what I can do for him, Al Franken.

[John_Mace]

The parallel between Franken-gate and Bennett-gate appear earily similar to me. Both are shown to be hypocrites in the instances in question and it would be best for both sides to admit this. Franken has been trying of late to be seen as a serious political thinker. When he screws up in that capacity, he should be called on it. Just as Bennett was with his not-so-virtuous gambling habit. While I personally have no problem with gambling, it isn’t the kind of behavior that Bennett spent so much time preaching about.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There’s nothing hypocritical about what Franken did. He criticizes people like Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly who lie to the public under the guise of giving information. Franken tried to sucker Ashcroft into talking about his abstinent youth so he could put it in a book. Jerry Seinfeld and Don Novello have both published entire books based soliciting letters from public figures under false names. Ashcroft was told that his testimony about being a virgin would be published in a book and Ashcroft was under no obligation to respond. Most importantly, Franken did not attempt to misrepresent anything to the public but simply came clean after the prank. He didn’t even have to do that much. He probably only “apologized” to get more publicity for his book which, incidentally, is already number one on the best seller list just on pre-sold copies.

There’s nothing to see here, righties. All the liars are still on your side. That is, the liars who actually present false and distorted information to the public rather than simply trying to prank a religious lunatic in the Justice Department…and of course, the number one liar in the world right now is still the one with the smirk and the flight suit.

[John_Mace]

The parallel between Franken-gate and Bennett-gate appear earily similar to me. Both are shown to be hypocrites in the instances in question and it would be best for both sides to admit this. Franken has been trying of late to be seen as a serious political thinker. When he screws up in that capacity, he should be called on it. Just as Bennett was with his not-so-virtuous gambling habit. While I personally have no problem with gambling, it isn’t the kind of behavior that Bennett spent so much time preaching about.

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Stoid *
**** Shodan,* are you ever going to even * address * the difference between private lies between individuals and public ones addressed to millions? **

A few years back, you all on the Left were swearing up and down that there is no difference.

Of course, that depends on what your definition of the word "is’, is.

Perhaps you could explain how this was a private lie between individuals. Ashcroft is a public figure. Hell, so is Franken. Franken used the good name of a public institution to give credence to his lies. And he was trying to write a book, which (he hoped) would be “addressed to millions”.

The knots you people have to tie yourselves into to justify this kind of thing is endlessly fascinating.

When Ann Coulter does it, it is a sign that she is dreadfully evil and wrong. When Al Franken, or Maureen Dowd does it, it needs to be dismissed. Because it can’t be justified.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**A few years back, you all on the Left were swearing up and down that there is no difference.

Of course, that depends on what your definition of the word "is’, is. :)**

The fuck are you talking about? A few years ago, we were saying that there is a difference between lies about one’s personal life and lies about public policy.

Your world is awful simple, Shodan, if there’s no difference between the two, or between private lies made for the purposes of satire and public lies for the purposes of changing public policy.

For future reference, here are some moral scales, from a little bad to really bad:

-Flicking your brother on the forehead
-Slapping a stranger
-Beating your wife
-Stabbing someone in a mugging
-Killing a person
-Committing genocide

-Answering “How are you?” with “Fine,” even when you’re not feeling fine.
-Telling a beggar you don’t have any change, even when you do.
-Calling in sick to work, even when you’re feeling well
-Pulling a prank on someone that involves lying
-Pulling a prank on someone that involves lying and dragging an innocent third-party into the prank
-Pulling a con-job on someone that’s going to cost them money
-Spreading vicious lies about somebody
-Lying to a friend or loved one about something personally important to them
-Lying to someone about a court proceeding in a way that will cost them their life.
-Lying to citizens about foreign policy in a way that will cost thousands of lives

Sure, there’s disagreement about some of these rankings – is a prank really worse than calling in sick to work? Is it better to betray a spouse than to betray a murderer? But the general gist is there.

Franken pulled a harmless prank: his only ethical lapse was pulling Harvard into it. I defy you to show me an example of mainstream liberals criticizing Limbaugh or another conservative for committing a similar prank. (In fact, remember when the DJ recently called Castro, claiming to be Hugo Chavez? Freakin hilarious!) He did not lie to the public in an attempt to influence public policy; he did not spread vicious lies about anybody.

Your case is weak, Shodan.

Daniel

[jeevmon]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**A few years back, you all on the Left were swearing up and down that there is no difference.

Of course, that depends on what your definition of the word "is’, is.
**

Huh? If you’re referring to the Lewinsky thing, I think you’ll find that it was the left that was arguing that Clinton’s indiscretions and lies about the same were about quintessentially private matters (indeed, the most private of matters). It was conservatives that insisted that his lying about having sexual relations outside of marriage was a public and national issue that required removing the President from office.

The only analogy is that Clinton lied publicly in denying the initial allegation. Which was not right, but was an understandable, very human reaction. Franken didn’t even do that. He sent a letter to someone that had false statements. He didn’t go on national television to broadcast those statements.

**

Perhaps you could explain how this was a private lie between individuals. Ashcroft is a public figure. Hell, so is Franken. Franken used the good name of a public institution to give credence to his lies. And he was trying to write a book, which (he hoped) would be “addressed to millions”.
**

He asked the question in a private letter. No one but Ashcroft (or someone on his staff) and Franken saw the letter or knew what it asked. Franken didn’t broadcast his request or the representations in his letter to the broader public. Just because the communication was between public figures doesn’t make it a public communication.

Whatever Franken may or may not have done with the information had he obtained it is a matter of pure speculation because he didn’t get it, and therefore had nothing to address to millions.
**

The knots you people have to tie yourselves into to justify this kind of thing is endlessly fascinating.

When Ann Coulter does it, it is a sign that she is dreadfully evil and wrong. When Al Franken, or Maureen Dowd does it, it needs to be dismissed. Because it can’t be justified.

Regards,
Shodan **

I think you’ll find that there are plenty of us who do not condone what Franken did or hold it up as something worthy of emulation. It is the claim that he is a “hypocrite” or “worse than those he condemns” with which we do not agree. Franken was rude, impertinent, and misused Harvard stationery. He made false statements in his letter, no question. But he did not broadcast those false statements to millions via his cable television news network, his newspaper syndicate, or his talk radio programs where they would influence the opinions of millions. We question the standard that requires that those who accuse conservatives of lying to the public must maintain absolute standards of personal honesty in the conduct of their private affairs.

Since you’re ideologically blind, let’s try and turn the question around another way. If we learn that Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or one of their ilk told lies to anyone at some point in their life, does that disqualify them from ever accusing liberals of lying? Because that seems to be the standard you’re requiring. And it is a highly unrealistic one, because people of all stripes tell lies regularly. They may be lies to make someone feel better, lies to get something you want (like sex), lies about how big the one that got away was, whatever. But they are lies nonetheless.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**A few years back, you all on the Left were swearing up and down that there is no difference.

**

Others have addressed this. You are obviously extremely confused.

** Perhaps you could explain how this was a private lie between individuals. Ashcroft is a public figure. Hell, so is Franken. **

Your confusion is starting to be scary. Would it be your position that there is no such thing as privacy of any kind if you are famous? That anything and everything that occurs in your life is a public thing? So I guess it was ok with you that Pam and Tommy’s sex tape was stolen and published without their permission, because they are “public figures”?

** Franken used the good name of a public institution to give credence to his lies. **

Not a nice thing. Doesn’t make it a public act.

** And he was trying to write a book, which (he hoped) would be “addressed to millions”. **

And had everything gone as planned, Al Franken would NOT have LIED to the public. His “address to millions” would have have been the TRUTH that Ashcroft had shared with Al Franken, KNOWING that Al Franken was going to publish it in a book! (The only part that Ashcroft would not really know, would be Al’s real purpose in the book. Al was going to mock the truth, not tell a lie. Different things.)

**
The knots you people have to tie yourselves into to justify this kind of thing is endlessly fascinating. **

:eek: Was someone justifying his behavior? Where was I when this was going on? Cuz pretty much everybody in this thread has condmened it to some degree. You are evidently more confused than ever!

** When Ann Coulter does it, it is a sign that she is dreadfully evil and wrong. When Al Franken, or Maureen Dowd does it, it needs to be dismissed. Because it can’t be justified.
**

Poor Shodan… do you really not understand? I was certain you were so much smarter than that. You haven’t demonstrated that Al has done anything remotely similar to what Ann Coulter does. Unless, of course, Ann Coulter writes letters to famous people claiming she is going to be writing one book, when she’s really writing a different book, and asking them to answer personal questions so she can mock them.

Dude, give it up. Your accusation is a joke, and it has been thoroughly and utterly trashed from every angle. Your only response have been dodges and repetitions of your accusations. When confronted with the detailed dismantling of your argument, you have no answer.

You tried, you failed, move along, nothing to see here.

Unless, of course, you want to point and scold Franken for behaving badly, in which case I think this thread will end quickly, * because no one will argue with you. *

Wait, wait… was that it? Did you offer up a premise you * knew * was flawed in order to get the lefties to argue with the flawed premise, and then you could accuse us of supporting his actions because we disagreed with your premise, and play dumb about the distinction?

No… that would be positively dastardly! That’s not Shodan style, is it? No, of course not…

[Shodan]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow -
Franken pulled a harmless prank: his only ethical lapse was pulling Harvard into it. I defy you to show me an example of mainstream liberals criticizing Limbaugh or another conservative for committing a similar prank.

Well, of course there is this thread,, where someone posted as follows:

Oh, you stinking liar. You’re almost as bad as Bush.

because of a little “prank” by a right-winger rather similar to what Franken did.

Take a guess at who that poster might be.

Regards,
Shodan

[Stoid]

I repeat:

**
When confronted with the detailed dismantling of your argument, you have no answer.
**

And two days after the first time I said, it remains true.

Which I think we can take to mean that in this particular debate, Shodan lost.

But I fully expect there will be many rematches…

[Nightime]

Shodan, I have to agree that it is amusing that some of the same people who are defending Franken are attacking December’s prank. They did pretty much the same thing.

However, even more amusing is the fact that December himself attacked Franken for his prank, and then went and did the same thing.

[Stoid]

Hey ** Nightime, ** can you define your terms when you say “defending” Franken? I think Diogenes might be reasonably described as defending Franken, but can you point at anyone else who is? Everyone else isn’t defending Franken, they are arguing that what Franken did does not correlate to what Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly do.

Again, there is a difference between the two things.

Precision counts.

[Nightime]

Fair point, but surely you will agree that people are defending Franken to a greater extent than they are defending December for doing the same thing.

Personally, I don’t think either did something particularly bad.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I didn’t attack december. I’m consistent.

The only thing Franken did wrong was use the Harvard letterhead.

[annaplurabelle]

Originally posted by Nightime:

**Fair point, but surely you will agree that people are defending Franken to a greater extent than they are defending December for doing the same thing.

Personally, I don’t think either did something particularly bad.**

I don’t think December did anything worse than Franken either. BUT, there is one difference - this is SDMB, not the real world.

As Gaudere pointed out in the thread Shodan cited, even Swift would have been considered an “asshole” - if he had been a member here, and if he’d posted his “successful” parody about eating children (i.e. “successful” as in some people believing it was true, which some did at that time).

So it’s possible that Franken would also be seen as a jerk if he was a doper and tried similar pranks here.

You think? :dubious:

Oh, and FTR, December attacked Franken on the grounds that he “violated Ashcroft’s privacy” - something that wouldn’t apply to his own “prank”. So it’s not necessarily inconsistent, is it?

[Shodan]

Originally posted by Stoid -
You haven’t demonstrated that Al has done anything remotely similar to what Ann Coulter does.

Not to interfere with your latest self-declaration of victory, but what exactly are you saying here?

Are you claiming that Al Franken did not lie? He has admitted as much. Are you claiming that Ann Coulter did not lie? Are you claiming DanielWithrow did not call december a liar, for pulling a “prank” rather similar to what Franken did?

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Franken did not publish lies or broadcast them to an audience with the intention of manipulating public opinion.

That is what Coulter does. That is what O’Reilly does. That is what Limbaugh does. That is what GWB does.

There is no evidence that Franken has lied to his audience. His intention with Ashcroft was to obtain a personal testimony which he would then publish in his book for satirical puposes. The audience was going to be let in on the joke.

Don Novello (Father Guido Sarducci on SNL) once published a book called The Laslo Letters which consisted of years of collected letters from public figures such as Richard Nixon which he solicited by the use of satirical letters under a false name (Laslo). In Novello’s case, he didn’t even say that he would be publishing the responses in a book. Novello’s book was recognized as the satire it was and no one complained.

Jerry Seinfeld did something similar with a book called (IIRC) Letters From a Nut.

So Franken didn’t do anything that satirists haven’t been doing for years. He was wrong to use the Harvard letterhead and he apologized for it.

To paraphrase Jules from Pulp Fiction, what Franken did is not in the same ballpark with Coulter, et al…it’s not in the same league…it’s not even the same fucking sport.

[bizzwire]

Holy Fucking Shit. I am agreeing with Diogenes and disagreeing with Shodan. I feel so…torn.

I’m in the middle of his book. Not nearly the laugh riot that Why Not Me was, but I still get some guilty pleasure in seeing him call “bullshit” where it’s been long overdue. You really ought to read it, Shodan. As other have said, it’s chock-a-block with facts.

That said, I think Franken is going to have to walk very carefully from now on. By setting himself up as the the Liberal’s watchdog and morality police, by naming names (as well as dates, times and places) he has placed a very large, optic-orange “kick me” sign on his chest, back and genitals. Any slip from squeeky-clean-ness will undo any moral capital he can claim.

[Biggirl]

*Originally posted by bizzwire *
**
That said, I think Franken is going to have to walk very carefully from now on. By setting himself up as the the Liberal’s watchdog and morality police, by naming names (as well as dates, times and places) he has placed a very large, optic-orange “kick me” sign on his chest, back and genitals. Any slip from squeeky-clean-ness will undo any moral capital he can claim. **

I’m not picking directly on you bizzwire, but this sentiment has been made here and on other threads and it’s just plain wrong.

Al Franken is not and has not ever set himself up to be “the Liberal’s watchdog and morality police”. He is a commedian and a satirist. He has been one for at least 30 years. The only people who seem to want to elevate him to serious political pundit are conservatives. The only place I’ve seen Al Frakin described as a journalist is in that silly FoxNews lawsuit.

Any optic-orange sign on his chest was put there by the media conservatives who hate him so much. In their zeal to bring him down, have only bolstered his credibility.

[bizzwire]

Biggirl

Any optic-orange sign on his chest was put there by the media conservatives who hate him so much. In their zeal to bring him down, have only bolstered his credibility.

Yeah, well, that’s pretty much what I meant, but did a poor job of implying it. However, I don’t think he’ll be able to take on the wrath he will bring down upon him. This little imbroglio over his use of Harvard stationery may end up taking a big bite out of his ass and provide plenty of ammo to portray him as a hypocrite. Not 15 minutes after posting, I came across this little gem which should be playing into the hands of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly in about, oh…the next half-hour. He’s discussing President Bush’s political advisor,Carl Rove:

In 1970, while still a teenager, Rove pretended to be a campaign volunteer for the Democratic candidate for Illinois state treasurer, Alan J. Dixon. He swiped Dixon’s letterhead and sabotaged the opening of Dixon’s campaign headquarters by sending out over one thousand copies of an invitation offering “free beer, free food, girls, and a good time for nothing” to homeless shelters and soup kitchens. He now refers to this as a “youthful prank” that he regrets

italics mine. He’s about to reap the whirlwind.