Those Nasty, Lying Right-Wingers!

Great Debates
81

I do so hate to repeat myself. 'specially when there’s simply no real need. You can go back and see for yourself precisely and unambiguously exactly what I’m saying. (And what Diogenese has said again, and many others have said) Since this is written and all, everyone can tell that you are dodging, you know.

When (if you can) you decided to address all the points made, specifically and directly, regarding the differences between what Franken did and others do, I’ll bother giving you more time. 'til then, it’s beginning to smell alot like Christmas in here… (am I being too obscure with that reference? Or too obvious?)

Oh, on preview I see ** biggirl’s ** comments…hey ** biggirl. ** I think I’m going to have to disagree with you.

I’m a big fan of Al’s, and I am even one of the 17 people who thought that Stuart Smalley Saves His Family was fuckin’ hysterical. There was at least one page in

  • Rush Limbaugh… * that I distinctly recall left me laughing so hard that I really did have a stomachache.

But after watching him on the book show with O’Reilly, from start to finish, before and after, I think that Al is getting more serious. Not that he’s decided to become a real politico, but his humor isn’t just for yucks. He’s got an extremely serious purpose to what he’s saying, and I really don’t believe it’s true or fair to simply dismiss what he says as mere entertainment. He’s wearing his heart very much on his sleeve here, if you saw that book thing, you saw that at one point he came very close to crying when describing how the left is getting kicked around by the right, and how we’re not going to take it anymore. This man is pissed and frustrated, and the way he knows to deal with it is through humor.

In fact, there is a very interesting essay floating around from a recent New Yorker, I think, addressing the differences between the left and the right when it comes to things like radio hosts, and how to get the message across…I bring this up because of Al’s potential involvement. I’ll try to find it later cuz I don’t have time right now, but the gist is that the way for the left to be successful in the radio game is to come at it with humor. Lefties just aren’t angry and pissy enough to support a bunch of lefty Hannitys and O’Reillys and Limbaughs and Rantels and Medveds, who are all kinda boring and angry and relentlessly mean. It doesn’t appeal to the liberal spirit, ya know? We’d much rather point and laugh. :smiley:

82

So, when you publish a book calling your political opponents liars, and it turns out you are a liar yourself, this is the fault of your political opponents?

I imagine that you would make the same argument if someone came out in favor of “family values”, and it turns out that they were committing adultery. Any optic-orange sign on their chest was put there by the other guys, right?

Right?

I also find it interesting that you consider an instance in which Franken admits to lying to be “bolstering his credibility”.

Regards,
Shodan

83

It’s Karl, not Carl, and can you supply a link? I suspect this quote is directly in regards to his letter to Ashcroft, not a completely unrelated commentary.

84

Umm bizzwire do you think the swiping of letterhead was the bad part of that story? Clearly sabotaging the man’s campaign was the really ugly part.

Though you are correct. If Rush or Coulter have someone read the book for them and highlite useful bits I’m sure they’ll attempt to make hay out of it.

85

So, Diogenes, are you saying that the ends justify the means?

86

Al Frankin does not have any political opponents. He isn’t a politician. He’s a comedian.

You have a very vivid imagination. Al Frankin said Rush Limbaugh was a liar. Rush Limbaugh is a liar. So’s Al Frankin. So are you. So what? If a comedian took a stand on family values and then got caught committing adultery, I’d probably laugh-- wouldn’t you?
Right?

I find it interesting that you think that, seeing as how I never said that. What I said was that the conservative media was bolstering his credibility. They were the ones to call Frankin “a political analyst” and “a journalist”. He’s a satirist. And a damned good one. He’s got the conservatives satirizing themselves.

87

Stoid
Thanks for the tip; I thought I had proofed before hitting submit. As far as a cite, the best I can offer is that it’s on page 146 although he doesn’t explicitly name the source (which is too bad, considering that he devotes an entire chapter to how footnotes and endnotes are mis-used to foster false impressions- one more potential strike against him).

I am guessing that he got this anecdote from Bush’s Brain: How Karl (“not Carl”) Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential

CarnalK No, I think that swiping letterhead is trivial. The issue is that it’s hypocritical for Al Franken to make a big whoop about something that Karl (“not Carl”) Rove did in his book, and then * go out and do essentially the same thing!*

88

You really don’t think those who Franken is calling “liars” are his political opponents?

So what? So this.

Where exactly do you get off calling me a “liar”?

Apparently you on the Left consider lying to be a trivial matter. Except, of course, when it is done by Republicans. Then Al Franken writes a whole book about it. Then it comes to light that he did exactly the same thing. And then, of course, the whole thing becomes trivial again.

Except not for me. I think telling the truth is very important. For me, for you, and for everyone else.

I suspect you know the same, deeper down than is apparent from your posts. Which is why you cannot discuss the issue without descending to personal insults. Just like Franken.

I’m done with this thread.

89

Stoid
I did a little digging, and came up with this, from The Boston Globe:

90

I don’t know, bizzwire. I’ve defended both Franken and December for their pranks, but Rove went a little too far.

Sending out “free food” letters to homeless shelters and soup kitchens, when you have no intent on delivering, goes beyond getting someone to say something embarassing.

91

Since when do pranks need justifying?

92

It’s not remotely the same thing. Rove set out to deliberately sabotage a campaign through fraud. Franken simply solicited a public statement under slightly false pretenses. Franken did not attempt to lie to or defraud the public. there is no hypocrisy.

93

Oh please. I wasn’t insulting you when I said you lie (as opposed to calling you a liar). Unless you are saying you never lie. If that’s what you are trying to say, then— if the show fits.

Why do you insist that Al Frankin has political opponents? He isn’t a damn politician. And I don’t care when politicians lie either, unless it has a direct effect on policy. I care even less when a comedian lies.

94

Oh, come on Shodan, you are so full of it. Of course you are done with this thread… your premise has been shot full of holes and you have no way to respond.

95

Too late, Natasha. He’s stormed off in a huff, he won’t be reading that. Rather a shame, too, because I was just about to say that he had utterly obliterated all arguments in opposition, and that his rhetorical brilliance was only matched by the sheer depth of his probity.

But I guess he’ll never know. Since he’s done with this thread, and all.

96

Too bad, because I didn’t read this tripe over the weekend, and just got to it.

I’m claiming I didn’t do that. I called December a stinking liar for:

  1. Comparing his prank to Sokal’s – a totally bogus, self-aggrandizing comparison; and
  2. Claiming that his thread “demonstrated that some posters will criticize the words of a Republican, but it’s OK with them when a Democrat says the same thing,” a contemptible lie.

Sure, he lied in his OP as well, breaking the rules of the forum. Did you read that whole thread? I addressed this SPECIFIC comparison later in that thread:

Later, I address my reasons for thinking that december’s trolling isn’t in the fine tradition of real-world trolling, my reasons for thinking it sucks even if trolling were allowed around these parts:

Does Franken’s point fall under these criteria? I confess that I don’t properly understand his point in the first place, so I can’t say for sure if it does. However, I believe his point is that those preaching abstinence don’t have abstinence stories to tell. If he’d published a book in which he offered as evidence of such that nobody responded to his letter, I’d agree that his point sucked, that it remained deceptive through its final point. Since his prank was short-circuited, we won’t ever know.

Jesus, Shodan. For someone who claims the truth is important to him, you sure play fast and loose with it. It’s pretty funny that you imply I’m the hypocrite.

Daniel

97

Actually he does explicitly name the source. He has 13 pages of single spaced, small type “Sources and Notes” starting on page 355. In the section on chapter 21 (on page 359) it says:

I have no idea how credible these sources are, but he did name them.

98

No, this sort of behavior in not justifiable. I’m surprised at Al Franken for doing this sort of thing. I enjoy his writing and his delivery, but to stoop to stealing or misappropriating letterhead to obtain material is kind of stinky. I’m glad he apologized.

No, he’s not a hypocrite. He’s an entertainer and political observer.

No. And as a result Al Franken (this is the Al Franken Century, right?) apaologized.

**

No.