Things Heard: e74v3

7 Comments

1. David Schraub says:

   July 1, 2009 at 1:41 pm

   Actually, Michael Moore is the left’s equivalent of Ann Coulter (as I’ve written). I’m not sure who the right-wing equivalent of Al Franken is — there aren’t that many politically inclined right-wing comics of any prominence. Maybe P.J. O’Rourke?

   Having lived in MN through most of Franken’s campaign, and actually seen him deliver speeches, he’s shown himself to be a serious person committed to a serious job. That’s how he ran his campaign, and that’s why he won his campaign. It is, dare I say, a flash of pure partisanship to blindly refuse to see him as a bombthrower. There is absolutely no way Franken possibly could have won adopting that tact.

   Franken is not my favorite guy in the world (see here and here), but he’s no worse or more extreme than a typical Democratic pol. I’m not sure why congratulating the guy who won the most votes for winning is particularly partisan — at least compared to a refusal to accept that a liberal comic might also be able to contribute meaningfully to our political sphere.

2. Mark O. says:

   July 1, 2009 at 3:09 pm

   David,
   P.J. O’Rourke is more a libertarian than a conservative … as you might realize.

   But, let’s stay with Ms Coulter for now. So, she runs a serious campaign … does that turn it around? How would you then view her entry into the Senate?

3. David Schraub says:

   July 1, 2009 at 4:43 pm

   Depends what district she was in — there are plenty of elected GOPers with Coulter-esque views, which is testament to how extreme the right flank of the party has become. I’m not sure how she would present a meaningful difference to Michelle Bachmann, for example.

   But of course, I continue to reject the idea that Franken is a liberal Ann Coulter. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the parallels. What policy positions has Franken taken that are the liberal equivalents to Coulter’s “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity”, or her comment that airlines should “start advertising” that they are being sued for civil rights violations by Muslims, or her blaming 9/11 on Ted Kennedy and Barry Lynn (along with the other suspects mentioned in Jerry Falwell’s famous rant on the topic), or her claim that the nation would be better off if women couldn’t vote? And that doesn’t even get into her use of racial and sexual slurs (calling Muslims “ragheads” and “camel jockeys”, John Edwards a “faggot”, etc.). Remember, Coulter isn’t a comedian — she’s a syndicated political columnist (albeit of the “shock jock” variety). But even if we compared Franken’s comedic career to Coulter’s, er, “literary” one, I’m curious what you think Franken has said or done that stacks up to that (porn-o-rama doesn’t even get you in striking range, I’m afraid).

4. Doug says:

   July 1, 2009 at 10:07 pm

   If I may, they’re both polemicists that use humor to get their point across. I’m not sure we want to go down the “dueling quotes” road, but you can start here for Franken lines. Yes, Coulter is a syndicated columnist, but that doesn’t bar her from being a comedian. Crass may be her taste in jokes, like “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot” (oh…wait), but a comedian nonetheless.

   So Mark’s question still really stands. Would the Left do as their asking the Right to do; leave her comedy at the door and judge here strictly on her views and speeches?

   If I was a betting man, I’d take that bet.

5. David Schraub says:

   July 1, 2009 at 11:52 pm

   Coulter doesn’t style herself a comedian. She may use humor to make points, but her profession is pundit, not comic — the latter, if it is present at all, is in service of the former. When she writes a column, it is fair to presume that her words represent her actual views on subjects. So no — I wouldn’t leave those columns at the door, because those columns were written as political commentary.

   In any event, none of the Franken quotes you give take anything approaching a policy position (akin to “women shouldn’t vote” or “bomb/kill/convert”). They kind of indicate that Franken’s a dick, which I happen to know is true from personal experience (and is a legitimate criticism, insofar as we care about personality), but they don’t take policy stances and thus don’t show his relative political extremism (or lack thereof).

   So the point stands — politically, there is no indication that Franken is anywhere near Coulter’s relative position on the left-right spectrum. If even Franken’s jokes don’t match up to Coulter’s punditry on the extreme-o-meter, then obviously matching them policy-to-policy isn’t going to pan out well.

6. Mark O. says:

   July 2, 2009 at 10:20 am

   David,
   You’re begging the question. Mr Franken is a satirist and comedian and “a dick” … apparently. Yet that makes no difference to you. Your qualifications for what makes a good Senator is apparently not statesmanship, gravitas, or personal history but that on the campaign trail he can give serious political speeches.

   My question was if Ms Coulter did that, i.e., gave serious political speeches on the campaign trail (which apparently is all it takes), would you then view those on the right welcoming her enthusiastically to the Senate as purely doing so for partisan reasons or not?

   And finally, recall Minnesota elected a pro-wrestler as governor. Your claims that Mr Franken must be serious to win fall flat.

7. David Schraub says:

   July 2, 2009 at 11:54 am

   Gov. Ventura had already proven himself as a capable city mayor (Brooklyn Park) before he was elected governor. That Minnesotans are capable of judging people on their merits when they run for office is to their credit, not detriment. This comment thread is a plea for superficiality of the likes I haven’t seen before.

   In any event, I just said that Franken’s personality is a valid consideration (not “no difference”) when deciding whether to vote for him — I think it comes secondary to policy, but certainly valid. The choice to support Franken wasn’t difficult, however — I agree with him more on policy than I do Coleman (the primary consideration), and while I dislike his personality, it’s actually a wash with Coleman, who is also kind of notorious for being a dick as well. Advantage, Franken.

   Coulter is offensive not because she has an abrasive personality, but because her positions on the issue are extreme (obviously, it doesn’t help that she’s extremely obnoxious in presenting them, but again, it’s the issues that come first. Someone making a crude joke in support of expanding Pell Grant programs isn’t going to stir the same ire as someone making a crude joke in favor of violating Muslim civil rights). If she ran for Congress with the same policy stances, but said them politely, I’d still be harshly opposed because the problem isn’t her tone, it’s the policies. Now, as I noted there are elected Republicans whose political stances are essentially Coulter-esque (e.g., Bachmann, King, McHenry, Westmoreland). This is bad, but it’s bad because they’re extremists — the tone really comes secondary. The liberal elected equivalent is someone like McKinney, but you know I detest Cynthia McKinney and was thrilled when she was primaried out.

   To say I shouldn’t support Franken because he’s Coulter-esque, in my view, is to say he takes Coulter-esque (but liberal) positions, and there is no indication that’s remotely true. Franken’s position on the issues simply isn’t comparable to Coulter’s, and you’ve to even try and argue that it is.

   I’m not sure why you’re so baffled by this idea that policy should take primacy (or indeed, even matters) in voting decisions, or that this is the proper axis for evaluating a Coulter/Franken comparison. Again, apparently the problem is I care too much about policy and not enough about digging through old SNL scripts. Since I’m voting for Senator, and not for the next Apollo act, I’m comfortable.