Al Franken's Stockholm Syndrome

by Kagro X

So I've finally decided to pick up and read the copy of Al Franken's The Truth, with Jokes that I got as a gift this past holiday season. And having just recently read some of the blog coverage of Franken's recent visit to Burlington, Vermont, I was struck by a section of the book I read last night, and haven't been able to sleep since.

Let me start with the relevant passage of the book. In Chapter Six, "With Friends Like Zell," Franken describes what may have been one of the most politically costly mistakes made by the 2004 Kerry-Edwards campaign.

His discussion begins with Kerry's own foreshadowing of one particular Republican attack:

As Kerry himself knew, the Bushies stood ready to pounce on anything that Kerry said--in public or private, even to himself--and fashion it into a crude shiv with which to stab him in the back, neck and face. That's why, when he sat down with Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine to discuss his foreign policy views, Kerry seemed to regard the interview as, Bai wrote, "an invitation to do himself harm."

But once Kerry got going, he opened up and made the mistake of saying something that was perfectly reasonable but also, in the context of a campaign against an utterly shameless lair, dangerously misquoatable.

Here, Franken quotes the section of the interview wherein Kerry delivers a line that became a key point of Republican attack: ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.'' Franken recounts how this statement was intentionally misinterpreted by Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and countless other right-wing media flacks, not to mention Bush himself, and then gets to his own analysis:

These attacks worked on two levels. The obvious level was the literal. If Kerry thought terrorism was just a nuisance, then he was obviously the wrong man to lead the fight against it. But there was another level. The subtext of the constant attacks on Kerry's toughness was that the Bush team was tough and Kerry wasn't. It's what blogger Joshua Micah Marshall called the Republicans' Bitch-Slap Theory of Electoral Politics. By slapping Kerry around continuously, the President was sending America the message that "Kerry is my bitch." Kerry, by focusing on his positive, nuanced agenda (including a modest, but eminently sensible health care plan that involved the word "reinsurance"), rather than fighting back with equal or greater ferocity, was whispering the opposite message: "I am Bush's bitch." That's not a very "war president" kind of thing to whisper.

After a brief interlude (some of the Jokes we're promised in the book's title), Franken gets back on track:

The point is, every good candidate should have a positive agenda. But you also have to fight back.... And that's where Kerry came up short. In politics, you can never turn the other cheek. Especially when you're fighting the Christian right.

Nothing demonstrates the "viciousness gap" between the Bush and the Kerry campaigns better than their respective national conventions.

In Boston, the Democrats made the horrible mistake of responding to a very ironic attack from the Bush team, the claim that Democrats had nothing to offer but "partisan anger." Instead of hitting back with the obvious countercharge that, no, it's Republicans who were the party of partisan anger, the Democrats decided to internalize the message of their abuser and try to be nicer.

The Republicans, on the other hand, ran a convention so partisan and angry that its fundamental dishonesty passed nearly unremarked.

Even though Democrats almost to a man believed that President Bush was an unrivaled horror show who was driving the nation off a cliff, it was easy to watch the Democratic Convention and conclude that the Democrats thought everything was hunky-dory in America, and that their only motivation was the sunny belief that their nominee could do an even better job than the incumbent.

This was no accident. In fact, it was the result of uncharacteristic message discipline on the part of the Democrats. Below the stage at Boston's Fleet Center, an elite team of wordsmiths had the thankless job of "cleansing" the speeches before they reached the teleprompter. Here's how someone who worked in the speechwriting office described it to me, on the condition that I not reveal his or her name:

One of our primary responsibilities was to take out negative comments. We were very concerned about casting the party in a positive light. If there was a line like "Bush has overseen a cataclysmic downturn in the economy and is running the country into the ground," we would have to change it to something like "Kerry will strengthen our economy and put the country on the right track." We'd flip all of the attacks into positive messages. Specifically, we didn't mention George Bush by name. I'd be surprised if there were a single speech that went into the teleprompter that had the President's name in it. Some speakers said it, but they were going off-message. We weren't even allowed to say "White Hosue." I remember somebody asking about that, and being told to write "some in Washington."

I asked him or her (okay, it's a "him") how he felt when he saw the unflaggingly venomous Republican Convention.

Boy, I hope we didn't fuck up. That was my reaction.

But fuck up they had. After the Democratic Convention, Kerry's standing in the polls went up by 4 percent, the smallest post-convention bounce in the history of the Newsweek poll. Compare that to Bush's bounce of 13 percent.

Strong words.

Now, fast forward nearly two years from the conventions, to late April 2006. Having in fact overseen a cataclysmic downturn in the economy (including $3 gas, if you're lucky) and run the country into the ground, Bush now also stands accused of personally approving: an unchecked program of warrantless domestic surveillance; unlimited detention without charge or access to legal representation for people he deems to be "enemies of America"; torture; lying the nation into a disastrous war without end; and the unilateral nullification of all or part of some 750 duly-enacted statutes passed by Congress and signed by him. Charges serious enough under any circumstances to warrant impeachment.

And yet, watch Mr. "Fuck up they had" struggle with his own inner "bitch" in an interview conducted by blogger "Brattlerouser," before Franken's appearance in Brattleboro on April 28th:

Brattlerouser: Is [Newfane Selectman and impeachment advocate] Dan DeWalt going to be on today?

Al Franken: Yes he is. And I’m interested in that, I’m just not necessarily for impeaching the President… yet.

[...]

Brattlerouser: So I know that you’re in the heart of the impeachment movement of Vermont. Around Brattleboro, it passed in Newfane, it passed in Brattleboro, and it passed in Dummerston, Marlboro, and Putney all the towns around here… Rockingham, it will be brought up in the Vermont State legislature now. There’s a section 306 [actually section 603] of the Rutland Resolution (sorry folks if I butchered explaining the Rutland Resolution. I was just saying anything that came to my head) which I think goes into the Jefferson Manual saying a state legislature can ask their representatives to raise awareness and start an investigation.

Al Franken: Right. I think the House legislature does it. It has to start impeachment.

Brattlerouser: Yeah.

Al Franken: Who knew about that? I didn’t know about that!

Brattlerouser: I know that the Illinois and California legislatures are now bringing it up and the Vermont leg. Is trying to squeeze it in before they adjourn in late May/early June.

Al Franken: Well, I feel two ways about this. It shouldn’t be easy to impeach a President. Are these resolutions about to impeach him or to start the impeachment proceedings?

Brattlerouser: I think to start the impeachment proceedings.

Al Franken: Yeah, I guess those are two different things and I can see how that could make people nervous because it’s very very very serious to impeach a guy. There should be high crimes and misdemeanors and of course to what Clinton did, there’s no question that what we think Bush has done is a high crime and misdemeanor. I think there’s really no question that this guy lied to us and mislead us into war. The question is though, he didn’t lie to us under oath. So, I’m just a little uncomfortable with it.  I mean this is very serious stuff that he did; lying us into war is probably the serious thing that you can get. So, why I feel every which way about it.

Person at table asked, “What about domestic spying?”

Al Franken: Well that also, that could be very well be something. You know, because of this Republican Congress, there’s no way they’re going to investigate it. They just won’t allow it. Now on the other hand, he sort of did… some members of Congress he did alert them and inform them to some degree, not to the degree that I think conforms to the law. I think he is supposed to inform every member of the committee…

Cross talk

… We absolutely have know [sic] idea what he’s doing because this Congress won’t do the proper oversight. So, this is being enforced by the fact that this Republican Congress has been acting like a rubber stamp and won’t do their job. So this forces the citizens’ hands. It’s just that I feel two ways about this. I definitely have strong feelings that this President lied to get us into this war has probably broken the law and that Congress should be doing it’s job, investigating both the warrant less wiretaps, it should have been doing its job investigating torture and essentially getting rid of habeas corpus (Franken laughs). You know, if Congress had been doing its job there would be no question to this.  And I’m not talking about doing the job of starting the impeachment proceedings. I’m talking about doing the job of looking in to all these. You know, the Senate was supposed to look into the White House Administration of whether or not they manipulated intelligence, which was clear that they did, and they didn’t do that. So what’s a citizen to do, other than to demand this? So, I’m very very sympathetic with it. it just causes me to worry that every time a President becomes unpopular that impeachment proceedings will start and it shouldn’t be about unpopularity it should be about him breaking the law. But I think there’s a very strong argument that this guy has broken the law because Congress won’t do the job and it leaves us very little recourse.

Brattlerouser: I know that if the Democrats do get control of the House & Senate that John Conyers will run the House Judiciary Committee and Pat Leahy will run the Senate Judiciary Committee. Do you think that had it not been the citizen impeachment movement in Vermont and in other states, towns, and cities if it hadn’t been going at the pace that it was do you think there would not be enough momentum to push these proceedings once they have control of the House & Senate?

Al Franken: Assuming they do.

Brattlerouser: Yeah, well obviously that’s true!

Al Franken: Well, you know, I WANT to control the House & Senate and I want it more than impeachment. That’s sort of the least of the reasons why I want it. I want it so we can reverse so much of the damage that’s been done and so that we can do actually oversight into things that we’re contracting, I mean, and oversight into contracting like FEMA, and oversight into all these things. And then we should reverse things like the Bankruptcy Bill, the Tax cuts for the very top, the idea of universal health care for kids RIGHT AWAY! That’s one thing I think we should be for. I’d rather be for that. I’d rather say, ‘We’re for universal health care for children, from day 1 that we go in, rather than saying we’re starting impeachment proceedings. And I understand the very strong constitutional arguments that you can make on impeachment proceedings but that could happen once we take over without our announcing it so strongly. My fear is it will create a backlash and that will create turn out among the right and I just, I mean maybe I’m too cynical, but I REALLY REALLY want to take over one or both of these Houses. So we can start… #1 I want some people power for other things. I think that the war contracting and profiteering has been a disgrace and Congress has completely been a rubber stamp and completely refused to do its job in this regard. Nothing is getting done on health care other than you know, the exact opposite things that we need, like the prescription drug program being implemented the way it is through insurance companies rather than through Medicare. Medicare can’t be allowed to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies. All of these, it’s just one corrupt thing after another. One thing we need to get rid of is tax incentives for companies that outsource jobs to other countries. Companies get tax break for just assembling a factory and then sending it overseas. That’s ridiculous! And we got to get rid of that. So, while I do think there’s a really strong case for impeachment, I kinda think that, that would come if we got our oversight capacity back and that eventually might come but more important are these other things to me.

"I understand the very strong constitutional arguments that you can make on impeachment proceedings but that could happen once we take over without our announcing it so strongly. My fear is that it will create a backlash and that will create turn out among the right and I just, I mean maybe I'm too cynical, but I REALLY REALLY want to take over one or both of these Houses."

That's what he said. And hey, it's not like I can't sympathize. But remember, this is the guy who said that we had to fight back. This is the guy who said "cleansing" the speeches at the convention to portray a positive image -- i.e., not "announcing it so strongly" -- was a "fuck up."

Does anyone have any doubt but that the senior Democratic strategists behind the 2004 convention messaging would have offered the exact same defense for their restraint that Franken's now offering for his? That, yes, all of what you say is true and needs to be said, but "my fear is is that it will create a backlash and that will create turnout among the right and I just, I mean maybe I'm too cynical, but I REALLY REALLLY want to take over the White House?"

And note well, by the way, who went right down the same path on the question of impeachment: Mr. Bitch-Slap Deep Think himself, Josh Marshall. Marshall gives his own position short shrift in that initial piece, but takes a beating for it. Which is perhaps why he issued his full defense in The Hill rather than on his blog, not that that stopped me from offering a rebuttal.

Have Republicans not said, in precisely the same fashion as they levelled the "partisan anger" charge, that they wish for nothing more than continued Democratic discussion of the idea? Have they not said that impeachment talk is supposed to be proof that Democrats have no positive agenda? What are we to make of this? Can anyone tell me why, in light of what both Franken and Marshall have pointed out (and so many already believed about the Kerry campaign), this Republican charge is different, and it really is in our best interest to roll over for this one? Unlike, of course, those that have come before. No, no -- those were "fuck ups!" This time it's good advice! People aren't giving Bush and the Republican Congress Politburo historically low -- subterranean -- approval ratings because they can't abide by what they've done to the country. No! They're rejecting them because of their failure to speak positively about an agenda of jobs and health care! Bush has overseen a cataclysmic downturn in the economy and is running the country into the ground. Pelosi and Reid will strengthen our economy and put the country on the right track.

Fellas, we love you, and you're on the side of the angels, no doubt. But wake up. You're caught in an infinite feeback loop, and this time, I don't know how many more chances we're gonna get to break free.

Comments

[Sara]

Al Franken has moved home to Minnesota, got a condo, registered to vote and attended his DFL precinct caucus this March -- Because he is planning to run for the Wellstone Seat in the US Senate in 2008. He already has Mondale's support from the center (Mondale also supported Wellstone strongly) -- but he will be running to defeat Norm Coleman who (assuming he is not in Jail in 2008) will have Karl Rove running his campaign, just like he ran Norm in 2002.

Franken is well aware that Rove has a full set of Air America tapes to chop up and use against him in all sorts of ways -- and he has the books, and the panel discussions and all the rest. Franken believes that you do the cut and thrust against your opponent with satire, irony and humor -- not with personal attacks, and when you start proposing impeachment, or throwing around terms like war criminal and all -- that is the sort of characterization that sours the audience. Wellstone and Hubert Humphrey had the same bright line. Humor, properly used can be a devistating sword as it alienates the audience from the target and provides no easy avenue of response. If people laugh, it is because you caught a characterization with which they agree -- and the snicker or the laugh is a satisfying agreement. Franken is getting ready to do this to Norm Coleman in 2008. His focus on "oversight" is about one of the charges he plans to lay against Coleman --

Few people will vote for a candidate who promises you six months of Impeachment process. They will gladly vote for oversight and major policy changes. Since Franken is planning to run -- I think it quite unlikely he'll be stumping for impeachment very soon -- he is about all those policy issues, and sticking the humor sword in where it is justified.

By the way -- our Congressional District had to select a New DFL'er to run for the House this year -- Martin Sabo who has held the seat since 1978 is retiring. Today the 5th Cistrict Conventio endorsed Keith Ellison on the third ballot. He is a Lawyer, 3 terms in the Minnesota House, he is Black and an active Muslim. (Minneapolis is about 5% black and maybe 1% Muslim). He is most progressive -- saying he supports Sabo's fiscal policy (Sabo was head of the Budget Committee during Clinton's first two years) and Wellstone on Social programs. There could still be a primary in September, but the pressure is on to avoid that. Assuming Ellison does not get knocked out in a primary (and I don't think he will) he will be running in a 76% DFL district. The politics that put this endorsement together are -- to put it mildly -- very interesting.

[Kagro X]

I'm sure Al's answer on impeachment is a fine one. For someone who's not in the business of telling other candidates what a "fuck up" it is to fall back from counterattacking and saying only what won't "sour the audience," that is.

Nobody's asking him, just as nobody has asked anyone else who uses this excuse to duck the issue, to campaign on impeachment. But if you're against the sanitizing of political speech, then be against the sanitizing of political speech.

[DonnaM]

You know I feel much the same as Franken but for a different reason. (I admit I only skimmed over some of the post and will go back and read it all after I leave my first impression here.)

If the Democrats decide to go the impeachment route and fight back they must be united. It's the disarray that makes it easy to pick off those who fight back as "moonbats who are out of touch". Just look what the right and the MSM did to Feingold after he proposed the censure resolution. They were able to paint him as a left wing crazy because not many others were willing to stand up with him.

Just think back to the conventions, anyone not caught up in group think can see that the Republicans as a whole are crazy, but because they were united it makes an average American Joe think twice and question whether he is the crazy one for doubting.

There is almost this oddball way of thinking for Washington Democrats. They think they are all leaders so they refuse to follow when a true leader like Feingold steps forward, or even further back, when Dean stepped forward. I personally didn't like Dean but agreed with some of what he said and think that Washington Democrats should have definitely jumped on his bandwagon. For instance the confederate flag lover, Dean made the mistake of stating it like we should pander to them, give them what they want on gun rights to win them over. That is wrong, but I agree with the underlying statement, that poor and middle class Americans (even in the south) should be voting Democratic, that the Democratic party has their interests at heart and Washington Democrats should have been all over that.

Back to my original point, I wonder if Franken doesn't have this in the back of his mind. I wonder if he is thinking if some well known Democrat(s) step forward to suggest that impeachment is warranted, and the rest of the party doesn't follow, it will play right into Republican hands. It will appear like a crazy idea to the average Joe, just like strength in numbers appears reasonable even when it is actually crazy.

I also want to say that Democrats only think they are leaders but they are simply followers of Washington conventional wisdom. Unfortunately it's a broken system. It's like Washington has it's weather man and he can only predict the current weather without seeing the storm system that is coming. "Conventional wisdom says it's sunny outside! Don't upset everyone by talking about storms!"

[DonnaM]

Ok, I read the whole thing and have a couple of other impressions now. First of all, I think you are reading Franken more literally than he meant about the conventions. Let's say that at the convention someone had in their speech, "The president is so horrible we need to send him to the Hague, try him for crimes against humanity, convict him, and hang him!" Wouldn't you agree that that statement needs to be toned down or removed? I think Franken would agree. Some political speech does need to be sanitized, but not all.

It appears to me that Franken, Marshall, Yglesias et al are saying that impeachment talk is jumping the gun. When there is no oversight by either congress or the MSM then there is no smoking gun for the public to agree to impeachment. The platform should be run on step 1, oversight. We shouldn't be jumping right into step 2, 3, 4, or 5 just yet. The general public is aware enough of the scandals brewing to easily want oversight to see what exactly is going on and who is responsible. It is a step towards impeachment if the evidence against the president is there, and that would be a good campaign rebuttal against the Republicans right there. All a Democratic candidate would have to say is, "Why are the Republicans afraid of oversight, what are they hiding from the American public? If the evidence is there, then yes, it may lead to impeachment or other consequences for those involved. But if it isn't then Republicans have nothing to fear, and yet they are afraid."

I'd also like to see Demcratic candidates juxtapose the secretiveness of this administration against the spying on regular American citizens. It's the opposite of what this country was built to be, the government is supposed to be by, of, and for the people. They should be accountable to us while leaving us alone.

[Kagro X]

I'm sure Josh would like to believe that what he said amounts to worrying that impeachment is jumping the gun, but the state of affairs is such that the logic one would normally use to get to that point -- and which Josh did in fact try to use -- leaves us with a formula for impeachment that is impracticable. He ends up arguing impeachment out of existence in his effort to graft "reasonableness" onto a set of unreasonable facts.

In the end, he's left defending the proposition that it's unfair to impeach a president who hasn't received written notice that it's illegal to break the law, and unconstitutional to usurp the power of other branches of Congress.

[Sara]

Did anyone see Pelosi this morning? She laid a number of things on the table that a Democratic Controlled Congress could do. One thing -- break into the Energy bill and take away all the subsidies and tax advantages from Big Oio -- and use it to invest in R & D as well as infrastructure for alternative fules. Now the average voter will be far more interested in such an enterprise than they will be in the process of impeaching Bush. Now if you have hearings on the secret Cheney Energy plan running right along with financing a ten year plan for Energy Independence -- you have something that will appeal very broadly for which Dems will get Credit, and Republicans will stand accused. And there are lots of votes there -- especially since Ethanol is made in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota and N & S Dakota.

I think our future Speaker knows what she is doing.

[DonnaM]

Kagro X, I think you might have misread Marshall's post too. He isn't saying that the president needs to be put on notice; he is saying that someone has to find the evidence that what the president is doing is legal/illegal first.

Here is the disputed paragraph:
But that’s just not the case at the moment because Congress has made little if any effort to rein him in. So impeaching him can’t make any sense because the Congress — in the constitutionally indolent hands of the Republican majority — has made no attempt to oversee the president by constitutional means.

You could read it your way, that the president must be put on notice. You could also read it my way, that congress has to assemble evidence of wrongdoing. Neither has been done even with Bush blatantly thumbing his nose at congress. This should have been like a red flag to a bull, but the bull has blinders on. It's not enough that Bush is saying he can do anything he wants, there has to be evidence that he is actually doing anything he wants against the laws enacted by congress.

I personally don't think of it as a problem for Democratic candidates to run on an impeachment platform or to use the idea in speeches, especially for those who do have evidence. The ones who sit on intelligence or defense committees for instance. I'm also moderating my view on the united front, as long as those who aren't outright calling for impeachment are calling for oversight that might lead to it. They need to say that they want to find out what Cheney's energy task force was up to, or how the intelligence was manipulated to get us into a disasterous war, or look into ALL the domestic spying programs and that they suspect that there are political spy programs going on not just spying on possible al Qaeda cells, and the torture and rendition of prisoners, and voting irregularities in Ohio, Georgia, Maryland, and Florida etc, and the lobbyist scandals in Washington...and if it leads to impeachment, so be it. I'd especially like to see them list it like that and include more that I might have missed. Just point out all the corruption and criminality everytime they open their mouths and the public can see that it will lead to impeachment.

[Kagro X]

I don't believe I've misread Josh. I just believe he's offering gobbledygook in an attempt to gussie up the fear of the substantive issue in the garb of procedural objections, a tactic I've seen close-up enough times -- even on the specific issue of impeachment -- to learn to recognize it.

Josh is a talented enough writer that he knows how to say "assemble the evidence first" if he wants to.

On the united front front, I don't require it until the investigations actually begin. How you get there is a game I'll allow people to play any way they like, so long as they're not painting us into any corners that actually or effectively take impeachment off the table. I believe Josh mades that mistake, but Pelosi has not. Yet.

As for Pelosi's plans for a Democratic Congress, I wish her all the best and more. But I'd like to know what her plans are for dealing with the administration's non-compliance with the much-vaunted subpoena power, as well as Bush's clearly demonstrated willingness to simply ignore legislative mandates.

Don't tell me nobody thinks that's a contingency that requires some foresight and planning. I believe it's a virtual certainty, and if we arrive at a majority only to end up throwing up our hands in frustration at their lack of compliance with this promised oversight, we're going to pay for it threefold in 15 years, just as has happened every other time.

[DonnaM]

It's too bad Marshall won't clarify by either rebutting your rebuttal or posting this on TPM open to comments.

Like another poster in the comments to your rebuttal I do have a problem with Marshall calling impeachment political, because I am unsure what his meaning is. Does he mean partisan? If he means that then it is very wrong. Impeachment should be as impartial and objective as any other trial in America. Every effort should be made to overcome biases political or otherwise to view facts and not opinions or conjecture and come to a conclusion. If he means that impeachment is a political process, as in a function of the government, well...DUH!

I tend to still give Marshall the benefit of the doubt, but have to give your ideas some credit. Marshall was a war hawk on some pretty shaky grounds even before it was clear we were lied into the war. I wonder if this has to do with his DC insider status, does he listen to that "weatherman" I mentioned in my first post on this thread? Conventional wisdom was screaming, "WAR WAR WAR!" back then and conventional wisdom is saying don't rock the boat on impeachment now.

[Jane]

.dragon ball codici
il cazzo piu grosso del mondo
disegni da colorare la mamma
floriana panella
filmati strani moto
immagini da colorare pasquali
done con animali
racconti esibizioniste
donne maialone
seghe di sborra