His focus? The government's job is to take away everyone's insecurities about life so we have no fear or uncertainty about the future.

From your excerpt, looks to me like his focus is affordable college and healthcare. Tomato, tom-ah-to.

So its OK for him to steal money from a Boys Club, but its not OK for anyone 55 or younger to have some say in how their SS dollars are spent?

This clown has got to be one of the most embarrassing useless turds out there. Wouldnt surprise me if he replaces Dean as head of DNC.

Interesting you talk about fear Lorie - this site does whatever possible to induce it. Every fifth post certainly could be entitled "Boo!"

He's a smart, capable man who will make CSPAN watchable. And just for that he should have everyones support.

jp2, your post tells me what an unserious person you are. This is for US senator, not the assistant director of parks and recreation in Ely, Minnisota.

Kim,

Your quote about his focus was a complete misreprsentaton of his speech, and your excerpt. It's a strawman you set up, so you can knock it down.

How does a government "have your back"? Well, how about knowing that your food and water and air are safe. How about knowing you can afford to send your kids to school. How about knowing that if the worst happened to you, you'd have a security net that would help catch you. How about knowing that your retirement is secure. Or that your government has a sane foreign policy.

It's not a nanny state. It's the successful policies of FDR that gave us the golden age of the middle class in America and the economic success that we now enjoy.

A personal story if you will... Back in college I had a friend named Kim, who was finishing her Junior year. She was a Young Republican, and a student organizer for that group, and had just helped Ronald Reagan win his presidential bid.

One day she calls a couple of us over to her dorm to say goodby. She told us quite a bit about all the hard work she'd done on the campaign, organizing rallys and students, etc, etc. She was now rather pissed, as Reagan had made unfavorable changes to the grant and loan programs that made it possible for her to attend university. Basicaly, her funding had been cut, and she was not able to re-enrole, or continue her education in the fall, and was going home at the end of the semester in a couple weeks.

That's tough when you have 3 years. Nobody want's that many transfer credits, and the local junior college can't take you past 2 years anyway.

Sad story, but she was pretty much screwed by the policies that she had spent so much time advocating.

That's the fear and uncertanty we need to fight. Education in a democracy must be cheap and readily available to every citizen in order for them to prepare themselves to do their civic duty.

Franken will whoop Coleman without much effort.

And whatever will upset Dildo O Reilly is also a plus.

Just another example of Kim's "Drunk with Hatred" over the '06 election drudging of the Republic Party.

Is this Fraklen character really as unhinged as he appears to be? Quite spooky. The kind of guy that would give small children bad dreams.

Don't you know, Nikkolai...? Which of his books have you read? Have you spent much time listening to his show on Air America?

Or are you just babbling about something you really know nothing about?

How does the US government protect everyone from fear?

Don't you know? We fight them there instead of here.

Oh, and we ship innocent software engineers off to be tortured in Syria.

jp2 wrote: "He's a smart, capable man who will make CSPAN watchable."

But tomc responds to jp2 with: "This is for US senator, not the assistant director of parks and recreation in Ely, Minnisota."

That about sums-up the difference between the left and the right. The left promotes capable/smart person to be our leads. The right thinks that capable/smart persons should be marginalized (see global warming, evolution, Iraq...).

Al Franken is a loudmouthed idiot who is totally out of touch with reality.

"How does a government "have your back"? Well, how about knowing that your food and water and air are safe."

John, you should have quit right here.

How about knowing you can afford to send your kids to school.

How about spending less than you make, so you can pay your own bills instead of taxing me to pay for your lack of planning?

How about knowing that if the worst happened to you, you'd have a security net that would help catch you.

How about saving some money, and taking responsibility for your own problems instead of TAXING ME TO PAY FOR YOUR LACK OF PLANNING? If you are already thinking that the government should take care of you if the worst happened, then you should already be aware that the worst can happen, and YOU should be prepared for that, instead of expecting ME to pay.

How about knowing that your retirement is secure.

How about funding your own retirement, perhaps at a higher rate of return than the pathetic 2% or so promised by the fabulous Social Security system that you and Al Franken are so bent on protecting? Again, why must you insist on TAXING ME TO PAY FOR YOUR APPARENTLY BOTTOMLESS STUPIDITY?

Or that your government has a sane foreign policy."

Vote.

And learn to exercise a lot more personal responsibility for your life.

The people in your little echo chamber who tell you you shouldn't have manage your own life without the government to back you up are also telling you that you CAN'T manage your own life without the government to back you up.

That's only true to the extent that YOU give up your control. And you can't blame anyone but yourself for believing that lie.

That's a universal truth. You can't cheat an honest man.

BarneyG2000,

The "conservative" argument as it was put to me, is;

Government does not work

Then the right wing hires incompetent people for important tasks.

Then government fails.

Repeat steps one through three. This is a self reinforcing argument.

WE (progressives) expect better things, smarter people, more accountability. Government does in fact work when it's staffed and funded as appropriate.

How about knowing you can afford to send your kids to school. How about knowing that if the worst happened to you, you'd have a security net that would help catch you. How about knowing that your retirement is secure.

Everything you noted above can and should be taken care of by yourself, without the help of the government.

It's not a nanny state.

If you want the government to provide the things you listed above, then a nanny state is what you're looking for.

Al Franken is a loudmouthed idiot who is totally out of touch with reality.

And he still will whoop Smilin' Norms capped pearly whites right off his used car salesman mug. If freaking George Galloway can rip ol Normie a new one from the witness bench it shows Norm can only bring a stick to a knife fight.

I hope the GOP decides to waste 10-20 million dollars on MN races for Senate. Just like if they try and run someone against Kerry in MA, they'll lose millions just trying to save face.

Anyone remember Jeannie Pirro?

Which Senator would you rather have as a talking head for the next 4 years? A lawyer or a commedian? A Bushbot or a tightly-wound and unpredictable populist? Me too! Coleman's toast...nikkolai: BOOOOO!

John,

First, why is it the government's job to 'make sure' food and water are safe? Did we not have safe food and water before the FDA? There is an implicit economic incentive for companies that sell food and beverages to make sure they're safe. If they aren't, then it's bankruptcy time. Government isn't necessary when it comes to product quality, they've just managed to convince enough people that it is.

Second, about school being affordable: why is that the government's job? Are there not choices? There are plenty of options when it comes to higher education. My parents couldn't afford to send me to college so I worked my through with a little help from academic scholarships that I earned and loans that I qualified for. Managed to pay for four years of Baylor, too. Not exactly a cheap school. If I can do it, so can anyone else. It's about work ethic in more cases than not.

Which brings me to your friend. What? She couldn't work her way through school?

Third, why is it the government's responsibility to take care of you if bad things happen? What about family? Charity? Church? How, oh how did anyone ever make it before through life before government showed up with a 'safety net,' I wonder...

Fourth, concerning retirement. Why is that the government's responsibility? It's your retirement. Maybe you should take responsibility concerning how secure it is.

Fifth, concerning the US having a 'sane' foreign policy. What's insane about the current foreign policy? What's your 'sane' option? Or is it your habit to call political issues you disagree with 'insane?'

Sixth, how is all of the above that you desire not the institution of a nanny state? 'Don't worry about anything, government will take care of you.' It seems to me that Mr. Franken and his ilk desire nothing less than the willful giving up by the populace to the government of our desire and ability to take care of ourselves.

Lastly, while FDR was a brilliant politician and made politically savvy decisions, economically, he was a disaster. Nothing FDR did gave us a 'golden age of the middle class' or 'economic success' of any kind. Keynesian policies hinder our economic potential.

We have solid private property laws and regulations and a generally reputable legal system. That's as far as government needs to go. The federal government needs to do more to get out of our way, not obstruct us even further than they do already.

WE (progressives) expect better things, smarter people, more accountability.

And less personal responsibility.

Government does in fact work when it's staffed and funded as appropriate.

In what respect does it "work"? And who decides what is appropriate?

"How does the US government protect everyone from fear?"

Maybe he'll launch a "War on Fear". It should be just as easy to fight as a "War on Terror".

Oh goodie. I can't wait till the video of Al Franken leaping on top of a man who was practicing his patriotic "dissent" (as libs love to tell us it is) at one of the Kerry events in 2004. Yes Al Franken tackles this guy to the ground and generally acts like a rabid dog.

Oh yeah, baby. Very senatorial behavior. Can't wait. :)

How about spending less than you make, so you can pay your own bills instead of taxing me to pay for your lack of planning?

Right, because the inability of the children of low-wage workers to attend college is all due to a lack of planning.

How about knowing that if the worst happened to you, you'd have a security net that would help catch you.

Right, because the inability of low-wage workers to make it through a catastrophic illness without declaring bankruptcy and still being able to care for their families (including sending their children to college) is all due to a lack of planning.

Listened to Franken a few times on Airhead America--painful at best. My mother (a lib) has the Rush Limbaugh is a big fat poopyhead book, written by this cretin. And I read a few pages. Again, painful at best. Dude's IQ cannot possibly hit triple digits. Unhinged, untalented freak. But MN just elected Keith Ellison, so this guy will probably win.

Coleman, a serious man, an incumbant with a 55% approval
rating. Al Franken, a unfunny comedian, a loud-mouth bore with no credentials to be a Senator.

Coleman is going to cream him,but then again Al may not win
Dimo primary, so Coleman will cream whoever the Dimo's nominate.

First, why is it the government's job to 'make sure' food and water are safe? Did we not have safe food and water before the FDA?

Not so much.

Food processing in the late-19th and early-20th centuries involved a great deal of deception. Chemicals were used to heighten color, modify flavor, soften texture, and delay spoilage, according to FDA. Jars labeled strawberry jam often contained no strawberries, only glucose, red food coloring, grass seed, and gelatin. Jars of honey were sometimes diluted with glucose. Rotten eggs were deodorized, rancid butter was revived. "Soothing syrups" for babies were often laced with morphine. "Olive oil" was sometimes made with cottonseed.

...

The 1906 law prohibited the sale of filthy or decomposed food and the addition of ingredients, such as sawdust, that would substitute for food or pose a health hazard. Food or drug labels had to list alcohol, heroin, morphine, and cocaine if they were present.

nikkolai - you are not to smart are you?:
"But MN just elected Keith Ellison, so this guy will probably win."

Minnesota did not elect Ellison, a strong Dimo district did.
That district that is not representive of the state. Do you understand our system of government?

Coleman is going to be re-elected easily.

Michael--I certainly hope you are right. Did you not read my thoughts on that freak Franken? I live in Texas, and can barely keep up with ass clowns down here.

You're absolutely right, Brian.

It's not completely due to a lack of planning that low-wage workers may not be able to weather such disasters.

There's also an element of laziness and complete lack of ambition to learn a new skill that keeps low-wage workers in low wage jobs.

A sense of entitlement that tells them that by going deeply into debt, they can cry poverty while surfing the internet, driving a new car, and watching American Idol on a 60 inch HDTV.

A fundamental stupidity that stems from the "nanny state" telling low-wage workers that they will never have to solve a problem.

Because like-thinking people like you will always be there with the power of the IRS to TAX PEOPLE LIKE ME - who are not stupid, who do have ambition, who do not feel a sense of entitlement to things we cannot pay for, who do not lack a plan for success, and who work very hard to make that plan a reality - TO PAY FOR YOUR (AND THEIR) LACK OF PLANNING, GROSS STUPIDITY, AND 40 YEAR SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT.

There's a lot more to it.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Here's a basic clue for you - people who want to get rich can tell you how their mutual funds are performing, but they can't tell you who got kicked off the island.

Brian,

You're missing my point. I probably didn't communicate it very effectively. I was stating that regulatory agencies such as the FDA aren't necessary.

Passing a law making unsavory behavior illegal is one thing. Creating a new federal bureaucracy is another issue entirely.

The economic point still stands. It's in a business's best interest to produce safe products.

Why is it that when someone posts here, some people have to immediately resort to insults and slurs? nikkolai, kudos for a civil reply.

Brian,

First, the inability of any child of low-income parents to attend college rests upon a number of factors. The most important of which is that child's work ethic and drive.

Second, catastrophic illnesses are unfortunate. Life isn't fair. But you have no right to get the government to take my money to pay for your problems. There are numerous charities in existence that can help out in unfortunate situations. If I choose to give my money freely to charity, that's one thing. If the federal government wants to use the force of law to take my money and give it to someone else, that's simply legalized robbery.

Mike--Thanks for your comment. And I agree. But sometimes the troll infestation takes its toll.

people who want to get rich can tell you how their mutual funds are performing, but they can't tell you who got kicked off the island.

I can tell you both.

My mutual funds are having another stellar year, but you'll have to ask the wife about that island thing. I just watch sports, news and some Seinfeld re-runs.

First, the inability of any child of low-income parents to attend college rests upon a number of factors. The most important of which is that child's work ethic and drive.

I agree. But since it's in the best interest of the country to have a highly educated population, it's a reasonable place for the government to assist kids who have the ethic and drive, but not the money.

But you have no right to get the government to take my money to pay for your problems.

Again, it's in the best interest of the country, and its long-term financial interest, to have healthy people. This doesn't mean handouts to those who don't deserve it. I'm sure you can find many studies about how spending $100 on someone's healthcare now saves $1000 of public money later.

If the federal government wants to use the force of law to take my money and give it to someone else, that's simply legalized robbery.

No, that's simply taxes. Or can I also oppose the government taking my money and giving billions in credits to the oil companies?

pgg...or is it pig?

"How about spending less than you make, so you can pay your own bills instead of taxing me to pay for your lack of planning?"

When the MW is $7.25? or when the median income for a family of 4 is $40K? or when Pigs like you want to hawg the presidential suite at a standard room rate?

You pay for what you get in a stable safe, risk-free society. If you want it all, go live in a community of just you & your loved ones & see how far you will get...even if you get to keep it all.

Build your own roads, build your own nuclear and military defense, raise your own army and keep the rest.

Oink! Oink!