Al Franken's next standup gig- U.S. Senate

[Brent Burns]

Al Franken enters Minn. Senate race

Comedian Al Franken announced today that he will run for the Senate in 2008, challenging Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.

[DanGenck]

Bad idea. The world needs less radicals on both sides of the politcal spectrum right now. Regardless of where Franken sits with his policy ideas, his name alone will polarize voters, which is not a good idea in the current climate.

[anklebreaker]

Only in minnesota....

[Sonny]

Listened to the last 20 minutes of his final Air America show today.

I thought he was going to break down and start selling coffee mugs on the air like a PBS telethon or something.

Seriously, I listen to him from time to time. Rarely do I agree with him, but it should be interesting race in the Land of Lots o' Lakes over the next year or so.

[Adam Gamradt]

Dan I find this to be an odd comment "Regardless of where Franken sits with his policy ideas, his name alone will polarize voters"

So what you are saying, is that lables matter more than ideas?

His statement about why he's running is really interesting.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1002244.html

His books are very well written. I haven't read The Truth, With Jokes yet, but it's on top of the stack

He can raise the funds, he has good ideas, and he is charismatic. Sounds like someone who will do an excellent job filling the gaping hole left in politics when Paul Wellstone died.

He seems like a regular guy who cares about the common good.

I'm looking forward to this race. It's going to be interesting to see how Minnesotans react.

Norm Coleman wants to be a Kennedy so bad it's painful to watch. But I ah, Er ah, I digress. Norm Coleman is a weak Senator, and Minnesota deserves better.

I think Franken's got a great chance to win.

[Adam Gamradt]

Listened to the last 20 minutes of his final Air America show today.

I thought he was going to break down and start selling coffee mugs on the air like a PBS telethon or something.

Seriously, I listen to him from time to time. Rarely do I agree with him, but it should be interesting race in the Land of Lots o' Lakes over the next year or so.

Kind of like how I watch O'Reilly when no one is looking. Papa Bear has really got that Anna Nicole Smith covered!

That would be awesome. To see his ridiculously ugly mug on your mug! That's enough to keep you off coffee forver.

[Brent Burns]

He can raise the funds, he has good ideas, and he is charismatic. Sounds like someone who will do an excellent job filling the gaping hole left in politics when Paul Wellstone died.

Adam, I am aware that the late Paul Wellstone died in a plane accident several years ago. Was Norm Coleman the one who took place of Sen. Wellstone?

Just read Coleman's bio that he is a resident of St. Paul and was its former mayor. Al lives somewhere in Minneapolis, right?

I am assuming that Sen. Coleman represents the Twin Cities and other districts, doesn't he?

[Dr. Jason Stockton]

Al Franken as a Senator in Minnesota? Next you'll be telling me that a professional wrestler will be the next governor there???

[Brent Burns]

Last fall, we had our own Kinky Friedman running as an Independent for the Governor of Texas, but he ended up fourth in a five people race.

BTW, I didn't vote for him.

[DanGenck]

I think the democratic party would do well to find candidates who are closer to the middle of the road as there are many republicans who are considering voting for democratic candidates. Having individuals running for office who can at least be relatable to republican voters offers democrats an excellent chance to take over the political scene for the next 4+ years.

However, if Democrats keep putting forward figures that have political stigmas (Hilary Clinton for one), then republicans voters will push back. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton's win in 1992 and George Bush's win in 2000 were widely seen as situations were the candidate was viewed as a "breath of fresh air" option (Clinton from the stifling Republican climate of the 1980's and George Bush from the perceived moral failings of Bill Clinton's administration).

Granted, Al Franken is not going to be viewed as a bureaucrat, which is a step in the right direction. However he will still be viewed as a "liberal" in the eyes of republican voters who may be seeking a voting option outside of the party.

[Sonny]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying Dan, but 1992 was all about one person - Ross Perot taking almost 20% of the vote.

[StrykerFSU]

I think I may stay down here in Antarctica.

But seriously, I don't follow the logic. The American people are so turned off by my message that the talk radio station that I put together went bankrupt and was rocked by financial scandal so let me give the Senate a try? But hey, if he actually lives in Minnesota he will probably give his constituents better representation than ol' Hill has given the voters of New York.

Even though no one was listening, I don't think you can go from talk radio blowhard to politician. Your opponent is going to scour the tapes, in Franken's case some of them heard for the first time by someone other than his cat, and publicize all of the nasty things that were said over the years. Every comment will be scrutinized and any mistakes or misstatements will be used against you. I just don't see it happening for Al. Maybe he can go back to SNL and help them out.

[DanGenck]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying Dan, but 1992 was all about one person - Ross Perot taking almost 20% of the vote.

That's true, but it discredits the fact that Bill Clinton had momentum as a fresh face on the national political scene. George Bush was the same way in 2000. He was the safe, "Non-Washington D.C." type to vote for who was relatable to everyday people and offered a clear new direction for policy. Democrats could seize momentum if they capitalized on this movement, but it looks like they may choose not to if they go the route of Hilary Clinton.

Al Franken offers only the same cyclical problem that democrats have faced for years. He's like that friend you know that always says, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!". His arguments revolve around pop-political discourse, not actual policy implementation. Bill Clinton, George Bush, and even Richard Nixon were excellent Presidents because they gave people tangible policy, which all great statesmen usually excel at.

But Al Franken? His candidacy will be a disservice to the party. His place is on left wing radio just like Rush Limbaugh's place is on right wing radio. All I am saying is that Al Franken knows his role and he needs to stay in it.

[Sonny]

That's true, but it discredits the fact that Bill Clinton had momentum as a fresh face on the national political scene. George Bush was the same way in 2000. He was the safe, "Non-Washington D.C." type to vote for who was relatable to everyday people and offered a clear new direction for policy.

1992 - Bush No. 1 was running for re-election. Eligible for a 2nd term. Blindsided by Mr. Perot. Clinton wins the White House with ~ 43% of the vote. I believe that sets the record with the lowest vote total (%) ever to claim 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

2000 - Bush No. 2 was running for the first time and Clinton couldn't run again after 2 terms in office. Somebody "new" had to be elected to the White House. Closest election ever. Florida seniors can't figure out their butterfly ballots. Gore wins popular vote, but loses electoral college to W.

Slight difference in those two elections.

Back on topic - I think Hillary is going to win the Democractic Nomination with ease. But will face an uphill battle against Rudy G. Putting aside her desire for socialized medicine, I don't think that a majority of Americans will trust her to be strong on foreign policy issues. If there is another attack on American soil (or another major attack abroad in one of our Allies' major cities), that will weigh heavily in voters' minds.

My 2.5 cents.

[DanGenck]

Let me make it painfully clear that I am in no way endorsing Hilary Clinton at this time.

However, I would like to know how Rudy is more qualified to handle foreign policy issues. He has limited foreign policy experience and while managing New York City is a CEO position, and managing September 11th was momentous, he has little on his resume that shows he will be strong on foreign policy.

In fact, I would like to discuss what it means to be strong on foreign policy. That seems close to a linguistic trap to me...