The chances Franken will ever get interviewed on ANY Fox News Channel show can only be described as fat chance for that fat head. 
Franken, like Jenneane Garafalo, have serious attitude problems, to say the least. 
Posted on 08/26/2003 12:24:18 AM PDT by kattracks
Al Franken must be having a hard time these days.
The liberal media have been parading him on all the shows -- to claim that the liberal media is not liberal at all, but really a right wing propaganda machine.
These liberal media outlets (along with a silly lawsuit from Fox News), have helped to propel Al Franken's new book into the bestseller lists.
But it would only be fitting that when appearing on a liberal network Franken would complain he is being censored.
Decent folks were aghast at such chutzpah on CNN's Crossfire Monday, when Franken subbed for James Carville as the show's co-host, pitted against conservative Tucker Carlson.
As anyone who watched the program saw, Franken was given more than enough time to air his baseless complaints about a right wing cabal taking over the major media.
All was fine while Franken and ally, Joe Conason, also out with a book claiming -- you guessed it -- the right wing control the media -- monopolized most of the conversation.
No doubt they were reveling in the good old days, when a typical TV talk show had four liberals and no conservatives, or one token conservative who was rudely interrupted anytime he dared challenge the prevailing p.c. sentiment.
So when Carlson and fellow conservative, talk show host B.Q. Cullum, began challenging the notion that somehow the major media like the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, the three major networks, CNN, MSNBC, and practically every other media outlet in the country are and remain -- liberal, Franken clearly had a panic attack of seismic proportions and flipped out -- on air.
Franken's hysterics began as soon as B.Q. challenged his claim that the Clinton administration "were building the military that won the war in Iraq and that won the war Afghanistan."
B.Q. responded, accurately, that the Clinton administration was "not funding -- they were not funding the military."
Co-host Carlson tried to add his two cents, when Franken clearly became unglued and began screaming, no less than four times, "I am the co-host of this show. I am the co-host of this show. I am the co-host of this show. Let me say one thing. I am the co-host of this show. I get to say this. Now, Dick Cheney ..."
Franken's unusual behavior drew some nervous laughter from the audience, and even his co-host Carlson was taken aback, saying, "Al, your face is actually twitching, so you're starting to make me a little nervous."
Later, after returning from a commercial break, Carlson again noted Franken's freakish behavior.
Carlson said to Franken, "Your face is starting to twitch again, Al. You are making me nervous, I have to say. I love having you here, but ..."
When Carlson went to wrap up the show, and fade out for the final break, Franken started again, in his nasally high pitched voice, "No, no, no."
A baffled Carlson, who handled himself with great poise, looked at Franken and again tried to end the show.
Here's the transcript:
Carlson: "I know. I'm sorry. We're totally, completely out of time. I'm getting it in my ear. They're saying they're going to cut us off."
Franken: "No, no, no, no."
Carlson: "Yes. No. It's true."
Franken, unrelenting: "Because I've got to say this."
Carlson ". . . I'm sorry."
Clearly, after this show Franken has more evidence of conservative bias for his next book, "How CNN's Conservative Censored Me and Other Ways Right Wing Enterprises Silence Paranoid Liberals Like Me."
We're not finished with Franken.
Let's put aside his dramatics and review the subject matter at hand.
Is the press biased in favor of conservatives?
As Carlson stated, the evidence is not anecdotal. Studies show the press to be very biased, to the liberal side.
Carlson cited one study: "This is a survey from the American Society of Newspaper Editors. And it asked journalists to describe their own political leanings. This is self-reporting: liberal/Democrat, 61 percent; conservative/Republican, 15 percent."
Another baseless claim made by Franken:
"Now, Dick Cheney said that any secretary of defense fights with the military that was given to him by his predecessors. And he said that after the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the first person he thanked was Ronald Reagan. I think Bill Clinton is entitled to that same call from Donald Rumsfeld."
First, Bill Clinton needs to call America and explain how he allowed al-Qaeda to grow for more than a decade.
In the same call he could also apologize for emasculating the CIA and FBI -- to the point that 19 foreigners could penetrate our borders and hijack four jets on Sept. 11, 2001.
There is no question that Mr. Bush, just months into his presidency, truly did inherit this disaster from his predecessor.
More to the point, Clinton also needs to make a second call to Mr. Bush and explain why he reduced America's military capability by almost 50 percent during his eight years. Unlike you Al, the numbers don't lie.
Clinton could also tell him why military stocks had been so depleted after his war in Kosovo and bombing aspirin factories that the Pentagon's arsenal was practically depleted of smart bombs or cruise missiles when Mr. Bush arrived at the White House.
A little story the press has not fully reported: it took more than a year for the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq, partly because it had to keep munitions factories running 24/7 for a year to rebuild stocks depleted during the Clinton years.
Yes, America "won in Iraq and Afghanistan," as Franken says.
But we won because of smart bombs and hi-tech equipment developed largely during the Reagan build up of the 80s -- a build up so vociferously opposed by Franken and his ilk.
We also won because of the greatness of our troops and their commanders -- many of whom persevered during the 90s to serve their country under a commander in chief they did not respect.
The chances Franken will ever get interviewed on ANY Fox News Channel show can only be described as fat chance for that fat head. Franken, like Jenneane Garafalo, have serious attitude problems, to say the least.
Stepping into the CROSSFIRE from Boston in an attempt to explain is Joe Conason. He is a columnist for "The New York Observer" and Salon.com.
This has triggered today's Salon stock deathwatch:
I want to read from you from your own book. This is page three from the introduction. And I'm quoting now. "Conservatism in power always threatens to undue national progress and is almost frustrated by the innate decency and democratic instincts of the American people."
Ending socialism and an expanding government is not "undoing national progress". To say that is to "admit" a bias that socialism is the only answer. Some of the social programs that were passed were considered to be a temporary fix to a national ill. The more government spending there is, the more tax dollars that must be brought in to pay for it (and inflation). It's a cop out and proof that social programs are not meant to solve problems, rather to keep people dependent on government rather than back on their own 2 legs. Rob Peter to pay Paul, then demonize Peter to keep Paul voting for those who provide new social programs.
My view is that conservatism in power tends to want to roll back progress that liberals have made over the last 100 years. That's just my opinion. It's not saying conservatives are evil. They see it differently. But my view is, we have made progress on a lot of issues over the last 100 years, all of which were opposed by conservatives at the time that the progress was being made, whether it was racial issues...
There are 101 lies being tossed out in this rountable interview. That the audience has heard these lies before but has not heard a counter to the claims (and will not hearing a rebuttal to every lie in this interview) shows the inherent bias in the media. If someone says "selected not elected" we all know what that means. Some may put it in the mental ward next to tinfoilers who say "Where was Nixon when Kennedy was shot?" but other people will blindly accept the accusation.
We hear "Albert Gore got the popular vote". This is used to say that President Bush doesn't have a mandate for his agenda. Albert Gore Junior got only 0.52% more votes (just over half a percentage point). This tally was certified and so it is legal. Know this, it does not take into account contested ballots where vote fraud was known to have taken place. It does not include all of the absentee ballots. It does not account for any "dimpled chads" in other states. It is well within the margin of error so no one will know with certainty. But it doesn't matter because this is not how elections are settled in the United States Of American. We would have had to held a national recount if that had been the case. Do people see how bad it was in Florida when just a few counties held recounts? The Electoral College is a GOOD thing. Also witness the "Red-Blue" vote map (county by county). By pure population, the major cities would give the election to the Democrats. That is not reflective of this country. Might as well take away Rhode Island's 2 senators and give them to Texas and California.
This viewpoint is never aired in the media. The DNC talking points are and everyone in the audience understands what they mean (they don't all know the TRUTH though).
I don't need to go into the facts that a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than the Democrats. Keep your voting base dumb, RATs. If they ever knew the truth they'd riot in your headquarters.
Do tell! I've seen Hume in action, and he is the anti-Franken. Not only is he brilliant and one of the world's best-informed men, he's got the nerves of an assassin.
Not only that, but by that logic Bill Clinton should never have been allowed in the White House in the first place. He only got 43% of the vote in 1992, and 49% in 1996. Where was Bill's "mandate" then, RATS?
I'm not the least bit surprised. He's a scumbag prevaricator, and deserved public excoriation for it.
One of the most basic lessons taught to any beginning author is "write what you know." You should always keep that in mind when thinking about a guy who just wrote a book called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."
As long as they get Al to throw the first punch. I have long speculated on FR that much of the baiting Al has done of various conservatives at public events over the last few years has been done because he was hoping to get a conservative to physically attack him. Then he could spend the rest of his life falsely claiming, "See? All conservatives are violent psychos!"
In the last year or so, however, I think he's moved beyond that, and isn't just baiting people any more. I think he's truly losing control of himself, and that he eventually is going physically assault someone on his own, in public and likely on-camera, if he doesn't start getting some therapy. He should be especially interesting to watch after the RATS gets their butts kicked nationwide for the third election in a row in November 2004.
While Al acts like one of the most rabid Naderite types on the planet, he's actually a DLCer. He's no far-left hardcore socialist; he's simply devoted himself to the Democratic Party and wants them to win at all costs. (I think he'd happily support GWB if Bush suddenly switched party affiliation. It's all about the RATS winning for Al, nothing more.) So the concept of him agreeing that we won Iraq and Afghanistan isn't at all hard to accept.
I remember him from SNL. He was not funny
" I'm Al Franken blah blah blah, an me Al Franken"
He grated on my nerves back then...
Great stuff:
No doubt they were reveling in the good old days, when a typical TV talk show had four liberals and no conservatives, or one token conservative who was rudely interrupted anytime he dared challenge the prevailing p.c. sentiment.
It's been obvious for years that Franken is seriously deranged. And yet Harvard and CNN can't get enough of him. What does this say about them?
It's been obvious for years that Franken is seriously deranged. And yet Harvard and CNN can't get enough of him. What does this say about them?
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.