You could be on to something there...
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.
I read about this, and the one word that kept popping into my head was "fraud." Nevermind Ashcroft, Harvard ought to nail his ass over this.
Franken's publishing "career" is pretty much based on not-so-borderline fraud and slander.
Now that I think about it, so is Micheal Moore's! God forbid that they should collaborate. The would have to invent a new word for that level of slanderous fiction! Of course, there is always the hope that Moore would actually eat Franken like the "Blob" that he is.
I second that. But it would be more fun to pi$$ Frankenstein off sooo much that he attacks and fumbles some kind of twisted, neurotic rage; flailing towards the conservative, spitting and drooling through his teeth.
I could do it. Wouldn't be too hard. Just use a "Silence of the Lambs-type" line like this:
"A lot of us conservatives are convinced that you wouldn't be the way you are if the girl you liked on the set of SNL --you know, Al, back when it used to be a good show-- when she was busted by the janitor having sex with Buck Henry in your dressing room. She reminded you so much of the girl you knew in the fifth grade. You know, the one with the glasses? Too bad she liked the jock-types and laughed in your face when you presented her with a valentine in class. Now, you're just a bitter, washed-out act of classless fury; enraged at the world because it has always scorned you and still hates you."
"You don't want a guy like Lecter inside your head."
What's wrong with you? It's so simple. If a Democrat is in office we are winning; if a Republican than we are losing. Can't you get this simple logic?
Won't work. Like most ideologues of his stripe, Franken will never risk being hurt for his beliefs.
Sure, he'll hector, harp, bark, maybe even push & shove. But he won't fight.
Because deep down inside, like most liberals he knows that a faux ideology born of deep unresolved inner conflicts and personal pathologies is not worth experiencing physical pain.
Franken's "Rush Limbaugh" book was on the bestseller lists as well. It actually sold quite a few copies. But I agree that Rush did the right thing by ignoring it.
But, I thought Conason was a worthy foe. He was interesting--wrong, but interesting.
Medved usually allows guests plenty of time to get their point of view out, then he refutes it. Best show on radio.
Actually, I do. His books have been getting crappier and crappier.
You could be on to something there...
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.