Franken Takes On Interviewer, Lacks Facts

FRANKEN-PUSHY

No Wonder Fluff Media Doesn't Challenge Him




Remember push polls?

Emerging just before elections, they pretend to desire the opinions of voters. Then, to those foolish enough to remain on the telephone, they proceed to shove political propaganda right down unsuspecting throats.

In a variation, Al Franken has introduced the art of "push interviews", where in theory he's there to be asked questions. Pity the reporter, though, who believes it's anything other than Al's latest manipulation: an overbearing effort to persuade the other party his very line of inquiry is wrong.

If Franken had his facts straight, that would one thing. Without the full team of overpaid (hello Billy Kimball) "researchers" at his side, however, an interview merely becomes a sad, failed attempt at Hugo Chavezian-machismo.

Even if he too didn't have all of the details in front of him, at least someone is willing to ask Alan Franken, Inc. tough questions. Luckily, upon further review, the interviewer did have evidence to back them up.


Unfortuately for print journalism, it wasn't a daily newspaper reporter. Instead, Macalester College's Mac Weekly Managing Editor Matt Stone took on the nasty bear and won:

Mac Weekly: I know your speech was about civil liberties and how the Bush administration is endangering our civil liberties. Would you say that is the most important political issue facing Americans today? Can you point to one?

Al Franken: I think that there are so many that are so important. Health care; the widening gap between the haves and have-nots; the government operating on behalf of special interests, not the public interest, and all that impacts everything. It impacts health care, impacts education, impacts environmental concerns, impacts energy policy. That's why I'm so disappointed that Democrats aren't using this Abramoff scandal to talk about ways to get money out of politics.

MW: About that, why would they if so many Democrats are connected to Abramoff?

AF: They aren't. Why do you assume that? Why do you say that?

MW: Because [Sen.] Byron Dorgan from North Dakota was found to have connections with the Indian tribes and he was advocating on their behalf with Abramoff.

AF: Yeah, but they live in North Dakota.

STOP right there! Al is trying to assert that inappropriate contributions are okay, as long as they're from in-state sources? Read on and take note of Franken's arrogance:

MW: It was an Indian tribe from Massachusetts.

AF: An Indian tribe from Massachusetts gave to Dorgan?

MW: Abramoff has been found to be pretty tightly connected with an Indian tribe from Massachusetts.

AF: Did the Indian tribe from Massachusetts give to Dorgan?

MW: Yeah. I believe…

AF: It's either a yes or a no. I'm asking you and you don't seem to be giving me an answer.

MW: I believe they had been connected.

AF: Well connected doesn't mean anything. Tell me if the Indian tribe from Massachusetts gave Dorgan money.

MW: I'm not certain. [The Mac Weekly later sent an article to Franken detailing Dorgan's connection. See the editor's note below.]

AF: See there's a lot of confusion here that's deliberately sewn by the Republicans, who say, `well, Democrats got money from Abramoff.' Democrats didn't get money from Abramoff. Abramoff did not give a single dime to a Democrat. There are several kinds of money here that we're talking about. And we should make a distinction what they are.

There's money that personally came from Abramoff. He's a Republican. Not one cent from him or his wife has gone to a Democrat, as far as I know. Then there's money that clients of his have given to members and then you can divide that into two different kinds of money.

One is bribes and there hasn't been a Democrat identified in any of this that falls under that category.

The other is clients who give money to a member because the member supports the cause. It makes a big difference. For example, [Sen.] Conrad Burns [R-Mont.] changed his vote on Saipan [a garment manufacturer accused of paying Chinese immigrant laborers under the federal minimum wage] after getting money from Abramoff's clients on [the US'] North Marianas Islands. Conrad Burns got a $3 million school for the Saginaw tribe in Michigan…after getting money from the man. But it's done nothing to help his own tribes in Montana.

What about the third kind, money funneled to Democrats via third parties? That's what interviewer Stone is getting at here, but Franken's playing games.

Here's where Alan gets nailed:

Franken: Then there are trips that are paid for through these various phony groups that are either, like, think tanks, phony think tanks or phony charities that pay for things like golf trips. Those, as far as I know, have only gone to Republicans.

MW: You know [Rep.] Michael Capuano [Democrat] of Massachusetts, a Congressman, recently got back from a privately funded trip to Brazil funded by what seems to be the sources you've been alluding to.

AF: And who paid for his trip?

MW: Well, it was interest groups that you've been alluding to.

AF: Can you tell me who? I'd like to know.

MW: I can look up the Boston Globe article. I believe it was a few weeks ago probably. Do you want me to e-mail that to you?

AF: Certainly. E-mail it to him. [Franken points to his assistant, who worked for Capuano. See the editor's note below.] Why would [members of Congress] vote for campaign finance reform? Not to spend so much time raising money.

No doubt the last thing Franken wanted to see was evidence of this actually turning up, but they did follow through and send it to him:

Editor's note: The Mac Weekly later sent Franken two newspaper articles.

One, published by the Associated Press in December, detailed Sen. Byron Dorgan's (D-N.D.) connections to the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts and its donation of $11,500 to Dorgan through its representative Michael D. Smith, Abramoff's partner who pleaded guilty this fall to charges of conspiring to bribe a congressional representative.

The article also revealed a fundraiser hosted for Dorgan by the Mississippi Choctaw Tribe in Abramoff's arena skybox where Washington power players were commonly wined and dined.

The other article, published in January by The Boston Globe, detailed a trip by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) to Brazil. The trip, worth $19,403, was funded by a non-profit business organization financed by the lobbyists and company representatives traveling with the congressman, the Globe reported.

Obviously, Stone's lesson learned is that it's best to have the articles with you during the interview. The quality of this piece is so much higher than the usual fawning Franken-fluff we've seen from coast to coast, however, the error can be overlooked.

One other nugget:

MW: One last thing that I know you probably get a lot. What are your plans for 2008?

AF: Well, I don't know. I've made no secret about fact I'm looking at the Senate, and I haven't decided yet. Part of me wants to do it, but there's a lot of questions that are going to have to get answered between now and when I make the decision. Is it more important to be doing the radio show? Would I be the best candidate? Those are sort of the two biggest questions.

No, Al, the biggest question is whether you'd be willing to give up your $3 million base salary that kicks in for 2008. The cat's out of the bag, it's time to be honest. (Note: This link may work better).

Thanks for your continued Radio Equalizer support, via Amazon orders that begin with clicks here. In particular, we're recommending the just-released "Prayers For The Assassin" by Robert Ferrigno.

Welcome Instapundit, Mr Snitch, Say Anything and Power Line readers! Visit our main page here.

First, fifth images: David A Lunde for the Radio Equalizer
Second, third images: Pete at IHillary for the Radio Equalizer