The Al Franken Radio Show

I met an old friend for dinner and we had good political discussions. We're both big fans of the Daily Show and he recommended the Al Franken Radio Show on Air America to me. I said I've heard a little bit of it but it seemed like the left's version of Rush Limbaugh to me. He said no, Franken actually gives facts. I listened to the first hour of Al Franken today while surfing and took some notes.

Al Franken introduced his show today talking about Tom DeLay. He said: "A man so corrupt that if you looked up corrupt jerk ass in the dictionary you'd find his picture if he hadn't bribed the dictionary to have his picture removed." Ok, it's funny, but this is a man who whinned about the use of the phrase "fair and balanced" by Fox News. Starting off at the Limbaugh level.

Next was a fine comment on how the pro-life stance seems hypocritical. They don't speak out against invitro-fertialization and that process produces extra blastocytes/embryos and why not use them for stem cell research (as a current bill proposes) instead of throwing them out. It's a fine point though he doesn't bring up or have someone representing the other side that this same rationalization could be used to argue that death row inmates should be used for medical experiments, which I think most folks would object to. You can make a fine argument that there's a difference between a blastocyte and an adult human, but that's right back to the pro-choice/life debate. I don't see hypocracy here (though pro-life vs the death penalty has always confused me).

Next was a conversation with Father Guido Sarducci. His old Lazlo Toth books are hysterical, too bad he wasn't that funny here.

25 mins in they started The Oy Oy Oy Show. It's a comedy bit with Franken playing an old Jewish guy getting news about the latests drug recalls, ok. Then they did a new act called Noah's Corner. Talking about the congressional travel controversy (mostly Dennis Hastert I think). The explanation Hastert's office gives is they have to oversee the $20B we spend on foreign aid. Noah says the trips are to England, France and Italy where we give no aid. Though I wonder if we meet with allies to discuss aid we give or other things? I found this NY Times article, that gives far more information and I see that Noah really did twist the facts. Hastert didn't just go to Italy, France and Britain, those were popular destinates for all members of congress. There really is a controversy here but this segment is just flanning flames. Really, this reminds me of Republicans going after Hilary Clinton for TravelGate and how dumb that was. An average of $1,424 for an overseas trip (scewed high!) is reasonable based on my business travel experiences. There might well be something here that a few members over the 10 years of the study had extraneous expenses, but I wouldn't know it from listening to this.

Next on was Christie Harvey (sp?) for the Center of American Progress. Some states wanted to change their Medicare to move seniors into a different drug plan "they've done the research and found a better plan" but the Bush administration said no way "you have to go through the proper channels". And then she and Franken concluded this was a bone to drug companies. Really, no fact given here. Were the plans in fact better? Was Bush's response to mean follow channels to propose a change or you have to buy what we tell you (I thought states have the right to do some of this stuff on their own, I don't know what applies here). I looked up the Center for American Progress and found this good summary. So they are some bright people and they seem to be doing some decent stuff, but they have their clear (liberal) bias too. And there was no time on Franken to get to any of the facts.

The next half hour he had a reporter on talking about the genocide in Darfur. It was all about why hasn't "the christian right" and "the Bush administration" done something. Well the conflict there has been going on for close to two years and they didn't ask why Democrats haven't done anything about it (raised it as an issue perhaps?). Ok, so foreign policy is the executive branch. Franken made some statements about what if we didn't invade Iraq and then stopped even before he gave the guy a chance to respond. It was pure rhetoric meant as an attack on Bush . The US (and the rest of the world) has a long history of ignoring these things happening in Africa (Somalia, Rwanda, etc.) It's something America should not be proud of and we (and maybe the UN) could do a lot more. Franken also made the case that if we did go to Iraq for these reasons we should go fix all the similar oppressions in the world. Well that make be morally correct, but it might make tactical and financial sense to do them one at a time, wouldn't you think? But really I think if you looked at Bush vs Clinton on this, Bush overthrew two corrupt governments that were oppressing their people (Iraq and Afghanistan), you can argue his motives but he did do this. Clinton can claim successes in Haiti and the former Yugoslavia (Kosovo, Bosnia, the Dayton Accords, etc), but did nothing for Rwanda and failed in Somalia. I think both sides have things to be ashamed of and talking about only one and not both doesn't help.

The last time I listened to Rush Limbaugh was about 3 years ago, and if I remember correctly, it was roughly the same stuff as this. Take some facts but not all and do a quick rant how the other side is all wrong. And don't mention at all what you'd propose to do better. I'm certainly a liberal democrat, and I disagree with many of Bush's policies. But I'm more upset with my party's inability to do anything. And I'm most disappointed with what passes as the level of debate in this country and I think both sides are equally guilty. Jon Stewart on Crossfire nailed it, Al Franken hasn't.