Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Hundreds of Chicago Students Walk Out of Standardized Test
- The Same Motive for Anti-US 'Terrorism' Is Cited Over and Over
- What Does It Mean To Be An “American” Corporation?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Senator Al Franken: The Party of 'No' vs. The Party of '60'
The last barrier to Al Franken's election as U.S. Senator from Minnesota crumbled Tuesday, as Republican incumbent Norm Coleman finally conceded the contest.
Coleman's concession came after the Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed what everyone pretty much knew: The voters chose Franken, the Democratic Farmer Labor Party candidate over Coleman in last fall's U.S. Senate election.
While the election result was close, the court's decision was not.
The justices ruled 5-0 that: "Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled [under Minnesota law] to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota."
Under Minnesota law, the court's decision gave Franken the right to occupy the seat that a series of recounts and official reviews confirmed was won by the satirist with a narrow but steady margin that ultimately expanded to 312 votes.
The unanimous ruling left little wiggle room for Coleman, whose dead-ender appeals have been funded by Republican donors from around the country as well as stipends from the campaign funds of sitting GOP senators.
And Coleman threw in the towel with a relatively gracious statement less than an hour after the court made its decision known.
Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has delayed signing the certification of election that Franken needed to become the 60th Democratic member of the current Senate, has said he will certify Franken as the winner.
So it is that, by the time the Senate returns from its July 4 recess, Democrats will have a caucus that includes 58 party members and two independents (Vermont's Bernie Sanders and Connecticut's Joe Lieberman) who sit with the majority.
That's the "magic" 60 that allows a majority party to avert filibusters and schedule votes on legislation and nominations.
With Republicans sticking to their "party of no" strategy -- and maintaining remarkable unity in their negativity -- the seating of Franken will have significance. It won't mean that the majority party can have its way with the Senate, as there will continue to be cases where individual Democrats break ranks. But it does mean that the will of the American electorate -- which voted overwhelmingly in the last two election cycles for a Democratic Congress -- will be more difficult for Rush Limbaugh's rejectionists to thwart.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
34 Comments so far
Show AllSo what?
The democrats could occupy every seat in congress and it would make no real difference in policy.
You wrote exactly what I wanted to write.
So sorry...The Dems will pass no significant legislation unless their corporate masters give them permission..Franken or not. And forget about Lieberman...he's a political Gumby. He'll bend to whatever way serves his Zionists purposes. Healthcare?..it has already become a sad joke.
You're absolutely correct. Is it still a 'cynical' view point if it's true?
And despite the supermajority, Obama will still sit on his thumb, seeking "bipartisanship" (for some reason) as part of his goddam run for 2012. Then there are the fake Democrats in the Senate.
Now we have to push the democrats with grassroots organizing.
This is what happened with FDR- first he won, then he gained a large majority, then he was pushed by popular movements.
Or we could just give up and complain.
Don't you think there isn't already plenty of grassroots organizing?
Don't you think people from Mckibben (global warming) to the Ohio Valley Coalition (MTR) to the California Nurses Association and Donna Smith (healthcare) to Media Benjaman/Code Pink (end the occupation wars) and many others haven't already written the President, and requested meetings with him - all in vain?
Do you think that the huge (but peaceful and permitted) demonstration for single payer on July 30 (I'm going to be there, will you?) will suddenly change Obama's mind?
Do you think the hopefully less than peaceful G-20 protests being planned for Sept. 24-25 in Pittsburgh will result in anything but a police club-and-tazefest - all with the approval of Obama and our all-democrat city government?
How, exactly, are we going to "push" him? In what way can we threaten him? In the 1930's, FDR faced the possibility of a full-blown socialist workers revolution. Today, thanks to the seamless media machine, Obama has NO worry of that happening.
Is there grassroots organizing? Yes.
Is there "plenty" or grassroots organizing?
Are you kidding me? Not even close.
Look at union membership.
Yes, Medea Benjamin is great. When I spoke to her a few months ago, she lamented the fact that the number of people who opposed the war was way way higher than the number of people who were involved in any kind of anti-war organization. That's organizing.
Maybe you should get out of the US and talk to an organizer in the 3rd world. Do you think they complain the way CommonDreams' commenters complain? Do you think they run down lists of why they should give up? It's embarrassing to read the comments here. I had the nerve to say something very simple: "history suggests that we should keep doing activist work" and that's just too much optimism for people to handle.
Did the Republican rank and file have to "push" Bush?
The only "push" I see is the BS you Obysmal apologists push.
Wanderer-
Quit with the "more radical than thou" crap.
I am no Obama apologist. I have done more in radical politics than you have, I absolutely guarantee.
No doubt as a result of the close election Franken will morph into the next Diane Feinstein, i.e., a perpetual abuser of the progressive cause. Who give a shite?
Let's at least give the man a chance, BodhiHawk. He may turn out to be not the kind of pushover so many of the Dems have shown themselves to be. We'll know soon enough. But let's give him his chance.
peace, cm
Franken has a long record on his radio show of being a typical effete, Air-America-radio-type, sold-out, Israel-loving liberal. He is not a friend of the working class.
I like Franken personally, but I agree with everything but the "effete" part. His record on Air America was one of the most conservative of a not particularly radical bunch.
He'll be progressive on gender, race, and gay issues, but conservative on imperial/economic/class issues. That sums up the entirety of the majority of Dems anyway. So this can't come as a shock.
Franken's one and only "chance" as far as doing the right thing or being a Feinstein or Harman whore is to push, push and push for single payer. We know he is pro war. That is my big problem with him. I did read his books and I think he is smart. If he does this or that, it won't be because he is a sell out. It will be because he believes the decision is correct for the USA in general. Remember this guy is coming from a state that is in a depression. Fence-walking is NOT going to get him anywhere and he knows it.
Yeah, exactly what they told us about Obama before he won. I will let the dreamers do what they do, which is dream, and I will get back to working for third parties and IRV.
Well then, why didn't a strong global warming bill go flying right through the House of Representatives with nary an opposing Democratic vote? Instead, we got a very weak bill that squeaked by over the opposition of most Republicans and 44 Democrats, many of them because they STILL thought that the bill was too STRONG.
There is one clear, unified supermajority in congress -- the corporatists. That supermajority will continue to steamroll its impotent opposition whether Franken climbs on board or lines up with the progressive roadkill in its path.
Agreed.
However, I'm not willing to be a mere stenographer to all this, hunched over my keyboard ranting into the blogosphere about how unfair and impossible it all is. Not that it isn't, just that it's never solved a damned thing.
And Coleman threw in the towel with a relatively gracious statement less than an hour after the court made its decision known. "The rootless cosmopolitan, Franken, a communist in sheep's clothing, will now begin his terrorist campaign to destroy our beloved United States. After using rootless cosmopolitan money to bribe key officials of the Minnesota Elections Board, or whatever it's called, Franken and his damp, belly crawling army of homosexuals, intellectuals and flower smelling Ferdinand the Bulls will wage a cowardly campaign of lies and innuendo to smear and destroy all patriotic Americans. Wake up, America!"
Took me a while to realize this was sarcasm. Honestly, there are plenty of people out there (at least far away from the urban centers) who believe these mistruths about the rise of the Democrats. In some ways, Obama's use of signing statements, and massive bailouts for the financial companies shows a corruption/take-over of our political system and economy that has people scared, and buying guns. This paranoia didn't start with Obama, though; it's just gotten worse.
Why other than to appease GOP fundamentalists would Coleman spend so much time and money, other than to scratch the far right base of their shrinking party?
The sheer length of the appeal is shameful. Coleman could go on like that if only he didn't care about the election results.The decision didn't come until Coleman learned about a dollar a day, normdollar.org, campaign where thousands had pledged donations for every day Coleman's campaign continued their legal battle. See video here: http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/norm-coleman-gets-punkd-norm-dollar-day
Maybe realizing that he was actually raising money for progressives encouraged Norm to see the light.
Newsflash - just over the wire --
Pelosi, Reid and Obama announce that they will be unable to successfully enact progressive legislation until they have 100% of the Senate, also known as a Super-Duper Majority.
They'll be unable to successfully enact progressive legislation until they get approvals from AIPAC and Goldman Sachs.
I join the general consensus here by saying that I'm glad for two reasons:
1. It's finally OVER!
2. The best man won.
But that isn't saying much.
· Yr Obd't Servant
(Apologies to Bob)
"Before we'll let capital be dethroned/
Everybody must get Wellstoned!"
The Democrats are owned by Wall Street and Israel just like the Republicans. Change is a fantasy with this one-party, two-faction farce.
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), my senator, is known as "The Senator from Wall Street." He's been keeping that low profile lately, but... The Dems are Italian fascists who hold the fort until the German fascist Republicans can resupply and take it over again. Franken believes in predatory capitalism, mark me words.
I do wish Franken well, and am willing to believe that he's a sincere and humane man who believes in Good Government. He may be as close as a senator can get to being, or trying to be, a True Friend of the Little Guy.
BUT, especially considering how long Franken was made to twist slowly in the wind, it's doubtful that he's going to start off as a "maverick", or play up the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" angle.
Even good guys can't avoid the Ruling Class aristocratic culture and clubbiness that comes with the territory. I'm sure the party leaders, like dutiful parents, will school Franken on their expectations. And Franken won't put much daylight between himself and those expectations; it's all part of the Learning Curve.
In short, now that the long seasickness has blown over, the last thing I'd expect Franken to do is rock the boat.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Yeah, depending on Lieberman for a vote on progressive issues is a good laugh that Al Franken would have used on Saturday Night Live.
In fact, have any of you listened to Air America or Al Franken? He's not really progressive. He's a solid Obama supporter, and if you like that you got it.
All of this idealogical purity leads to what you guys are complaining about. 'They're all the same. I'm going to vote Green. I'm not going to vote as a protest.' So who gets elected? A Republican or a conservative Democrat. So now progressive Democrats are few and far between.
It's time to get pragmatic.
1)No they are not the same. On their worst day the Democrats won't screw you as bad as the Republicans.
2)Over time the more Democrats get elected the better the chance for progressives to start dominating.
3)The longer that patern goes on the more confident Democrats will be in supporting progressive positions.
This kind of long term thinking is what put the Republicans in the driver seat for the last thirty years. That and the unrealistic demand for idealogic purity by we who support progressive positons. If you don't think the Democratic party is what you want it to be stop bitching and get in there and change it.
And on that note: *****CONGRATULATIONS SENATOR FRANKEN***** You got in the trenches and faught and faught until you won. Now you can do more to fight for what you believe in. That's how it's done.
Really, look at the voting records of the democrats in the U.S. Senate and you will have no illusions about their capacity to assert any sort of progressive agenda. Charles Schumer is the formost advocate of a de-regulated financial sector. Sentaor Leahy wants "a truth Commission" to investigate crimes which are as plain as the nose on your face and supports a plainly conservative nominee for the high court. There is no proposed bill for a national single-payer, medicare -for all- plan, There is still no plan to even fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and no real resolve to end them. The list goes on and on. Franken will probably have to spend most of his time raising funds for his next campaign, just like all the other Senators while lobbyists do the legislative work.
If the Senate Energy bill is like the House's, then its nothing. Obama tells Progressives that if they want a real change then they have to mobilize public support to give him the leverage to do it. That's total baloney. He has all the leverage he needs to change, he's the President, he could use the next three and a half years to fight to fulfill the promises he made, forget about re-election. Instead, he's just going to plunge the country into another term of political passivity, apathy and cynicism. Wake up and smell the sewer!
"...There is no proposed bill for a national single-payer, medicare -for all- plan..."
HELLO?! Did you ever hear of HR676? Read it-- it's short and fairly easy to understand. It's THE blueprint for single payer and it's been around for 5 years. Bernie Sanders has introduced an equivalent bill in the Senate.
However, I agree that it will take a long time to achieve these things in the United States-- if they can ever be.
Like many others I was delighted to hear that Coleman finally came to his senses and got out of the way. My suggestion to the freshman Senator from MN would be to raise holy Hell on every progressive issue out there for his first 100 days and then make the announcement he'll be running against Obama-san for the Dem's nomination in 2012. It may surprise everyone the amount and speed of support he'd receive. Besides, what's he got to lose. Is he really only in it for personal power? I suspect he already has plenty to live on from his cottage industry of books laying out all the 'progressive' ideas he supposedly believes in. I'd hate to think he's simply another one of those 'stupid white guys' Moore goes on about. Come on Al, do the right thing and shake something up. We dare you! (double-dog)
What difference does it make? The Democrats have became the Republicans and the Republicans have became the Whigs. Neither one believes in progressive policies. Neither one believes in honesty or transparency in government. Neither one believes in the bill of rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, regulation of the fat cats, or the requirement for a declaration of war before starting wars. Neither one wants truly progressive income tax. Neither one wants to break up monopolies, let alone the monopolistic those controlling broadcast news and newspapers. Neither one can debate without hate. Neither one believes in cooperation, conciliation, compromise or consensus. Neither one is genuinely interested in protecting the air, soil or water we desperately need. Neither one wants to wean us from oil or the foreign entanglements it causes. Neither one bewares the military industrial complex. Neither one will do anything about the bribery known as campaign contributions. Neither one believes in health care for anyone except themselves. Neither one cares about anything except getting re-elected. It is not the Party of No vs the Party of 60. It is the Party of What the Hell vs the Party of the 80s.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]